U. S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Alaska Open File Report 113

BLM/AK/ST-07/014+7200+020

July 2007

Water Resources and Riparian Reclamation of 

Nome Creek, White Mountains National 

Recreation Area, Alaska

Jon Kostohrys

BLM

Alaska
The BLM Mission

The Bureau of Land Management sustains the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the 

use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Cover Photo

Reclaimed and unreclaimed portions of Nome Creek are distinct in this aerial photograph from the 

White Mountains National Recreation Area, Alaska. (All photos by the author, unless noted)

Author

Jon Kostohrys recently retired as a hydrologist with the Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks 

District Office, in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Disclaimer

The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by the Federal government.

Open File Reports

Open File Reports issued by BLM-Alaska present the results of inventories or other investigations on a 

variety of scientific and technical subjects that are made available to the public outside the formal BLMAlaska technical publication series. The Open File Reports can include preliminary or incomplete data 

and are not published or distributed in quantity. 

To request a copy of this or another BLM-Alaska scientific report, or for more information, 

please contact:

BLM-Alaska Public Information Center

222 W. Seventh Ave., #13

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907) 271-5960

Most BLM-Alaska scientific reports are also available for loan or inspection at the Alaska Resources Library and Information Services in Anchorage, (907) 27-ARLIS, and other major libraries in Alaska; USDI 

Resources Library in Washington, D.C.; the BLM National Business Center Library in Denver; and other 

select locations. 

A bibliography of scientific reports is online at www.blm.gov/ak. 
BLM-Alaska Open File Report 113

July 2007

U. S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Water Resources and Riparian Reclamation of 

Nome Creek, White Mountains National 

Recreation Area, Alaska

Jon Kostohrys



Abstract

In June 1989, the BLM began water resources monitoring and inventory on Nome Creek in preparation 

for a riparian reclamation and stream channel reconstruction project. The intent was to collect data useful 

in reconstruction of the stream within a single channel, to eliminate the unstable debris piles and settling 

ponds that contributed to excessive sediment runoff, and to stabilize and revegetate the floodplain. The 

reclamation techniques developed here could then be useful for other placer mining reclamation. The 

stream, after being reclaimed into a single pilot channel in 1991, was subject to repeated floods during 

the subsequent years from both storm runoff from summer rains and overflow icing (aufeis) during 

spring breakup, often eroding into the floodplain and destroying willow plantings adjacent to the stream. 

These problems, typical of similar projects in Alaska, were minimized by widening the pilot channel, 

flattening meanders on the inside of bends, and regrading the floodplain. A preliminary instream flow 

analysis was begun on the site above Ophir Creek so the results could be used in the BLM’s application 

to the State of Alaska for a water right for the lower reach of the creek.

Recommendations include: 1) continue the reclamation work until the entire creek is consolidated into 

a single channel and all the unstable debris piles are recontoured into a well-graded and completely 

revegetated floodplain; and 2) continue to collect, analyze, and publish stream-gaging, water quality, 

and botanical data, not only for the reclamation work on the upper creek, but also for the instream flow 

project on the lower portion of the stream. This includes a satellite-capable gage installed above Ophir 

Creek to provide the public with real-time water-level information. Additionally, a thorough GIS mapping and analysis of the watershed would improve the accuracy of the area estimates of reclamation 

and revegetation, the miles of steam channel reconstructed, and the basin characteristics used in many 

water resources analyses.

 Acknowledgments

Many people have been involved with this project during the almost two decades it has been in 

progress. Current BLM staff who participated in the field work include Lon Kelly, Eric Yeager, 

Collin Cogley, Tim DuPont, Mike Kliemann, Craig McCaa, Randy Tracy, Ed Lee, Randy Goodwin, 

Bunny Sterin, Sandy Westcott, Richard Kemnitz, Matt Whitmann, Jim Herriges, and Ingrid McSweeny. 

Former BLM staff included Billy Butts, Dick Bouts, Nate Collin, Roger Evans, Rod Everett, Brian 

Lubinski, Ethan Scott, Jacek Mysenko, Lisa Ragland, Anna McGlinn, Tanja Runkel, Verena Grüner, Eva 

Weithmann, and Xavier Sotelo. Special thanks to contractor Ed Anders, whose insight helped guide the 

reclamation work in the beginning years. Kristine Kosnik did the limited GIS analysis that produced the 

map. Craig McCaa provided a wizard’s touch as the editor for the document.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract.................................................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................... i

Introduction..............................................................................................................................................1

Basin Characteristics................................................................................................................................2

Methods....................................................................................................................................................2

Hydrology ...........................................................................................................................................2

Reclamation ........................................................................................................................................3

Revegetation........................................................................................................................................4

Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 4

Hydrology ...........................................................................................................................................4

Reclamation ........................................................................................................................................7

Revegetation........................................................................................................................................8

Recommendations....................................................................................................................................9

Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Appendix A............................................................................................................................................13

Appendix B............................................................................................................................................40

Appendix C............................................................................................................................................43

Figures

Figure 1. Map of the Nome Creek area and the White Mountains National Recreation Area..............1

Figure 2. The drag-line used to mine Nome Creek in the early part of the 20th century .....................2

Figure 3. The White Mountains form the headwaters of the Nome Creek watershed..........................3

Figure 4. The lower portion of the Nome Creek drainage is surrounded by low hills as the 

valley widens near the confluence with Beaver Creek ..........................................................3

Figure 5. The initial step in reclamation was to fill the settling ponds with the dozer, using the 

material from the surrounding tailings piles..........................................................................4

Figure 6. The dozer graded the floodplain as flat as possible ...............................................................4

Figure 7. The dozer constructed the channel using short, almost level, grading to deepen the 

pilot channel...........................................................................................................................4

Figure 8. Upper Nome Creek’s stable channel provided the most accurate streamflow 

information. ...........................................................................................................................5

Figure 9. Aerial view of the channel upstream of the bridge, where the gabions are being 

eroded by the unstable channel..............................................................................................7

Figure 10. Annual hydrograph showing mean monthly discharge for Nome Creek above 

Ophir Creek ...........................................................................................................................7

Figure 11. Overflow icing (aufeis) forms during most winters and can persist well into summer.........7

Figure 12. In the upper reclamation area, the meanders had to be increased and the point bars 

releveled to stabilize the channel...........................................................................................8

Figure 13. Aerial photo of Nome Creek before the reclamation project began......................................8

Figure 14. Aerial photo of the upper reclamation area, road, and campground .....................................8

Tables

Table 1. Location of water resources survey sites in the Nome Creek drainage basin........................3

Table 2. Summary of peak flow and runoff for the Nome Creek drainage ........................................5

Table 3. Instantaneous flood frequency computed from a log-Pearson Type III analysis...................5

Table 4. Comparison of log-Pearson flood-frequency discharges for Nome Creek above Sumner 

Creek......................................................................................................................................6

Table 5. Bankfull discharge, width, depth, and recurrence for survey sites on Nome Creek..............6

Table 6. Comparison of channel geometry estimates using bankfull estimates for the site 

at Nome Creek above Sumner Creek.....................................................................................6
iv

Table 7. The mean monthly discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek, computed 

from BLM data for 1999–2005 and USGS data for 1911–12 ...............................................7

Appendix A

Fig. A-1. The crest-stage gage reach for Nome Creek above Sumner Creek .....................................13

Fig. A-2. Cross-sectional surveys for Nome Creek above Sumner Creek..........................................13

Fig. A-3. The wire-weight gage reach for Nome Creek at the bridge.................................................16

Fig. A-4. Cross-sectional surveys for Nome Creek at the bridge .......................................................16

Fig. A-5. The crest-stage gage reach for Nome Creek at the Maze ................................................ 26

Fig. A-6. Cross-sectional surveys for Nome Creek at the Maze..................................................... 26

Fig. A-7. The data-logger gage reach for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek ................................... 29

Fig. A-8. Cross-sectional surveys for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek ......................................... 29

Fig. A-9. The crest-stage gage reach for Moose Creek above the Nome Creek Road.................... 38

Fig. A-10. Cross-sectional surveys for Nome Creek above the Nome Creek Road ........................ 38

Table A-1. Discharge measurement summary for Nome Creek above Sumner Creek...................... 14 

Table A-2. Annual peak discharge summary for Nome Creek above Sumner Creek........................ 15

Table A-3. Discharge measurement summary for Nome Creek at the bridge ................................... 17 

Table A-4. 1998 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations for Nome 

Creek at the bridge ........................................................................................................... 18 

Table A-5. 1999 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations for Nome 

Creek at the bridge ........................................................................................................... 19

Table A-6. 2000 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations for Nome 

Creek at the bridge ........................................................................................................... 20

Table A-7. 2001 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations for Nome 

Creek at the bridge ........................................................................................................... 21

Table A-8. 2002 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations for Nome 

Creek at the bridge ........................................................................................................... 22

Table A-9. 2003 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations for Nome 

Creek at the bridge ........................................................................................................... 23

Table A-10. 2004 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations for Nome 

Creek at the bridge ........................................................................................................... 24

Table A-11. 2005 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations for Nome 

Creek at the bridge ........................................................................................................... 25

Table A-12. Discharge measurement summary for Nome Creek at the Maze..................................... 27 

Table A-13. Annual peak discharge summary for Nome Creek at the Maze....................................... 28

Table A-14. Discharge measurement summary for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek......................... 30 

Table A-15. 1999 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek ............................ 31

Table A-16. 2000 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek ............................ 32

Table A-17. 2001 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek ............................ 33

Table A-18. 2002 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek ............................ 34

Table A-19. 2003 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek ............................ 35

Table A-20. 2004 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek ............................ 36

Table A-21. 2005 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek ............................ 37

Table A-22. Discharge measurement summary for Moose Creek ....................................................... 39 

Table A-23. Annual peak discharge and recurrence interval for Moose Creek floods ........................ 39 

Appendix B

Table B-1. Monthly rainfall (in) at Nome Creek above Sumner Creek CSG site.............................. 40

Table B-2. Discharge measurements at miscellaneous groundwater spring sites.............................. 41

Table B-3. Water quality readings from groundwater springs on Beaver Creek ............................... 42
Appendix C

Fig. C-1. Upstream portion of the reclaimed area, showing extensive establishment of grass.......45

Table C-1. Number of willow cuttings alive, dead, total number, and percent survival 

of cuttings and approx. number of volunteer willows, 1992............................................ 44

Table C-2. Number of willow cuttings alive, dead, marginally alive, total number, and 

percent survival of cuttings, 1993 .................................................................................... 44

Table C-3. Percent coverage of rock, grass, exposed bare ground, forbs, mosses and liverworts, willow, exposed rock, and other in seeded area, August 23, 1993........................ 46

Introduction

In June 1989, the Steese/White Mountains District (now the Eastern Interior Field Office) of the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) began a streamflow monitoring and inventory project to collect background data on Nome Creek for a riparian reclamation 

and stream channel reconstruction project. Nome 

Creek, located within the southeastern portion of the 

White Mountains National Recreation Area (Figure 

1), is a headwaters tributary of Beaver Creek National 

Wild River. Portions of the drainage were extensively 

placer mined for gold from the turn of the century until 

recent times (Figure 2). Miners disturbed over seven 

miles of the stream, often by diverting it into bypass 

channels or through old settling ponds. By the 1980s 

the floodplain was largely obliterated in many areas. 

Nome Creek, while remote at the time, was adjacent 

to the proposed Mount Prindle Campground and the 

Nome Creek Road, then in the design phase. The project

goal was to collect streamflow data useful for the 

reclamation project, then reconstruct the stream with 

these objectives: 1) keep the stream within a single 

channel; 2) eliminate unstable debris piles and settling 

ponds that have contributed to excessive sediment 

runoff; and 3) stabilize and revegetate the floodplain 

adjacent to the proposed campground and road. The 

techniques developed here could then be used for other 

placer mining reclamation. An additional study, added 

to the project in 1999, was a preliminary instream flow 

analysis on lower Nome Creek, as recommended in 

previous studies done on Beaver Creek. A stream gage 

was located on the site above Ophir Creek, allowing 

data collected from 1999 to 2005 to be used for a 

Figure 1. Map of the Nome Creek area and the White Mountains National Recreation Area.

BLM Stream Survey 

Site (Table 1)

Main Road

Secondary Road

Beaver Creek 

National Wild River 

Corridor

White Mountains 

National Recreation 

Area

1

3

2 4

5

NOME

CREEK

AREA

2

Milepost 57

Nome Creek Road

Bridge
water right application for the lower reach of the 

creek.

Basin Characteristics

The Nome Creek watershed is located in east-central 

interior Alaska. As described in Wahrhaftig (1965), 

the basin is part of the Yukon-Tanana Upland, an area 

characterized by rounded, even-topped ridges with 

moderate to gentle side slopes. The river valleys, often 

heavily forested, are separated by more sparsely vegetated, compact rugged mountains 4,000–5,000 feet in 

altitude. Some of the upland valleys, especially in the 

vicinity of Mount Prindle, experienced limited alpine 

glaciation during the Pleistocene (Weber and others 

1988). Streams originating in this area have typical 

U-shaped valleys in their upper reaches, while those 

tributaries originating down-valley flow through narrow, V-shaped canyons (Figure 3). Proceeding down 

the Nome Creek valley, the width increases from 

about 1/4 mile near the headwaters to nearly a mile 

near the confluence with Beaver Creek (Figure 4). 

The lower valley contains wide, looping meanders, 

abandoned cut-off channels (sloughs), and extensive 

riparian and wetland areas. The floodplain, consisting 

largely of reworked outwash gravel, silt, and organic 

materials, is poorly drained and often underlain by 

discontinuous permafrost. Numerous flowing springs 

occur throughout the basin and contribute significantly 

to winter stream flow. The region is drained ultimately 

by the Yukon River.

The basin lies in the subpolar continental climatic 

zone, characterized by long, cold winters and short, 

hot summers. Temperature extremes can range from 

near –70 ̊F in winter to +90 ̊F in summer, though 

variations are great due to surrounding topography. 

The valley bottoms adjacent to Nome Creek are often 

30 degrees colder than surrounding ridge tops during 

the winter. Precipitation is also strongly affected by 

topography. Snowfall in the White Mountains is moderate, with an average depth of 29 inches on the ground 

by early April, the equivalent of about 5.3 inches of 

water (USDA 2005). Breakup usually begins in late 

April to early May, and high streamflow may persist 

well into June. Periods of low water typically occur 

in July, while infrequent high flows from rainstorms 

can occur anytime from June through August. A rain 

gage operated since 1998 during the summer in upper 

Nome Creek recorded an average of about 12 inches of 

rainfall for the summer period. Freeze-up on streams 

often begins at higher elevations in mid-September, 

although reaches lower in the basin may remain open 

until November. Ice cover on streams is usually continuous for the winter, except in the vicinity of springs, 

and freezing to the bottom of the channel may occur in 

some places. Extensive areas of overflow icing (aufeis) 

are common during late winter on Nome Creek and 

some of its tributaries.

Methods

Hydrology

The BLM began initial channel surveys, floodplain 

mapping, and streamflow measurements in 1989. 

Peak-flow (crest stage) gages were installed at two 

sites on Nome Creek in 1989 and in 1996 on Moose 

Creek, a tributary to Nome Creek (Table 1). These are 

non-automated gages that record the peak water level 

whenever it exceeds a pre-set minimum (base) level. 

