HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment #3- Yerrick Creek Project EIS
Environmental
Assessment
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
Mile Post 1339, Alaska Hwy
20 Miles West of Tok, Alaska
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
Prepared by:
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Corporate Headquarters
Port Townsend, Washington
April 2010
Author: Glen Martin – Project Manager
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
P.O. Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-1733 x122
(360) 385-7538 fax
glen.m@aptalaska.com
Page | ii
SUMMARY
The USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has selected the Alaska Power & Telephone
Company (AP&T) as a finalist in its High Energy Cost Grant Program to construct the
proposed Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (or Project). The proposed Project would be
located approximately twenty miles west of Tok, Alaska, at Mile Post 1339 on the Alaska
Highway. The proposed Project would supply renewable energy to four communities in
the Tok area: Dot Lake, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Tok. Prior to making an award for a partial
grant, RUS has determined that an Environmental Assessment (EA) must be prepared,
pursuant to 7 CFR Part 1794, RUS’s Environmental Policies and Procedures, as amended.
This EA identifies environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of
the proposed Project. It has been decided that impacts associated with upgrading the
supporting transmission system would be minimal, as the infrastructure already exists and
would only require minor upgrading and the stringing of a higher voltage conductor. All of
this work would occur in previously disturbed rights-of-way that previously have been
cleared of vegetation. The Project would be located on lands owned by the state of Alaska
and Tanacross, Inc.
This proposed Project is needed because the communities of Dot Lake, Tanacross, Tetlin,
and Tok rely on diesel generation for their electricity, which is expensive and fluctuates
frequently. The Project would reduce electric rates to these four communities by
approximately 20%. Several of these communities are on the Denali Commission’s list of
distressed communities 1 as this area is experiencing a significant economic downturn.
Reducing electric rates may help the local economy.
The results of the impact analysis show the project may have the follow environmental
affects:
Temporarily impact wildlife due to noise from construction activity, which may
temporarily impact hunting in the area
Have a minor impact to wetlands, by placing fill in the creek (i.e. diversion
structure, bridge piers (2), part of tailrace)
Have a minor impact to Dolly Varden and Arctic grayling in the bypass section of
Yerrick Creek during winter and late summer months because of low flow
Provide easier access for recreation, potentially disturbing wildlife
Reduce the use of diesel in Tok, which in turn would reduce air emissions of green-
house gases and particulate matter as well as reducing opportunities for fuel spills
1 Dot Lake, Tanacross, and Tetlin are on the 2009 Denali Commission list of distressed communities. Tok
was on the 2008 list.
Page | iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................................iv
LIST OF APPENDICES.......................................................................................................iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................v
1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................3
3 PURPOSE/NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION............................................................5
4 ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................................6
4.1 No Action...............................................................................................................6
4.2 Energy Generation Technologies Considered .......................................................6
4.3 Alternative Locations for siting the hydroelectric facility .....................................7
5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.....................................................................................8
5.1 Land Use................................................................................................................8
5.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties ...........................................................8
5.3 Biological Resources ...........................................................................................10
5.3.1 Fish Resources.............................................................................................10
5.3.2 Wildlife (mammal) Review.........................................................................11
5.3.3 TES botanical survey...................................................................................14
5.4 Water Quality & Quantity.................................................................................... 15
5.4.1 Water Quality...............................................................................................15
5.4.2 Water Quantity.............................................................................................15
5.5 Floodplains/Wetlands ..........................................................................................16
5.6 Environmental Justice..........................................................................................17
5.7 Socioeconomics ...................................................................................................17
6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES..................................................................19
6.1 Alternative 1: No – Action...................................................................................19
6.2 Alternative 2: The Proposed Project....................................................................19
6.2.1 Land Use......................................................................................................19
6.2.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties .................................................20
6.2.3 Biological Resources ...................................................................................20
6.2.4 Water Quality & Quantity............................................................................ 21
6.2.5 Floodplains/Wetlands ..................................................................................21
6.2.6 Environmental Justice..................................................................................22
6.2.7 Socioeconomics ...........................................................................................22
7 MITAGATION AND PERMITS ................................................................................23
8 LITERATURE CITED................................................................................................25
9 APPENDICES.............................................................................................................27
9.1 Agency Correspondence..........................................................................................
9.2 Hydrology Studies ...................................................................................................
9.3 Biological and Other Surveys..................................................................................
9.4 2009 Denali Commission List of Distressed Communities.....................................
Page | iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of Proposed Project Area..............................................................................1
Figure 2: Proposed Project Features.....................................................................................2
Figure 3: Transmission Line Features...................................................................................4
LIST OF APPENDICES
9.1 – Project Correspondence
9.2 – Hydrology / Feasibility Report
9.3 – Biological Surveys
9.3.1 – Fish Resources Report
9.3.2 – Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) Plant Report
9.3.3 – Literature Review and Field Report: Hydrology Baseline Study
9.3.4 – Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
9.3.5 – Heritage Resource Survey
9.4 – 2009 Denali Commission List of Distressed Communities
Page | v
LIST OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
% percent
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish & Game
AKNHP Alaska National Historic Preservation
ALA
APE area of potential effect
AP&T Alaska Power and Telephone
ATV All terrain vehicle
cfs cubic feet per second
CO2 carbon dioxide
DNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
EA Environmental Assessment
HDPE
kV kilovolt
kWh kilowatt-hour
MW megawatt
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
OHW Ordinary high water (mark)
pop. population
ROW right-of-way
RUS Rural Utilities Service
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
TES threatened, endangered, and sensitive (species)
USACOE U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
USGS U.S. Geological Service
Page | 1
1 INTRODUCTION
The USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has selected the Alaska Power & Telephone
Company (AP&T) as a finalist in its High Energy Cost Grant Program to construct the
proposed Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (20 Miles west of Tok, Alaska at Mile Post
1339, Alaska Hwy). The granting of funds by RUS is a federal action subject to
environmental impact review, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and RUS’s NEPA implementing regulations, Environmental Policies and Procedures, 7
CFR Part 1794, as amended. RUS has determined that an Environmental Assessment (EA)
must be prepared for this Project. This EA provides an analysis of potential environmental
impacts, which may result from RUS’s action related to this proposal. RUS Bulletin
1794A-601, “Guide for Preparing an Environmental Report for Electric Projects Requiring
an Environmental Assessment,” was used as guidance in the preparation of this EA. In
addition to fulfilling its obligations under NEPA, this EA also documents RUS’s
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, and other applicable environmental laws and regulations.
Figure 1: Map of Proposed Project Area
Page | 2
Figure 2: Proposed Project Features
Page | 3
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AP&T plans to construct a 1.5 megawatt (MW) “run-of river” hydroelectric facility that
would supply renewable energy to the communities of Tok, Tetlin, Tanacross, and Dot
Lake, Alaska. The facility could potentially supply 100% of the communities' energy
demand during high flow periods (typically June and July). During the remainder of the
year, only part of the load would be met. AP&T’s hydrology studies indicate there will be
sufficient flow during the extremely cold winter month for the Project to operate, although
at substantially reduced output. While not getting these communities completely off of
diesel generation year round, the Project will be a significant first step for the area to
reduce and eventually eliminate the use of fossil fuels.
The Project will consist of:
Approximately 3 miles of single-lane access road from the highway to the diversion
site. The clearing width for the road will generally be 40-50 feet, but may be
somewhat wider in areas of significant ground slope due to the widths of cuts and
fills. The right-of-way (ROW) width will be 100 feet to provide for minor field
adjustment of the alignment if necessary. The road will cross Yerrick Creek at one
location about 2 miles from the highway; the bridge will be about 200 feet long.
A diversion structure at about El 2220, just below the confluence of the main stem
of Yerrick Creek and two tributaries. The diversion structure will include a
concrete-faced rockfill dike on the west abutment, a concrete-faced rockfill spillway
and roughened channel outlet in the central portion, and a concrete intake on the
right abutment.
A buried pipeline approximately 15,000 feet in length (known as a penstock) using
42-inch HDPE pipe for the upper 55% and 36-inch ductile iron pipe for the lower
45%. The penstock will cross Yerrick Creek just above the bridge noted above; it
will be buried below the stream channel and encased in concrete.
A powerhouse approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the Alaska Highway where the
water will pass through a single turbine to the tailrace. Other powerhouse
equipment will include the 1500 kW generator, controls and switchgear, bridge
crane, and pad-mount transformer. The powerhouse structure will be a metal
building set on a concrete foundation.
A tailrace consisting of a pond and 800 feet of excavated canal to an existing
overflow channel of Yerrick Creek. The pond will be formed in a borrow pit
excavated to provide fill material for the access road. The pond is expected to
develop a stable ice cover in winter that will allow the turbine to discharge without
glaciering.
A transmission line consisting of 1,500 feet of 12.4 kV underground transmission
cable from the powerhouse to the highway and 10 miles of upgraded 12.4 kV
overhead transmission line adjacent to the highway (see Figure 3),
Based on the hydrology studies conducted to date (see Appendix 9.2), AP&T has selected a
hydraulic capacity for the Project at 60 cfs, which will provide a generating capacity of
1,500 kW. The streamflow will only exceed the hydraulic capacity during the early
summer (typically June and July), or about 10%-20% of the year. This is a relatively low
exceedence level for a run-of-river project, but AP&T believes the high capacity is
Page | 4
worthwhile because of the high cost of diesel generation. Before pipe and generating
equipment is ordered, AP&T will reevaluate the hydraulic capacity. It could be reduced to
perhaps 50 cfs, which would allow a reduction in the penstock diameter from about 42
inches to 36 inches. The environmental impacts would be virtually the same with a smaller
capacity, therefore the conclusions of this EA would not change.
During times of high flow, water will flow over the diversion structure. If the overflow is
less than about 30 cfs, it will all pass through the roughened channel outlet to allow fish
passage. At higher rates of overflow, water will also pass over the spillway. The duration
of this overflow will be intermittent, and of course will vary with the amount of snow
accumulated in the basin; during low runoff years there may be only a very short period of
overflow, but during high runoff years the overflow period may start in June and extend
into August.
Figure 3: Transmission Line Features
The proposed Project requires state and federal permitting prior to project commencement
of construction. The permits needed are: (1) a Department of Natural Resource (DNR)
land lease permit; (2) DNR water rights permit; (3) Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
habitat permit; and, (4) a U.S. Army Corp of Engineers permit. In addition, besides being
on State of Alaska managed lands, this project is also on Tanacross, Inc. lands (private),
which is a Native corporation. The diversion structure and approximately 7,000 feet of the
penstock and access road will be on state land, the remainder of the penstock and access
road as well as the powerhouse and buried portion of the transmission line will be on
private land. The size of easement needed on state land will be approximately 28.4 acres.
The size of easement needed on private land will be approximately 27.7 acres.
Page | 5
3 PURPOSE/NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of this hydroelectric project is to reduce the use of fossil fuels presently used
for generating electricity in the Tok area along the Alaska Highway. The communities that
will benefit from this project are Tetlin (pop. 117), Tanacross (pop. 140), Dot Lake (pop.
19), and Tok (pop. 1,393), Alaska. These communities are presently 100% reliant upon
fossil fuels for their electricity. AP&T applied to the RUS for a grant for a 2.0 MW run-of-
river hydroelectric project that would connect directly to the AP&T transmission system
that is centralized out of Tok where diesel generation facilities are located. Based on
further hydrologic analysis, the facility is currently being designed with a 1.5 MW
capacity. AP&T presently sells power for $0.47 per kWh (2009) in Tok and to other
communities connected to Tok’s closed grid.
The Proposed Action is needed to reduce this areas use of fossil fuels and to reduce price
fluctuations and air emissions associated with diesel generation. To do this, a renewable
energy resource is necessary. The proposed Project will be the first such project on this
interior Alaska grid. Placing this hydroelectric project on the Tok grid will reduce electric
rates to approximately $0.37 per kWh (~20% reduction). The current rate is above the
RUS High Energy Cost Benchmark of Extremely High Average per unit energy costs
($0.239 per kWh), one of the eligibility criteria of this program. Two of the communities
that would benefit from this project have large Native Alaskan populations, Tetlin 94.9%,
Tanacross 88.6%.
Page | 6
4 ALTERNATIVES
4.1 No Action
If no action is taken, the four communities that would benefit from the proposed Project
would remain on diesel generation for their electrical needs. The price of diesel fluctuates
and is expected to remain high, keeping the area’s electric rates high. Diesel generation
also puts particulate matter and gases such as CO2 into the air, which are related to global
warming. The high volume of diesel fuel needed for this small grid increases the
likelihood of spills during transport and fueling operations as well as potential leaks from
storage. The transport of hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel each year relies on the
burning of fossil fuels to transport fuel, which would continue. The high cost of electricity
is a stress on residential customers, schools, and businesses, suppressing economic and
population growth. The increasingly expensive electrical rates may drive people away
from these communities. This economically impacted area on the Alaska Highway will
continue to struggle with increases in the cost of diesel fuel.
4.2 Energy Generation Technologies Considered
Other energy generation technologies considered other than hydroelectric power were
hydrokinetics, wind power, and woody biomass.
A hydrokinetic project (the use of moving water to passively move a turbine placed in its
flow) was evaluated for the Tanana River not far from Yerrick Creek. However, the
environmental issues related to placing a turbine in this river appeared significant (possible
impacts to fish, fishermen, boat traffic, subsistence use, testing of new technology, impact
of floating debris). In addition, this type of technology is still being developed and tested.
Hydrokinetic technology for a river turbine is presently not as efficient and the units are not
very large, producing only a small amount of electricity. AP&T prefers to go with proven
technology to get the best use of grant funds made available by RUS for renewable energy
development as well as develop a larger project to meet more of the load.
Wind power is still being evaluated for the area. AP&T is evaluating one or two sites that
look promising, but their development could be years down the road. Wind generation
requires consistent wind speeds above a base velocity rather than just being a windy area.
This too is experimental technology at this northern latitude and is not known to be able to
startup as fast as hydro from power outages when integrated with a diesel system.
Conventional hydroelectric technology can start almost instantaneously, allowing
supplemental diesel generation to be brought more slowly on line. Thus, conventional
hydroelectric generation is more reliable in hybrid systems like the one being proposed.
Biofuel is being considered by AP&T for the Tok grid. AP&T has been considering the
possibility of a 2.0 MW-sized biomass facility using wood from the local area; however,
funding was not made available to AP&T by the State of Alaska in its recent grant funding
for Renewable Energy Fund Round III. This option will not be pursued in the near term
unless grant funding becomes available. In order to get the communities on the Tok grid
off of diesel generation, it will require a combination of renewable energy projects.
However, biofuel is also less reliable than conventional hydroelectric power in that wood
Page | 7
would have to be purchased and would therefore be dependent on a reliable and available
source.
Conventional hydroelectric power is a mature technology that is well proven. The
components are readily available, and the science of finding a good site is well established.
Yerrick Creek meets the requirements for a sustainable run-of-river (no storage)
hydroelectric project due to relatively consistent flow throughout the year, no significant
environmental issues, and no major engineering challenges. All of these contribute to
keeping costs down. Hydroelectric projects also have the advantage of quick start-up time
after a power outage, which is almost instantly. Hydroelectric power also integrates well
with diesel generation units, making the balance between the two easy to manage. The
other technologies that were considered either do not work well with quick start-ups or are
relatively unproven, however, hydroelectric projects integrate well with other renewable
energy projects, such as wind, because generation can be well regulated where as most
other renewable energy technologies do not have consistent energy production.
4.3 Alternative Locations for siting the hydroelectric facility
Other watersheds considered by AP&T for conventional hydroelectric included:
Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1, just west of Yerrick Creek,
o does not have as large a drainage area as Yerrick Creek
o does not have enough flow year round, and
o does not have the easy accessibility of Yerrick Creek.
Tanana River
o many environmental issues, particularly fish passage and sediment buildup
o significantly greater costs to construct a project on a river versus a creek
AP&T’s transmission grid passes by Yerrick Creek allowing the project to plug into the
existing infrastructure, whereas other potential sites would require new transmission
infrastructure because they were further away, which would lead to an increase in project
costs and introduce new environmental impacts.
Page | 8
5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
5.1 Land Use
Approximately 50% of the proposed Project is located on state managed land, and the
remainder is on property privately owned by Tanacross, Inc. The portion of the Yerrick
Creek basin on which the Project would be located is used by hunters for bear, moose,
caribou, and Dall sheep. Trapping for small furbearers also takes place. The site is used
for a combination of subsistence and recreational activities, which is typical of the general
area.
Trespassing for hunting and/or trapping purposes is a concern of Tanacross, Inc., the
private landowner. This sort of activity is not unusual in rural Alaska, which resembles an
open range without fencing. Development of this project would provide easier access into
both Tanacross, Inc. and state lands.
AP&T is considering reasonable solutions to prevent vehicular access, such as installing a
locked gate at the access road’s entrance point. AP&T is also willing to compensate
Tanacross, Inc. for the use of its land and to mitigate the effects of trespassing and loss of
land. While subsistence and recreational hunters and trappers will have easier foot access
to a part of this area, wildlife hunting would remain heavily controlled and monitored by
state and federal agencies that permit the amount of take allowed in the area. Therefore,
although hunting is allowed in this area, a permit is necessary to harvest, and only a certain
number of each species is allowed to be taken annually. This may provide some restraint
for illegal use of this area.