In 1999 an automated water-level recorder (data logger and pressure transducer) was installed at the site 

above Ophir Creek. This gage recorded water level 

data for the summer periods (generally late May to late 

September). A wire-weight gage was installed at the 

bridge in 1998, and observer readings were recorded 

intermittently most years. 

Each summer during field inspections, the gages 

were referenced to known elevation (bench) marks 

or to separate reference gages to provide an accurate 

correction to the current water level. Cross-sectional 

discharge (streamflow) measurements were made using 

a Price AA or Pygmy type current meter to measure 

water velocity and a top-setting wading rod and tag 

line for depth and width. At least once a year, the 

stream banks, high-water marks, and water surface 

profiles were surveyed using a level and stadia rod or 

total-station theodolite. A water level vs. discharge rat-

ing was developed by combining the direct-discharge 

Figure 2. Drag-line used by a placer mining operation on 

Nome Creek in the early part of the 20th century.
measurements (Rantz and others 1982) and computersimulated peak flows using a slope–area method based 

on the Manning equation (Dalrymple and Benson, 

1967). These rating curves were then used to compute 

discharge from the recorded water level data. 

During periods when no water level data was available, such as during spring break-up, fall freeze-up, 

or recorder malfunction, the data was estimated from 

regression analysis, with the BLM gages on Beaver 

Creek (Kostohrys 2005) and U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) data from the Salcha River (USDI 1997 to 

2005) as the reference sites. This analysis is based on 

the assumption that the nearby gaging station with the 

most reliable and longest period of streamflow record 

is the most useful reference site (Thomas 1967). The 

data collected during the early part of the century by the 

USGS (USDI 1915) was used to supplement the data 

at the site above Ophir Creek for the summer period.

Reclamation

The initial channel design was based on limited field 

surveys in 1989, so the project used USGS peak-flow 

regression equations (Lamke 1979, Parks and Madison 

1984, and later Jones and Fahl 1994) to validate bankfull discharge values. The basin characteristics used for 

the flood-recurrence calculations were estimated from 

topographic maps. Reclamation work commenced in 

July 1991 and continued almost every summer to the 

present. A D8 or larger tracked bulldozer was used 

exclusively most years, although an excavator (track 

hoe) was tried one summer. The channel reconstruction 

was more difficult than anticipated, as the center of the 

valley held silt-rich, saturated soils, thought to be buried settling ponds (Figure 5). In general, construction 

began with filling in of the settling ponds using material 

from surrounding tailings piles and then grading the 

area as flat as possible (Figure 6). A pilot channel was 

then dug, avoiding the filled-in ponds and meandering 

Figure 4. The lower portion of the Nome Creek drainage 

is surrounded by low hills as the valley widens near the 

confluence with Beaver Creek. 

Figure 3. The White Mountains form the headwaters of the 

Nome Creek watershed.

Site 

No. Stream survey site 

Location (decimal degrees) Drainage Area 

Latitude Longitude (sq.mi.) Channel Type 

1 Nome Creek above Sumner 

Creek 65.3680 -146.5925 11.7 Straight, step pool 

2 Nome Creek at the bridge 65.3410 -146.7138 21.7 Disturbed by mining

3 Nome Creek at the Maze 65.3310 -146.7587 25.0 Disturbed by mining

4 Nome Creek above Ophir 

Creek 65.3630 -147.0379 90.8 Meandering, pool/riffle

5 Moose Creek above the 

Nome Creek Road 65.3408 -146.8170 11.7 Meandering, pool/riffle

Table 1. Location and characteristics of water resources survey sites in the Nome Creek drainage basin
Figure 5. The initial step in reclamation was to fill the 

settling ponds with the dozer, using the material from the 

surrounding tailings piles.

down the lowest portion of the valley at as uniform a 

grade as possible (Figure 7). Two years of reclamation 

(1996 and 1997) were completed in conjunction with 

road and campground construction, during which some 

of the largest and most accessible mined areas were 

stripped of tailings. This road project was a cooperative effort under the direction of Alaska Department 

of Transportation & Public Facilities (AKDOT), 

whose contractors completed only limited channel 

realignment and floodplain reclamation in these locations. The BLM subsequently regraded some of these 

areas, as needed, to the standards noted above.

Revegetation

In general, revegetation included planting of both 

dormant and live willow cuttings, grass seeding with 

fertilization, and fertilization alone to encourage native species. These techniques were all employed at 

different times and at varying levels. Brian Bogaczyk’s 

detailed report on the early revegetation methods (Appendix C) is discussed in the results section.

Results and Discussion

Hydrology

Streamflow data from 1989 to 2005 is listed by 

site and year in Appendix A and precipitation data in 

Appendix B. The sites in mined areas had relatively 

unstable channels, which made determination of peak 

flows difficult. Graf (1988) notes that rivers with unconsolidated and mobile bed materials are inherently 

unstable, making use of the Manning (slope–area) 

equation for peak-flow determinations especially dependent on an accurate roughness factor (n-value). This 

factor not only varies with depth of flow, but is strongly 

influenced by channel materials and bed forms, which 

can be highly variable during rapidly changing flood 

flows. In general, the site above Sumner Creek (Figure 

8), being almost completely unaffected by mining impacts and having the most stable channel, provided the 

most reliable discharge values. While it was possible 

to define a discharge rating for the site at the Maze 

(see area map, Fig. 1, for the site locations), the site 

at the bridge proved too unstable to define accurate 

discharge ratings that are necessary to compute flood 

frequency. The mean low-water level had dropped 

about 1.5 ft from 1998 to 2005 (Tables A-4 to A-11), 

whereas channel surveys showed that the streambed 

eroded almost 2 ft (Figure A-4). In fact, the channel 

upstream of the bridge eventually became so unstable 

that it undermined the gabions on the left bank, and 

a portion of the stream channel now flows behind the 

Figure 6. After filling the ponds, the bulldozer then graded 

the floodplain as flat as possible.

Figure 7. The bulldozer constructed the channel using 

short, almost level grading to deepen the pilot channel.
bridge abutment (Figure 9). An estimate of the highest 

peak discharge, based on limited surveys completed at 

that time, was calculated primarily to aid in the design 

and reconstruction of the bridge armoring. However, 

no flood-frequency data was computed for this site due 

to the channel instability. Because of its proximity to 

the bridge and its relatively more stable channel, the 

flood-frequency data from the site at the Maze could 

be used to estimate the channel redesign at the bridge, 

if needed. Summaries of the instantaneous peak-flow 

data and log-Pearson flood-frequency calculations 

are shown in Tables 2 and 3. A comparison of the logPearson gaged data and the USGS regression estimates 

for the site above Sumner Creek is shown in Table 4. 

It is interesting to note that all these regression equations underestimate the field-determined discharges at 

the lower-interval, higher-recurrence values.

The channel geometry data collected early in the 

study was originally intended to determine peak 

Table 3. Instantaneous flood frequency computed from a log-Pearson Type III analysis

Table 2. Summary of peak flow and runoff for the Nome Creek drainage basin

Stream Survey Site

Instantaneous 

Peak Discharge 

(cfs)

Peak Runoff 

(cfsm)

Peak Runoff 

(in)

Years of 

Data

Nome Creek above Sumner 

Creek 750 64 72 17

Nome Creek at the bridge* 1000 46 52 8*

Nome Creek at the Maze 1050 42 48 17

Nome Creek above Ophir 

Creek 2600 29 32 7

Moose Creek above the Nome 

Creek Road

360 31 35 10

* Limited data (see text)

Stream survey site Discharge (cfs)

Recurrence (yrs) 1.5 2 5 10 25 50 100

Nome Creek above 

Sumner Creek 270 350 530 660 800 910 1010

Nome Creek at the 

bridge ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Nome Creek at the 

Maze 420 520 770 940 1150 1310 1470

Nome Creek above 

Ophir Creek 970 1200 1860 2400 3190 3860 4640

Moose Creek above the 

Nome Creek Road 120 150 250 320 420 520 620

ND = Not Determined (due to limited data and channel instability; see text)

Figure 8. Upper Nome Creek’s stable channel provided 

the most accurate streamflow information.
Recurrence 

(yrs)

Discharge (cfs)

Gaged Data Lamke (1978)

Parks and 

Madison (1985)

Jones and 

Fahl (1994)

2 350 190 129 162

5 530 370 259 296

10 660 536 378 395

25 800 731 600 530

50 910 1031 818 626

100 1010 1432 1095 727

Parameters used in these calculations:

Drainage Area (sq. mi.) 12 Lamke’s M 189

Precipitation (in) 20 Lamke’s D 2.36

Mean Basin Elev. (ft) 3000 Lake & Pond Area 0

Table 4. Comparison of log-Pearson flood-frequency discharges for Nome Creek above 

Sumner Creek

Stream survey site

Discharge 

(cfs) Width (ft) Depth (ft)

Recurrence 

Interval (yrs)

Nome Creek above Sumner Creek 530 47 3.1 5.0

Nome Creek at the bridge 660 50 4.1 ND 

Nome Creek at the Maze 760 50 4.5 4.8

Nome Creek above Ophir Creek 1500 90 6.0 3.0

Moose Creek above the Nome Creek Road 210 24 3.8 3.5

ND = Not Determined (see text)

Table 5. Bankfull discharge, width, depth, and recurrence for survey sites on Nome Creek 

Table 6. Comparison of channel geometry estimates using bankfull estimates for 

the site at Nome Creek above Sumner Creek

Bankfull 

Dimensions

Gaged 

Data*

Lamke* 

(1978)

Parks and 

Madison* 

(1985)

Jones and 

Fahl* 

(1994)

Emmett** 

(1972)

Width (ft) 47 31 28 30 32

Depth (ft) 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.5 1.4

* Dimensions are for a trapezoidal channel with 3:1 banks and sized for a 2-

year recurrence discharge from these methods.

** Emmett calculates bankfull width and depth from drainage area alone.

discharges and channel characteristics. These cross 

sections were then compared to the bankfull surveys 

completed later. The intent of the resurveys was to see 

if significant erosion or deposition had altered channel conditions outside of the reclamation area and if 

this could be tied to a specific flood-recurrence event. 

The resurveys are shown in Appendix A and are summarized in Table 5, which also lists the bankfull flood 

frequency for each of the survey sites. In general, the 

sites with the smallest drainage area tended to have the 

highest recurrence interval for the calculated bankfull 

discharge.

Since the initial channel design was based on limited 

field surveys, the project used USGS regression equations (Lamke 1979, Parks and Madison 1984, and later 

Jones and Fahl 1994) to determine bankfull discharge 

values. An estimator of bankfull width and depth 

(Emmett 1972) was also used to verify the computations. A comparison of a channel design using these 

regression estimates and actual values for the upper site 
Month

Mean 

Discharge 

(cfsm)

Runoff 

(cfsm) Runoff (in)

Jan 9.2 0.10 0.11

Feb 6.3 0.07 0.08

Mar 4.5 0.05 0.06

Apr 36 0.40 0.45

May 154 1.70 1.92

Jun 160 1.76 1.99

Jul 138 1.52 1.72

Aug 140 1.54 1.74

Sep 123 1.35 1.53

Oct 64 0.71 0.80

Nov 37 0.41 0.46

Dec 16 0.17 0.19

Avg. 

Annual 74 0.81 0.92

Table 7. The mean monthly discharge (cfs) for Nome 

Creek above Ophir Creek, computed from BLM data for 

1999–2005 and USGS data for 1911–12

is shown in Table 6. It is apparent that the regression 

equations uniformly underestimated the field-measured 

bankfull channel dimensions at this site.

A preliminary instream flow analysis was completed 

on the site above Ophir Creek, as recommended in the 

Beaver Creek instream flow report (Van Havern and 

others 1987). The mean-monthly discharges, computed from data collected by the BLM and USGS, are 

listed in Table 7 and shown in an annual hydrograph 

(Figure 10). Wintertime flow above Ophir Creek was 

estimated by assuming that the difference in discharge 

between stream-gaging sites on Beaver Creek above 

and below Nome Creek (Kostohrys 2005) equals the 

discharge from Nome Creek. The long-term average 

Beaver Creek monthly data for the winter period (Oct–

April) was used to provide the winter estimates.

Reclamation

During the summers of 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 

and 2003, severe storms caused extensive flooding in 

the basin. The pilot channel remained largely intact 

in some reaches, but other areas suffered from lateral 

erosion and braided channels, especially in areas with 

poor soils. Large overflow icing (aufeis), which occurs 

when the stream freezes down to the bed, filled the valley in the spring of 1996 and 1997 (Figure 11). During 

the subsequent breakup, the stream was unable to flow 

on its bed, so it migrated onto the floodplain, eroding 

the former settling ponds and regraded tailing piles. 

Figure 10. Annual hydrograph showing mean monthly 

discharge for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek. 

Figure 9. Aerial view of the channel upstream of the 

bridge, where the gabions are being eroded by the unstable 

channel.

Nome Creek above Ophir Creek Annual Discharge Hydrograph

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)

Figure 11. Overflow icing (aufeis) forms during most 

winters and can persist well into summer.

FLOW
Figure 12. In the upper reclamation area, the meanders 

had to be increased and the point bars releveled to stabilize 

the channel. Note the grass in the background, a result of 

hydroseeding during road construction.

Figure 13. Aerial photo of Nome Creek before the reclamation project began. 

Similar erosion problems affect many stream channel 

reclamation projects in Alaska. 

The bankfull discharge is often used to determine the 

channel dimensions for stream reclamation (Rosgen 

1998). Wolman and Leopold (1957), among others, 

suggest that the recurrence interval for the bankfull discharge is between one and two years. Williams (1978) 

listed 16 ways of determining the bankfull discharge. 

In an examination of data on 40 rivers, he noted that 

the bankfull discharge had no common recurrence 

frequency and the 1.5-year flood seldom represented 

the bankfull discharge. As noted in Tables 5 and 6, the 

bankfull discharge for the most part closely matched the 

5-year recurrence interval flood at the upper gaging 

site (where most of the bankfull discharge and channel 

information for the reclamation project was determined) and exceeded the 2-year flood at all other sites. 

For the upper site on Nome Creek, the discharge and 

channel geometry estimates based on regression equations undersized the channel and floodplain. Once the 

pilot channel was widened (to dimensions closer to the 

5-year flood) and meanders were flattened (increasing 

the channel width at bends) (Figure 12), the channel 

erosion problems from flooding diminished. As can 

be seen in Figures 13 and 14, the contrast between the 

pre- and post-project channel is readily apparent in the 

upper area. While over-estimating channel dimensions 

may increase construction costs and possibly cause 

braided channels, underestimating can result in channel 

failure and catastrophic floodplain damage. 

Revegetation

Brian Bogaczyk’s summary of early revegetation 

results and Jim Herriges’s follow-up report are included 

in Appendix C. Bogaczyk discusses the types of treatment, including live and dormant willow plantings, 

grass seeding, and fertilization. Limited willow plant-

ing and fertilization has continued to the present, such 

that most of the reconstructed floodplain along the first 

several miles of stream and floodplain are now covered 

with willows from 3 feet to over 6 feet tall. Though 

the areas reclaimed later have less revegetation, even 

those areas with sparse ground cover have been recolonized by naturally growing willow and grass seedlings. It appears that the most labor-saving and cost-effective revegetation resulted not from additional willow 

plantings, but rather from fertilization alone for several 

years after reclamation to encourage reintroduction of 

native species. Water quality appears to be better in the 

uppermost areas where revegetation is greatest, while 

the stream becomes more turbid in downstream areas 

where revegetation is limited or nearly absent. 