5.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties
Under the provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, archeological site-
location information is confidential; disclosure of such information is exempt from requests
under federal and state freedom of information laws. The following reports are not public
documents. They are intended for release to Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), the Rural
Utilities Service (RUS), the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Tanacross,
Inc., and other consulting parties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
Prior to initiating consultation with consulting parties under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), AP&T gathered information about historic
properties in the general project area. On July 9, 2008, AP&T submitted a letter the Alaska
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which included a copy of a literature review
and preliminary recommendations for additional archaeological and historic structure
surveys. The Alaska SHPO responded on August 15, 2008, that it agreed with the
recommendations of the report, specifically the letter stated that additional archaeological
surveys should be completed for the proposed access route, powerhouse site, and penstock
route and that surveys should not be needed for the impoundment area. Based on this
recommendation, RUS determined that the area of potential effect (APE) would be the
proposed locations for the access road, powerhouse site, and penstock.
Page | 9
By letter dated October 14, 2008, RUS formally initiated consultation with the Alaska
SHPO and government-to-government consultation with the Native Village of Tanacross,
Tanacross, Inc., the Native Village of Tetlin, and the Village of Dot Lake. The letter
identified the project’s APE, requested that additional information be provided about
historic properties within the APE, and requested the participation of consulting parties
(Alaska SHPO, the Native Village of Tanacross, Tanacross, Inc., the Native Village of
Tetlin, and the Village of Dot Lake) in a teleconference on November 13, 2008. The
purpose of this teleconference was to give a more detailed description of the project,
discuss known historic properties that may be within the APE, and discuss the predicted
progression of this project under Section 106. On November 10, 2008, Tanacross, Inc.,
provided comments in response to RUS’s letter. Comments included:
A significant portion of the project (approximately one half of the penstock route,
construction and maintenance roads, and all of the powerhouse site & its auxiliary
facilities [access road and transmission infrastructure]) would be located on lands
owned and managed by Tanacross, Inc.
The project would conflict with use of historic trails by members of the Native
Village of Tanacross for subsistence purposes.
The project would interfere with right-of-way development by Denali-The Alaska
Gas Pipeline LLC (Denali) for the transportation of North Slope natural gas to
market. The proposed location of the powerhouse would be at the same location of
Denali’s proposed compressor station.
Several of these concerns were addressed during the teleconference held on November 10,
2008. Meeting minutes and a formal response to Tanacross, Inc.’s letter were submitted
via email to participants of the teleconference on December 17, 2008.
Representatives from the Native Village of Tanacross, Tanacross, Inc., the Native Village
of Tetlin, and the Village of Dot Lake participated in the teleconference. Minutes from this
meeting are included in Appendix 9.1 – Project Correspondence. Following the discussion,
Tanacross, Inc., identified a historic trail used by members of Tanacross for subsistence
purposes that may be within the APE of this Project. By letter dated, December 17, 2008,
RUS requested that site-specific locations of the trail be identified. To date, this
information has not been submitted to RUS for review.
Following the teleconference, RUS authorized AP&T to begin surveys of the APE,
provided it acquired the necessary permissions from Tanacross, Inc., to access its land. In
2009, AP&T hired Northern Land Use Research, Inc. (NLUR) to conduct a cultural
resource survey of the APE. The survey identified the following sites within the APE:
TNX-156: Tanacross quadrangle segment of the Haines-Fairbanks pipeline
TNX-074: Yerrick Creek cabin
TNX-211: Can Dump area
TNX-212: Construction camp site
When designing this project, AP&T treated all of these sites as eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Properties, although RUS, with SHPO concurrence) have
Page | 10
determined that site TNX-211 is ineligible.2 The historic trail, identified by Tanacross,
Inc., was not found within the APE.
5.3 Biological Resources
Yerrick Creek is located within the Yukon/Tanana uplands physiographic province
(Warhafting 1965). The climate of this area is continental with average annual
temperatures ranging between -32°F and 72°F, and extreme temperatures have been
measured from -60 to 99°F (ADCED 2004). The Tanana Valley is bound by low, rounded
hills ranging in elevation from 300 meters to 1,500 meters (1,000 to 5,000 feet) above sea
level, that are interspersed with lowland bog areas and depressions. Wildlife resources
within Upper Tanana region include large game, such as moose, caribou and Dall sheep,
and furbearers, such as snowshoe hare, muskrat and red squirrels (Halpin 1987). Aquatic
resources include occasional whitefish, arctic grayling, and Dolly Varden, while avian
resources include geese, ptarmigan, ducks and grouse. A literature search indicates that
these species exist in the Yerrick Creek area.
The Alaska Range lines the southern horizon of the project area beyond the low-lying hills.
The higher relief hills are typically igneous intrusions that sometimes have extensive rock
exposures and shallow soil deposition, whereas the lowlands are often characterized by
vegetated loess dunes and thick organic layers covering permafrost. The area surrounding
the Tanana River is dotted with lowland lakes and small creeks. Yerrick Creek flows north
from the Alaska Range before joining the Tanana River.
Yerrick Creek is a cascading stream with fast flow with some “islands” of vegetation
present in the channel, but for the most part the channel consists of braided sand, gravel,
and cobble bars with some large boulders. Old meander channels and lower elevation
vegetated creek banks exhibit signs of recent and past vegetation log jams from spring
break up. Vegetation in the project area consists of an upland spruce-hardwood forest.
Dominant trees include black and white spruce, paper birch, quaking aspen and
cottonwood. Willow and alder shrubs are also present in recently disturbed areas.
Understory shrubs include dwarf birch, wild rose, Labrador tea, high bush cranberry and
raspberry. The dominant forest ground cover noted include toad flax, bog and low bush
cranberry, Sphagnum moss, lichens, blue joint grasses and horsetail.
Initially, AP&T submitted a Draft Study Plan to the resource agencies to determine what
studies were needed and what information was lacking in their biological analysis of the
site. Based on comments received from ADF&G on September 3, 2008, the study of
mammals was not necessary because there was significant information already available on
agency websites, which was included in AP&T’s Study Plan. Fish species, plant surveys,
and a wetland determination, however, were conducted.
5.3.1 Fish Resources
For most of its length, Yerrick Creek is a cascading stream with fast flow and boulder
substrate. The stream generally comprises one to three channels, within a wide dynamic
2 March 24, 2010, letter from SHPO to RUS.
Page | 11
(scoured) perimeter. Apparent fish habitat consists of widely spaced, very small (~10-foot
long) pools behind large boulders or logjams. Roughly one mile before the creek joins the
Tanana River, the habitat is significantly different; flow is much slower and the habitat is
composed mostly of sand. In this “delta” area, there are three main channels with several
smaller channels which leave and rejoin the larger channels, and at least one large area
(“city block” in size) through which the creek flows more-or-less overland, in very shallow
channels among dense spruce trees. In between these two reaches is a transition zone,
where flow is intermediate in strength and substrate is small rocks and large gravel. This
transition zone is only a few hundred yards long. Complicating this situation is the fact that
the surface water flowing in the creek is not always continuous within the river. Because
of the porous substrate, the water sometimes disappears from the surface and flows
underground.
Fish surveys were conducted by a qualified fish biologist, Stephen Grabacki (Anchorage),
who conducted surveys in 2008 on September 3-4 and 29-30 and in 2009 on May 19-20,
May 27-29, and June 7. A report on the fish surveys can be found in Appendix 9.3.1 – Fish
Resource Report. Mr. Grabacki stated, “The stream bed morphology indicates that even
when there is surface flow, the quality of the habitat is limited and the larger rock moved
during the high flow periods reduces the quality of fish habitat.”
Based on sampling in early September 2008, and on the three sampling sessions in May-
June 2009, an understanding of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and Arctic grayling
(Thymallus arcticus) use of Yerrick Creek seems to have emerged. Grayling appear to use
parts of Yerrick Creek (below and within the bypass reach) for summer feeding, on an
opportunistic basis. No evidence was found to support that grayling spawn in Yerrick
Creek:
The creek did not connect to the river at the expected time of grayling spawning
No aggregations were observed of grayling anywhere in Yerrick Creek; all grayling
observed in the creek in May-June 2009 appeared to be individual fish
No adult-size grayling were observed, and the largest grayling observed in June
2009 (a 2- or 3-year-old) did not appear to be in either a pre-spawning or post-
spawning condition.
Studies conducted showed that the majority of Dolly Varden (DV) year-round habitat is
above the diversion site. During a May 2009 meeting between ADF&G and AP&T,
ADF&G acknowledged that this Project would not significantly impact DV (it was at this
time AP&T was directed to focus on studying Grayling use of the creek). Studies
confirmed that there is little over-wintering refugia in the bypass portion of the creek so
that any loss of over-wintering refugia will have minimal impact to DV.
5.3.2 Wildlife (mammal) Review
Wildlife is not expected to be significantly impacted by the proposed Project, either by
construction or operation. Species that use the proposed Project area are not considered
threatened, endangered, or listed species of concern (TES). A literature search conducted
by AP&T does not point to any TES using this basin, although some may occasionally pass
through during migration. Of the many species that do use the Yerrick Creek area, Game
Page | 12
Management Unit 12, some are hunted for their meat (moose, caribou, Dall sheep, black
and brown bear) and trapped for their pelts (lynx and marten), or harvested because they
kill other preferred game, i.e., wolves. There will be a minimal loss of habitat types from
project features:
The powerhouse, staging area, and lower borrow area are near the Alaska Highway
and a total of approximately 5.2 acres will be cleared.
The tailrace will require clearing approximately 0.6 acres.
The access road/penstock route will require approximately 38.7 acres of clearing.
The upper borrow area will require approximately 2.5 acres, however this is mostly
exposed bedrock.
The upper staging area will require approximately 5.7 acres of clearing, but will be
allowed to revegetate after construction.
The diversion area covers 3.4 acres, but little of this has vegetation.
The habitat type for the project area is typically open paper birch – white spruce forest.
Open balsam poplar–white spruce forest and open white spruce forest habitats are found in
drier portions of the Project area. Open black spruce forest and open dwarf black spruce
forest occupy areas with poorly drained soils. Closed tall alder or willow scrub occupies
the transitional areas between forested areas and creek channel. This habitat type is
common throughout this drainage basin as well as other drainages along the Tanana River
that Yerrick Creek drains into.
ADF&G in a July 1, 2008, letter to AP&T, requested that the penstock and access road
remain a minimum of 66 feet from the creek accept when intersecting with the diversion
structure or powerhouse; however, it is necessary to cross the creek due to perma frost,
wetlands, and steep slopes found further south on the west side of the creek. A single-lane
bridge would be used to cross the creek and the penstock would be buried under the creek
to avoid damage from flooding that occurs in this wide, dynamic creek. The penstock
(pipe) would be passable to wildlife because it will be buried along the access road. This
Project is viewed as having limited impacts to wildlife in the area. The main concern
would be whether this project will provide easier vehicular access into this basin for
hunters and trappers, which could place more pressure on wildlife.
However, in regards to increased hunting pressure, sport and subsistence hunting go hand-
in-hand in this area, although most is by Alaskan hunters and is therefore most likely for
subsistence. All hunting is controlled by permit in this area and there is a limit to how
many of each species can be harvested in a given year. This places a control on harvesting
these species regardless of whether there is improved access to this drainage or not.
Big game that use Game Management Unit 12 are black and brown bear, moose, and
possibly migrating caribou. Dall sheep most likely stay at higher elevations. Wolves
probably migrate through looking for game. Roads in remote areas with little traffic often
become travel corridors for the wildlife using the area (AP&Ts experience from other
projects), which simply makes it easier for them to get around. However, the Yerrick
Creek forest is primarily open, possibly reducing use of the road by wildlife. Although this
project will remove habitat, the loss is not significant because the amount of land is small
in comparison with the surrounding undeveloped area.
Page | 13
Dall sheep hunting is controlled by a drawing for a permit, only so many permits are
allowed, so increased access should have little impact to this species because only so many
can be legally harvested. Of the participating hunters, 94% were Alaska residents in
regulatory years (RY) 2001-2003, of which 92% of the harvested rams were by Alaskans.3
For Macomb caribou, a permit is required as well with a harvest limit of one bull per year
(only for residents). Only one Macomb caribou was harvested in Unit 12 in RY2001-2002
and RY2002-2003. Highway vehicle followed by horse are the dominant methods to hunt
Macomb caribou in recent years.4
Brown bears are distributed throughout Unit 12. Unit 12 brown bear hunting regulations
were liberalized in 1981 to reduce the bear population and elevate moose calf survival. "In
1994, the Unit 12 brown bear management goal to reduce the brown bear population to
increase moose calf survival was eliminated and the management goal was revised to
provide for maximum opportunity to hunt brown bears in Unit 12. The management goal
has remained the same since 1994."5 Presently, only one brown bear per permit per
regulatory year is allowed to be harvested. During RY 04 & 05, non-residents of Alaska
accounted for 65% and 75% of the harvest respectively. For black bear, three bears per
permit per regulatory year can be harvested. Alaska residents accounted for 89-93% of the
black bears harvested during RY98-RY00. Yerrick Creek does not contain a reliable
source of fish in the project area (diversion to the powerhouse) to attract bears to feed.
Other streams along the Tanana River have better runs of grayling and Dolly Varden as
well as other salmonid species.
Regarding moose, "Predation by wolves and grizzly bears has likely been the greatest
source of mortality for moose in Unit 12 and has likely been the major factor keeping the
population at a low density since the mid 1970s. In contrast to most other areas that
contain sympatric moose, wolf, and grizzly bear populations, wolves, rather than bears,
appeared to be the primary predator on moose calves on the Northway-Tetlin Flats, based
on research conducted during the late 1980s (ADF&G, unpublished data; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, unpublished data). Wolf predation also appeared to be the greatest
source of adult mortality. However, in some mountainous areas of Unit 12, fall
composition data indicate that predation on moose neonates was high, suggesting grizzly
bear predation."6 Hunters using 3 or 4 wheelers accounted for the highest percentage of
the harvest with highway vehicles next. Predation by wolves and bears shows that other
natural processes have a far greater impact on moose than humans. Only one bull can be
harvested per year per permit.
3 Parker McNeill D.I. 2005. Portions of Units 12, 13C, and 20D Dall sheep management report. Pages 68-79
in C. Brown, editor. Dall sheep management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2001-30 June
2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 6.0. Juneau, Alaska.
4 DuBois, S. D. 2007. Units 12 and 20D caribou. Pages 65-82 in P. Harper, editor. Caribou management
report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska, USA.
5 Gross, J. A. 2007. Unit 12 brown bear. Pages 132-142 in P. Harper, editor. Brown bear management report
of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project
4.0. Juneau, Alaska, USA.
6 Hollis, A. L. 2006. Unit 12 moose. Pages 126-143 in P. Harper, editor. Moose management report of survey
and inventory actitivies 1 July 2003-30 June 2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau,
Alaska, USA.
Page | 14
Up to five wolves can be harvest per year in Game Management Unit 12.
Management of these species with state harvest limits is what controls the human take of
these species. Putting a road into the Yerrick Creek drainage to reach the diversion site
may provide easier access by hunters, but all these species require permits to harvest. The
harvest total for the management unit is based on what the populations can tolerate. This
short road into Yerrick Creek will not change management of these species, even if it
makes it easier to get into this area.
Avian species are not expected to be significantly impacted due to the limited nature of the
clearing needed (15 feet wide for access road / penstock route) although there could be
some loss of habitat.
5.3.3 TES botanical survey
A threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant species survey was conducted within
the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric project area by a qualified botanist of HDR, Inc.,
Anchorage. The purpose of the study was to determine if there were any individuals or
populations of plant species of interest that may be affected by project activities. The
survey was conducted at Level 5 intensity.
Most of the project area is undeveloped with an open gravel waterway, islands of mixed
hardwood and softwood trees, abandoned gravel side channels in various states of
revegetation, and heavily forested banks. The main vegetation of Yerrick Creek study area
is typically open paper birch – white spruce forest. Open balsam poplar–white spruce
forest and open white spruce forest inhabits drier sites. Open black spruce forest and open
dwarf black spruce forest occupy areas with poorly drained soils. Closed tall alder or
willow scrub occupies the transitional areas between forested areas and creek channel.
Narrow areas of gravel floodplain areas along Yerrick Creek are inhabited by early seral
graminoids and forbs. Bluejoint meadows and lowland sedge wet meadows occupy wet
areas adjacent to ponds.
The HDR project botanist surveyed most of the major vegetation types, and covered much
of the geographic extent of the Yerrick Creek project area. The majority of collection
locations were concentrated on gravel river bars and shrub areas adjacent to the Yerrick
Creek. More than 100 vouchers were collected. Specimens were given provisional names
in the field and later sorted, examined and identified by the HDR botanist. Specimens of
notable taxa will be sent to the UAF Herbarium (ALA) for review by the museum staff.
Most of these species are widespread in interior Alaska. No non-native species were
observed in the Yerrick Creek study area.
In total, 145 species from 40 families were recorded at the area. The complete list of
species encountered in Yerrick Creek study area is found in Appendix 9.3.2 – TES Plant
Report. Two lakes were visited. Aquatic plants were observed and recorded from the
shore. The study area was not surveyed for aquatic plants specifically.
Four notable plants were found in the project area. The AKNHP tracks populations of
plants of interest. Notable plants are not considered rare, sensitive, or endangered but are
considered to be of ecological interest by the AKNHP.