Figure 14. Aerial photo of the upper reclamation area, road, 

and campground after reclamation.
Where ta

iling piles were removed for road construc-

tion materials and the stream channel and floodplain 

subsequently reconstructed, grass seeding and fer-

tilizing (hydro-seeding) were done under AKDOT direction to restore the area as quickly as possible. 

While some of these areas have maintained viable 

ground cover, others have died out within several years 

after planting. To date, approximately 200 acres of 

floodplain and about five miles of the stream channel 

have been reclaimed, with most areas at least partially 

revegetated.

Recommendations

1. The reclamation work should continue until the 

entire creek is consolidated into a single channel and 

all unstable debris piles that contribute to excessive 

sediment runoff are recontoured into a well-graded 

floodplain. 

2. The project to revegetate the floodplain should 

continue and the results of systematic water qual-

ity and botanical surveys should be summarized and 

published.

3. The water resources project to collect, analyze, and 

publish stream-gaging data should continue on Nome 

Creek, not only for the reclamation work on the upper 

creek but for the instream flow project on the lower 

portion of the stream. In this regard, the satellitecapable gage installed above Ophir Creek in 2005 

should be maintained, as this gage is capable of gener-

ating real-time data that provides the public with access 

to current stream conditions. The application for water 

rights should be completed and filed with the Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources.

4. A thorough GIS mapping and analysis of the water-

shed should be done to improve the accuracy of the area 

estimates of reclamation and revegetation, the miles of 

steam channel reconstructed, and the basin character-

istics used in many water resources analyses.

Literature Cited

AKDNR. 1989. Letter from Alaska Department of 

Natural Resources to the Steese/White Mountains 

District Office, Bureau of Land Management. On file. 

Fairbanks, AK.

Dalrymple, Tate; Benson, M.A. 1967. Measurement of Peak Discharge by the Slope–Area Method. 

In: Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, 

Book 3, Chapter A2. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Geological Survey. 12 pages.

Emmett, W.W. 1972. Bankfull Channel Characteristics on Streams South of the Yukon River, Alaska. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey 

Open-File Report.

Graf, W.L. 1988. Fluvial Processes in Dryland 

Rivers. Blackburn Press. New Jersey. 346 pages.

Jones, S.H.; Fahl, C.B. 1994. Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Alaska and Conterminous Basins 

of Canada. U.S Department of the Interior, Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-

4179. Anchorage, Alaska. 122 pages.

Kostohrys, Jon. 2005. Water Resources of Beaver 

Creek National Wild River: Stream Gaging Data from 

1993 to 2000 with Summary Statistics. BLM-Alaska 

Open File Report 102. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. Anchorage, Alaska. 

40 pages.

Lamke. R.D. 1978. Flood characteristics of Alaskan 

streams. U.S Department of the Interior, Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 78-129. 

Anchorage, Alaska. 61 pages.

Parks, Bruce; Madison, Robert J. 1985. Estimation 

of Selected Flow and Water-Quality Characteristics 

of Alaskan Streams. Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 84-4247. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Geological Survey. 50 pages.

Rantz, S.E. and others. 1982. Measurement and 

Computation of Streamflow: Volume 1&2. USGS 

Water-Supply Paper 2175. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Geological Survey. 631 pages.

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. 

Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. 246 

pages.

Thomas, D.M. 1967. Extending Streamflow Records 

in Time. In: Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, Book 4, Section B. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Geological Survey. 21 pages.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service. 2005. Alaska Annual Snow 

Survey Data Summary. http://www.ambcs.org. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, 

1915. Surface Water Supply of the Yukon-Tanana Region, Alaska. Water Supply Paper 342. 343 pages.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 

2000 to 2006 (in prep.). Water Resources Data - Alaska. 

Water Years 1999 to 2005. 

Van Haveren, Bruce P.; Jackson, William L.; 

Martinez, Tony; Shelby, Bo; Carufel, Lou. 1987. 

Water Rights Assessment for Beaver Creek National 

Wild River, Alaska. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. Anchorage, Alaska.

113 pages. 

Wahrhaftig, Clyde. 1965. Physiographic Divisions 

of Alaska. Geological Survey Professional Paper 482. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 

52 pages.

Weber, F.R.; McCammon, R.B.; Rinehart, C.D.; 

Light, T.D.; Wheeler, K.L. 1988. Geology and Mineral 

Resources of the White Mountains National Recreation 

Area, East-Central Alaska. Open File Report 88–284. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 

120 pages.

Williams, G.P. 1978. Bankfull Discharge of Rivers. 

Water Resources Research 14:1141–1154.

Wolman, M.G.; Leopold, L.B. 1957. River floodplains: some observations on their formation. Professional Paper 282. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Geological Survey. Pages 87–107.

11

Appendix A. Annual Data and Descriptions of Nome Creek 

Basin Stream-Gaging Sites

Nome Creek above Sumner Creek

Figure A-1. Looking upstream at the crest-stage gage reach for Nome Creek above Sumner 

Creek during late spring. The remnant ice shelves can persist well into summer and confound 

peak discharge determinations.

Figure A-2. Cross-sectional surveys for Nome Creek above Sumner Creek. This reach was 

above the mined area, had the most stable channel, and provided the best discharge data of all 

the sites.

 Nome Creek above Sumner Creek Surveys

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1989

1994

2001

Bankfull

Elevation (ft)

Distance (ft)

Nome Creek above Sumner Creek Surveys

Nome Creek above Sumner Creek Surveys

GAGE

13
Table A-1. Discharge measurement summary for Nome Creek above Sumner Creek 

Measurement 

# Date

Stage

 (ft)

Discharge

(cfs)

Width 

(ft)

Area 

(sq ft)

Avg.Velocity 

(fps)

Avg.

Depth 

(ft)

1 6/25/89* 2.65 405 48 78 5.2 1.6

2 6/27/89 1.57 39 38 20 2.0 0.5

3 8/10/89 1.25 12 27 9 1.3 0.3

4 7/13/90 1.79 73 36 27 2.7 0.8

5 9/5/90 1.87 89 39 33 2.7 0.8

6 7/19/91 1.25 14 31 11 1.3 0.4

7 8/18/91* 2.88 532 50 93 5.7 1.9

8 8/19/91 1.99 112 39 37 3.0 0.9

9 8/21/91 1.50 48 35 26 1.8 0.7

10 6/5/92 1.83 78 31 31 2.5 1.0

11 8/18/92 1.40 27 34 17 1.6 0.5

12 9/2/92 1.60 40 35 23 1.7 0.7

13 9/10/92 1.28 18 29 14 1.3 0.5

14 6/8/93 1.50 32 37 18 1.8 0.5

15 7/7/93 1.38 27 34 18 1.5 0.5

16 7/22/93 1.23 14 20 12 1.2 0.6

17 8/2/93 1.23 15 19 10 1.5 0.5

18 6/21/94 2.08 143 40 43 3.3 1.1

19 6/26/94* 3.52 750 58 118 6.4 2.0

20 8/24/94 1.45 31 34 16 1.9 0.5

21 8/25/94 2.15 164 53 52 3.2 1.0

22 8/26/94 1.78 69 45 32 2.2 0.7

23 9/14/94 1.35 19 23 15 1.3 0.7

24 6/24/95* 2.86 505 49 91 5.5 1.9

25 8/7/95 1.53 46 33 27 1.7 0.8

26 6/11/96 ND 166 85 86 1.9 1.0

27 7/16/96 1.34 22 26 20 1.1 0.8

28 7/25/96 1.10 6.6 17 10 0.7 0.6

29 8/11/97 1.35 25 26 23 1.1 0.9

30 6/5/98 1.31 17 25 18 0.9 0.7

31 7/21/98 1.43 27 33 20 1.4 0.6

32 8/14/98 1.72 52 35 27 1.9 0.8

33 8/17/98 2.28 204 53 58 3.5 1.1

34 8/8/99 2.01 93 35 34 2.7 1.0

35 8/11/00 1.94 83 38 41 2.0 1.1

36 8/13/00* 3.27 703 50 100 7.0 2.0

37 7/14/01* 2.80 365 46 77 4.7 1.7

38 7/31/01 1.66 43 34 28 1.5 0.8

39 7/15/03 2.14 144 36 46 3.1 1.3

40 9/22/05 1.42 21 24 16 1.3 0.7

* Slope-area (Manning equation) indirect discharge measurement

ND = Not Determined (backwater from ice)

14
Table A-2. Annual peak discharge summary for Nome Creek above 

Sumner Creek 

Date of Peak Water level Discharge Rank

Recurrence 

Interval

6/25/89 2.65 405 7 2.5

9/5/90 2.3 213 15 1.2

8/18/91 2.88 532 4 5

6/1/92 2.51 312 10 1.7

5/1/93 2.43 271 11 1.5

6/23/94 3.52 750 1 18

6/25/95 2.86 505 5 4.3

6/10/96 ND 265 12 1.4

7/1/97 1.99 109 17 1.0

8/16/98 2.41 222 14 1.3

7/22/99 2.09 131 16 1.1

8/13/00 3.27 703 2 13

7/14/01 2.8 365 8 2.2

7/31/02 2.76 363 9 2.2

7/29/03 3.2 629 3 8.6

6/1/04 2.49 248 13 1.4

7/2/05 2.87 420 6 2.8

ND = Not Determined (backwater from ice)

15
Nome Creek at the Bridge

Figure A-3. Looking downstream at the wire-weight gage reach for Nome Creek at the bridge. 

The gage was installed in 1998 on the downstream side and relocated to the upstream side of 

the bridge in 1999. Gaging continues to the present.

Nome Creek Bridge

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105

Distance (ft)

Elevation (ft)

1998

2000

2002

Bankfull

Nome Creek Bridge Surveys

Figure A-4. Cross-sectional surveys for Nome Creek at the bridge. This reach was located in 

the reclamation area where tailings were removed for road construction and the stream channel 

relocated. It had the least stable channel, with erosion occurring after almost every high-water 

event, and its discharge data had the worst correlation of all the sites.

GAGE

16
Table A-3. Discharge measurement summary for Nome Creek at the bridge

# Date

Stage 

(ft)

Discharge

(cfs)

Width 

(ft)

Area 

(sq ft)

Avg.

Velocity 

(fps)

Avg. Depth 

(ft)

1 8/5/98 2.80 44 30 26 1.7 0.9

2 8/13/98 3.34 91 42 31 2.9 0.7

3 8/17/98 3.95 277 51 67 4.1 1.3

4 8/8/99 3.78 117 45 41 2.9 0.9

5 8/11/00 3.74 87 35 34 2.6 1.0

6 8/25/00 1.92 70 36 42 1.7 1.2

7 7/30/01 1.89 63 34 41 1.5 1.2

8 8/8/01 1.46 26 32 26 1.0 0.8

9 8/30/01 1.67 43 34 34 1.3 1.0

10 10/4/02 1.40 29 30 29 1.0 1.0

11 7/15/03 2.15 117 50 41 2.9 0.8

12 7/29/03 1.96 104 41 46 2.3 1.1

13 10/13/04 1.02 9.0 39 20 0.5 0.5

17
Table A-4. 1998 Wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations for Nome Creek 

at the bridge

August September

Date

Wire Weight 

Reading

Water Surface 

Elevation (ft) Date

Wire Weight 

Reading

Water Surface 

Elevation (ft)

1-Aug 1-Sep 5.06 42.96

2-Aug 2-Sep 5.09 42.99

3-Aug 3-Sep 5.05 42.95

4-Aug 4-Sep 5.04 42.94

5-Aug 5-Sep 5.01 42.91

6-Aug 6-Sep 4.99 42.89

7-Aug 7-Sep 4.94 42.84

8-Aug 8-Sep 4.95 42.85

9-Aug 9-Sep

10-Aug 10-Sep

11-Aug 11-Sep

12-Aug 12-Sep

13-Aug 5.29 43.19 13-Sep

14-Aug 5.18 43.08 14-Sep

15-Aug 5.27 43.17 15-Sep

16-Aug 5.57 43.47 16-Sep 4.88 42.78

17-Aug 5.97 43.87 17-Sep

18-Aug 5.70 43.60 18-Sep

19-Aug 5.32 43.22 19-Sep

20-Aug 20-Sep

21-Aug 5.32 43.22 21-Sep

22-Aug 22-Sep

23-Aug 5.29 43.19 23-Sep

24-Aug 5.22 43.12 24-Sep

25-Aug 25-Sep

26-Aug 5.16 43.06 26-Sep

27-Aug 5.15 43.05 27-Sep

28-Aug 5.14 43.04 28-Sep

29-Aug 5.14 43.04 29-Sep

30-Aug 5.12 43.02 30-Sep

31-Aug 5.04 42.94

Mean W. S. Elevation 43.08 Mean W. S. Elevation 42.91

Max. W. S. Elevation 43.87 Max. W. S. Elevation 42.99

Min. W. S. Elevation 42.94 Min. W. S. Elevation 42.78

18
Table A-5. 1999 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations for Nome Creek at the bridge

July August September

Date

Wire Wt. 

Rdg.

W.S.Elev.

(ft) Date

W.Wt. 

Rdg.

W.S.Elev.

(ft) Date

W.Wt. 

Rdg.

W.S.Elev.

(ft)

1-Jul 5.10 42.40 1-Aug 1-Sep 5.15 42.45

2-Jul 2-Aug 2-Sep

3-Jul 3-Aug 5.50 42.80 3-Sep

4-Jul 4-Aug 4-Sep

5-Jul 5-Aug 5.45 42.75 5-Sep

6-Jul 6-Aug 5.42 42.72 6-Sep

7-Jul 7-Aug 5.53 42.83 7-Sep

8-Jul 8-Aug 6.50 43.80 8-Sep

9-Jul 9-Aug 6.14 43.44 9-Sep

10-Jul 10-Aug 10-Sep

11-Jul 11-Aug 5.95 43.25 11-Sep

12-Jul 12-Aug 5.80 43.1 12-Sep

13-Jul 13-Aug 6.10 43.4 13-Sep

14-Jul 14-Aug 6.00 43.3 14-Sep

15-Jul 5.12 42.42 15-Aug 5.78 43.08 15-Sep

16-Jul 16-Aug 16-Sep

17-Jul 17-Aug 17-Sep 5.55 42.85

18-Jul 18-Aug 18-Sep

19-Jul 19-Aug 19-Sep

20-Jul 20-Aug 20-Sep

21-Jul 21-Aug 21-Sep

22-Jul 22-Aug 22-Sep

23-Jul 6.03 43.33 23-Aug 23-Sep

24-Jul 24-Aug 24-Sep

25-Jul 25-Aug 4.60 41.90 25-Sep

26-Jul 26-Aug 26-Sep

27-Jul 27-Aug 27-Sep

28-Jul 28-Aug 4.50 41.80 28-Sep

29-Jul 29-Aug 29-Sep

30-Jul 30-Aug 4.50 41.80 30-Sep

31-Jul 31-Aug

Mean W.S. Elevation 42.88 Mean W.S. Elev. 42.85 Mean W.S. Elevation 42.65

Max. W.S. Elevation 43.33 Max. W.S.Elev. 43.80 Max.W.S. Elevation 42.85

Min. W.S. Elevation 42.42 Min. W.S.Elev. 41.80 Min.W.S. Elevation 42.45

19
Table A-6. 2000 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations (ft) for Nome Creek at the bridge

June July August September

Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S.