Page | 15
Phlox sibirica (Siberian phlox) was not previously reported from the area. The closest
records of this plant are approximately (UAF 2008):
1. 30 miles NW of Yerrick Creek in Fort Greely Military Reservation in 2004
(63.78°, -145.79°)
2. 45 miles SE of Yerrick Creek at Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve
(62.20266°, -142.123273°)
Other notable plants, for which there are no nearby records, include:
1. Botrychium lunaria (common moonwort)
2. Platanthera obtusata (blunt-leaved orchid)
3. Astragalus robbinsii ssp. harringtonii (Harold’s milkvetch)
The TES plant survey found no globally or state ranked Rare or Sensitive species during
the survey. No Endangered species were encountered or identified during the survey. The
only plant federally listed or proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska is
Polystichum aleuticum C. Christensen, which is endangered. It is only known from Adak
Island and is not expected to occur in the proposed Project area. Most plant species
observed in the area are considered common and widespread in interior Alaska.
5.4 Water Quality & Quantity
5.4.1 Water Quality
A water quality survey was conducted by Travis/Pederson Environmental Consulting, Inc.,
Fairbanks, using past (USGS 15476000) and present information to complete an analysis
(report can be found in Appendix 9.3.3. – Literature Review and Field Report: Hydrology
Baseline Study). The findings from the water quality study is that Yerrick Creek is a clear,
oligotrophic (low nutrient levels) and well oxygenated stream. The moderately high pH for
surface water suggests contact with some kind of carbonate rock within the drainage. High
flushing flows occur on almost an annual basis, scouring and moving the cobble within the
creek banks.
5.4.2 Water Quantity
AP&T’s initial assessment of the water quantities in Yerrick Creek (Berkshire, 2007) were
based on transposition of the record of the USGS gage on Berry Creek some 33 miles west
of Yerrick Creek, with adjustment for the drainage areas of the two streams.
AP&T installed a stream gage on Yerrick Creek near the diversion site in June 2007. In
July 2008, the gage installation was washed out by flooding. The gage was subsequently
moved upstream a few hundred feet to a more protected location, but equipment
malfunctions prevented collection of data until the spring of 2009. As with all stream
gages in interior Alaska, the gage installation is subject to ice influence, and flows in the
winter can only be estimated.
AP&T has attempted to correlate the small amount of data from the Yerrick Creek gage
with contemporaneous data from USGS gages in the area. Unfortunately, there are no
contemporaneous USGS gages with similar characteristics (basin size, elevation, annual
precipitation); available USGS gages are as follows:
Page | 16
Phelan Creek near Paxton - - 12.2 mi2 drainage area, mostly glaciated.
Goodpaster River near Big Delta - - 677 mi2 drainage area, lower and flatter
topography
Yukon River near Eagle - - 113,500 mi2 drainage area
Correlations between the data from AP&T’s gage and that from the USGS gages are only
fair, with correlation coefficients (R2) between 0.79 and 0.85.
Based on the flow data collected to date and the correlations with the USGS gage data, it
appears that Yerrick Creek has a higher base flow than might be expected. Even in the
winter, AP&T has always found water flowing under the ice at the gage location. AP&T
theorizes that this is because of the large amount of alluvium in the valley. AP&T will
continue to measure Yerrick Creek flows to develop more reliable streamflow correlations.
In 2010, AP&T contracted for another review of the hydrology information for the site
(Environ Corp., 2010). For that study, a double correlation was attempted between Berry
Creek, the Yukon River, and Yerrick Creek. The study determines likely upper and lower
limits for Yerrick Creek flows.
5.5 Floodplains/Wetlands
A wetlands jurisdictional determination was conducted by HDR, Inc. (Appendix 9.3.4 –
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination). Most of the proposed Project area is
undeveloped, with an open gravel waterway, adjacent forests, abandoned gravel side
channels in various states of re-vegetation, and heavily forested banks. The creek corridor
is the only floodplain, and the project features that will be within the floodplain are the
diversion structure and a small portion of the penstock. Besides the creek, there are small
and large ponds on the ridges above the creek to the west as well as hydric soils and
permafrost scattered about. A significant portion of the soils are not hydric and are well
drained.
Conclusions from the wetland delineation were: at wetland data from locations, 15 out of
the 28 sites had hydrophytic vegetation. The most common trees in the project area include
white spruce (Picea glauca), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), and some paper birch
(Betula papyrifera). The most common shrub is alder (Alnus crispa). Saplings of white
spruce and cottonwood are also common in the shrub layer. Common graminoids include
bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis) and a variety of sedges (Carex spp.).
Common forbs include timberberry (Geocaulon lividum) and dwarf fireweed (Chamerion
latifolium). Mosses and lichens were found primarily in forested plots.
Wetland locations are based upon the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydrologic
indicators, and hydric soil indicators. Other waters of the U.S. are based on the
investigators’ judgement about the location of the ordinary high water mark of Yerrick
Creek. Based on the findings above, approximately 21.3% (147.1 acres), a conservative
delineation, of the mapped acres were determined to meet the USACOE requirements for
being classified as wetlands or other waters. Most of the mapped wetland areas are not
within the proposed project construction areas.
Page | 17
The remainder of the mapped project area, approximately 78.7% (542.6 acres) of the
mapped area, lacks one or more of the required three parameters to support classifying an
area as wetland and is not below the plane of the ordinary high water (OHW) mark of
Yerrick Creek. These areas would not be subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
Yerrick Creek and its adjacent active bars are waters of the U.S. below the creek’s OHW
mark. OHW is particularly difficult to define for a braided channel such as this one. There
may be some areas within the river bars that are not actually below the OHW mark.
5.6 Environmental Justice
The communities that would benefit from the proposed Project are Tetlin (pop. 117; 94.9%
is Native American), Tanacross (pop. 140; 88.6% is Native American), Dot Lake (pop. 19),
and Tok (pop. 1,393; 12.8% is Native American), Alaska. The state’s percentage of Native
Americans is 13.4%. According to the U.S. Census data, the county median household
income was $38,776, which is 75% of the State median household income of $51,571. The
per capita income for these communities is: Tetlin $7,372; Tanacross $9,429; Tok $18,521;
and Dot Lake $19,406 compared to the State at $33,761. Family poverty levels are higher
in Tetlin (40%), Tanacross (22.6%), and Tok (9.5%) than the State as a whole (6.7%).
Unemployment in Tanacross is 57.1%, Tetlin 46.9%, and in Tok 18%.7 The Denali
Commission’s 2009 Report on Distressed Communities in Alaska lists Dot Lake, Tetlin
and Tanacross as distressed. Tok was last listed as a distressed community by the Denali
Commission in their 2008 report. Based on the current state of the U.S. economy, it is
likely that all four communities will be listed in 2010. The Denali Commission list of
Distressed Communities can be found in Appendix 9.4 – 2009 Denali Commission List of
Distressed Communities.
5.7 Socioeconomics
The present (2009) electric rates for AP&T customers in Tetlin, Tok, Tanacross and Dot
Lake (a small, isolated grid) is approximately $0.47 per kWh. AP&T’s current diesel fuel
consumption is approximately 350,000 gallons per year, which at today’s prices (the 2008
average was $3.577 per gallon) costs $1,252,000 annually. Over 50 years, AP&T’s diesel
generation plant will use approximately 17,500,000 gallons of diesel. The existing diesel
plant in Tok, which supplies electricity to all four communities, presently has six diesel
generators to meet and act as backup for the load demand. The generators require
significant labor and maintenance. The frequency of generator overhaul and replacement
of these six units averages a cost of approximately $50,000 annually. These costs are
passed on to customers via the electric rates.
Many customers in AP&T’s service area supplement their electrical use with wood,
kerosene, and oil or gas generators for heating because of the high cost of electricity.
Several customers also use propane for cooking, clothes dryers, hot water heaters, etc. The
economy along the Alaska Highway has suffered from high gas prices, the slowed national
economy. This situation has impacted the local economy, which is reliant upon tourism for
7 Based on the 2000 U.S. Census Records
Page | 18
its economic sustainability. As mentioned under Environmental Justice, Dot Lake, Tetlin,
and Tanacross are on the 2009 Denali Commissions list of distressed communities, and
have been so for years, with Tok last listed in 2008. The local school is seeking cheaper
electric rates and is therefore looking at other technologies. A couple businesses have
come through looking for sites to build manufacturing plants in the Tok area until they
discovered how expensive the electricity is. Economic development is bleak for the area at
this time.
Page | 19
6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
6.1 Alternative 1: No – Action
If No Action is taken, the environment at Yerrick Creek would remain unchanged. There
would be no diverting of flow out of the creek to be returned further downstream, having
no impact on the limited fish habitat available in this area of the creek and therefore allow
free movement by fish as currently exists. There would be no loss of terrestrial habitat
from the clearing of the right-of-way for the access road and penstock route. Wildlife that
uses the area would not be stressed by the activity of construction, possibly temporarily
forcing them out of the area. There would be no possibility of human induced erosion or
sedimentation to the creek.
The No Action alternative would also mean the four communities that would benefit from
this project will remain on diesel generation for their electrical needs. This will cause their
electric rates to fluctuate with the price of diesel, which is expected to remain high keeping
the area electric rates high. Diesel generation also puts particulate matter and gases such as
CO2 into the air, which are related to global warming. The high volume of diesel fuel
needed for this small grid increases the likelihood of spills during transport and fueling
operations as well as potential leaks from storage. The transport of hundreds of thousands
of gallons of fuel each year relies on the burning of fossil fuels, which would continue.
The high cost of electricity would continue to stress residential customers, schools, and
businesses, suppressing economic and residential growth. The increasingly expensive
electrical rates may drive people from these communities. This economically impacted
area on the Alaska Highway will continue to struggle with increases in the cost of diesel
fuel.
6.2 Alternative 2: The Proposed Project
6.2.1 Land Use
Fall hunting, subsistence activity, and trapping would likely be temporarily impacted
during the construction phase because wildlife would probably stay away during
construction activity. Although, as usually happens at this type of construction activity,
based on AP&Ts experience, if construction clearings cross a wildlife corridor the wildlife
will continue to use it but may change the time of day they cross the area of activity.
During the operations phase, impacts to hunting, subsistence activity, and trappers would
be minor due to personnel surveillance of the proposed Project site for operation and
maintenance. Building the access road into the diversion site will make access easier for
hunters, possibly changing the land use by increasing, at minimum, the foot traffic into the
basin and increasing pressure on wildlife. However, wildlife hunted in this state
management unit (Unit 12) is managed by permits, which limits the number harvested per
permit. This protects the mammals so that they are not harvested beyond what their
population can tolerate. Therefore, any easier access into this area should not increase
pressure on wildlife because only a certain number can be taken. Other pressure from
increased access is just the intrusion or disturbance potentially caused by more recreational
foot traffic or ATVs if they are able to access the project access road. Though use of the
Page | 20
basin is likely to increase, this is not expected to be a significant impact as this is a remote
part of Alaska, even being on the Alaska Highway.
Overall, use of the project area for recreational purposes is likely to increase due to easier
access, but impacts are not expected to be significant. The use of both state and private
land for this project would be mitigated by paying fees for the use of the land. A gate
which locks just off the highway will help limit access by vehicle to prevent illegal
dumping.
6.2.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties
On January 13, 2010, RUS submitted a finding of effects letter to consulting parties (i.e.,
Alaska SHPO, Tanacross, Inc., Native Village of Tanacross, Native Village of Tetlin, and
the Village of Dot Lake). In that letter, RUS included its determination of eligibility of
sites identified in the November 2009 survey for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places, which included sites: TNX-156 (Tanacross quadrangle segment of the
Haines-Fairbanks pipeline), TNX-074 (Yerrick Creek cabin), TNX-211 (Can Dump area),
and TNX-212 (Construction camp site). On March 24, 2010, the Alaska SHPO indicated
that it considers TNX-212 a historic property. The Alaska SHPO stated that it has no
objections with the current design of the proposed Project (i.e., the access road avoiding
site TNX-212). SHPO requested that the boundaries of the site be marked as an avoidance
area for construction crews. The Alaska SHPO concurred with RUS’s determination that
monitoring at site TNX-212 would not be needed. To date, no letters from the other
consulting parties have been received.
6.2.3 Biological Resources
No Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive wildlife species are known to utilize the proposed
Project area, although they may pass through it. Impacts would be temporary from
construction activities causing wildlife to avoid the site during construction. No long term
impacts are expected.
No Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species were found to inhabit the site;
therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
Fish resources in the Project’s bypass reach will be minimally impacted because the
existing quality of the habitat is currently poor. Dolly Varden in the creek primarily use
habitat above the proposed Project area, and the Arctic grayling primarily use habitat below
the proposed Project’s discharge point. There is no evidence that the Arctic grayling use
the creek for spawning; but the species are opportunistic, they may enter the area to feed.
The potential loss of the bypass reach as fish habitat during parts of the year when flow is
low is not significant for the sustainability of these two species due to better habitat in other
nearby streams in the Tanana River basin.
ADF&G issued a permit on August 5, 2009, allowing the construction of this Project;
however, they do request to see the intake and spillway designs prior to construction. As
requested by ADF&G, AP&T plans to remain 66 feet away from the riparian corridor as
much as practicable to reduce impacts of sedimentation into the creek. AP&T also
Page | 21
proposes to implement erosion and sedimentation control methods to reduce this potential
to a level of non-significance. AP&T also proposes to bury the penstock to prevent a
barrier to wildlife passage through the project and to place the penstock within the access
road corridor as much as possible to minimize vegetation clearing. ADF&G has indicated
they agree with both these approaches. ADF&G requested in the habitat permit that an
“excess flow bypass shall be constructed as a roughened channel that permits all flow in
excess of 60 cfs to remain in the middle bypass reach and that provides fish passage, both
upstream and downstream.” This creek is not considered Essential Fish Habitat.
With the proposals made by AP&T, which are approved by ADF&G, this Project is not
expected to have significant impacts to Biological Resources.
6.2.4 Water Quality & Quantity
Based on the water quality studies conducted, there are no chemical abnormalities that
would warrant further investigation of the stream to be impacted by the hydroelectric
project. With the erosion and sedimentation control methods AP&T proposes to employ
(i.e. silt fencing, jut netting, seed mix using annual non-invasive species, using as narrow a
corridor as possible, and use of riprap to stabilize slopes along with revegetation as needed)
during and after construction of the proposed Project, water quality should be only
minimally impacted as these methods will significantly reduce the opportunity for
sedimentation. Construction within the creek will use cofferdams to divert flow around
construction activity to minimize sedimentation. Cofferdams will likely be made from
super-sacks 8 filled with sand. Therefore, the proposed Project should have no significant
impacts to water quality.
6.2.5 Floodplains/Wetlands
The project will impact a floodplain (creek) by installing a diversion structure across the
creek, which will remove flow of up to 60 cfs. This floodplain, or creek, is an open gravel
waterway with abandoned gravel side channels in various states of re-vegetation with
heavily forested and steep banks. Construction of the diversion and removal of up to 60 cfs
would remove most water flow between the diversion and the Project’s tailrace; however,
this would have minimal environmental impacts to this floodplain due to a lack of
vegetation and poor fish habitat to support. Based on the flow data collected to date and in
correlation with other nearby gaged streams, during a typical year flows greater than 60 cfs
will occur only in early summer (June and July). During times of high flow, water will
flow over the diversion structure and continue down the creek. The duration of this spill
flow will be intermittent, and will vary with the amount of snow accumulated in the basin.
During low runoff years, there may be only a very short period of spill, but during high
runoff years the spill period may start in June and extend through August.
The Yerrick Creek channel routinely experiences peak flows over 1000 cfs (based on
regional parameters, the two-year flood is estimated at 1,102 cfs and the five-year flood is
estimated at 1,575 cfs). This Project will reduce flood flows below the diversion structure,
however, the 60 cfs reduction is not considered significant compared to the high peak
flows. The diversion structure will be constructed with a relatively flat upstream concrete
8 Large nylon-fabric sacks (very strong) meant to perform like conventional sandbags, only larger.
Page | 22
face (4H:1V) to allow movement of bedload and sediment downstream during floods.
Nevertheless, accumulation of sediment in the diversion pond is expected, and will require
periodic removal and placement in the downstream floodplain to maintain the existing
sediment movement regime. There will be minimal impacts to the Yerrick Creek
floodplain caused by Project construction or operation because high flows that exceed 60
cfs occur annually.
Outside of the creek floodplain, there will be few if any impacts to wetlands because the
Project utilizes uplands, thereby avoiding impacting wetlands along the access
road/penstock route. The wetland survey conducted found that there were approximately
21% wetlands within the project boundary (including hydric soils), though not necessarily
where the project features will be located. In fact, the final design specifically avoids
wetlands along the access road/penstock route until meeting the creek where it is spanned
by a single-lane bridge. AP&T proposes to mitigate potential impacts to wetlands by using
silt fencing to prevent runoff from disturbed soils and revegetation with grass seed mixes,
which will help stabilize disturbed soils. AP&T also proposes to confine construction
activity to as narrow a footprint as possible, which will also reduce impacts.
6.2.6 Environmental Justice
This project would not disproportionately affect low income or minority communities in
the proposed Project area. This Project, however, will improve conditions for these small
communities by saving the customers money and potentially attracting industry or other
commercial endeavors, which would provide employment to the area. Part of the Project is
located on the Tribal Corporation, Tanacross, Inc., lands that AP&T will pay compensatory
fees to use.
6.2.7 Socioeconomics
The proposed Project would provide rate stabilization and lower rates, which may attract
more residents and commercial operations to any and all the communities this Project
would serve. This Project may have a byproduct of providing more local employment in
this economically distressed area. Having stabile rates could impact demographics as
mentioned above and if the economy continues to decline, there will still be a need for less
expensive and clean power. This project will reduce the noise and air pollution associated
with diesel generation facilities which are located within city limits and will increase public
safety by reducing the use of diesel fuel. This project will partially displace the use of
diesel and diesel fuel sellers by reducing the amount AP&T purchases.
Page | 23
7 MITAGATION AND PERMITS
Mitigation measures that would be implemented in the construction and operation of the
proposed Project include:
General
Diversion should have an excess flow bypass when flows exceed the hydraulic
capacity of the project (60 cfs) as a roughened channel to provide fish passage in
both directions.
Fish exclusion configuration at intake to prevent their injury or mortality; screen
openings would not exceed ¼ inch.
The access road and penstock will remain a minimum of 66 feet from the riparian
zone along the creek except where access is needed to the diversion structure, the
bridge crossing, and powerhouse, or unless otherwise necessary.
The penstock will be buried as much as possible to allow wildlife passage.
Project clearing will be kept to a minimum to reduce potential impacts to wildlife.
The boundaries of site TNX-212 will be marked as recommended by SHPO.
Construction crews will be notified of this avoidance area.
Silt fencing will be used to contain runoff and prevent sedimentation.
Grass seed mix, jut netting, and/or riprap will be used to stabilize disturbed soils
after construction activity has ceased in an area.
ADF&G issued a habitat permit for construction on August 5, 2009, with the following
stipulations that AP&T would implement:
Prior to construction, civil plans for construction of the impoundment dam and
excess flow bypass shall be submitted to ADF&G for review and approval.
The excess flow bypass shall be constructed as a roughened channel that permits all
flow in excess of 60 cfs to remain in the middle bypass reach and that provides fish
passage, both upstream and downstream.
Prior to construction, plans shall be submitted to provide for fish exclusion at the
penstock intake. These plans must provide for an effective screen opening that does
not exceed ¼ inch.
USACOE issued a Department of Army (DA) permit for construction on April 30, 2010,
[POA-2009-445] with the following stipulations that AP&T would implement:
All fill slopes and disturbed areas subject to erosion and siltation of Yerrick Creek
or project area wetlands shall be stabilized against erosion by revegetation either by
seeding and/or transplanting species native to the immediate area. Erosion control
with materials such as coir logs, straw wattles, silt fencing, fiber biodegradable
mats, straw mulch etc. must be used as best management practices.
Migratory birds, their nests, eggs, nestlings, etc. will not be taken (disturbed in any
manner). Vegetation must not be cleared between 5 May and 25 July of any year,
unless the area to be cleared has been surveyed for birds and their nests, by a
qualified biologist, and the land clearing or human disturbances can be conducted
without a take.
Page | 24
Yerrick Creek bed and banks disturbed by construction of temporary diversion
channels, cofferdams, bridges, or other disturbances must be restored to original
conditions upon removal of the temporary fills or structures.
No equipment or machinery shall be refueled, lubricated, or maintained while in
any active or inactive channels of Yerrick Creek. All debris will be cleaned from
work areas authorized by this permit immediately following construction.
Earthen materials shall not be stockpiled adjacent to Yerrick Creek to prevent
erosion and siltation of creek waters.
Trenching of Yerrick Creek for installation of the penstock crossing shall not occur
within any flowing or open waters. The diversion must result in a dry work area.
The creek bed must be restored with the large cobble rocks existing in the channel
for armor protections prior to diverting the creek waters back to the original channel
over the buried penstock. The creek bed and banks shall have the original elevation
and contours re-established.
Reasonable precautions and controls must be used to prevent incidental and
accidental discharge of petroleum products or other hazardous substances into any
water or wetland areas. Clean-up materials shall be available on-site and used
immediately to contain any spills of such pollutants. Fuel storage and handling
must not be conducted in Yerrick Creek or wetland areas. Equipment leaking fuel,
oil, hydraulic oil, etc. must not be operated in aquatic areas and be repaired prior to
use in or near Yerrick Creek.
As compensatory mitigation for the permanent net loss of approximately 0.8 acre of
Yerrick Creek area, the permittee shall pay an in-lieu fee to The Conservation Fund,
or other Corps’ In-lieu Fee Program sponsor, prior to initiating construction in
waters of the U.S., at the ratio of 1 acre of creek to 1.5 acre preserved. The
Conservation Fund will provide the cost per debit to the permittee at the time of
payment. Proof of the in-lieu fee payment shall be provided to the Corps prior to
beginning construction in the waters of Yerrick Creek.
The issuance of following permits are pending:
DNR Land Use Permit
DNR Water Rights Permit
AP&T is committed to implementing all environmental stipulations associated with the
issuance of these permits.
Page | 25
8 LITERATURE CITED
ADF&G, FH-09-III-0182 Permit issued for Construction, R. F. McLean, August 5, 2009.
Alaska Power & Telephone Co., AP&T Temperature and Fish Presence Survey, (e-mail)
June 24, 2009.
Berkshire, P. B., Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project, Estimate of Average Annual Energy,
July 2007.
Browne, Patricia, Findings of AHRS Data Review and Evaluation of Cultural Resources
Potential for Hydroelectric Project Development…, June 5, 2008.
Denali Commission. 2009 Denali Commission List of Distressed Communities. June
2009.
DuBois, S. D. 2007. Units 12 and 20D caribou. Pages 65-82 in P. Harper, editor. Caribou
management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2006.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska, USA.
Environ Corp., Yerrick Creek – A Review of Available Data and Recommended Flow
Duration Curve, Hydrology Report, May 26 2010.
Grabacki, S.T. Fisheries Baseline Study for a Proposed Hydroelectric Development
on Yerrick Creek, October 2008.
Grabacki, S.T. Fisheries Study for Spawning AG and DV and their movement throughout
the Creek during May and June 2009, June 2009.
Gross, J. A. 2007. Unit 12 brown bear. Pages 132-142 in P. Harper, editor. Brown bear
management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2006.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 4.0. Juneau, Alaska, USA.
HDR Alaska, Inc. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. February 2009.
HDR Alaska, Inc. Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) Plant Report. February 2009.
Hollis, A. L. 2006. Unit 12 moose. Pages 126-143 in P. Harper, editor. Moose management
report of survey and inventory actitivies 1 July 2003-30 June 2005. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau, Alaska, USA.
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/
Page | 26
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/black_bear.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/birds.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/brown_bear.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/caribou.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/dall_sheep.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/fox.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/marten.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/moose.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/otter.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/snowshoe_hare.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/wolf.htm
http://tetlin.fws.gov/wildlife/wolverine.htm
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/furbear/lynx.php
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt
Parker McNeill D.I. 2005. Portions of Units 12, 13C, and 20D Dall sheep management
report. Pages 68-79 in C. Brown, editor. Dall sheep management report of survey
and inventory activities 1 July 2001-30 June 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. Project 6.0. Juneau, Alaska.
Proue, M., Neely, B. 2009 Cultural Resource Survey of Alaska Power & Telephone’s
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project Near MP 1334 of the Alaska Highway, Alaska.
Northern Land Use Research, Inc. November 2009.
Travis/Pederson Environmental Consulting, Inc. Literature Review and Field Report:
Hydrology Baseline Study (Including Water Quality Testing), October 2008.
USACOE, DA Permit POA-2009-445 issued for Construction, April 30, 2010.
Page | 27
9 APPENDICES
Page | 28
9.1 Agency Correspondence
Page | 29
9.2 Hydrology Studies
May 26, 2010
Mr. Larry Coupe, PE
Alaska Power & Telephone
Attn: Larry Coupe, PE
193 Otto Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Yerrick Creek - Review of Available Data and Recommended Flow Duration Curve
Dear Larry:
The AP&T stream gage on Yerrick Creek has been collecting data since June 2007. The data
record is not only short, but the gage was relocated several times; and its new location is subject
to ice corruption, which can affect the data collected. In order to develop daily flow time series and
duration curves, at least twenty years of average daily flow data are needed. This analysis can be
conducted on a stream with a long flow record, if: (a) its flows are correlated with Yerrick Creek
flows, and (b) its watershed is hydrologically similar to the Yerrick Creek watershed. Specifically,
the watershed should have a similar drainage area (30 square miles), mean annual precipitation
(MAP) (18 inches), mean elevation (2,000 feet), and should not be glaciated.
A search of the US (USGS and its partners) and Canadian hydrologic data found only two
hydrologically similar watersheds: (a) Berry Creek watershed, thirty miles northwest of Yerrick
Creek, with USGS gage 15476300 near Dot Lake, recording between 1971 and 1981; and (b) the
Boulder Creek watershed, more than 100 miles north-northwest of the site, with USGS gage
15439800, and a data record from 1966 to 1986. The watershed above Berry Creek gage was
measured at 65.1 square miles, and had average MAP of 18 inches. The gage was located at
1,400 feet, Both Berry Creek and Yerrick Creek watersheds drain a mountain-type watershed, with
highest drainage peaks exceeding 6,000 feet. The Boulder Creek watershed drains a drainage
area with elevations up to 3,000 feet, and has an average MAP of 16 inches. Flow measurements
were distorted by ice between October and April of every year recordings made over the 20 year
period. The Berry Creek flow data was used by a previous consultant (Berkshire 2007) to
reconstruct representative Yerrick Creek flows; however, the Berkshire study was conducted in
2007, and they had no access to Yerrick Creek flow data.
After further analysis, it was decided to use the Berry Creek gage data, in order to develop its
correlation with the existing Yerrick gage data. This was conducted in two steps:
(1) As the Berry Creek and Yerrick Creek data cover different time periods, the Berry Creek gage
data was first correlated to the Yukon River flows at Eagle (USGS gage 15356000). This Yukon
River gage has a continuous flow record for 38-years. Although the Yukon River is a much larger
stream than Berry Creek, and drains a significantly larger watershed (113,500 square miles), it
was the only stream in the region where flows were continuously recorded from 1971, and for
which flows also have a fair correlation (coefficient of determination R2 was 0.48) with Berry Creek
flows. The Berry Creek flows were then extended through 2009 using the Berry Creek-Yukon
River correlation.
605 First Avenue, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98104 www.environcorp.com
Tel: +1 206.336.1650 Fax: +1 206.336.1651
2
(2) Berry Creek flows developed in step (1) were correlated with the recorded Yerrick Creek flows
recorded at the AP&T gage (2007-2009). Then, the Yerrick Creek 38-years flow series was
constructed using the Yerrick-Berry Creek flow correlation.
The correlation between Yerrick Creek and Berry Creek flow data is presented in Figure 1 below.
The coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.7856. The best fit curve is shown in black color; while
the boundary line approximating outliers is shown in purple color.
The Yerrick Creek flow duration curve (Figure 2) was developed using 38-years of reconstructed
Yerrick Creek data. The flow duration curve using the developed correlation equation is shown in
blue color. The flow duration curve of the boundary line approximating outliers is shown in red
color. The flow duration curve using recorded Berry Creek data developed by Berkshire is also
shown (in black color) for comparison. The Berkshire Berry Creek flow duration curve lies midway
between the Yerrick Creek main duration curve and the Yerrick Creek low prediction envelope,
except for very low flows (below 10 cfs) and high flows (exceeding 70 cfs).
Conclusion:
With collection of more data at the Yerrick Creek gage, the flow duration curve may tend to adjust
to the lower prediction limit flow duration curve (shown in red color in Figure 2). However, this
adjustment may be limited to medium range flows (10 cfs – 30 cfs). It is unlikely that the curve will
be adjusted towards lower flows that were recorded at the Berry Creek USGS gage 15476300
near Dot Lake. The reason is that the AP&T gage is located in a wide shallow section of a stream
that is susceptible to ice during the period of low flows in Yerrick Creek. Formation of this ice
prevents correct recording of low flows at the Yerrick Creek gage. It also appears that the ice
(“frazil ice”) is corrupting data collection in the weeks leading up to the complete freeze, as pointed
out by Berkshire in his report (2007). The Berry Creek USGS gage is located at a narrower section
of the creek, and is able to capture longer periods of low flows
(http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/measurements?site_no=15476300&agency_cd=USGS&format=ht
ml_table_expanded).
3
Figure 1
Yerrick Creek - Berry Creek Correlation
y = 14.539Ln(x) - 11.927
R2 = 0.7856
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Berry Creek Q (predicted from Yukon)Yerrick Creek (recorded) QFitting Curve
Lower Limit Fitting Envelope
Log. (Fitting Curve)
Figure 2
Flow Duration Curve - Yerrick Creek (correlated on Berry Creek/Yukon River)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent Time ExceededYerrick Creek Flow, cfsYerrick Creek from Berry and Yukon
Yerrick Creek - lower prediction limit
Berry Creek (Berkshire)
(BLANK PAGE)
Page | 30
9.3 Biological and Other Surveys
9.3.1. Fish Resources Report
9.3.2. Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) Plant Report
9.3.3. Literature Review and Field Report: Hydrology Baseline
Study
9.3.4. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
9.3.5. Heritage Resource Survey
9.3.1. – FISH RESOURCES REPORT
10 June 2009
To: APT – Glen Martin
From: GRAYSTAR – Steve Grabacki
Subject: Report of Fisheries Fieldwork, Yerrick Creek, May-June 2009
I conducted three sampling sessions on Yerrick Creek -- 19-20 May 2009, 27-29 May 2009, and
7 June 2009.
For the first two sessions, the study area included lower Yerrick Creek, from roughly ½-mile
above the proposed powerhouse site downstream to the Tanana River. The main purpose of the
sampling was to compare spawning aggregations of Arctic grayling above vs. below the
proposed powerhouse site. Sampling methods included visual observation with polarized lenses,
angling with spin and fly terminal tackle, underwater video, and 3 styles of fish traps (small
wire-mesh minnow traps, medium collapsible minnow traps with larger throat, and larger
collapsible traps) baited with commercially cured salmon roe.
On the third sampling session, we focused on the creek downstream of the highway. The purpose
of this sampling was to observe and capture Arctic grayling in lower Yerrick Creek, and to
compare grayling's use of the creek for spring spawning by adults vs. summer feeding by
juveniles. Sampling methods included visual observation with polarized lenses, angling with
spin and fly terminal tackle, and herding fish through pools into a bag seine.
General Habitat Description
For most of its length, Yerrick Creek is a cascading stream with fast flow and boulder substrate.
The stream generally comprises 1-3 channels, within a wide dynamic (scoured) perimeter.
Apparent fish habitat consists of widely spaced, very small (~10-foot long) pools behind large
boulders or logjams.
Roughly 1 mile before the creek joins the Tanana River, the habitat is significantly different.
Flow is much slower, and the habitat is composed mostly of sand. In this “delta” area, there are
3 main channels, several smaller channels which leave and rejoin the larger channels, and at least
one large area (“city block” in size) through which the creek flows more-or-less overland, in very
shallow channels among dense spruce trees.
In between these two reaches is a transition zone, where flow is intermediate in strength and
substrate is small rocks & large gravel. This transition zone is only a few hundred yards long.
Complicating this situation is the fact that the water flowing in the creek is not always
continuous with the river. Because of the porous substrate, the water sometimes disappears from
the surface, and flows underground.
First Sampling Session
During the field trip of 19-20 May 2009, Yerrick Creek did not flow into (connect to) the Tanana
River. Water flow appeared strongest at the uppermost sampling station (above the powerhouse
site), and water was flowing in only 1 channel under the highway bridge.
On 19 May, the water disappeared approximately ¾-mile downstream of the bridge, within the
rocky streambed. On 20 May, the water had reached about 0.9 miles farther downstream, but
disappeared in the sandy substrate. In the sandy delta area, there were a few very small pools
with very little flow, and mostly dry substrate.
At the bridge, water temperature was –
10.8°C at about 1630 on 18 May
5.1°C at 1030 on 19 May
1.7°C at 0915 on 20 May
-- this range of daily temperature variation was observed on both sampling trips. (Arctic
grayling are thought to spawn at 4°C).
The 3 channels of Yerrick Creek drain into a backwater slough of the Tanana River. Although
there was no surface water flow from the creek to the river, there was water in that slough.
Water temperature was 10.5°C. We observed approximately 12 grayling in a tight school. The
fish appeared to be roughly 250-300 mm in length. They were easily spooked, and did not
respond to spinners or flies. We also observed 1 round whitefish, of approximately 300 mm in
length, dozens of small (~20 mm) grayling, and hundreds of tiny (<10 mm) fish (species
unknown). We captured no fish in the fish traps.
Above the powerhouse site on 19-20 May, we captured 1 Dolly Varden (225 mm FL) in a trap,
but observed no other fishes in this area.
Second Sampling Session
During the field trip of 27-29 May 2009, the flow in the creek was much greater, and the water
appeared to be more turbid, than it had been a week earlier. At the bridge, the water was flowing
in 2 channels (vs. one 1 channel, a week before), and was –
5.1°C at 1010 on 27 May
4.1°C at 0600 on 28 May, after a cool night
7.1°C at 1240 on 28 May
2.8°C at 0610 on 29 May, after a rainy night
3.5°C at 0925 on 29 May
5.3°C at 1455 on 29 May
Yerrick Creek was flowing into the Tanana River (the slough where we had earlier sampled)
through its 3 main channels. Just above those confluences, the creek was braided through the
forest, with several small channels and overland flows (among the trees). In these small
channels, we observed 2 individual grayling (the fish were widely separated, not aggregated).
We observed no fish in the lower creek (below the bridge), on either the rocky or sandy
substrates, but we did capture 2 slimy sculpin in a trap. Water temperature in the lower creek
was –
6.8°C at 1145 on 28 May
4.5°C at 1135 on 29 May
Above the powerhouse site, we captured 7 Dolly Varden in traps, but observed no other fishes,
with any sampling method. Water temperature in this area was –
7.5°C at 1325 on 28 May
3.7°C at 1330 on 29 May
During this second field trip, we found some of the fish traps in different positions from where
we had set them. They appeared to have been moved to the shore or (in one case) out of the
water by an overnight flood event.