Elev. Date

W.Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S.

Elev. Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S.

Elev. Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S.

Elev.

1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 4.33 41.63

2-Jun 2-Jul 2-Aug 2-Sep

3-Jun 3-Jul 3-Aug 3-Sep

4-Jun 4-Jul 4-Aug 5.48 42.78 4-Sep

5-Jun 5-Jul 5-Aug 5.53 42.83 5-Sep

6-Jun 6-Jul 6-Aug 6-Sep

7-Jun 7-Jul 7-Aug 5.65 42.95 7-Sep

8-Jun 8-Jul 8-Aug 8-Sep

9-Jun 9-Jul 9-Aug 9-Sep

10-Jun 10-Jul 10-Aug 5.54 42.84 10-Sep

11-Jun 11-Jul 11-Aug 6.50 43.80 11-Sep

12-Jun 12-Jul 12-Aug 5.92 43.22 12-Sep

13-Jun 13-Jul 13-Aug 13-Sep

14-Jun 7.35 44.65 14-Jul 14-Aug 14-Sep

15-Jun 15-Jul 15-Aug 4.80 42.10 15-Sep 4.47 41.77

16-Jun 16-Jul 16-Aug 16-Sep

17-Jun 17-Jul 17-Aug 17-Sep

18-Jun 18-Jul 5.64 42.94 18-Aug 18-Sep

19-Jun 19-Jul 19-Aug 19-Sep

20-Jun 20-Jul 20-Aug 20-Sep

21-Jun 21-Jul 21-Aug 21-Sep

22-Jun 22-Jul 22-Aug 22-Sep

23-Jun 23-Jul 23-Aug 23-Sep

24-Jun 24-Jul 24-Aug 24-Sep

25-Jun 25-Jul 25-Aug 4.60 41.90 25-Sep

26-Jun 26-Jul 5.53 42.83 26-Aug 26-Sep

27-Jun 27-Jul 27-Aug 27-Sep

28-Jun 28-Jul 5.54 42.84 28-Aug 4.50 41.80 28-Sep

29-Jun 5.7 43.00 29-Jul 5.46 42.76 29-Aug 29-Sep 4.48 41.78

30-Jun 30-Jul 30-Aug 4.50 41.80 30-Sep

31-Jul 31-Aug

Mean W. S.

Elevation 43.83 Mean.W. S.Elevation 42.84 Mean.W. S.Elevation 42.6 Mean W. S.Elevation 41.73

Max. W. S.

Elevation 44.65 Max. W. S.Elevation 42.94 Max. W. S.Elevation 43.8 Max.W. S.Elevation 41.78

Min. W. S.

Elevation 43 Min. W. S.Elevation 42.76 Min. W. S.Elevation 41.8 Min. W. S.Elevation 41.63

20
Table A-7. 2001 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations (ft) for Nome Creek at the bridge

June July August September

Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev. Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S.

Elev. Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W .S.

Elev. Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S.

Elev.

1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 4.35 41.65 1-Sep 4.11 41.41

2-Jun 2-Jul 2-Aug 4.27 41.57 2-Sep

3-Jun 3-Jul 3-Aug 3-Sep

4-Jun 4-Jul 4-Aug 4.23 41.53 4-Sep

5-Jun 5-Jul 5-Aug 5-Sep

6-Jun 6-Jul 6-Aug 4.18 41.48 6-Sep

7-Jun 5.00 42.30 7-Jul 7-Aug 7-Sep

8-Jun 8-Jul 8-Aug 4.16 41.46 8-Sep

9-Jun 9-Jul 9-Aug 9-Sep

10-Jun 10-Jul 10-Aug 4.12 41.42 10-Sep

11-Jun 11-Jul 11-Aug 4.54 41.84 11-Sep

12-Jun 12-Jul 12-Aug 12-Sep

13-Jun 4.60 41.90 13-Jul 13-Aug 13-Sep

14-Jun 4.40 41.70 14-Jul 14-Aug 14-Sep

15-Jun 15-Jul 15-Aug 15-Sep

16-Jun 16-Jul 16-Aug 16-Sep

17-Jun 17-Jul 17-Aug 17-Sep

18-Jun 18-Jul 18-Aug 18-Sep

19-Jun 19-Jul 19-Aug 19-Sep

20-Jun 20-Jul 20-Aug 20-Sep

21-Jun 21-Jul 21-Aug 21-Sep

22-Jun 22-Jul 22-Aug 4.64 41.94 22-Sep

23-Jun 23-Jul 23-Aug 23-Sep

24-Jun 24-Jul 24-Aug 24-Sep

25-Jun 25-Jul 25-Aug 25-Sep 4.15 41.45

26-Jun 26-Jul 26-Aug 26-Sep

27-Jun 27-Jul 4.13 41.43 27-Aug 4.44 41.74 27-Sep

28-Jun 28-Jul 28-Aug 28-Sep

29-Jun 29-Jul 4.73 42.03 29-Aug 29-Sep

30-Jun 30-Jul 4.59 41.89 30-Aug 4.37 41.67 30-Sep

31-Jul 4.41 41.71 31-Aug

Mean W.S. 

Elevation 41.97 Mean W.S. Elevation 41.77 Mean W.S. Elevation 41.63 Mean W.S. Elevation 41.43

Max. W.S. 

Elevation 42.30 Max. W.S. Elevation 42.03 Max. W.S. Elevation 41.94 Max. W.S. Elevation 41.45

Min. W.S. 

Elevation 41.70 Min. W.S. Elevation 41.43 Min W.S. Elevation 41.42 Min. W.S. Elevation 41.41

21
Table A-8. 2002 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations (ft) for Nome Creek at the bridge

June July August September

Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev. Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev. Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev. Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev.

1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 4.23 41.53 1-Sep 4.28 41.58

2-Jun 2-Jul 2-Aug 4.13 41.43 2-Sep 4.30 41.60

3-Jun 3-Jul 3-Aug 4.04 41.34 3-Sep

4-Jun 4.40 41.70 4-Jul 4-Aug 3.99 41.29 4-Sep

5-Jun 5-Jul 5-Aug 5-Sep 4.12 41.42

6-Jun 6-Jul 6-Aug 3.97 41.27 6-Sep 4.30 41.60

7-Jun 7-Jul 7-Aug 7-Sep 4.62 41.92

8-Jun 8-Jul 8-Aug 3.95 41.25 8-Sep

9-Jun 9-Jul 9-Aug 9-Sep

10-Jun 10-Jul 10-Aug 10-Sep

11-Jun 11-Jul 11-Aug 3.99 41.29 11-Sep

12-Jun 12-Jul 12-Aug 12-Sep 4.22 41.52

13-Jun 13-Jul 13-Aug 13-Sep 4.18 41.48

14-Jun 14-Jul 14-Aug 14-Sep 4.10 41.40

15-Jun 15-Jul 15-Aug 15-Sep

16-Jun 16-Jul 16-Aug 4.98 42.28 16-Sep 4.02 41.32

17-Jun 17-Jul 17-Aug 5.96 43.26 17-Sep

18-Jun 18-Jul 18-Aug 18-Sep

19-Jun 19-Jul 19-Aug 19-Sep

20-Jun 20-Jul 20-Aug 20-Sep

21-Jun 3.15 40.45 21-Jul 21-Aug 21-Sep

22-Jun 22-Jul 22-Aug 4.69 41.99 22-Sep

23-Jun 23-Jul 23-Aug 23-Sep

24-Jun 24-Jul 24-Aug 4.65 41.95 24-Sep

25-Jun 25-Jul 4.10 41.40 25-Aug 4.65 41.95 25-Sep

26-Jun 26-Jul 5.60 42.90 26-Aug 4.48 41.78 26-Sep

27-Jun 27-Jul 4.98 42.28 27-Aug 27-Sep

28-Jun 28-Jul 4.84 42.14 28-Aug 28-Sep

29-Jun 29-Jul 29-Aug 4.28 41.58 29-Sep

30-Jun 30-Jul 4.30 41.60 30-Aug 4.30 41.60 30-Sep 4.30 41.60

31-Jul 31-Aug

Mean W. S. 

Elevation 41.08 Mean W. S. Elevation 42.06 Mean W. S.Elevation 41.72 Mean W. S. Elevation 41.54

Max. W. S. 

Elevation 41.70 Max. W. S. Elevation 42.90 Max. W. S. Elevation 43.26 Max. W. S. Elevation 41.92

Min. W. S. 

Elevation 40.45 Min W. S. Elevation 41.40 Min. W. S. Elevation 41.25 Min. W. S. Elevation 41.32

22
Table A-9. 2003 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations (ft) for Nome Creek at the bridge

June July August September

Date W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev.

Date W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev.

Date W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev.

Date W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev.

1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 4.89 42.19 1-Sep 5.40 42.70

2-Jun 2-Jul 2-Aug 2-Sep

3-Jun 3-Jul 4.08 41.38 3-Aug 5.44 42.74 3-Sep 5.00 42.30

4-Jun 4-Jul 4.00 41.30 4-Aug 4-Sep 4.78 42.08

5-Jun 5-Jul 3.89 41.19 5-Aug 4.74 42.04 5-Sep 4.88 42.18

6-Jun 6-Jul 6-Aug 4.49 41.79 6-Sep 4.75 42.05

7-Jun 7-Jul 4.07 41.37 7-Aug 7-Sep

8-Jun 4.27 41.57 8-Jul 8-Aug 8-Sep 4.47 41.77

9-Jun 9-Jul 9-Aug 4.34 41.64 9-Sep

10-Jun 10-Jul 3.93 41.23 10-Aug 10-Sep

11-Jun 11-Jul 11-Aug 4.28 41.58 11-Sep 4.65 41.95

12-Jun 4.06 41.36 12-Jul 3.85 41.15 12-Aug 12-Sep

13-Jun 3.99 41.29 13-Jul 3.85 41.15 13-Aug 13-Sep 4.38 41.68

14-Jun 14-Jul 4.20 41.5 14-Aug 4.15 41.45 14-Sep

15-Jun 3.90 41.20 15-Jul 4.85 42.15 15-Aug 15-Sep 3.98 41.28

16-Jun 16-Jul 4.75 42.05 16-Aug 4.15 41.45 16-Sep 4.35 41.65

17-Jun 17-Jul 4.57 41.87 17-Aug 4.08 41.38 17-Sep

18-Jun 3.98 41.28 18-Jul 4.4 41.7 18-Aug 4.02 41.32 18-Sep

19-Jun 3.93 41.23 19-Jul 4.17 41.47 19-Aug 19-Sep

20-Jun 3.83 41.13 20-Jul 4.09 41.39 20-Aug 20-Sep

21-Jun 21-Jul 4.05 41.35 21-Aug 4.10 41.40 21-Sep

22-Jun 3.74 41.04 22-Jul 22-Aug 4.05 41.35 22-Sep

23-Jun 3.8 41.1 23-Jul 23-Aug 4.20 41.50 23-Sep

24-Jun 24-Jul 3.97 41.27 24-Aug 5.07 42.37 24-Sep

25-Jun 3.9 41.2 25-Jul 25-Aug 5.43 42.73 25-Sep

26-Jun 26-Jul 4.05 41.35 26-Aug 26-Sep

27-Jun 3.85 41.15 27-Jul 8.10 45.40 27-Aug 4.55 41.85 27-Sep

28-Jun 3.84 41.14 28-Jul 7.42 44.72 28-Aug 4.47 41.77 28-Sep

29-Jun 3.83 41.13 29-Jul 29-Aug 4.34 41.64 29-Sep

30-Jun 3.79 41.09 30-Jul 4.64 41.94 30-Aug 30-Sep

31-Jul 5.47 42.77 31-Aug

Mean W. S. 

Elevation 41.21 Mean W. S. Elevation 41.89 Mean W. S. Elevation 41.79 Mean W. S. Elevation 41.96

Max. W. S. 

Elevation 41.57 Max. W. S. Elevation 45.4 Max. W. S. Elevation 42.74 Max. W. S. Elevation 42.70

Min. W. S. 

Elevation 41.04 Min. W. S. Elevation 41.15 Min. W. S. Elevation 41.32 Min. W. S. Elevation 41.28

23
Table A-10. 2004 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations (ft) for Nome Creek at the bridge

June July August September

Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev. Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev. Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev. Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev.

1-Jun 4.97 42.27 1-Jul 1-Aug 5.21 42.51 1-Sep

2-Jun 2-Jul 2-Aug 2-Sep

3-Jun 3-Jul 3-Aug 4.25 41.55 3-Sep

4-Jun 4-Jul 4-Aug 4-Sep

5-Jun 5-Jul 5-Aug 5-Sep

6-Jun 6-Jul 6-Aug 4.19 41.49 6-Sep 3.83 41.13

7-Jun 7-Jul 7-Aug 4.03 41.33 7-Sep

8-Jun 8-Jul 8-Aug 3.98 41.28 8-Sep

9-Jun 9-Jul 9-Aug 3.90 41.20 9-Sep 3.78 41.08

10-Jun 10-Jul 10-Aug 10-Sep 3.75 41.05

11-Jun 11-Jul 11-Aug 11-Sep

12-Jun 3.50 40.80 12-Jul 12-Aug 12-Sep

13-Jun 3.65 40.95 13-Jul 13-Aug 3.87 41.17 13-Sep

14-Jun 3.95 41.25 14-Jul 14-Aug 3.91 41.21 14-Sep

15-Jun 15-Jul 15-Aug 15-Sep

16-Jun 3.50 40.80 16-Jul 3.76 41.06 16-Aug 3.93 41.23 16-Sep

17-Jun 4.05 41.35 17-Jul 17-Aug 17-Sep 3.71 41.01

18-Jun 3.96 41.26 18-Jul 18-Aug 18-Sep 3.71 41.01

19-Jun 3.93 41.23 19-Jul 19-Aug 3.87 41.17 19-Sep

20-Jun 20-Jul 20-Aug 3.86 41.16 20-Sep

21-Jun 21-Jul 3.84 41.14 21-Aug 21-Sep

22-Jun 22-Jul 22-Aug 22-Sep

23-Jun 23-Jul 23-Aug 23-Sep

24-Jun 24-Jul 24-Aug 24-Sep

25-Jun 25-Jul 25-Aug 3.86 41.16 25-Sep

26-Jun 26-Jul 26-Aug 3.86 41.16 26-Sep

27-Jun 27-Jul 27-Aug 3.84 41.14 27-Sep

28-Jun 28-Jul 28-Aug 28-Sep

29-Jun 29-Jul 29-Aug 29-Sep

30-Jun 30-Jul 4.39 41.69 30-Aug 30-Sep

31-Jul 4.80 42.10 31-Aug

Mean W. S. 

Elevation 41.24 Mean W. S. Elevation 41.30 Mean W. S. Elevation 41.07 Mean W. S. Elevation 41.06

Max. W. S. 

Elevation 42.27 Max. W. S. Elevation 42.10 Max. W. S. Elevation 42.51 Max. W. S. Elevation 41.13

Min. 

W. S. Elevation 40.80 Min. W. S. Elevation 41.06 Min. W. S. Elevation 41.14 Min. W. S. Elevation 41.01

24
Table A-11. 2005 wire-weight gage readings and water surface elevations (ft) for Nome Creek at the bridge

May June July August September

Date

W. 

Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev. Date

W. 

Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev. Date

W. Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev. Date

W. 

Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev. Date

W. 

Wt. 

Rdg.

W. S. 

Elev.

1-May 1-Jun 4.85 42.15 1-Jul 5.85 43.15 1-Aug 1-Sep 4.09 41.39

2-May 2-Jun 4.67 41.97 2-Jul 5.11 42.41 2-Aug 2-Sep

3-May 3-Jun 3-Jul 4.57 41.87 3-Aug 3-Sep

4-May 4-Jun 4.39 41.69 4-Jul 4.66 41.96 4-Aug 4.25 41.55 4-Sep 4.07 41.37

5-May 5-Jun 4.36 41.66 5-Jul 5-Aug 4.27 41.57 5-Sep

6-May 6-Jun 4.33 41.63 6-Jul 6-Aug 6-Sep

7-May 7-Jun 7-Jul 4.68 41.98 7-Aug 4.25 41.55 7-Sep

8-May 8-Jun 8-Jul 4.57 41.87 8-Aug 8-Sep 4.10 41.40

9-May 9-Jun 4.23 41.53 9-Jul 9-Aug 9-Sep

10-May 4.21 41.51 10-Jun 4.22 41.52 10-Jul 4.68 41.98 10-Aug 10-Sep 4.20 41.50

11-May 11-Jun 11-Jul 11-Aug 11-Sep 4.16 41.46

12-May 12-Jun 12-Jul 4.58 41.88 12-Aug 4.14 41.44 12-Sep

13-May 13-Jun 13-Jul 13-Aug 13-Sep

14-May 14-Jun 14-Jul 14-Aug 4.11 41.41 14-Sep

15-May 15-Jun 15-Jul 4.50 41.80 15-Aug 15-Sep

16-May 16-Jun 4.14 41.44 16-Jul 16-Aug 16-Sep

17-May 17-Jun 4.25 41.55 17-Jul 17-Aug 17-Sep

18-May 18-Jun 18-Jul 4.56 41.86 18-Aug 18-Sep

19-May 19-Jun 19-Jul 19-Aug 4.07 41.37 19-Sep

20-May 20-Jun 4.11 41.41 20-Jul 20-Aug 20-Sep

21-May 4.10 41.40 21-Jun 4.10 41.40 21-Jul 21-Aug 4.07 41.37 21-Sep 4.12 41.42

22-May 4.29 41.59 22-Jun 4.05 41.35 22-Jul 22-Aug 22-Sep 4.20 41.50

23-May 4.08 41.38 23-Jun 4.08 41.38 23-Jul 4.39 41.69 23-Aug 4.05 41.35 23-Sep

24-May 24-Jun 4.02 41.32 24-Jul 24-Aug 24-Sep

25-May 25-Jun 25-Jul 4.36 41.66 25-Aug 25-Sep

26-May 4.28 41.58 26-Jun 26-Jul 26-Aug 4.04 41.34 26-Sep

27-May 4.29 41.59 27-Jun 27-Jul 4.32 41.62 27-Aug 27-Sep

28-May 4.07 41.37 28-Jun 4.07 41.37 28-Jul 28-Aug 28-Sep

29-May 29-Jun 29-Jul 4.34 41.64 29-Aug 4.10 41.40 29-Sep

30-May 30-Jun 30-Jul 4.28 41.58 30-Aug 30-Sep

31-May 31-Jul 4.31 41.61 31-Aug

Mean W.S. 

Elev. 41.49 Mean W.S. Elev. 41.56 Mean W. S. Elev. 41.93 Mean W. S. Elev. 41.44 Mean W. S. Elev. 41.43

Max. W.S. 

Elev. 41.59 Max. W.S. Elev. 42.15 Max. W. S. Elev. 43.15 Max. W. S. Elev. 41.57 Max. W. S. Elev. 41.50

Min. W.S. 

Elev. 41.37 Min. W.S. Elev. 41.32 Min. W.S. Elev. 41.58 Min. W. S. Elev. 41.34 Min. W. S. Elev. 41.37

25
Nome Creek at the Maze

Figure A-5. Looking downstream at the crest-stage gage reach for Nome Creek at the Maze. 

The gage was installed in 1989 and gaging continues to the present. The unreclaimed tailings 

piles that give the Maze its name are to the right of the crest-stage gage.

Figure A-6. Cross-sectional surveys for Nome Creek at the Maze. This reach was below the 

reclamation area and had a fairly stable channel until the flood of 2003, when a large sand bar 

was deposited at the gage.

GAGE

 Nome Creek at the Maze Surveys

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1989

1998

2002

Bankfull

Elevation (ft)

Distance (ft)

Nome Creek at the Maze Surveys

26
Table A-12. Discharge measurement summary for Nome Creek at the Maze

Date

Stage 

(ft)

Discharge

(cfs)

Width 

(ft)

Area 

(sq ft)

Velocity 

(fps)

Avg. Depth 

(ft)

6/13/89 0.95 40 21 16 2.5 0.8

6/25/89* 3.22 504 47 85 5.9 1.8

6/27/89 1.10 54 24 20 2.7 0.8

7/12/90 1.42 91 31 29 3.1 0.9

8/19/91 1.95 174 34 63 2.8 1.9

7/22/93 0.80 28 24 11 2.5 0.5

6/23/94 2.10 187 36 63 3.0 1.8

9/27/94 0.69 23 20 27 0.9 1.4

8/7/95 1.15 64 31 30 2.1 1.0

7/16/96 0.91 40 22 18 2.2 0.8

7/25/96 0.75 14 19 16 0.9 0.8

8/27/97 1.04 34 20 18 1.9 0.9

6/5/98 1.09 29 21 23 1.3 1.1

8/17/98* 3.48 631 43 121 5.2 2.8

9/3/98 1.25 58 26 24 2.4 0.9

8/8/99 1.74 145 36 42 3.5 1.2

8/11/00 1.49 90 26 26 3.5 1.0

8/14/00* 5.45 990 59 228 4.3 3.9

7/31/01 1.47 54 35 30 1.8 0.9

8/8/01 1.40 28 26 17 1.6 0.7

7/31/02* 4.89 760 61 150 5.1 2.5

10/4/02 1.59 32 19 13 2.5 0.7

7/18/03 2.48 63 22 19 3.3 0.9

7/29/03* 6.41 1,050 64 216 4.9 3.4

6/01/04* 4.36 358 53 96 3.7 1.8

10/13/04 2.02 12 26 11 1.1 0.4

7/02/05* 4.77 507 56 118 4.3 2.1

9/21/05 2.64 34 22 19 1.8 0.9

* Slope–area (Manning equation) indirect discharge measurement

27
Table A-13. Annual peak discharge summary for Nome 

Creek at the Maze

Year Discharge Rank

Reccurrance 

Interval (yrs)

1989 504 10 1.9

1990 292 15 1.1

1991 581 8 2.5

1992 604 7 2.7

1993 404 11 1.4

1994 932 3 9.8

1995 729 5 4.3

1996 380 13 1.3

1997 210 17 1.0

1998 631 6 2.9

1999 275 16 1.1

2000 990 2 13

2001 401 12 1.4

2002 760 4 4.8

2003 1,050 1 16

2004 358 14 1.4

2005 507 9 1.9

28
FLOW

Nome Creek above Ophir Creek

Figure A-7. Looking downstream at the data-logger gage reach for Nome Creek above Ophir 

Creek in late spring. The gage was installed in 1999 and gaging continues to the present.

Figure A-8. Cross-sectional surveys for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek. This reach below the 

reclamation area had a fairly stable channel, but silty sediment was often deposited along the 

banks following high water.

 Nome Creek Above Ophir Creek Surveys

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

2001

2004

Bankfull

Elevation (ft)

Distance (ft)

Nome Creek above Ophir Creek

GAGE

29
Table A-14. Discharge measurement summary for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek

Date

Stage

(ft)

Discharge

(cfs)

Width

(ft)

Area

(sq ft)

Velocity

(fps)

Avg. Depth

(ft)

7/14/99 1.60 27 28 28 1.0 1.0

8/8/99 3.71 407 84 131 3.1 1.6

8/11/99 2.81 167 42 64 2.6 1.5

6/27/00 2.19 75 35 36 2.1 1.0

8/1/01 2.54 106 37 46 2.3 1.2

8/8/01 2.25 68 36 37 1.8 1.0

8/23/01 2.74 147 44 54 2.7 1.2

8/30/01 2.72 145 41 52 2.8 1.3

10/1/01 2.18 61 35 32 1.9 0.9

7/30/02 2.83 144 40 48 3.0 1.2

9/30/02 2.86 164 43 54 3.0 1.3

10/4/02 2.49 100 39 40 2.5 1.0

5/23/03 2.47 75 34 32 2.3 0.9

7/18/03 3.27 211 64 89 2.4 1.4

7/29/03 3.94 435 66 130 3.3 2.0

8/5/03 3.64 356 66 119 3.0 1.8

9/16/03 2.9 175 63 79 2.2 1.3

9/23/03 2.47 124 61 62 2.0 1.0

10/2/03 2.42 106 64 62 1.7 1.0

6/1/04 4.01 491 71 161 3.0 2.3

6/9/04 2.29 104 62 55 1.9 0.9

7/9/04 1.77 29 28 20 1.5 0.7

8/9/04 2.07 56 51 35 1.6 0.7

10/5/04 1.91 34 37 74 0.5 2.0

5/24/05 2.65 127 69 74 1.7 1.1

6/1/05 3.68 350 71 134 2.6 1.9

9/8/05 2.57 126 66 68 1.9 1.0

10/6/05 2.43 109 65 59 1.8 0.9

10/18/05 2.40 86 68 48 1.8 0.7

11/1/05 ND 46 47 44 1.0 0.9

ND = Not Determined (backwater from ice)

30
Table A-15. 1999 Mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir 

Creek

Date Discharge Date Discharge Date Discharge

1-Jul 54 1-Aug 71 1-Sep 53

2-Jul 48 2-Aug 77 2-Sep 53

3-Jul 44 3-Aug 85 3-Sep 59

4-Jul 41 4-Aug 71 4-Sep 137

5-Jul 39 5-Aug 62 5-Sep 114

6-Jul 37 6-Aug 57 6-Sep 97

7-Jul 36 7-Aug 101 7-Sep 86

8-Jul 34 8-Aug 586 8-Sep 78

9-Jul 34 9-Aug 513 9-Sep 73

10-Jul 33 10-Aug 565 10-Sep 73

11-Jul 32 11-Aug 254 11-Sep 69

12-Jul 31 12-Aug 170 12-Sep 65

13-Jul 34 13-Aug 259 13-Sep 65

14-Jul 35 14-Aug 243 14-Sep 105

15-Jul 27 15-Aug 162 15-Sep 111

16-Jul 32 16-Aug 127 16-Sep 98

17-Jul 42 17-Aug 106 17-Sep 91

18-Jul 58 18-Aug 95 18-Sep 65

19-Jul 63 19-Aug 87 19-Sep 64

20-Jul 59 20-Aug 80 20-Sep 62

21-Jul 55 21-Aug 74 21-Sep 60

22-Jul 56 22-Aug 70 22-Sep 58

23-Jul 122 23-Aug 68 23-Sep 57

24-Jul 96 24-Aug 72 24-Sep 56

25-Jul 86 25-Aug 70 25-Sep 57

26-Jul 105 26-Aug 65 26-Sep 63

27-Jul 267 27-Aug 62 27-Sep 69

28-Jul 166 28-Aug 60 28-Sep 69

29-Jul 122 29-Aug 58 29-Sep 68

30-Jul 100 30-Aug 56 30-Sep 67

31-Jul 84 31-Aug 54

Mean

Discharge 67 MeanDischarge 144 MeanDischarge 75

Max.

Discharge 267 Max.Discharge 586 Max.Discharge 137

Min.

Discharge 27 Min.Discharge 54 Min.Discharge 53

Runoff

(cfsm) 0.73 Runoff (cfsm) 1.59 Runoff (cfsm) 0.82

Runoff (in) 0.83 Runoff (in) 1.80 Runoff (in) 0.93

Peak 

Recorded 4.58 ft PeakDischarge 795 cfs Date 9-Aug

Minimum 

Recorded 1.60 ft Min.Discharge 27 cfs Date 15-Jul

Gage operated July 1–Sept. 17

Estimated period: Sept. 18–30 31
Table A-16. 2000 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek

Date Discharge Date Discharge Date Discharge Date Discharge

1-Jun 191 1-Jul 60 1-Aug 69 1-Sep 70

2-Jun 200 2-Jul 57 2-Aug 65 2-Sep 115

3-Jun 199 3-Jul 57 3-Aug 66 3-Sep 118

4-Jun 201 4-Jul 62 4-Aug 65 4-Sep 100

5-Jun 198 5-Jul 58 5-Aug 66 5-Sep 90

6-Jun 192 6-Jul 57 6-Aug 78 6-Sep 103

7-Jun 186 7-Jul 56 7-Aug 77 7-Sep 120

8-Jun 177 8-Jul 54 8-Aug 74 8-Sep 138

9-Jun 173 9-Jul 53 9-Aug 69 9-Sep 169

10-Jun 181 10-Jul 61 10-Aug 68 10-Sep 134

11-Jun 188 11-Jul 68 11-Aug 108 11-Sep 150

12-Jun 168 12-Jul 305 12-Aug 137 12-Sep 175

13-Jun 150 13-Jul 201 13-Aug 598 13-Sep 181

14-Jun 153 14-Jul 126 14-Aug 640 14-Sep 155

15-Jun 152 15-Jul 107 15-Aug 163 15-Sep 149

16-Jun 178 16-Jul 92 16-Aug 79 16-Sep 129

17-Jun 181 17-Jul 91 17-Aug 55 17-Sep 124

18-Jun 150 18-Jul 113 18-Aug 111 18-Sep 105

19-Jun 131 19-Jul 101 19-Aug 229 19-Sep 111

20-Jun 121 20-Jul 87 20-Aug 140 20-Sep 112

21-Jun 116 21-Jul 82 21-Aug 99 21-Sep 118

22-Jun 109 22-Jul 79 22-Aug 110 22-Sep 271

23-Jun 103 23-Jul 75 23-Aug 186 23-Sep 420

24-Jun 99 24-Jul 73 24-Aug 143 24-Sep 339

25-Jun 93 25-Jul 73 25-Aug 116 25-Sep 293

26-Jun 88 26-Jul 67 26-Aug 134 26-Sep 266

27-Jun 79 27-Jul 67 27-Aug 104 27-Sep 224

28-Jun 72 28-Jul 69 28-Aug 90 28-Sep 181

29-Jun 64 29-Jul 71 29-Aug 79 29-Sep 169

30-Jun 63 30-Jul 69 30-Aug 78 30-Sep 148

31-Jul 70 31-Aug 77

Mean 

Discharge 146 Mean Discharge 86 Mean Discharge 135 Mean Discharge 166

Max. 

Discharge 205 Max. Discharge 305 Max. Discharge 640 Max. Discharge 420

Min.

Discharge 63 Min.Discharge 53 Min.Discharge 55 Min.Discharge 70

Runoff 

(cfsm) 1.60 Runoff (cfsm) 0.94 Runoff (cfsm) 1.48 Runoff (cfsm) 1.82

Runoff (in) 1.81 Runoff (in) 1.07 Runoff (in) 1.67 Runoff (in) 2.06

Peak 

Recorded 5.07 ft Discharge 1,100 Date 14-Aug

Min. 