To summarize the first two samplings -- For grayling to spawn in Yerrick Creek, 2 factors are
necessary – water temperature of 4-5°C, and continuity of water flow from the creek to the river.
As expected, we observed a school of grayling in the Tanana River very near the mouth of
Yerrick Creek, before the creek had reached the river. Those fish were apparently waiting to
enter the creek. After the creek had reached the river, we observed grayling in the sandy-bottom,
slower-flowing “delta” channels of the creek, but no grayling in the rocky-bottom, faster-flowing
cascading parts of the creek. Also, we did not observe aggregations of grayling anywhere in
Yerrick Creek.
Third Sampling Session
We sampled Yerrick Creek on 7 June 2009. The weather was cool and rainy in the morning, but
turned mostly sunny and warm in the afternoon. Water was clear, and 5.4C at 1100.
The purpose of this sampling was to observe and capture Arctic grayling in lower Yerrick Creek,
and to compare grayling's use of the creek for spring spawning by adults vs. summer feeding by
juveniles. Sampling methods included: visual observation with polarized lenses, angling with
spin and fly gear, and herding fish downstream through pools into a bag seine, which was
stretched across the creek.
We observed no fishes in the fast flow / boulder substrate zone, or in the slow flow / sand
substrate zone. In the transition zone, we captured 1 grayling, and observed 4 individual (not
aggregated) grayling: 2 of these were roughly 200 mm long, and 2 fish were approximately 100
mm long. The captured grayling was 208 mm fork length, and did not appear to be in either a
pre-spawning or post-spawning condition.
I took scale samples from the captured grayling, and released it in apparent good condition. I
drove to Delta, and met with ADFG's Fronty Parker. We discussed my findings, and we pressed
and read the sample of scales that I took from the fish I caught on Sunday (6/7). That grayling
was 2 or 3 years old, definitely juvenile, not a spawning adult.
Based on my sampling in early September 2008, and on these three sampling sessions in May-
June 2009, a picture of grayling use of Yerrick Creek seems to have emerged. Grayling appear
to use parts of Yerrick Creek (below and within the bypass reach) for summer feeding, on an
opportunistic basis. While I cannot prove that grayling do not spawn in Yerrick Creek, I have
found no evidence to support it --
* The creek did not connect to the river at the expected time of grayling spawning.
* I observed no aggregations of grayling anywhere in Yerrick Creek; all grayling observed in
the creek in May-June 2009 appeared to be individual fish.
* I observed no adult-size grayling, and the largest grayling observed in June 2009 (the 2- or
3-year-old) did not appear to be in either a pre-spawning or post-spawning condition.
1
REPORT
FISHERIES BASELINE STUDY
for a
PROPOSED HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT
on
YERRICK CREEK
near
TOK, ALASKA
prepared for –
ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE Company
Port Townsend, Washington
by –
Stephen T. Grabacki, FP-C
GRAYSTAR Pacific Seafood, Ltd.
Anchorage, Alaska
(907) 272-5600
graystar@alaska.net
October 2008
2
1 -- INTRODUCTION
ALASKA POWER AND TELEPHONE COMPANY (AP&T) has proposed to install a
hydroelectric project on Yerrick Creek, near Tok, Alaska. This document is the report of the
first year of a fisheries baseline study, in support of that project.
The study area included Yerrick Creek (YER) and Cathedral Rapids Creek #1 (CR1). These
streams are small tributaries of the upper Tanana River, in eastern interior Alaska. The fish and
fisheries of the upper Tanana River drainage are studied and managed by the Alaska Department
of Fish & Game (ADFG, or “the department”). Neither YER nor CR1 are listed in ADFG’s
Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes and
its associated Atlas -- http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/awc/ -- although the Tanana River
itself is listed.
YER and CR1 lie within ADFG’s Upper Tanana Management Area (UTMA), which is within
ADFG’s fishery management region III, also known as the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (AYK)
region (Figure 1). The UTMA encompasses Delta Junction, Tok, and several smaller
communities (Figure 2).
Region II
Region III
Region I
Lower Tanana Management Area
Upper Tanana Mangement Area
Upper Copper Upper Susitna
Management Area
Yukon Management AreaNorthwestern/Arctic
Management Area
Kuskokwim
Management Area
Figure 1 -- Map of ADFG’s Sport Fish Regions, and the Six Region III Management Areas
source: Parker 2006
3
Figure 2 -- Map of the Upper Tanana Management Area within the Tanana River Drainage
source: Parker 2006
Several fish species are found in the UTMA –
Common Name Scientific Name
chinook (king) salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
coho (silver) salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch
chum (keta) salmon Oncorhynchus keta
Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus
burbot Lota lota
lake trout Salvelinus namaycush
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma
round whitefish Coregonus cylindraceum
least cisco Coregonus sardinella
humpback whitefish Coregonus pidschian
northern pike Esox lucius
YER & CR1
study area
4
ADFG’s Division of Sport Fish publishes an annual Fishery Management Report for Sport
Fisheries in the Upper Tanana River Drainage. These reports focus on the more abundant sport-
caught fishes: coho salmon, Arctic grayling, northern pike, lake trout, and burbot. Dolly Varden
char are not explicitly studied. The most recent available such report (as of October 2008) is
Parker 2006.
ADFG has stocked rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus), coho
salmon, Arctic grayling, and lake trout in selected waters of the Upper Tanana area (Parker
2006).
In general, there is less sport fishing effort in the UTMA, as compared to the Lower Tanana
Management Area (Parker 2006); for example, in 2005 --
* 33% of anglers in the Tanana River drainage fished in UTMA
* 30% of fishing trips in the Tanana River drainage were in UTMA
* 28% of fishing effort in the Tanana River drainage was in UTMA
* 39% of fish harvest in the Tanana River drainage was in UTMA
In 2005, Arctic grayling comprised over half of the sport fish catch, but less than one-third of the
sport fish harvest (fish caught and retained) in UTMA (Parker 2006) –
Species Catch % of Catchd Harvest % of Harveste % Harvested
Salmon
* chinook 25 0.03 25 0.15 100.0
* cohoa 2,830 2.97 267 1.61 9.4
* cohob 2,973 3.12 1,002 6.02 33.7
* chum 686 0.72 0 0.0 0.0
Non-Salmon
* rainbow trout 17,355 18.20 6,336 38.10 36.5
* lake trout 3,651 3.83 569 3.42 15.6
* charc 1,453 1.52 463 2.78 31.8
* Arctic grayling 55,943 58.66 5,242 31.52 9.4
* northern pike 8,299 8.70 1,646 9.90 19.8
* whitefish 455 0.48 60 0.36 30.5
* burbot 1,370 1.44 1,021 6.14 74.8
* sheefish 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
* other fishes 321 0.34 0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 95,361 16,631 17.4
a – anadromous salmon
b – landlocked coho & Chinook salmon
c – includes Arctic char & Dolly Varden
d – the species’ percent of UTMA total catch, calculated from Table 7 in Parker 2006
e – the species’ percent of UTMA total harvest, calculated from Table 7 in Parker 2006
5
The preceding table shows that 1.52% of the catch, and 2.78% of the harvest, were composed of
“char”, which includes both wild Dolly Varden and stocked Arctic char.
Because of their wide distribution and comparatively high abundance, Arctic grayling are
important to both sport and subsistence harvesters. As such, they have been extensively studied
by ADFG scientists for decades. In the Tanana River drainage, grayling exhibit a wide range of
age and size at maturity (Clark 1992). Similar studies have not been conducted for Dolly Varden
in the upper Tanana drainage, but anecdotal observations indicate that Dolly Varden in that area
may reach maturity and spawn at small sizes (< 200 mm fork length) (J.F. Parker, ADFG,
personal communication, 2008), and even while exhibiting so-called “juvenile” characteristics
such as parr marks (A.E. Rosenberger, University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Fisheries &
Ocean Sciences, personal communication, 2008).
ADFG has conducted comprehensive fish surveys of the streams of the middle and lower Tanana
River drainage, including clear, clear/glacial, glacial, humic/glacial, and humic creeks and rivers,
and found no Dolly Varden in any of those habitats (Durst 2001, Hemming & Morris 1999).
Arctic grayling conduct seasonal migrations among overwintering, spawning, and summer
feeding habitats, and seasonal changes in water temperature are generally considered to be the
triggers for those movements (Ridder 1995, Ridder 1994, and several previous studies cited in
those reports. Similar studies have not been conducted for Dolly Varden in the upper Tanana
drainage, but anecdotal reports indicate that there may be year-round resident populations of
Dolly Varden in the upper reaches of Yerrick Creek (J.F. Parker, ADFG, personal
communication, 2008).
In 1988, 367 Tok households were surveyed to determine their subsistence use of fish, game, and
plant resources. Most households used subsistence-caught salmon (79.4%) and freshwater fish
(71.4%). In the freshwater fish category, the predominant subsistence species were grayling
(55.7%), burbot (40.2%), rainbow trout (35.0%), large pike (27.2%), whitefish (25.9%), and lake
trout (22.9%). Only 0.9% of Tok households reported using subsistence-caught Dolly Varden.
The report does not identify where these various fish species were harvested, but because the
Tok data set includes marine fish (27.5%), such as halibut, it appears that Tok residents harvest
subsistence fisheries resources far from home, and not only in the local Tok area (McMillan &
Cuccarese 1988).
In conclusion, Arctic grayling are the most commonly sport-caught fish in the UTMA, and the
second-most common sport-harvested species. Grayling are also taken by subsistence
harvesters. Dolly Varden are comparatively uncommon in the UTMA, in both the sport and
subsistence harvests, and were not reported by either of two ADFG scientific investigations.
Finally, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game’s Division of
Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement, & Development (FRED) investigated possible sites for
salmon hatcheries throughout Alaska. In a survey of Yerrick Creek in February 1980, Raymond
(1980) reported –
6
* the Upper Tanana River Valley has many ingredients for a good hatchery site:
year-round highway access, high-gradient streams, and hardly any salmon
* most of the creeks in this area dry up in winter
* there was no evidence of running water at the highway bridge
* there was evidence of running water at two sites: 1 mile and 2 miles upstream of
the highway
* water temperature was too low for a flow-through hatchery
* there was plenty of hydropower available
2 -- METHODS
YER is characterized by steep gradient, cascading flows, and large boulder substrate. The
channels appear to be dynamic, as judged by cleanliness of the substrate in and near the water:
very little periphyton and almost no terrestrial vegetation. There are few pools in YER that
appear capable of providing habitat for fishes. Those pools are small, in the range of 10-20 ft
long.
CR1 is much smaller and steeper than YER. It is essentially one long, cascading run, with strong
current and large boulder substrate. Small pools are apparent only at very low flows. For
example, in June (lower flow than in September), a pool of roughly 10 ft wide x 20 ft long x 2 ft
deep was observed at WP 037: 63°21.595’N 143°43.005’W elevation: 2,239 ft but this pool
could not be located in early September, when flow was greater. Similarly, a few smaller pools
were observed in June, but by early September, the dynamic channel appeared to have shifted so
that they were no longer apparent.
During sampling visits in summer 2008, the wetted perimeters of both streams were much
smaller (narrower) than their respective dynamic channels (area of clean boulders).
The fish sampling stations on YER and CR1 were selected to bracket the area of interest to
AP&T’s proposed project (Figure 3) –
* Station UYC: upper Yerrick Creek, well above the hydropower impoundment site
* Station UMY: middle/upper Yerrick Creek, above the impoundment site
* Station YCI: Yerrick Creek, in the general vicinity of the proposed impoundment
* Station MYC: middle Yerrick Creek, between the impoundment and the powerhouse
* Station LYC: lower Yerrick Creek, downstream of the proposed powerhouse
* Station CRI: Cathedral Rapids Creek #1, in the vicinity of the proposed impoundment
The purpose of this study was to characterize the seasonal presence and distribution of fishes in
the two streams.
7
Figure 3 -- Sampling Sites for the 2008 Fisheries Baseline Study
The two creeks were visited on foot and examined, but not sampled, 6-7 June 2008. Fish habitat
was generally characterized, and the locations of possible fish-bearing pools were recorded.
Sampling, supported by helicopter, was conducted –
* 3-4 September 2008 (YER and CR1); this sampling was originally scheduled for early
August, in order to sample fish in their summer habitats, but because of unusually heavy and
prolonged rains and flooding in the Tok area, the trip was postponed twice until early
September; nevertheless, the weather and water were warm and summer-like, but the water
flow was still noticeably higher than in June
LYC
UYC
UMY
YCI
MYC
CRI
8
* 29-30 September 2008 (YER only); this sampling was intended to sample fish immediately
before freeze-up, in order to understand the species winter habitats; the water flows were
lower than in early September
Sampling methods included --
* electrofisher + bag seine (the electrofisher was used to herd the fish into the bag seine,
rather than stunning them); it was difficult to maintain the seine in the current at some sites,
and impossible at other sites; also, this was more effective in late September, because flow
was less than in early September; where it was not possible to maintain the bag seine in
strong current, electrofishing was performed as best as possible along the sides of the stream
and in small backwater areas; in most cases, electrofishing was performed by two people:
one bearing the backpack unit, and the other using a dipnet
* minnow traps baited with commercially cured salmon eggs and left to soak overnight in
pools, where pools could be found; fewer pools were visible during early September (higher
flow) vs. in late September (lower flow), so that traps were not set at all sites in early
September
GPS coordinates, as displayed on a brand new Garmin GPS unit, do not appear to match the
apparent location as displayed in Figure 3, which is drawn from a brand new version of the
TOPO! mapping software. It is not clear if the error is within the GPS unit, the software, or in
the interaction between the two. In this report, the GPS readings are listed in Appendix A, and
the apparent location is shown in Figure 3.
3 -- RESULTS
Fish sampling was conducted under ADFG Fish Resource Permit SF2008-172. A report of those
activities was submitted to ADFG on 27 October 2008, and is attached to this report as Appendix
A. Two species of fish were captured: Dolly Varden (DV) and Arctic grayling (AG). All fishes
were measured and released alive, in apparent good condition. The results of the 2008 fish
sampling were –
YERRICK CREEK – 3-4 September 2008
Station UYC
** 1 minnow trap + electrofish ~40 yds of stream
DV (5): 127, 122, 120, 127, 117 mm fork length (FL)
9
Station YCI
** 2 minnow traps + electrofish ~160 yds of stream
DV (4): 135, 110, 102, 115 mm FL
AG (3 possible males): 220, 235, 190 mm FL
AG (1 possible female): 207 mm FL
AG (7 undetermined sex): 165, 150, 148, 190, 148, 162, 148 mm FL
Station MYC
* not possible to set bag seine: current too strong, too wide in run, too deep & fast
* not possible to set minnow trap: current too strong, no slow water
* water still high & fast >10 days after latest rain; thalweg depth 3.5-4.0 ft
* attempted electrofishing along ~50 yards of shoreline: sighted 1 fish ~150mm,
species unknown
Station LYC
* set of seine not very good; current very strong
* electrofish ~35 yards downstream to seine: no fish observed
* no other fish-able sites nearby or anywhere below old pipeline corridor
* no minnow trap set here
YERRICK CREEK – 29-30 September 2008
Station UYC
** 1 minnow trap
DV (3): 175, 126, 145 mm FL
Station UMY
** 1 minnow trap + electrofish ~ 25 yds of stream
DV (4): 125, 147, 159, 142 mm FL
+ 1 DV sighted
Station YCI
** 2 minnow traps + electrofish ~40 yds of stream
DV (14): 124, 131, 167, 133, 131, 137, 136, 128, 125, 123, 141, 105, 130, 80 mm FL
DV (1 possible gravid female?): 149 mm FL
10
Station MYC
* 1 minnow trap + electrofish ~100 yds of stream
DV (2): 122, 98 mm FL
DV (1 w/ white-edged fins, possible spawning male?): 164 mm FL
AG (1): 162 mmFL
+ sighted 3 small fish, each <100 m FL
Station LYC
* 1 minnow trap + electrofish ~100 yds of stream
AG (1): 79 mm FL
CATHEDRAL RAPIDS CREEK #1 – 3-4 September 2008
Station CRI
* electrofished ~0.1 mile of CR1, roughly near the approximate impound site
no fish sighted or captured
* no minnow trap set (no pools)
4 – CONCLUSIONS
Yerrick Creek is used by Dolly Varden and Arctic grayling, in occasional small pools separated
by long sections of cascading runs.
Dolly Varden were captured in the middle and upper reaches of the creek (including the
proposed impoundment area), while Arctic grayling were captured in the middle and lower
sections. In this sampling, Arctic grayling were captured less often than were Dolly Varden.
Dolly Varden were commonly encountered in both late summer and late fall (immediately before
freeze-up), which suggests that they are year-round residents, including over winter. [Inferring
the over-winter habitat of Dolly Varden based on pre-freeze-up surveys and sampling is used by
ADFG biologists in other Alaska streams (Scanlon 2008).]
The capture of a possibly gravid female and possibly spawning male suggests that Dolly Varden
might spawn in the middle reaches of this stream.
This apparent distribution is consistent with general anecdotal observations of these species in
UTMA –
* dwarf Dolly Varden are thought to be year-round residents of upper Yerrick Creek
* Arctic grayling migrate seasonally into and out of lower Yerrick Creek
11
No fish were captured or sighted in Cathedral Rapids Creek #1, and fish habitat appears to be
very scarce. It is not clear to what extent, if any, this cascading stream is used by either fish
species.
5 -- RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2008 fisheries sampling has provided useful characterizations of fish presence and
distribution in Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek #1, in late summer, late fall, and by
inference, over-winter. These data, when supplemented by a sampling in late spring or early
summer of 2009, will yield a picture of yearly habitat use of these two streams. This future
sampling should be performed at a very low water stage, to allow for thorough electrofishing at
all stations.
6 – LITERATURE CITED
Clark, R.A. 1992. Age and Size at Maturity of Arctic Grayling in Selected Waters of the
Tanana Drainage. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Division of Sport Fish; Anchorage.
Fishery Manuscript 92-5.
Durst, J.D. 2001. Fish Habitats and Use in the Tanana Floodplain Near Big Delta, Alaska,
1999-2000. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Habitat & Restoration Division; Juneau.
Technical Report 01-05.
Hemming, C.R., & W.A. Morris. 1999. Fish Habitat Investigations in the Tanana River
Watershed, 1997. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Habitat & Restoration Division; Juneau.
Technical Report 99-1.
McMillan, P.O., & S.V. Cuccarese. 1988. Alaska Over-the-horizon Backscatter Radar System:
Characteristics of Contemporary Subsistence Use Patterns in the Copper River Basin and Upper
Tanana Area; Volume I: Synthesis. Draft Report. Prepared for: Hart Crowser Inc. and Arctic
Environmental Information & Data Center, in cooperation with Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (Anchorage & Fairbanks) and U.S. National Park Service.
Parker, J.F. 2007a. Fishery Management Report for Sport Fisheries in the Upper Tanana River
Drainage in 2002. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Divisions of Sport Fish and
Commercial Fisheries; Anchorage. Fishery Management Report 07-03.
Parker, J.F. 2007b. Fishery Management Report for Sport Fisheries in the Upper Tanana River
Drainage in 2003. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Divisions of Sport Fish and
Commercial Fisheries; Anchorage. Fishery Management Report 07-05.
12
Parker, J.F. 2006. Fishery Management Report for Sport Fisheries in the Upper Tanana River
Drainage in 2005. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Divisions of Sport Fish and
Commercial Fisheries; Anchorage. Fishery Management Report 06-67.
Raymond, J. 1980. AYK Hatchery Site Surveys, and Miscellaneous Chum Spawning
Observations. Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation,
Enhancement, & Development; Fairbanks.
Ridder, W.P. 1995. Movements of Radio-Tagged Arctic Grayling in the Tok River Drainage.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Sport Fish. Fishery Data Series 95-36.
Ridder, W.P. 1994. Arctic Grayling Investigations in the Tok River Drainage During 1993.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game; Division of Sport Fish; Anchorage. Fishery Data Series
94-19.
Scanlon, B. 2008. Fishery Management Report for Sport Fisheries in the Northwest / North
Slope Management Area, 2006. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Anchorage. Fishery
Management Report 08-35.
13
APPENDIX A
Report for FRP SF2008-172
14
Report of Activities and Collections
27 October 2008
Fish Resource Permit SF2008-172
Stephen T. Grabacki, FP-C; 907-272-5600; graystar@alaska.net
Location: Yerrick Creek (YER) and Cathedral Rapids Creek #1 (CR1)
The two creeks were examined but not sampled 6-7 June 2008. Fish habitat was generally
characterized, and the GPS locations of possible fish-bearing pools were recorded.
Sampling was conducted 3-4 September 2008 (YER and CR1), and 29-30 September 2008 (YER
only), with electrofisher + bag seine (the electrofisher was used to herd the fish into the bag
seine, rather than stunning them), and minnow traps baited with commercially cured salmon eggs
and left to soak overnight.
GPS coordinates, as displayed on Grabacki’s brand new Garmin GPS unit, do not appear to
match the apparent location as displayed on the attached map. In this report, the GPS readings
are listed in the text, and the apparent location is shown on the map.
(1) RESULTS FROM 3-4 SEPTEMBER 2008
YERRICK CREEK (YER)
Upper YER, above fork, western channel, well above impoundment, 04SEP08
63°18.204’N 143°35.387’W elevation: 2,830 ft
Minnow trap set 03SEP08@1915, retrieved 04SEP08@1030 –
DV (1): 127 mmFL
Electrofished 2 channels –
* single channel, ~40 yards
* Y-shaped channel, ~80 yards
DV (4): 122, 120, 127, 117 mmFL
All fish in apparent good condition, released alive
15
Pool at/near impoundment site (above Mike’s camp), 03SEP08
Waypoint 009, elevation: 2,284 ft
63°20.435’N 143°37.852’W
Electrofished pool & run, ~30 yards –
DV (1): 115 mmFL
AG (3 possible males): 220, 235, 190 mmFL
AG (1 possible female): 207 mmFL
AG (5 undetermined sex): 150, 148, 190, 148, 162, 148 mmFL
All fishes in apparent good condition, and released alive
Minnow trap set 1430, retrieved 0955 (04SEP08) –
DV (2): 110, 102 mmFL
Fish in apparent good condition, released alive
Pool below impoundment site, 03SEP08
Waypoint 008, elevation: 2,263 ft
63°20.589’N 143°37.684’W
Electrofished 2 channels –
* main channel, ~80 yards: no fish captured or sighted
* side channel, ~50 yards: 1 fish sighted + 2 fish captured –
Arctic grayling (AG) 165mm fork length (FL), apparent good condition, released alive
Dolly Varden (DV) 135 mmFL, apparent good condition, released alive
(DV bore parr marks)
Minnow trap set 1300, retrieved 0930 (04SEP08): no catch
Middle YER, near big cut in hill on west bank
Waypoint 024 on Mike Warner’s GPS: 63°21.411’N 143°37.852’W elevation: 2,100 ft
Not possible to set bag seine: current too strong, too wide in run, too deep & fast below pool
Water still high >10 days after latest rain; thalweg depth 3.5-4.0 ft
Attempted electrofishing along ~50 yards of shoreline: sighted 1 fish ~150mm, species unknown
Same conditions downstream ~0.5 mile
Might be able to work this site in lower flow
Lower YER, below highway bridge
63°23.062’N 143°35.538’W elevation: 1,971 ft
Set bag seine below a slight pool
Set of seine not very good; current very strong; lead line not on bottom in some places
My assistant was the anchor for one end of the seine
Electrofished ~35 yards downstream to seine: no fish observed
No other fish-able sites nearby or anywhere below old pipeline corridor
Observation: In June, flow at upper YER was greater than at lower YER. In September, there
was stronger flow at mid- and lower YER sites. Judging by wet marks on the rocks, the water
level was dropping.
16
Yerrick Creek is characterized by steep gradient, cascading flows, and large boulder substrate.
The channels appear to be dynamic, as judged by cleanliness of the substrate in and near the
water: very little periphyton and almost no terrestrial vegetation. There are few pools in YER
that appear capable of providing habitat for fishes. Those pools are small, in the range of 10 ft
long. Besides the pools that we sampled, other small pools were observed (in June) at –
* 63°22.308’N 143°37.007’W elevation: 1,847 ft
* 63°22.123’N 143°37.104’W elevation: not recorded
* 63°21.572’N 143°37.608’W elevation: 2,050 ft (pool near spur of hill)
* 63°21.582’N 143°37.638’W elevation: 1,930 ft
* 63°21.257’N 143°37.913’W elevation: 2,220 ft (pool near scree slope; 1 AG seen in June)
CATHEDRAL RAPIDS CREEK #1 (CR1)
Station CRI
Electrofished ~0.1 mile of CR1, roughly near the approximate impound site
* from WP 012: 63°21.086’N 143°43.153’W elevation: 2,495 ft
* to WP 011: 63°21.175’N 143°43.163’W elevation: 2,442 ft
No fish sighted or captured
No minnow trap set (no pools)
Note: this site was not really a pool or pools; it was a reach of the stream near the impound site,
where we could reasonably set the bag seine and conduct electrofishing.
CR1 is much smaller and steeper than YER. It is essentially one long, cascading run, with strong
current and large boulder substrate. In June (lower flow than in September), a pool of roughly
10 ft wide x 20 ft long x 2 ft deep was observed at WP 037: 63°21.595’N 143°43.005’W
elevation: 2,239 ft but this pool could not be located in early September. Similarly, a few
smaller pools were observed in June, but by early September, the dynamic channel appeared to
have shifted so that they were no longer apparent.
17
(2) RESULTS FROM 29-30 SEPTEMBER 2008
YERRICK CREEK (YER)
Station UYC
Upper YER
Waypoint 026, elevation: 2,811 ft
63° 18.193’N 143°35.406’W
Minnow trap set 29SEP08@1415; retrieved 30SEP08@1320 --
DV (3): 175, 126, 145 mmFL
All fish in apparent good condition, released alive
Station UMY
Upper YER, below WP 026
Waypoint 029, elevation: 2,548 ft
63° 19.371’N 143°36.591’W
Nice pool at big dead spruce and snag
Minnow trap set 29SEP08@1440; retrieved 30SEP08@ 1235 –
DV (3): 147, 159, 142 mm FL
All fish in apparent good condition, released alive.
Electrofished 2 pools, ~25 linear yards of stream –
DV (1): 125 mm FL
+ 1 DV sighted
Fish in apparent good condition, released alive
Station YCI
Pools near impoundment site
Waypoint 030, elevation: 2,242 ft
63° 20.606’N 143°37.686’W
2 minnow traps set 29SEP08@1500, retrieved 30SEP08@1115 –
DV (12): 149*, 133, 131, 137, 136, 128, 125, 123, 141, 105, 130, 80 mm FL
* possible gravid female?
All fish in apparent good condition, released alive.
Electrofished pools near impoundment site, ~25 linear yards of stream –
no fish sighted or captured
Electrofished pool at fork of 3 channels ~100 yards above impoundment site
Waypoint 032, elevation: 2,204 ft
63° 20.521’N 143° 37.773’W
DV (3): 124, 131, 167 mm FL
All fish in apparent good condition, released alive
18
Station MYC
Middle YER, near big spur of hill (“razorback”) on west bank
Waypoint 031, elevation: 2,026 ft
63° 21.623’N 143° 37.565’W
Minnow trap set 29SEP08@1550, retrieved 30SEP08@1400 –
DV (3): 164*, 122, 98 mmFL
* white-edged fins, possible spawning male?
Electrofished ~100 linear yards of stream, in various small pools –
AG (1): 162 mmFL
+ sighted 3 small fish, each <100 m FL
Fish in apparent good condition, released alive
Station LYC
Lower YER, below highway bridge
Waypoint 025, elevation: 1,717 ft
63° 22.878’N 143°36.438’W
Minnow trap set 29SEP08@1350, retrieved 30SEP08@1000 –
* no catch
Electrofished ~100yards of stream –
AG (1): 79 mm FL
9.3.2. – THREATENED, ENDANGERED, SENSITIVE
(TES) PLANT REPORT
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
Tok, Alaska
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plant Report
February 2009
Prepared for:
Alaska Power and Telephone Company
PO Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Prepared by:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Table of Contents
STUDY PURPOSE AND LOCATION.............................................................................................................. 1
METHODS........................................................................................................................................................... 1
SAMPLING DESIGN............................................................................................................................................. 2
FIELD METHODS ................................................................................................................................................ 3
COLLECTION AND VOUCHERS............................................................................................................................ 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................... 3
NOTABLE PLANTS ............................................................................................................................................ 4
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................... 5
DETERMINATION OF TES SPECIES MADE BY........................................................................................ 5
ATTACHMENTS................................................................................................................................................ 5
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................... 5
APPENDICES...................................................................................................................................................... 6
APPENDIX A: SURVEY INTENSITY AND RARITY RANK FOR SPECIES .................................................................. 6
APPENDIX B: PLANTS RECORDED AT SAMPLE PLOTS ........................................................................................ 8
APPENDIX C: PROJECT AREA PLANT SPECIES LIST.......................................................................................... 13
APPENDIX D: PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX E: FIELD DATA FORMS ................................................................................................................... 17
Figures
FIGURE 1: TES SURVEY MAP ......................................................................................................AS ATTACHEMENT
FIGURE 2: PHLOX SIBIRICA PHOTO ......................................................................................................................... 4
Tables
TABLE 1: PRELIMINARY LIST OF POTENTIAL RARE PLANTS ..................................................................................... 1
i
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plant Report
Key Findings:
No threatened, endangered, or sensitive plants were located
within areas likely to be affected by project activities.
The project, as described, is not expected to adversely
affect any sensitive plants.
Study Purpose and Location
A threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant survey was conducted within the
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric project area. The purpose of the study was to determine if there
were any individuals or populations of plant species of interest that may be affected by
project activities. The survey was conducted at Level 5 intensity (Appendix A).
The project area is located near along Yerrick Creek, a cobble, gravel and sand substrate
creek which crosses the Alaska Highway at approximately milepost 1339 (see Figure 1 in the
Yerrick Creek Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report for wetlands). Most of the
project area is undeveloped with an open gravel waterway, islands of mixed hardwood and
softwood trees, abandoned gravel side channels in various states of revegetation, and heavily
forested banks. Specific legal and geographic descriptions for the property required for
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations are included in the Preliminary Jurisdiction report
for wetlands in Table 1.
The main vegetation of Yerrick Creek study area is typically open paper birch – white spruce
forest. Open balsam poplar–white spruce forest and open white spruce forest inhabit drier
sites. Open black spruce forest and open dwarf black spruce forest occupy areas with poorly
drained soils. Closed tall alder or willow scrub occupies the transitional areas between
forested areas and creek channel. Narrow areas of gravel floodplain areas along Yerrick
Creek are inhabited by early seral graminoids and forbs. Bluejoint meadows and lowland
sedge wet meadows occupy wet areas adjacent to ponds.
Methods
A five-day site visit was completed between August 21st and 25th, 2008, to identify any
threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species in the proposed project area.
To target rare plants within the Yerrick Creek project area, we composed a list of rare plant
species likely to be encountered. The target species list was compiled based on the Alaska
Natural Heritage Program’s (AKNHP) Biotics database. The AKNHP database query did not
show the occurrence of rare plants within the project area. This area has not been previously
1
surveyed for rare plants. Rare plants known in the general vicinity of Tanacross B5 and B6
USGS Quad maps were located from two queries on 7/21/2008. One query was the AKNHP
Biotics Database query, and the other was from the Arctos Database at the University of
Alaska-Fairbanks (UAF), which lists all known herbarium records stored at the UAF
Herbarium (code letters ALA). The compiled list was reviewed and edited by local botanist
Rob Lipkin (pers. com.) Rarity was determined by the AKNHP’s 2006 Vascular Plant
Tracking list (Lipkin, 2008).
Table 1: Preliminary list of potential rare plants (for explanation of Rarity Rank, see Appendix A).
Scientific Name Common Name Family
Global
Rarity
Rank
State
Rarity
Rank
Possible Habitat
Agrostis clavata clavate bentgrass Poaceae G4G5 S1S2
Open balsam poplar-
white spruce forest.
Bare soils, wet
meadows
Carex heleonastes Hudson Bay sedge Cyperaceae G4G5 S2S3 Peat bogs, swamps
Castilleja annua Scrophulariaceae G3G4Q S3S4 Waste places
Ceratophyllum demersum coon's tail Ceratophyllaceae G5 S1
Ponds, lakes, and
slow moving streams
and rivers. Either
anchored in the mud
or floating freely near
the surface.
Draba paysonii Payson's draba Brassicaceae G5 S1S2 Gravel cutbank in
glacial cirque
Lupinus kuschei Yukon lupine Fabaceae G3 S2 roadsides
Montia bostockii Bostock's minerslettuce Portulacaceae G3 S3 Wet places in the
mountains
Phacelia mollis soft phacelia Hydrophyllaceae G2G3 S2S3
Tall white spruce-
aspen forest, coarse
sand, dry sand
beach, dry alpine
tundra meadows.
Poa secunda curly bluegrass Poaceae G5 SNA Meadows, open
woods
Taraxacum carneocoloratum fleshy dandelion Asteraceae G3Q S3
high alpine scree
slopes, extremely
rare
Sampling Design
The goal was to visit all vegetation types in the study area and identify all plant species
encountered during field work that was focused on wetland mapping. All species were
identified in the field or collected for further identification.
We reviewed aerial photography to identify vegetation types most likely to contain the taxa
of interest. Habitats of greatest interest included the following:
2
Openings in mixed birch – spruce forest,
Edges of ponds and meadows,
Seeps and small creeks,
Gravel river banks along Yerrick Creek.
Daily work was planned to visit as many different habitat types as possible, including those
most likely to include rare plants.
Field Methods
Teams traveled by foot while conducting the survey. As new vegetation communities were
encountered, sampling points were established and the following data were collected:
Each plot was georeferenced using a Garmin GPS unit. Survey routes were also
mapped.
Representative photos of the vegetation community were taken at each plot.
Vegetation type and dominant species by growth form (trees, shrubs, forbs, ferns/
non-vascular plants) were recorded at each site, using the vegetation classification
system by Viereck (1992).
Additional data were gathered specific to the location, habitat, landform, notable
plants, bare ground, or other parameters of interest.
Unidentified plants were collected for lab identification and noted on the field form.
A complete list of plant species encountered was compiled as the survey progressed.