Recorded 1.89 ft Discharge 47 Date 5-Aug

Gage operated June 27–Sep 29

Estimated period: Jun 1–26, Sep 30

32
Table A-17. 2001 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek

Date Discharge Date Discharge Date Discharge Date Discharge

1-Jun 124 1-Jul 123 1-Aug 104 1-Sep 172

2-Jun 135 2-Jul 180 2-Aug 90 2-Sep 152

3-Jun 151 3-Jul 265 3-Aug 83 3-Sep 138

4-Jun 167 4-Jul 143 4-Aug 85 4-Sep 130

5-Jun 154 5-Jul 189 5-Aug 82 5-Sep 133

6-Jun 184 6-Jul 313 6-Aug 75 6-Sep 136

7-Jun 179 7-Jul 312 7-Aug 70 7-Sep 128

8-Jun 228 8-Jul 193 8-Aug 65 8-Sep 122

9-Jun 281 9-Jul 153 9-Aug 62 9-Sep 115

10-Jun 197 10-Jul 131 10-Aug 80 10-Sep 109

11-Jun 155 11-Jul 121 11-Aug 111 11-Sep 103

12-Jun 137 12-Jul 104 12-Aug 278 12-Sep 100

13-Jun 128 13-Jul 90 13-Aug 307 13-Sep 97

14-Jun 209 14-Jul 200 14-Aug 326 14-Sep 93

15-Jun 152 15-Jul 359 15-Aug 681 15-Sep 89

16-Jun 116 16-Jul 190 16-Aug 581 16-Sep 84

17-Jun 96 17-Jul 122 17-Aug 463 17-Sep 81

18-Jun 84 18-Jul 101 18-Aug 313 18-Sep 79

19-Jun 77 19-Jul 85 19-Aug 268 19-Sep 77

20-Jun 84 20-Jul 75 20-Aug 225 20-Sep 75

21-Jun 71 21-Jul 69 21-Aug 188 21-Sep 75

22-Jun 61 22-Jul 67 22-Aug 165 22-Sep 73

23-Jun 55 23-Jul 74 23-Aug 152 23-Sep 72

24-Jun 50 24-Jul 68 24-Aug 184 24-Sep 71

25-Jun 45 25-Jul 66 25-Aug 265 25-Sep 68

26-Jun 42 26-Jul 66 26-Aug 246 26-Sep 67

27-Jun 41 27-Jul 63 27-Aug 198 27-Sep 66

28-Jun 42 28-Jul 77 28-Aug 176 28-Sep 65

29-Jun 39 29-Jul 220 29-Aug 156 29-Sep 62

30-Jun 57 30-Jul 191 30-Aug 143 30-Sep 61

31-Jul 129 31-Aug 151

Mean 

Discharge 118 Mean Discharge 146 Mean Discharge 206 Mean Discharge 96

Max. 

Discharge 281 Max. Discharge 359 Max. Discharge 681 Max. Discharge 172

Min.

Discharege 39 Min.Discharge 63 Min.Discharge 62 Min.Discharge 61

Runoff 

(cfsm) 1.30 Runoff (cfsm) 1.61 Runoff (cfsm) 2.26 Runoff (cfsm) 1.06

Runoff (in) 1.47 Runoff (in) 1.82 Runoff (in) 2.56 Runoff (in) 1.20

Peak 

Recorded 4.57 ft PeakDischarge 778 cfs Date 15-Aug

Min. 

Recorded 1.92 ft Min.Discharge 37 cfs Date 29-Jun

Gage operated June 14–Sep 30

Estimated period: June 1–13

33
Table A-18. 2002 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek

Date Discharge Date Discharge Date Discharge Date Discharge

1-Jun 95 1-Jul 72 1-Aug 97 1-Sep 116

2-Jun 122 2-Jul 79 2-Aug 85 2-Sep 120

3-Jun 166 3-Jul 744 3-Aug 77 3-Sep 110

4-Jun 246 4-Jul 1,124 4-Aug 71 4-Sep 104

5-Jun 216 5-Jul 392 5-Aug 66 5-Sep 101

6-Jun 216 6-Jul 366 6-Aug 63 6-Sep 271

7-Jun 173 7-Jul 334 7-Aug 60 7-Sep 214

8-Jun 149 8-Jul 225 8-Aug 61 8-Sep 164

9-Jun 134 9-Jul 157 9-Aug 61 9-Sep 137

10-Jun 119 10-Jul 123 10-Aug 68 10-Sep 120

11-Jun 119 11-Jul 100 11-Aug 71 11-Sep 120

12-Jun 284 12-Jul 95 12-Aug 81 12-Sep 111

13-Jun 524 13-Jul 234 13-Aug 96 13-Sep 104

14-Jun 458 14-Jul 137 14-Aug 106 14-Sep 98

15-Jun 318 15-Jul 103 15-Aug 93 15-Sep 93

16-Jun 199 16-Jul 87 16-Aug 255 16-Sep 89

17-Jun 149 17-Jul 78 17-Aug 1,105 17-Sep 86

18-Jun 121 18-Jul 73 18-Aug 740 18-Sep 94

19-Jun 102 19-Jul 182 19-Aug 861 19-Sep 91

20-Jun 96 20-Jul 150 20-Aug 496 20-Sep 91

21-Jun 101 21-Jul 116 21-Aug 281 21-Sep 88

22-Jun 98 22-Jul 103 22-Aug 231 22-Sep 82

23-Jun 94 23-Jul 86 23-Aug 208 23-Sep 78

24-Jun 91 24-Jul 78 24-Aug 207 24-Sep 76

25-Jun 91 25-Jul 80 25-Aug 209 25-Sep 79

26-Jun 102 26-Jul 503 26-Aug 177 26-Sep 78

27-Jun 101 27-Jul 476 27-Aug 152 27-Sep 102

28-Jun 90 28-Jul 415 28-Aug 135 28-Sep 106

29-Jun 82 29-Jul 242 29-Aug 123 29-Sep 141

30-Jun 76 30-Jul 156 30-Aug 113 30-Sep 161

31-Jul 118 31-Aug 109

Mean 

Discharge 164 Mean Discharge 233 Mean Discharge 212 Mean Discharge 114

Max. 

Discharge 524 Max. Discharge 1,124 Max. Discharge 1,105 Max. Discharge 271

Min. 

Discharge 76 Min.Discharge 72 Min.Discharge 60 Min.Discharge 76

Runoff 

(cfsm) 1.81 Runoff (cfsm) 2.56 Runoff (cfsm) 2.33 Runoff (cfsm) 1.25

Runoff (in) 2.04 Runoff (in) 2.90 Runoff (in) 2.63 Runoff (in) 1.42

Peak 

Recorded 6.02 ft PeakDischarge 1,956 cfs Date 5-Jul

Min. 

Recorded 2.12 ft Min.Discharge 59 cfs Date 2-Jul

Gage operated Jun 4–Sep 30

Estimated period: Jun 1–3

34
Table A-19. 2003 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek

Date Disch. Date Disch. Date Disch. Date Disch. Date Disch. Date Disch.

1-May 188 1-Jun 180 1-Jul 49 1-Aug 565 1-Sep 538 1-Oct 107

2-May 142 2-Jun 180 2-Jul 47 2-Aug 374 2-Sep 850 2-Oct 104

3-May 119 3-Jun 165 3-Jul 58 3-Aug 383 3-Sep 620 3-Oct 100

4-May 103 4-Jun 156 4-Jul 74 4-Aug 445 4-Sep 488 4-Oct 98

5-May 87 5-Jun 134 5-Jul 61 5-Aug 357 5-Sep 397 5-Oct 98

6-May 79 6-Jun 245 6-Jul 59 6-Aug 302 6-Sep 345 6-Oct 97

7-May 76 7-Jun 606 7-Jul 182 7-Aug 244 7-Sep 300 7-Oct 96

8-May 76 8-Jun 357 8-Jul 121 8-Aug 203 8-Sep 265 8-Oct 94

9-May 76 9-Jun 189 9-Jul 83 9-Aug 176 9-Sep 237 9-Oct 93

10-May 88 10-Jun 139 10-Jul 70 10-Aug 161 10-Sep 218 10-Oct 91

11-May 129 11-Jun 122 11-Jul 72 11-Aug 153 11-Sep 309 11-Oct 89

12-May 145 12-Jun 101 12-Jul 70 12-Aug 152 12-Sep 418 12-Oct 87

13-May 156 13-Jun 77 13-Jul 63 13-Aug 147 13-Sep 281 13-Oct 85

14-May 169 14-Jun 66 14-Jul 93 14-Aug 139 14-Sep 224 14-Oct 80

15-May 141 15-Jun 59 15-Jul 410 15-Aug 130 15-Sep 196 15-Oct 78

16-May 121 16-Jun 58 16-Jul 646 16-Aug 127 16-Sep 183 16-Oct 72

17-May 107 17-Jun 59 17-Jul 398 17-Aug 121 17-Sep 167 17-Oct 65

18-May 91 18-Jun 57 18-Jul 245 18-Aug 118 18-Sep 155 18-Oct 61

19-May 84 19-Jun 55 19-Jul 141 19-Aug 111 19-Sep 154 19-Oct 57

20-May 81 20-Jun 50 20-Jul 105 20-Aug 107 20-Sep 143 20-Oct 52

21-May 82 21-Jun 46 21-Jul 86 21-Aug 103 21-Sep 139 21-Oct 50

22-May 82 22-Jun 44 22-Jul 74 22-Aug 101 22-Sep 129 22-Oct 48

23-May 91 23-Jun 43 23-Jul 66 23-Aug 107 23-Sep 120 23-Oct 50

24-May 118 24-Jun 43 24-Jul 61 24-Aug 414 24-Sep 113 24-Oct 52

25-May 122 25-Jun 53 25-Jul 58 25-Aug 487 25-Sep 110 25-Oct 55

26-May 122 26-Jun 54 26-Jul 67 26-Aug 319 26-Sep 110 26-Oct 59

27-May 127 27-Jun 51 27-Jul 1,222 27-Aug 241 27-Sep 106 27-Oct 63

28-May 128 28-Jun 52 28-Jul 1,367 28-Aug 202 28-Sep 104 28-Oct 67

29-May 157 29-Jun 55 29-Jul 487 29-Aug 184 29-Sep 105 29-Oct 71

30-May 159 30-Jun 52 30-Jul 321 30-Aug 184 30-Sep 106 30-Oct 69

31-May 150 31-Jul 677 31-Aug 201 31-Oct 67

Mean 

Disch. 117 Mean Disch. 118 Mean Disch. 243 Mean Disch. 228 Mean Disch. 254 Mean Disch. 76

Max. 

Disch. 188 Max. Disch. 606 Max. Disch. 1,367 Max. Disch. 565 Max. Disch. 850 Max. Disch. 107

Min.

Disch. 77 Min.Disch. 43 Min.Disch. 47 Min.Disch. 101 Min.Disch. 104 Min.Disch. 49

Runoff 

(cfsm) 1.28 Runoff (cfsm) 1.30 Runoff (cfsm) 2.67 Runoff (cfsm) 2.50 Runoff (cfsm) 2.79 Runoff (cfsm) 0.84

Runoff 

(in) 1.45 Runoff (in) 1.47 Runoff (in) 3.02 Runoff (in) 2.83 Runoff (in) 3.16 Runoff (in) 0.96

Peak 

Rec. 7.43 ft Peak Disch. 2,600

 cfs Date 27-Jul

Min. 

Rec. 2.06 ft Min. Disch. 41 cfs Date 24-Jun

Gage operated May 23–Oct 2.

Estimated period: May 1–22, Oct 3–31

35
Table A-20. 2004 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek

Date Discharge Date Discharge Date Discharge Date Discharge Date Discharge

1-Jun 385 1-Jul 37 1-Aug 282 1-Sep 53 1-Oct 56

2-Jun 93 2-Jul 38 2-Aug 237 2-Sep 76 2-Oct 49

3-Jun 79 3-Jul 39 3-Aug 146 3-Sep 77 3-Oct 44

4-Jun 68 4-Jul 39 4-Aug 112 4-Sep 70 4-Oct 39

5-Jun 60 5-Jul 39 5-Aug 92 5-Sep 64 5-Oct 34

6-Jun 58 6-Jul 41 6-Aug 80 6-Sep 59 6-Oct 33

7-Jun 78 7-Jul 40 7-Aug 73 7-Sep 56 7-Oct 33

8-Jun 66 8-Jul 38 8-Aug 68 8-Sep 56 8-Oct 32

9-Jun 57 9-Jul 38 9-Aug 64 9-Sep 54 9-Oct 32

10-Jun 51 10-Jul 39 10-Aug 63 10-Sep 53 10-Oct 31

11-Jun 48 11-Jul 38 11-Aug 62 11-Sep 52 11-Oct 31

12-Jun 45 12-Jul 37 12-Aug 64 12-Sep 50 12-Oct 30

13-Jun 44 13-Jul 36 13-Aug 62 13-Sep 49 13-Oct 30

14-Jun 42 14-Jul 36 14-Aug 61 14-Sep 48 14-Oct 29

15-Jun 43 15-Jul 36 15-Aug 61 15-Sep 47 15-Oct 29

16-Jun 42 16-Jul 37 16-Aug 60 16-Sep 45 16-Oct 28

17-Jun 41 17-Jul 36 17-Aug 60 17-Sep 44 17-Oct 28

18-Jun 40 18-Jul 35 18-Aug 61 18-Sep 43 18-Oct 27

19-Jun 40 19-Jul 35 19-Aug 60 19-Sep 43 19-Oct 27

20-Jun 39 20-Jul 38 20-Aug 60 20-Sep 44 20-Oct 26

21-Jun 39 21-Jul 40 21-Aug 60 21-Sep 49 21-Oct 26

22-Jun 38 22-Jul 39 22-Aug 61 22-Sep 47 22-Oct 25

23-Jun 37 23-Jul 44 23-Aug 61 23-Sep 48 23-Oct 25

24-Jun 38 24-Jul 64 24-Aug 60 24-Sep 47 24-Oct 24

25-Jun 39 25-Jul 61 25-Aug 59 25-Sep 45 25-Oct 24

26-Jun 39 26-Jul 66 26-Aug 57 26-Sep 46 26-Oct 23

27-Jun 39 27-Jul 56 27-Aug 57 27-Sep 55 27-Oct 23

28-Jun 41 28-Jul 50 28-Aug 56 28-Sep 50 28-Oct 22

29-Jun 40 29-Jul 48 29-Aug 55 29-Sep 46 29-Oct 22

30-Jun 38 30-Jul 81 30-Aug 54 30-Sep 48 30-Oct 21

31-Jul 175 31-Aug 53 31-Oct 21

Mean 

Discharge 60 Mean Discharge 48 Mean Discharge 79 Mean Discharge 52 Mean Discharge 30

Max. 

Discharge 385 Max. Discharge 175 Max. Discharge 282 Max. Discharge 77 Max. Discharge 56

Min.

Discharge 37 Min.Discharge 35 Min.Discharge 53 Min.Discharge 43 Min.Discharge 21

Runoff 

(cfsm) 0.66 Runoff (cfsm) 0.52 Runoff (cfsm) 0.87 Runoff (cfsm) 0.57 Runoff (cfsm) 0.33

Runoff 

(in) 0.75 Runoff (in) 0.59 Runoff (in) 0.99 Runoff (in) 0.65 Runoff (in) 0.38

Peak 

Recorded 4.05 ft PeakDischarge 504 cfs Date 1-Jun

Min. 