Collection and Vouchers
Collections were made only if the population was large enough to support removal of
individuals. The following data were recorded with each voucher specimen: date, latitude and
longitude (Datum: NAD_1983_StatePlane_Alaska_2_FIPS_5002_Feet, in decimal degrees,
taken from the Garmin GPS unit), associated species, vegetation type, substrate, notes on
characteristics that may not preserve well (e.g., flower color), associated photo number, and
other ecological observations. Each voucher specimen was referenced to a specific
geographic locality.
Results and Discussion
The HDR project botanist surveyed most of the major vegetation types, and covered much of
the geographic extent of the Yerrick Creek project area. The majority of collection locations
were concentrated on gravel river bars and shrub areas adjacent to the Yerrick Creek.
More than 100 vouchers were collected. Specimens were given provisional names in the field
and later sorted, examined and identified by the HDR botanist. Specimens of notable taxa
will be sent to the UAF Herbarium (ALA) for review by the museum staff. Most of these
species are widespread in interior Alaska. No non-native species were observed in the
Yerrick Creek study area.
3
In total, 145 species from 40 families were recorded at the area. The complete list of species
encountered in Yerrick Creek study area is found in Appendix C.
Two lakes were visited. Aquatic plants were observed and recorded from the shore. The
study area was not surveyed for aquatic plants specifically.
Notable Plants
Four notable plants were found in the project area. The AKNHP tracks populations of plants
of interest. Notable plants are not considered rare, sensitive, or endangered but are considered
to be of ecological interest by the AKNHP.
Phlox sibirica (Siberian phlox) was not previously reported from the area. The closest
records of this plant are approximately (UAF 2008):
1. 30 miles NW of Yerrick Creek in Fort Greely Military Reservation in 2004 (63.78°, -
145.79°)
2. 45 miles SE of Yerrick Creek at Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve
(62.20266°, -142.123273° )
Figure 2: Phlox sibirica, Siberian phlox.
Other notable plants, for which there are no nearby records, include:
1. Botrychium lunaria (common moonwort)
2. Platanthera obtusata (blunt-leaved orchid)
3. Astragalus robbinsii ssp. harringtonii (Harold’s milkvetch)
4
Conclusion
No globally or state ranked Rare or Sensitive species were encountered or identified during
the survey.
No Endangered species were encountered or identified during the survey. The only plant
federally listed or proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska is Polystichum
aleuticum C. Christensen, which is endangered. It is only known from Adak Island and is not
expected to occur in the project area.
Most plant species observed in the Yerrick Creek project area are considered common and
widespread in interior Alaska.
This TES plant survey is significant as a first floristic study in Yerrick Creek area.
Determination of TES Species Made By
Irina Lapina
Vegetation Ecologist
HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: February 2008
Attachments
Figure 1: TES Survey Map
References
Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). 2008. Botany Databases.
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/Botany_Home.htm.
Cody, W.J. 1996. Flora of the Yukon Territory. NRC Research Press, Canada. 668 p.
Lipkin, R. 2008. Alaska Natural Heritage Program Rare Vascular Plant Tracking List. April. Alaska Natural
Heritage Program, Anchorage, AK.
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/pdfs/Rare%20PLant%20List%202008.pdf
Hultén, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). 2006. Arctos Database.
http://arctos.database.museum/SpecimenResults.cfm.
Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, & K.J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska vegetation classification. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland. OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 278 p.
5
Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Intensity and Rarity Rank for Species
Survey intensity level for plants:
LEVEL 1 = "FIELD CHECK"
The surveyor gives the area a quick "once-over" but does not walk completely through the
project area. The entire project area has not been examined.
LEVEL 2 = "CURSORY"
The surveyor gives the area a "once-over" by walking through the project area. The entire
project area has not been examined.
LEVEL 3 = "LIMITED FOCUS"
The surveyor closely examines one or more habitat-specific locations within the project area,
but does not look at the rest of the area.
LEVEL 4 = "GENERAL"
The surveyor gives the area a closer look by walking through the project area and walking
around the perimeter of the area or by walking more than once through the area. Most of the
project area is examined.
LEVEL 5 = "INTUITIVE CONTROLLED"
The surveyor has closer look by conducting a complete examination of specific areas of the
project after walking through the project area and perimeter or by walking more than once
through the area.
LEVEL 6 = "COMPLETE"
The surveyor has walked throughout the survey area until nearly all of the area has been
examined.
Rarity Rank for Species:
The rarity rank is a value that best characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment of a
native taxon within the specified geographic boundaries (i.e., range-wide for global, or
within-state or province for subnational).
In general, NatureServe Central Science staff assign global, U.S., and Canadian national
Element ranks with guidance from local Heritage Programs/Conservation Data Centres,
especially for endemic Elements, and from experts on particular taxonomic groups. Local
installations assign subnational ranks for Elements in their respective jurisdictions.
Only the following rank components should be entered in this Rank field:
The appropriate geopolitical-level prefixes currently in use are:
G = global
S = subnational
Allowable values are:
1 = critically imperiled
2 = imperiled
3 = vulnerable
6
4 = apparently secure
5 = secure
H = possibly extinct
X = presumed extinct
U = unrankable
NR = not ranked
NA = not applicable (Element is not a suitable target for conservation)
If applicable, an indicator of uncertainty about the rank, either in the form of a range rank or
a “?” qualifier following a numeric basic rank.
For national and subnational ranks, a suffix that describes the population of a migratory
species, as follows:
B = breeding population
N = nonbreeding population
M = transient population
Ranks for one, two, or all three population segments can be entered, separated by commas
(e.g., S1B,S2N,S3M).
For global ranks, if applicable, an appended T-rank for an infraspecies.
For global ranks, if applicable, a qualifier after the basic rank in the form of a Q indicating
questionable taxonomy, or a C indicating captive or cultivated
Species Ranks used by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program
Species Global Rankings
G1: Critically imperiled globally (5 or fewer occurrences)
G2: Imperiled globally (6-20 occurrences)
G3: Rare or Uncommon globally (20-100 occurrences)
G4: Apparently secure globally, but cause for long-term concern (>100 occurrences)
G5: Demonstrably secure globally
G#G# Rank of species uncertain, best described as a range between two ranks
G#Q Taxonomically questionable
G#T# Global rank of species and global rank of the described variety or subspecies
Species State Rankings
S1: Critically imperiled in state (5 or fewer occurrences)
S2: Imperiled in state (6-20 occurrences)
S3: Rare or Uncommon in state (20-100 occurrences)
S4: Apparently secure in state, but cause for long-term concern (>100 occurrences)
S5: Demonstrably secure in state
S#S# Rank of species uncertain, best described as a range between two ranks
For further information concerning rare plant species for this area, please contact the Alaska
Natural Heritage Program Botanist (907) 257-2785.
7
Appendix B: Plants Recorded at Sample Plots
Scientific Name Plot
Number Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft) Habitat
Betula papyrifera 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Picea glauca 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa
1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Betula glandulosa 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Ledum groenlandicum 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Vaccinium vitis-idaea 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Vaccinium uliginosum 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Salix scouleriana 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Geocaulon lividum 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Salix alaxensis 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Calamagrostis canadensis 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Lycopodium annotinum 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Polygonum alaskanum 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Cornus canadensis 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Carex sp. 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
feather moss 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
lichens 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Polytrichum sp. 1 63.34361 -143.63515 2479 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Picea mariana 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Ledum groenlandicum 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Salix pulchra 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Betula glandulosa 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Vaccinium vitis-idaea 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Empetrum nigrum 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Andromeda polifolia 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Lycopodium annotinum 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Equisetum arvense 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Equisetum sylvaticum 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Vaccinium oxycoccus 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Geocaulon lividum 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Carex sp. 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
feather mosses 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Sphagnum russowii 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Sphagnum sp. 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
lichen 2 63.34405 -143.63589 2407 dwarf open black spruce forest
Betula glandulosa 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Ledum groenlandicum 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Vaccinium vitis-idaea 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Empetrum nigrum 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Vaccinium uliginosum 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Salix glauca 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Carex sp. 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Rubus chamaemorus 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Trientalis europaea 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
8
Scientific Name Plot
Number Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft) Habitat
Geocaulon lividum 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Petasites frigidus x
hyperboreoides 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Vaccinium oxycoccus 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Polytrichum sp. 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Sphagnum sp. 3 63.34571 -143.63655 2378 open black spruce forest
Agrostis sp. 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Arabis lyrata 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Artemisia tilesii 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Calamagrostis inexpansa 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Epilobium latifolium 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Festuca rubra 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Poa alpina 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Poa arctica 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Poa arctica ssp. lanata 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Poa palustris 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Poa pratensis 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Salix alaxensis 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Trisetum spicatum 4 63.34128 -143.63066 2285 active channel, partially vegetated
Picea glauca - sapling 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Salix alaxensis 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Populus balsamifera - sapling 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Dryopteris fragrans 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Calamagrostis canadensis 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Artemisia tilesii 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Poa glauca 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Silene menziesii ssp. williamsii 5 63.34141 -143.63107 2288 closed tall alder scrub
Populus balsamifera 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Picea glauca 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Salix alaxensis 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Ribes triste 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Rosa acicularis 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Spiraea beauverdiana 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Calamagrostis canadensis 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Artemisia tilesii 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Stellaria sp. - no flowers 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Boschniakia rossica 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Pyrola sp. 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Poa glauca 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Aster sibiricus 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Angelica lucida 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Aconitum delphinifolium 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Geocaulon lividum 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Mertensia paniculata 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Taraxacum sp. 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
Anemone richardsonii 6 63.34259 -143.63077 2287 open balsam poplar-white spruce forest
9
Scientific Name Plot
Number Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft) Habitat
Betula papyrifera 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Picea glauca 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Populus balsamifera 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Geocaulon lividum 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Rosa acicularis 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Salix barclayi 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Ribes triste 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Rubus idaeus 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Ledum groenlandicum 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Calamagrostis canadensis 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Equisetum pratense 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Cornus canadensis 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Vaccinium vitis-idaea 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Epilobium angustifolium 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Linnaea borealis 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Polygonum alaskanum 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Geocaulon lividum 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Pyrola secunda 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Aconitum delphiniifolium 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Equisetum sp. 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Hylocomium splendens 7 63.34992 -143.63422 2274 open paper birch-white spruce forest
Salix barclayi 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Chamaedaphne calyculata 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Carex aquatilis 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Eriophorum sp. 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Calamagrostis canadensis 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Potentilla palustris 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Equisetum fluviatile 8 63.35283 -143.63574 2257 fresh sedge marsh and open water
Populus tremuloides 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Iris setosa 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Calamagrostis canadensis 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Carex lyngbyei 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Carex spp. 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Callitriche verna 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Alopecurus aequalis 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Juncus filiformis 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Rorippa palustris 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Ranunculus filiformis 9 63.35394 -143.63544 2289 bluejoint herb meadow
Agropyron sp. 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Artemisia tilesii 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Aster sibiricus 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Boschniakia rossica 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
10
Scientific Name Plot
Number Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft) Habitat
Calamagrostis canadensis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Calamagrostis purpurascens 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Dryopteris fragrans 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Epilobium angustifolium 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Geocaulon lividum 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Hylocomium splendens 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Leymus mollis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Linnaea borealis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Lupinus nootkatensis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Mertensia paniculata 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Moehringia lateriflora 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Picea glauca 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Goodyera repens 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Lupinus nootkatensis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Poa glauca 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Poa pratensis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Ribes triste 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Rosa acicularis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Saxifraga cespitosa 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Shepherdia canadensis 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Silene menziesii ssp. williamsii 14 63.37882 -143.60716 1806 open black spruce forest, with bare
ground channel - sand
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Vaccinium uliginosum 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Betula glandulosa 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Empetrum nigrum 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Ledum groenlandicum 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Chamaedaphne calyculata 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Carex aquatilis 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Andromeda polifolia 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Lycopodium annotinum 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Carex sp. - peat forming 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Rubus chamaemorus 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
11
Scientific Name Plot
Number Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft) Habitat
Geocaulon lividum 15 63.36281 -143.63779 2190 subarctic lowland sedge wet meadow
Carex aquatilis 16 63.36144 -143.63693 2229 pond
Nuphar lutea 16 63.36144 -143.63693 2229 pond
Carex lyngbyei 16 63.36144 -143.63693 2229 pond
Iris setosa 16 63.36144 -143.63693 2229 pond
Potamogeton zosteriformis 16 63.36144 -143.63693 2229 pond
Populus balsamifera 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Picea glauca 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Rubus idaeus 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Populus balsamifera - sapling 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Shepherdia canadensis 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Pyrola secunda 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Calamagrostis canadensis 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Calamagrostis purpurascens 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Artemisia tilesii 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Silene menziesii ssp. williamsii 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Aconitum delphiniifolium 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Poa glauca 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Mertensia paniculata 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Angelica lucida 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Agropyron subsecundum 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
lichen 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
feather moss 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Hylocomium splendens 18 63.37563 -143.61504 1843 open alder tall shrub
Picea glauca 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Rosa acicularis 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Geocaulon lividum 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Vaccinium vitis-idaea 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Shepherdia canadensis 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Alnus viridis ssp. crispa 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Equisetum pratense 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Mertensia paniculata 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Astragalus americanus 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Calamagrostis canadensis 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Boschniakia rossica 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Coptis trifolia 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Goodyera repens 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Erigeron acris 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Epilobium angustifolium 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Aster sibiricus 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Pyrola secunda 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Hylocomium splendens 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
Silene menziesii ssp. williamzii 19 63.37489 -143.61653 1894 open white spruce forest
12
Appendix C: Project Area Plant Species List
# Scientific Name Family
1 Achillea millefolium Asteraceae
2 Aconitum delphiniifolium Ranunculaceae
3 Agropyron sp. Poaceae
4 Agropyron subsecundum Poaceae
5 Agrostis scabra Poaceae
6 Agrostis sp. Poaceae
7 Alnus viridis ssp. crispa Betulaceae
8 Alopecurus aequalis Poaceae
9 Andromeda polifolia Ericaceae
10 Anemone parviflora Ranunculaceae
11 Anemone richardsonii Ranunculaceae
12 Angelica lucida Apiaceae
13 Antennaria sp. Asteraceae
14 Arabis lyrata Brassicaceae
15 Arctagrostis latifolia Poaceae
16 Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Ericaceae
17 Artemisia alaskana Asteraceae
18 Artemisia arctica Asteraceae
19 Artemisia tilesii Asteraceae
20 Aster sibiricus Asteraceae
21 Astragalus alpinus Fabaceae
22 Astragalus americanus Fabaceae
23 Astragalus robbinsii ssp. harringtonii Fabaceae
24 Betula glandulosa Betulaceae
25 Betula papyrifera Betulaceae
26 Boschniakia rossica Orobanchaceae
27 Botrychium lunaria Ophioglossaceae
28 Calamagrostis canadensis Poaceae
29 Calamagrostis inexpansa Poaceae
30 Calamagrostis lapponica Poaceae
31 Calamagrostis purpurascens Poaceae
32 Calamagrostis purpurascens ssp. purpurascens Poaceae
33 Callitriche verna Callitrichaceae
34 Campanula lasiocarpa Campanulaceae
35 Carex aquatilis Cyperaceae
36 Carex brunnescens Cyperaceae
37 Carex canescens Cyperaceae
38 Carex loliacea Cyperaceae
39 Carex magellanica Cyperaceae
40 Carex saxatilis Cyperaceae
41 Carex scirpoidea Cyperaceae
42 Carex tenuiflora Cyperaceae
43 Carex utriculata Cyperaceae
44 Cerastium sp. Caryophyllaceae
45 Chamaedaphne calyculata Ericaceae
46 Coptis trifolia Ranunculaceae
47 Cornus canadensis Cornaceae
48 Crepis elegans Asteraceae
13
# Scientific Name Family
49 Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda Rosaceae
50 Dryopteris fragrans Dryopteridaceae
51 Empetrum nigrum Ericaceae
52 Epilobium angustifolium Onagraceae
53 Epilobium latifolium Onagraceae
54 Equisetum arvense Equisetaceae
55 Equisetum fluviatile Equisetaceae
56 Equisetum pratense Equisetaceae
57 Equisetum scirpoides Equisetaceae
58 Equisetum sylvaticum Equisetaceae
59 Erigeron acris Asteraceae
60 Erigeron acris ssp. polatus Asteraceae
61 Eriophorum brachyantherum Cyperaceae
62 Eriophorum vaginatum Cyperaceae
63 Festuca brachyanterum Poaceae
64 Festuca brachyphylla Poaceae
65 Festuca rubra Poaceae
66 Geocaulon lividum Santalaceae
67 Goodyera repens Orchidaceae
68 Hedysarum mackenzii Fabaceae
69 Hierochloe alpina Poaceae
70 Hierochloe odorata Poaceae
71 Iris setosa Iridaceae
72 Juncus castaneus Juncaceae
73 Juncus filiformis Juncaceae
74 Ledum groenlandicum Ericaceae
75 Leymus innovatus Poaceae
76 Linnaea borealis Caprifoliaceae
77 Lupinus arctica Fabaceae
78 Lupinus nootkatensis Fabaceae
79 Luzula parviflora Juncaceae
80 Lycopodium annotinum Lycopodiaceae
81 Lycopodium clavatum Lycopodiaceae
82 Lycopodium complanatum Lycopodiaceae
83 Mertensia paniculata Boraginaceae
84 Mertensia paniculata ssp. paniculata Boraginaceae
85 Minuartia stricta Caryophyllaceae
86 Moehringia lateriflora Caryophyllaceae
87 Moneses uniflora Pyrolaceae
88 Nuphar lutea Nymphaeaceae
89 Oxyria digyna Polygonaceae
90 Oxytropis campestris Fabaceae
91 Oxytropis campestris ssp. gracilis Fabaceae
92 Oxytropis nigrescens Fabaceae
93 Pedicularis labradorica Scrophulariaceae
94 Petasites frigidus Asteraceae
95 Petasites frigidus x hyperboreoides Asteraceae
96 Petasites hyperboreus Asteraceae
97 Phlox sibirica Polemoniaceae
14
# Scientific Name Family
98 Picea glauca Pinaceae
99 Picea mariana Pinaceae
100 Platanthera obtusata Orchidaceae
101 Poa alpina Poaceae
102 Poa arctica ssp. lanata Poaceae
103 Poa glauca Poaceae
104 Poa palustris Poaceae
105 Poa pratensis Poaceae
106 Polemonium acutiflorum Polemoniaceae
107 Polygonum alaskanum Polygonaceae
108 Polygonum bistorta Polygonaceae
109 Populus balsamifera Salicaceae
110 Populus tremuloides Salicaceae
111 Potamogeton zosteriformis Potamogetonaceae
112 Potentilla palustris Rosaceae
113 Pyrola asarifolia Pyrolaceae
114 Pyrola secunda Pyrolaceae
115 Ranunculus filiformis Ranunculaceae
116 Ranunculus lapponicus Ranunculaceae
117 Ribes triste Grossulariaceae
118 Rorippa palustris Brassicaceae
119 Rosa acicularis Rosaceae
120 Rubus chamaemorus Rosaceae
121 Rubus idaeus Rosaceae
122 Salix alaxensis Salicaceae
123 Salix alaxensis var. alaxensis Salicaceae
124 Salix arbusculoides Salicaceae
125 Salix barclayi Salicaceae
126 Salix bebbiana Salicaceae
127 Salix glauca Salicaceae
128 Salix pulchra Salicaceae
129 Salix scouleriana Salicaceae
130 Saxifraga cespitosa Saxifragaceae
131 Saxifraga tricuspidata Saxifragaceae
132 Sedum rosea Crassulaceae
133 Shepherdia canadensis Eleagnaceae
134 Silene menziesii ssp. williamsii Caryophyllaceae
135 Spiraea beauverdiana Rosaceae
136 Stellaria crassifolia Caryophyllaceae
137 Taraxacum sp. Asteraceae
138 Trientalis europaea Primulaceae
139 Trisetum spicatum Poaceae
140 Trisetum spicatum ssp. spicatum Poaceae
141 Vaccinium oxycoccus Ericaceae
142 Vaccinium uliginosum Ericaceae
143 Vaccinium vitis-idaea Ericaceae
144 Viburnum edule Caprifoliaceae
15
Appendix D: Photographs
Included as a Word file:
AppendixD_plantphotos_yerrick.doc
16
17
Appendix E: Field Data Forms
Included as an Adobe file:
AppendixE_plantfieldforms_yerrick.pdf
9.3.3. – LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT:
HYDROLOGY BASELINE STUDY
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGY BASELINE STUDY
YERRICK CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, TOK, ALASKA
Prepared for
GRAYSTAR PACIFIC SEAFOOD, LTD.