Recorded 1.71 ft Min.Discharge 34 cfs Date 19-Jul

Discharge 781 cfs Date 31-May (Annual Peak determined from floodmarks)

Gage operated June 1–Oct 5 / Ice Effect: Oct 3–5. Estimated period: Oct 3–31

 36
Table A-21. 2005 mean daily discharge (cfs) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek

Date Disch. Date Disch. Date Disch. Date Disch. Date Disch. Date Disch. Date Disch.

1-May 231 1-Jun 373 1-Jul 716 1-Aug 135 1-Sep 126 1-Oct 138 1-Nov 46

2-May 223 2-Jun 486 2-Jul 1,048 2-Aug 142 2-Sep 110 2-Oct 130 2-Nov 45

3-May 218 3-Jun 277 3-Jul 715 3-Aug 141 3-Sep 104 3-Oct 123 3-Nov 44

4-May 211 4-Jun 237 4-Jul 398 4-Aug 135 4-Sep 103 4-Oct 113 4-Nov 43

5-May 198 5-Jun 213 5-Jul 358 5-Aug 145 5-Sep 101 5-Oct 108 5-Nov 42

6-May 184 6-Jun 175 6-Jul 267 6-Aug 156 6-Sep 97 6-Oct 106 6-Nov 41

7-May 174 7-Jun 154 7-Jul 308 7-Aug 149 7-Sep 96 7-Oct 103 7-Nov 40

8-May 175 8-Jun 142 8-Jul 293 8-Aug 140 8-Sep 122 8-Oct 98 8-Nov 39

9-May 195 9-Jun 135 9-Jul 300 9-Aug 134 9-Sep 117 9-Oct 93 9-Nov 38

10-May 231 10-Jun 130 10-Jul 402 10-Aug 129 10-Sep 118 10-Oct 93 10-Nov 37

11-May 231 11-Jun 127 11-Jul 346 11-Aug 124 11-Sep 114 11-Oct 92 11-Nov 36

12-May 211 12-Jun 140 12-Jul 286 12-Aug 118 12-Sep 106 12-Oct 91 12-Nov 35

13-May 193 13-Jun 143 13-Jul 276 13-Aug 116 13-Sep 103 13-Oct 90 13-Nov 34

14-May 205 14-Jun 132 14-Jul 250 14-Aug 113 14-Sep 104 14-Oct 90 14-Nov 33

15-May 206 15-Jun 125 15-Jul 223 15-Aug 108 15-Sep 103 15-Oct 89 15-Nov 32

16-May 212 16-Jun 120 16-Jul 205 16-Aug 104 16-Sep 101 16-Oct 88 16-Nov 31

17-May 226 17-Jun 202 17-Jul 213 17-Aug 101 17-Sep 96 17-Oct 87 17-Nov 30

18-May 219 18-Jun 162 18-Jul 376 18-Aug 98 18-Sep 96 18-Oct 86 18-Nov 29

19-May 390 19-Jun 146 19-Jul 690 19-Aug 93 19-Sep 93 19-Oct 83 19-Nov 29

20-May 264 20-Jun 159 20-Jul 333 20-Aug 89 20-Sep 91 20-Oct 80 20-Nov 28

21-May 201 21-Jun 145 21-Jul 240 21-Aug 90 21-Sep 100 21-Oct 77 21-Nov 27

22-May 167 22-Jun 133 22-Jul 203 22-Aug 91 22-Sep 113 22-Oct 75 22-Nov 26

23-May 143 23-Jun 130 23-Jul 180 23-Aug 89 23-Sep 160 23-Oct 72 23-Nov 26

24-May 134 24-Jun 116 24-Jul 167 24-Aug 93 24-Sep 261 24-Oct 69 24-Nov 25

25-May 131 25-Jun 120 25-Jul 154 25-Aug 108 25-Sep 364 25-Oct 66 25-Nov 24

26-May 128 26-Jun 121 26-Jul 148 26-Aug 95 26-Sep 340 26-Oct 63 26-Nov 23

27-May 128 27-Jun 111 27-Jul 143 27-Aug 107 27-Sep 270 27-Oct 60 27-Nov 23

28-May 134 28-Jun 105 28-Jul 137 28-Aug 115 28-Sep 203 28-Oct 57 28-Nov 22

29-May 127 29-Jun 99 29-Jul 130 29-Aug 117 29-Sep 166 29-Oct 55 29-Nov 21

30-May 127 30-Jun 97 30-Jul 129 30-Aug 122 30-Sep 148 30-Oct 52 30-Nov 20

31-May 125 31-Jul 131 31-Aug 122 31-Oct 49

Mean 

Disch. 192 Mean Disch. 165 Mean Disch. 315 Mean Disch. 117 Mean Disch. 141 Mean Disch. 86 Mean Disch. 32

Max. 

Disch. 388 Max. Disch. 486 Max. Disch. 1,048 Max. Disch. 156 Max. Disch. 364 Max. Disch. 138 Max. Disch. 46

Min.

Disch. 125 Min.Disch. 97 Min.Disch. 129 Min.Disch. 89 Min.Disch. 91 Min.Disch. 49 Min.Disch. 20

Runoff 

(cfsm) 2.11 Runoff (cfsm) 1.81 Runoff (cfsm) 3.46 Runoff (cfsm) 1.28 Runoff (cfsm) 1.55 Runoff (cfsm) 1.02 Runoff (cfsm) 1.02

Runoff 

(in) 2.39 Runoff (in) 2.05 Runoff (in) 3.92 Runoff (in) 1.45 Runoff (in) 1.75 Runoff (in) 1.15 Runoff (in) 1.15

Peak 

Recorded 6.3 ft PeakDisch. 1,697 cfs Date 2-Jul

Min. 

Recorded 2.28 ft Min.Disch. 86 cfs Date 20-Aug

Gage operated: May 24–Oct 9. 

Estimated period: May 1–23, Oct 10–Nov 30.

37
Moose Creek above the Nome Creek Road

Figure A-9. Looking downstream at the crest-stage gage reach for Moose Creek above the Nome 

Creek Road. The gage reach was selected and surveys were begun in 1996. Gaging continues to 

the present. The hydrologist is marking the cork line for measurement on the gage stick.

Figure A-10. Cross-sectional surveys for Moose Creek above the Nome Creek Road. This reach, 

which is upstream of any mining, had a fairly stable channel until high-water events in 2000 and 

2003. This could be due to forest fires that occurred in the basin during the early 1990s. These 

fires likely initiated thermokarst erosion in the headwaters. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

1998

2001

2005

Elevation (ft)

Bankfull

Distance (ft)

Moose Creek above the Nome Creek Road

GAGE

38
Table A-22. Discharge measurement summary for Moose Creek

Date

Stage 

(ft)

Discharge

(cfs)

Width

(ft)

Area

(sq ft)

Velocity

(fps)

Avg.Depth

 (ft)

6/14/1995 ND* 10 12 5.4 1.9 0.5

8/8/1995 ND* 13 16 14 0.9 0.9

8/28/1995 ND* 22 20 12 1.8 0.6

8/29/1996 2.0 11 18 7.3 1.5 0.4

8/28/1997 2.0 11 20 7.3 1.5 0.4

7/21/1998 2.0 11 20 8.4 1.3 0.4

8/13/1998 2.52 28 19 17 1.6 0.9

8/17/1998 3.22 103 21 32 3.2 1.5

8/8/1999 2.70 55 21 25 2.2 1.2

7/31/2001 1.61 16 18 14 1.1 0.8

7/15/2003 2.11 58 23 23 2.5 1.0

6/1/2005 2.55 97 22 29 3.3 1.3

9/22/2005 2.24 16 13 10 1.6 0.8

ND* = Not Determined (measurement at different site downstream of current gage)

Table A-23. Annual peak discharge and recurrence interval for 

Moose Creek floods

Date

Stage

(ft)

Discharge

(cfs) Rank

Recurrence

Interval (yrs)

1996 2.95 87 9 1.2

1997 2.97 96 8 1.2

1998 3.55 190 4 2.9

1999 3.30 140 5 1.8

2000 4.20 360 1 15

2001 2.85 131 7 1.6

2002 2.35 79 10 1.1

2003 3.73 274 3 6.7

2004 2.88 135 6 1.7

2005 4.13 300 2 8.5

39
Table B-1. Monthly rainfall (inches) at Nome Creek above 

Sumner Creek CSG site

Year June July Aug Sep Summer

1998 1.4 1.4 4.9 0.9 8.5

1999 1.5 3.2 4.2 1.6 10.3

2000 1.5 2.2 7.4 2.0 13.0

2001 1.3 4.7 3.8 0.7 10.5

2002 0.8 5 4.3 2.4 12.5

2003 1.5 7.6 5.6 1.3 15.9

2004 0.2 1.2 2.9 1.0 5.2

2005 2.0 5.5 2.1 2.3 11.8

Averages 1.3 3.8 4.4 1.5 11.0

Partial months estimated from Fairbanks Weather Bureau data 

Appendix B. Rainfall Data for Nome Creek

40
Table B-2. 2004 precipitation summary (inches) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek rain gauge

Date Precipitation Date Precipitation Date Precipitation Date Precipitation

1-Jun 0 1-Jul 0 1-Aug 0.39 1-Sep 0.12

2-Jun 0 2-Jul 0 2-Aug 0 2-Sep 0.11

3-Jun 0 3-Jul 0 3-Aug 0 3-Sep 0

4-Jun 0 4-Jul 0 4-Aug 0 4-Sep 0

5-Jun 0 5-Jul 0.06 5-Aug 0 5-Sep 0

6-Jun 0 6-Jul 0.1 6-Aug 0 6-Sep 0.01

7-Jun 0 7-Jul 0 7-Aug 0 7-Sep 0

8-Jun 0.01 8-Jul 0 8-Aug 0 8-Sep 0

9-Jun 0.04 9-Jul 0.02 9-Aug 0 9-Sep 0

10-Jun 0 10-Jul 0.05 10-Aug 0 10-Sep 0

11-Jun 0 11-Jul 0 11-Aug 0 11-Sep 0

12-Jun 0 12-Jul 0 12-Aug 0 12-Sep 0

13-Jun 0.07 13-Jul 0 13-Aug 0 13-Sep 0

14-Jun 0.12 14-Jul 0 14-Aug 0 14-Sep 0

15-Jun 0.03 15-Jul 0 15-Aug 0 15-Sep 0

16-Jun 0 16-Jul 0 16-Aug 0 16-Sep 0

17-Jun 0 17-Jul 0 17-Aug 0 17-Sep 0

18-Jun 0 18-Jul 0 18-Aug 0 18-Sep 0

19-Jun 0 19-Jul 0 19-Aug 0 19-Sep 0

20-Jun 0 20-Jul 0 20-Aug 0 20-Sep 0.1

21-Jun 0 21-Jul 0.01 21-Aug 0 21-Sep 0.09

22-Jun 0 22-Jul 0.02 22-Aug 0 22-Sep 0

23-Jun 0 23-Jul 0.35 23-Aug 0 23-Sep 0.09

24-Jun 0 24-Jul 0 24-Aug 0 24-Sep 0

25-Jun 0 25-Jul 0.02 25-Aug 0 25-Sep 0

26-Jun 0.06 26-Jul 0 26-Aug 0 26-Sep 0.27

27-Jun 0 27-Jul 0 27-Aug 0 27-Sep 0

28-Jun 0 28-Jul 0 28-Aug 0 28-Sep 0

29-Jun 0 29-Jul 0.19 29-Aug 0 29-Sep 0

30-Jun 0 30-Jul 0.41 30-Aug 0 30-Sep 0

31-Jul 0.18 31-Aug 0

Monthly 0.33 Monthly 1.41 Monthly 0.39 Monthly 0.79

Total Precip. 2.92

41
Table B-3. 2005 precipitation summary (inches) for Nome Creek above Ophir Creek rain gauge

Date Precipitation Date Precipitation Date Precipitation Date Precipitation

1-Jun 0.01 1-Jul 0.71 1-Aug 0.11 1-Sep 0

2-Jun 0.03 2-Jul 0.21 2-Aug 0.08 2-Sep 0

3-Jun 0.29 3-Jul 0 3-Aug 0 3-Sep 0.02

4-Jun 0.11 4-Jul 0.21 4-Aug 0.01 4-Sep 0.06

5-Jun 0 5-Jul 0.02 5-Aug 0.01 5-Sep 0.02

6-Jun 0 6-Jul 0.2 6-Aug 0.28 6-Sep 0.01

7-Jun 0 7-Jul 0.27 7-Aug 0 7-Sep 0.16

8-Jun 0 8-Jul 0.04 8-Aug 0 8-Sep 0

9-Jun 0 9-Jul 0.33 9-Aug 0 9-Sep 0.01

10-Jun 0 10-Jul 0.10 10-Aug 0 10-Sep 0.03

11-Jun 0.04 11-Jul 0.03 11-Aug 0 11-Sep 0

12-Jun 0.26 12-Jul 0.03 12-Aug 0 12-Sep 0.01

13-Jun 0 13-Jul 0.11 13-Aug 0 13-Sep 0

14-Jun 0 14-Jul 0 14-Aug 0 14-Sep 0.05

15-Jun 0 15-Jul 0 15-Aug 0 15-Sep 0

16-Jun 0.41 16-Jul 0.04 16-Aug 0 16-Sep 0

17-Jun 0.05 17-Jul 0.11 17-Aug 0 17-Sep 0.01

18-Jun 0 18-Jul 0.35 18-Aug 0 18-Sep 0.05

19-Jun 0.26 19-Jul 0 19-Aug 0 19-Sep 0

20-Jun 0.02 20-Jul 0 20-Aug 0 20-Sep 0.12

21-Jun 0 21-Jul 0 21-Aug 0 21-Sep 0.01

22-Jun 0.17 22-Jul 0 22-Aug 0.01 22-Sep 0.14

23-Jun 0 23-Jul 0 23-Aug 0 23-Sep 0.23

24-Jun 0 24-Jul 0 24-Aug 0.18 24-Sep 0.26

25-Jun 0.12 25-Jul 0 25-Aug 0 25-Sep 0.18

26-Jun 0 26-Jul 0 26-Aug 0 26-Sep 0.12

27-Jun 0 27-Jul 0 27-Aug 0.11 27-Sep 0.01

28-Jun 0 28-Jul 0 28-Aug 0 28-Sep 0

29-Jun 0 29-Jul 0.01 29-Aug 0.17 29-Sep 0

30-Jun 0 30-Jul 0 30-Aug 0.15 30-Sep 0.01

0.71 31-Jul 0.09 31-Aug 0.12

Monthly 2.48 Monthly 2.86 Monthly 1.23 Monthly 1.51

Total Precip. 8.08

 

42
Appendix C. Nome Creek Reclamation Project—Revegetation 

Report

Brian A Bogaczyk, Steese-White Mountains District Botanist

13 January 1994

Introduction

Nome Creek is a tributary of Beaver Creek National 

Wild and Scenic River, located in BLM’s White Mountains National Recreation Area (WMNRA). Upper 

portions of Nome Creek were illegally mined in the 

early 1980s, and abandoned in an unreclaimed state. 

Because of its proximity to Beaver Creek’s Wild and 

Scenic River Corridor, its accessibility, and plans to 

develop the site as a campground/boat launch, BLM’s 

Steese/White Mountains District (SWMD) [now the 

Eastern Interior Field Office] has been attempting to 

reclaim parts of the valley that are no longer open to 

mineral entry. During 1991 and 1992 SWMD’s Soil, 

Water and Air Program let heavy equipment contracts 

for consolidating and reconfiguring the stream channel 

and recontouring tailings piles in upper Nome Creek 

(above Pavey’s claim).

In 1992, SWMD Fisheries organized willow cutting 

and planting into reclaimed areas along the creek. 

Approximately 2000 cuttings were placed in the gravel 

on 28 June 1992. In 1993, the SWMD hydrologist and 

botanist organized willow cutting and planting into 

areas recontoured in 1992. In addition, grasses were 

seeded in 3.0 acres of recontoured terrain.

Methods

Preparatory to the 1992 willow planting, District 

personnel harvested dormant felt-leaf willow (Salix

alaxensis) cuttings. Cuttings were obtained in late 

winter (mid-April) before sap began to rise, and were 

approximately 12 inches long, and 2 yrs or older 

growth. Ten BLM employees invested about 6 hours 

(60 work hours) gathering cuttings. The previous 

summer’s growth is not desirable when planting cuttings because the buds are not as likely to be viable as 

buds on older stems. Cuttings were stored in freezers 

until 28 June 1992, when they were taken to the site 

and planted into the gravel using a dibble. Substrate in 

the reclamation area consists of fine to coarse gravel, 

with occasional cobbles and boulders. Much of the 

topsoil has been washed downstream by mining operations, though some areas have ample topsoil integrated 

with the coarse material for colonization by willows 

and forbs. All planting was done into areas that had 

been recontoured in 1991, immediately upstream of 

Pavey’s claim boundary, along the south and north 

banks. Planting areas were selected based on distance 

to groundwater and presence of above-surface seeps. 

Ideally, cuttings were planted so that about 75% of the 

cutting was below ground (about 8”) with 1 to 2 viable 

buds above the surface. Also, 8 to 12 willow cuttings 

were lashed together with twine and anchored into the 

stream bank using large boulders to provide microsites 

protected from flooding and spring ice jams. Two BLM 

employees and about 6 student volunteers invested 

about 6 hours (48 work hours) planting the site.

On 11 June 1993, felt-leaf willow cuttings were 

harvested green, on-site, on the same day as planting. 

Cuttings were approximately 12 inches long and were 

2 yrs or older growth. Planting was done into areas 

recontoured in 1991 and 1992, entirely on the south 

bank, extending from near Pavey’s claim boundary 

upstream to the grass seeding area. Planting sites were 

selected based on wetness of site through the growing 

season. Ideally, sites with seeps and permafrost drains 

were selected. As before, about 75% of the cutting 

was placed below ground, and 1 to 2 viable buds remained above ground. To reduce water loss by evapotranspiration, most of the green leaves were stripped off 

willow cuttings after planting. A crew of three BLM 

employees and nine student volunteers spent about 4 

hours planting the site.

On 24 June 1993, an approximately 3.0-acre area, 

located at the upstream extent of disturbance and south 

of the creek, was seeded with 70% Arctared red fescue (Festuca rubra, $2.43/lb.) 20% Bering hairgrass 

(Deschampsia caespitosa, $13.64/lb.)) and 10% lbs 

annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum, $0.75/lb.). Seed 

was purchased from Alaska Feed in Fairbanks; total 

cost, including mixing and bagging was $940. Fertilizer (50% of 10-20-20 and 50% of 10-10-20) was 

available from a 1988 and 1989 revegetation project 

in SWMD. Fertilizer was broadcast concurrently with 

seeding. Hand broadcasting mills were used to distribute seed and fertilizer. Two BLM employees and two 

volunteers took about 5 hours, or 20 work hours, to 

seed and fertilize the site. 

On 25 August 1993 a transect was established in the 

grass seeding area on a bearing of 046°. Twenty-two 

1 m2 plots were established at 10 m intervals along 

43
the transect. The percent cover of the following were 

estimated: 

• rock (areas with only rock as substrate, therefore 

no growing site available)

• grass

• exposed bare ground (area capable of supporting 

plant growth, but isn’t)

• forbs

• mosses/liverworts

• willow

• exposed rock (rock visible through grasses and 

other vegetation when looking down at plot)

• other plant species

Also on 25 August, six 5 m x 5 m plots in the 1992 

and 1993 willow planting areas, respectively (12 plots 

total) were examined. Within each plot, the number 

of willow cuttings planted, number alive, and number 

of volunteer plants present were quantified. Finally a 

30 m transect on the stream bank was established to 

quantify survival of willow bundles. 

Results and Discussion

In 1992 approximately 2000 cuttings were planted 

upstream of the boundary of Pavey’s claim, on both 

banks of the creek. Most planting was within 200–

300 m of Pavey’s claim boundary. About 24 willow 

bundles were planted and armored into the bank. 

Table C-1 contains survival data, gathered on 25 

August 1993, from six 5 m x 5 m plots randomly located in the 1992 planting areas. Mean survival was 90% 

(n=46); median and mode survival were 100%. Also 

on 25 August 1993, a 30 m transect was established 

to assess survival of willows that had been armored 

into the bank. Nine willow bundles were encountered 

along the transect, and all nine were alive and doing 

well, though it is possible that some were washed out 

and therefore not sampled. Nome Creek experienced 

relatively low flows in the spring of 1993. If there had 

been a large spring flood, these bundles would have 

undoubtedly been washed out. This may yet happen if 

upcoming runoff events are excessive. 

Plot # # Alive # Dead Total % Survival

Volunteer

 Willows

1 4 1 5 80 20

2 11 0 11 100 50

3 3 0 3 100 100

4 4 0 4 100 200

5 5 0 5 100 100

6 10 6 16 62.5 12

Table C-1. Number of cuttings alive, dead, total number, percent survival of 

cuttings and approximate number of volunteer willows, per 5m x 5 m plot in 

1992 willow planting area. Mean survival was 90% (n=46), median and mode 

survival were 100%, st. dev. = 15%.

Plot # # Alive # Dead # Marginal Total % Survival

1 9 1 0 10 90

2 3 0 0 3 100

3 11 0 0 11 100

4 6 3 1 10 60

5 6 0 0 6 100

6 11 2 1 11 73

Table C-2. Number of willow cuttings alive, dead, marginally alive, total number, 

and percent survival of cuttings, per 5m x 5m plot in 1993 willow planting 

area. Mean percent survival was 87% (n=51), median = 95%, mode =100%, 

st. dev.=17%.

44
Though most of the willows planted in 1992 were 

still alive, there was great variation in growth of individual cuttings. Some appeared to be just holding their 

own, most put on 2–3 inches of new leaders, and a few 

had leaders 12 inches or more in length. 

In 1988 and 1989, SWMD fisheries biologist Lou 

Carufel planted several dozen felt-leaf willow cuttings 

on some tailings piles on the north bank of Nome Creek 

near where Quartz Creek Trail ascends the hill. I visited 

these plantings in 1993 and noted their survival and 

growth. It appeared that about half the cuttings were 

still alive, but most were quite small, i.e. less than 3 

ft, and had not developed growth forms comparable to 

willows that have colonized the site naturally. The site 

had been invaded by hundreds of volunteer felt-leaf 

willow, and these individuals were 4–7 ft tall and had 

far more mass. I concluded that given the number and 

vigor of volunteer willows present, planting willows 

appeared to be ineffective in hastening the outcome 

of revegetation at this site. Our study plots in willow 

planting areas on upper Nome Creek (Tables C-1 and 

C-2) contained numerous volunteer willows, forbs 

and grasses. I suspect that by summer 1995 natural 

revegetation processes will have far outstripped the 

willows we planted in 1992 and 1993.

In 1993 approx. 1250 cuttings were planted along the 

stream, on both north and south banks. Planted areas 

extended upstream from 1992 plantings all the way to 

the upper extent of mining disturbance on Nome Creek. 

After 2 years of willow planting (summers of 1992 and 

1993), it appears that all seeps and permafrost drains 

in the reclaimed area have been planted with willows 

at about 2m x 2m spacing (highly variable). Table 

C-2 contains data from six 5m x 5m plots randomly 

located in the 1993 planting areas. Mean survival was 

87% (n=51).

Three acres of grasses were seeded at the upper limit 

of the reclamation area, on the south bank of Nome 

Creek. The intended rate of seeding was 42 lbs/acre, 

but the initial acreage estimate was too high, which 

resulted in a seeding rate of 55 lbs/acre (38.5 lbs 

Arctared red fescue, 11 lbs Bering hairgrass and 5.5 

lbs annual ryegrass /acre). Fertilizer application (50% 

20-20-10 and 50% 20-10-10) was about 400 lbs/acre. 

Seeding and fertilizing rates appeared to be very dense. 

Shortly after seeding, a slow rain shower began and 

lasted for several hours. Germination occurred about 

a week after seeding, and precipitation events were 

frequent and adequate for seedling growth for the rest 

of the summer. Fortuitous precipitation undoubtedly 

aided the success of this seeding as well as the willow planting. An unusually dry summer, and resultant 

moisture stress, would have probably killed the grass 

and willow cuttings before they could develop adequate 

rootstock. In retrospect, the seeding rate was probably 

excessive, and the resultant dense growth of vegetation 

could serve to impede the course of natural revegetation by forming a ground cover that usurps all acceptFigure C-1. Upstream portion of the reclaimed area, showing extensive establishment of 

grass in 1993 on what became known as the “field of dreams.” Most of this grass was dead 

or dying by 1996.

45
able growing sites and moisture. Table C-3 describes 

results of a transect established to quantify composition of the grass seeding area. Data were gathered 

on 25 August, which corresponded with onset of early 

fall. Most deciduous leaves were turning color and 

several light frosts had occurred. 

Figure C-1 shows the upstream portion of the reclamation area, including where grasses were seeded. 

Aerial photography was flown in September 1993, after 

recontouring and stream placement were completed. 

Snow was on the ground, but the stream had not yet 

frozen.

1996 Field Evaluation

by Jim Herriges, Steese-White Mountains Wildlife 

Biologist 

November 1996

Willow Planting

Most planted willows had been lost to flood scouring 

or dirtmoving with heavy equipment. The remainder 

continued to have high survival. Plants from cuttings 

continued to be, on average, larger than plants that had 

Plot # Rock Grass X.B. Gnd. Forbs Moss/Lv Willow X. Rock Other

1 70 40 10 0 0 1 0 0

2 6 90 10 0 10 0 0 0

3 10 80 13 0 2 0 0 0

4 7 91 5 0 1 0 4 0

5 12 65 20 0 6 0 9 0

6 1 85 13 3 5 0 0 1

7 13 80 2 13 10 4 4 0

8 8 90 7 0 25 1 4 1

9 15 60 25 0 5 0 10 0

10 10 98 2 0 5 0 1 1

11 9 95 6 0 4 0 3 0

12 5 90 7 4 20 0 2 3

13 10 85 10 0 25 0 4 1

14 11 50 40 0 1 0 10 1

15 85 10 10 0 0 0 80 0

16 90 7 5 0 0 0 88 0

17 75 20 12 2 0 0 70 0

18 85 20 5 0 0 0 80 0

19 35 80 12 0 7 0 7 0

20 8 90 4 3 15 1 2 0

21 10 85 10 2 12 1 4 0

22 2 90 5 1 12 2 1 0

Mean 26.3 68.2 10.6 1.3 7.5 0.45 17.4 0.36

ST ERR 6.7 6.4 1.8 0.61 1.7 0.20 6.4 0.15

Median 10 82.5 10 0 5 0 4 0

Mode 10 90 10 0 0 0 4 0

ST DEV 31.3 29.9 8.6 2.9 7.9 1.0 30.2 0.73

X.B. Gnd.=exposed bare ground

Moss/Lv=mosses and liverworts

X. Rock=exposed rock

Table C-3. Percent coverage of rock, grass, exposed bare ground, forbs, mosses and liverworts, willow, exposed rock, and 

other in 22 1m2 plots along transect (046 ̊) in grass seeded area, Nome Creek, August 23, 1993.

46
naturally seeded. However, the natural recolonizers 

were much more numerous. Good natural colonization occurred in most areas where willow cuttings 

were planted, which was largely in areas with some 

subsurface moisture. In an especially wet area (site of 

old bypass channel and settling pond), little natural 

colonization was evident, but vigor of planted cuttings 

was also low.

Some benefit from the planted cuttings can be seen 

(e.g., a few have trapped organic debris and some 

fines), but total cover of willows from planted cuttings is probably much lower than that of colonizing 

willows. Cuttings should be planted in a wider variety 

of conditions to determine if there are situations where 

planted cuttings will grow where natural seeding is not 

likely to occur.

Grass Seeding

Jim Sisk assisted in a quick assessment of plant cover 

in the seeded area. Seeded grasses had created a dense, 

tough sod. However, much of the grass was dead or 

dying. Live grass cover (predominantly red fescue 

and Bering hair grass, with small amounts of native 

Calamagrostis (bluejoint) averaged only 15%, while 

dead grass litter averaged 69%. Number and vigor of 

native species was low—there was never more than a 

trace of forb species and willow cover was more than 

1% in only one of 17 plots. It appeared that few plants 

in the planting area had not already been present at the 

time of seeding. 

In contrast, an adjacent area with some limited fines 

and topsoil that had not been seeded or fertilized was 

beginning to have significant grass and willow cover. 

Four 1 m2 plots showed average live grass cover 

(Calamagrostis with some Carex) of 34%, as well 

as 9% willow and 37% rock. The number of plant 

species growing in these plots was higher than in the 

grass-seeded area.

Though no controls were designed into this work, 

these results suggest that, at these levels, grass-seed-

ing and fertilizing can result in vegetative cover that 

will probably be effective in holding soil. However, 

it appears that recolonization of native species was 

significantly hampered. And the thatch of dead grass 

may hamper natural recolonization for some time. This 

may be acceptable in situations where risk of erosion 

of unvegetated topsoil is high. Additional applications of fertilizer might sustain the planted grasses in 

a vigorous state. 

One portion of the seeded area apparently did not 

receive fertilizer. The seeded grasses established there, 

but did not reach the size or density that they did where 

fertilized. This left more space available for natural 

colonization and also apparently resulted in greater 

longevity of the introduced grasses, as the proportion 

of live to dead grass was high.

These results indicate that seeding and fertilizing at 

lower application rates should be tested as a means of 

promoting natural revegetation. Lower rates of seed or 

fertilizer might create a ground surface microclimate 

more suitable for plant growth without usurping all 

available colonization sites.

Fertilizer Trials

To test the hypothesis that fertilization alone will aid 

natural revegetation, Jon Kostohrys, Jim Herriges,

and Evie Weithmann applied fertilizer to two areas 

of respread mine tailings—one with significant respread topsoil and the other with no organic matter 

or topsoil. Dirtwork had been conducted the previous 

summer. The areas were subdivided into strips for 

three treatments: high fertilizer level (approximately 

388 lbs/acre), low fertilizer level (approximately 194 

lbs/acre), and an unseeded control. 

Revegetation of Area Scraped of Topsoil

We also inspected an area at the upper end of Nome 

Creek, which had been only scraped sometime before 

1990. Plant cover was very high, with good diversity 

and good willow growth. In areas where topsoil is not 

available for respreading for reclamation, we might 

want to consider scraping topsoil/organic matter from 

an adjacent un-mined site and spreading it over the 

recontoured area.

47