P.O Box 100506
Anchorage, AK 99510
and
ALASKA POWER AND TELEPHONE CO.
P.O. Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Prepared by
329 2nd Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
3305 Arctic Blvd., Suite 102
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
October 2008
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
2.0 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING ..............................................2
2.1 BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................2
2.2 SAMPLE LOCATIONS ........................................................................................13
2.3 WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS ...................................................................14
2.4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................14
3.0 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................15
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................19
5.0 CLOSURE .........................................................................................................................19
6.0 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................................19
TABLES
Table 2.1 Yerrick Creek USGS water quality measurements ..................................................2
Table 2.2 Yerrick Creek USGS water quality sampling – alkalinity and hardness .................3
Table 2.3 Yerrick Creek USGS water quality sampling – metals, filtered ..............................3
Table 2.4 Yerrick Creek USGS water quality sampling – nutrients, ions, residuals ...............4
Table 2.5 Summary of water quality data from USGS 15476000 on the Tanana River .........7
Table 2.6 Model input parameters ...........................................................................................9
Table 2.7 Peak flows and recurrence intervals for Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids
Creek No. 1 ..........................................................................................................9
Table 2.8 Surface water quality parameters ...........................................................................14
Table 3.1 Field measurements ...............................................................................................17
Table 3.2 Laboratory analyses ...............................................................................................18
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Sample locations on Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 .................1
Figure 2.1 Tanana River mean daily discharge, 1953 through 1990 ........................................5
Figure 2.2 Tanana River peak flow ...........................................................................................6
Figure 2.3 Tanana River peak flow distribution ........................................................................6
Figure 2.4 Drainage areas for proposed impoundment sites .....................................................8
Figure 2.5 Surficial geologic map of the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project area ..............11
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page iii
Figure 2.6 Key to geologic map ..............................................................................................12
Figure 2.7 Bedrock and surficial geology ...............................................................................13
Figure 3.1 Sample site locations..............................................................................................16
APPENDICES
Appendix A Sample Site Maps and Site Photos
Appendix B Analysis Methods and Laboratory Data Report
Appendix C Data Sheets and Field Notebook
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The hydroelectric project proposed by Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) will include an
impoundment in Yerrick Creek just below the confluence of two tributaries with Yerrick Creek
(Yerrick Creek Diversion Sample Site, Figure 1.1). A penstock will be constructed to carry
water to a powerhouse to be constructed near the old pipeline corridor (Yerrick Creek Discharge
Sample Site). A separate diversion and powerhouse system may be constructed on Cathedral
Rapids Creek No. 1 as well. The impoundment would be in the approximate location of
Cathedral Rapids No. 1 Diversion Sample Site (Figure 1.1). Power generated from the
hydroelectric project would power Tok and surrounding communities during summer months
and possibly supply some portion of the power supply for a larger portion of the year.
Figure 1.1. Sample locations on Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 (Google
Earth, 2008).
The purpose of the hydrology and water quality studies presented herein is to establish a
preliminary baseline necessary for the permitting process. Additional baseline studies may be
required (see Section 4.0 for recommended further action). Additional flow studies are being
N Alaska Highway
Old pipeline corridor
1 Mile
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 2
conducted by AP&T to determine the potential power output and feasibility of the hydroelectric
project.
2.0 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING
2.1 BACKGROUND
Hydroelectric project background
The Yerrick Creek hydroelectric project, as described by AP&T is to include: (1) a small
diversion structure with intake; (2) a 48-inch diameter, 15,000-foot long penstock; (3) a
powerhouse with the capacity of 2 to 3 MW; (4) a 0.5-mile long buried and 22-mile overhead
transmission line to connect an existing power grid; and (5) appurtenant facilities.
Hydrology background from nearby USGS stations
Water quality data were collected from Yerrick Creek at USGS station 632257143353500, which
is located in Yerrick Creek at the highway crossing (63°22’57” N; 143°35’35” W; NAD27).
Data were collected between 1949 and 1956. No flow data are available, but a total of 28
physical and chemical parameters were recorded, most of which are summarized in tables below
(Table 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4; USGS, 2008).
Table 2.1. Yerrick Creek USGS water quality measurements (USGS, 2008).
Temperature Specific
Conductance
pH Carbon
Dioxide
Color
°C µS/cm pH units mg/L PtCo units, filtered
7/21/1949 7 95 6.6 14 --
6/22/1951 -- 164 7 8.2 10
6/4/1952 -- 109 6.8 9.6 25
2/17/1953 0 254 7.5 4.5 5
5/13/1953 0 130 7.1 5.6 25
5/18/1955 -- 107 7 6.1 50
9/20/1955 -- 161 7.8 1.5 5
5/11/1956 -- 105 7 6.4 --
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 3
Table 2.2. Yerrick Creek USGS water quality sampling – alkalinity and hardness (USGS, 2008).
Acid neutralizing
capacity
bicarbonate hardness non-carbonate
hardness
mg/L as CaCO3 mg/L mg/L as
CaCO3
mg/L as CaCO3
7/21/1949 29 35 39 10
6/22/1951 42 51 65 23
6/4/1952 31 38 50 19
2/17/1953 72 88 120 49
5/13/1953 36 44 60 24
5/18/1955 31 38 46 15
9/20/1955 50 61 68 18
5/11/1956 33 40 45 12
Table 2.3. Yerrick Creek USGS water quality sampling – metals, filtered (USGS, 2008).
Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Iron
mg/L,
filtered
mg/L,
filtered
mg/L,
filtered
mg/L,
filtered
µg/L,
unfiltered
7/21/1949
6/22/1951 21 3.1 20
6/4/1952 15 3.1 1.8 2.1 70
2/17/1953 39 5.6 2.8 4.3 10
5/13/1953 19 3.1 1.2 2.3 40
5/18/1955 15 2.2 1.2 2.4 170
9/20/1955 22 3.2 2.3 2.8 0
5/11/1956 14 2.5 1.6 2
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 4
Table 2.4. Yerrick Creek USGS water quality sampling – nutrients, ions, and residuals (USGS,
2008).
Nitrate Sulfate Chloride Fluoride Silica Residue, sum
of constituents
Residue
mg/L as
N,
filtered
mg/L,
filtered
mg/L,
filtered
mg/L,
filtered
mg/L
filtered
mg/L, filtered tons/acre-
foot,
filtered
7/21/1949 0.2 15 0.5 4.3
6/22/1951 0.2 27 0.5 0.2 7.3 88 0.12
6/4/1952 0.38 20 1 0.1 5.7 69 0.09
2/17/1953 0.34 58 0.5 0.1 8.4 164 0.22
5/13/1953 0.25 25 0.5 0.2 3.9 78 0.11
5/18/1955 0.47 20 0.5 0 4.4 66 0.09
9/20/1955 0.16 26 0 0 11 98 0.13
5/11/1956 17 1 58 0.08
Data are also available from USGS station 15476000 on the Tanana River just downstream of
the confluence of Cathedral Rapids Creek #1 with the Tanana River. The drainage area sampled
by this station is 8,550 square miles. Data were collected at this site from 1953 through 1990,
including discharge, peak stream-flow, and water quality information. The record of daily mean
discharge is shown in Figure 2.1. Peak flows are shown in Figure 2.2 and the distribution of
peak flows among the summer months is shown in Figure 2.3 (USGS, 2008).
Nine of the ten highest daily discharge measurements for USGS 154760000 occurred between
July 19th and 27th in 1988. Of the 50 highest daily discharge measurements, 27 occurred in July,
18 occurred in August, and 5 occurred in June, suggesting that summer rains cause the highest
flows rather than snowmelt and breakup. If, however, the month of July 1988 is removed from
the record, four of the top ten daily discharges occurred in August and three occurred in each
June and July. Likewise, excepting July 1988, 29 of the 50 highest daily discharges occurred in
August, 14 occurred in July, and 7 occurred in June.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008 LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 5 Figure 2.1. Tanana River mean daily discharge, 1953 through 1990 (USGS, 2008).
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 6
Figure 2.2. Tanana River peak flow (USGS, 2008).
Figure 2.3. Tanana River peak flow distribution (USGS, 2008).
Water quality data for USGS 15476000 on the Tanana River include 101 parameters. A portion
of the data is presented below and the remainder is available from the USGS at
http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/water/index.php. Data collected only once or several times were
not included in the table below.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 7
Table 2.5. Summary of water quality data from USGS 15476000 on the Tanana River (USGS,
2008).
Parameter, units Maximum Minimum Count Mean Median
Temperature, °C 16.5 0 105 6.3 6.5
Color, filtered, PtCo units 60 0 203 10.4 5
Specific Conductance, µS/cm 448 160 222 233.0 220
pH 8.4 6.6 212 7.7 7.7
Carbon Dioxide, mg/L 68 0.7 212 5.4 3.7
Acid neutralizing capacity, mg/L as CaCO3 203 61 212 98.3 92
Bicarbonate, mg/L 247 74 212 119.7 112
Nitrate, mg/L as Nitrogen 0.77 0 206 0.17 0.14
Phosphate, mg/L 0.16 0 52 0.019 0.01
Hardness, mg/L as CaCO3 230 72 207 110.4 100
Non-carbonate Hardness, mg/L as CaCO3 30 0 207 12.2 12
Calcium, filtered, mg/L 62 20 207 32.8 31
Magnesium, filtered, mg/L 19 2.9 207 6.97 6.2
Sodium, filtered, mg/L 11 3.3 208 5.84 5.65
Potassium, filtered, mg/L 3.1 0.1 208 1.48 1.5
Chloride, filtered, mg/L 7 0.4 208 3.05 3
Sulfate, filtered, mg/L 45 11 208 21.2 20
Fluoride, filtered, mg/L 1.2 0 205 0.148 0.1
Silica, filtered, mg/L 44 7.2 208 11.8 11
Residue on evaporation, filtered, mg/L 205 108 28 132.6 128
Residue, sum of constituents, filtered, mg/L 310 95 207 143.1 136
Residue, dissolved, tons per day 10500 666 206 4769.2 4680
Residue, filtered, tons per acre foot 0.42 0.13 207 0.196 0.19
Orthophosphate, unfiltered, mg/L as
phosphorous
0.05 0 52 0.006 0
Nitrate, filtered, mg/L 3.4 0 206 0.76 0.6
Manganese, unfiltered, µg/L 100 0 140 1.86 0
Iron, unfiltered, µg/L 620 0 192 64.9 30
Suspended sediment, mg/L 3460 15 106 976.9 908
Suspended sediment, tons/day 326000 81 104 52024 28300
USGS station 15475997 is located on Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1, but no data are available
from this station. This station is located on Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 approximately 0.4
miles above (south of) the highway crossing (63°22’45”N; 143°44’00”W; NAD27) and has a
drainage area of 8.83 square miles (USGS, 2008).
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 8
Detectable levels of antimony, arsenic, nitrates/nitrites, barium, chromium, and fluoride have
been found in public drinking water systems in the Tok basin (ADEC, 2008). The only inorganic
contaminant exceedance of maximum contaminant levels for drinking water has been for nitrates
(ADEC, 2008).
Peak Flow Estimates
Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 are within region 6 as described by USGS
Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4188 (Curran et al., 2003). As such, the equations for
peak stream-flow presented by Curran et al. (2003) include drainage area, area of lakes and
ponds (storage), and area of forest. Drainage areas are shown in Figure 2.4. Model input
parameters for each stream are shown in Table 2.6. Peak flows are calculated for the proposed
diversion points in each drainage. Peak flows for each recurrence interval are presented in Table
2.7.
Figure 2.4. Drainage areas for proposed impoundment sites.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 9
Table 2.6. Model input parameters
Yerrick Creek Cathedral Rapids
Creek No. 1
Drainage Area
(square miles) 30 6
Area of lakes and ponds
(percent) 0 0
Area of forest
(percent) 0 0
Table 2.7. Peak flows and recurrence intervals for Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek
#1.
Recurrence
Interval (yr)
Yerrick Creek Peak
Streamflow (CF/S)
Cathedral Rapids Creek #1
Peak Streamflow (CF/S)
2 1102 262
5 1575 402
10 1916 508
25 2373 652
50 2728 767
100 3093 887
200 3468 1012
500 3985 1186
The model of Curran et al. (2003) was used to estimate peak flows in the upper and lower gage
sites of Mack (1987, 1988) at Rhoads-Granite Creek, which is approximately 7 miles east of
Donnelly Dome. Input values were a basin area of 32.2 square miles, zero percent storage (lakes
and ponds), and 0.5 percent forest for the upper gage site and 81.2 square miles of drainage
basin, 5.5 percent storage, and 42 percent forest for the gaging site at the road. Drainage area
and percentage forested were extracted from Mack (1987, 1988) and percentage lakes and ponds
was selected so as to minimize the difference from Mack’s output (loss to groundwater and
distributaries are complexities not accounted for in the model of Curran et al. 2003). Output was
compared to the model output produced by Mack (1987, 1988) and the average absolute value of
the percentage errors (assuming Mack’s model output is the best estimate of actual) was
approximately 25 percent for each gaging site.
The data from Mack (1987, 1988) was not used to refine or calibrate the model of Curran et al.
(2003) for the Yerrick Creek or Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 because Mack’s output was model
output based on limited data and a complex watershed. Since region 6, the region for which the
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 10
model equations were designed, is quite large, more local data for refinement of the model to a
smaller region would be desirable and the Mack studies may provide some significant
considerations which may be applicable at Yerrick and Cathedral Rapids Creeks. Some
conditions from Rhoads-Granite Creek which may be found at Yerrick Creek and Cathedral
Rapids Creek No. 1 are: (1) significant loss to groundwater due to permeable glacial deposits; (2)
abandoned channels which may serve as distributaries at high water; and (3) seasonal modeling
complexity based on snowmelt and frost conditions.
Local geology
According to Carrara (2004), the map units that occur in the Yerrick Creek drainage include Qac,
Qco, Ata, Qfa, Qty, Qto, Qrg, and Qls (Figures 2.5, 2.6). Cathedral Rapids Creek #1 drains an
area that includes map units Qac, Qfc, Qto, Qfa, Qrg, and Qta. These map units include alluvial,
colluvial, glacial, and periglacial deposits. Biotite gneiss and schist are among the rock types
found in the surface geology of the area.
Carrara (2004) notes that areas underlain by the Qac unit are subject to floods and debris flows.
The Yerrick Creek bridge abutment was damaged by flooding in August 1997 (Carrara, 2004;
Figure 2.6). With regards to map unit Qto, Carrara (2004) notes that in the Yerrick Creek and
Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 areas the unit forms hummocky end moraines extending out from
the base of the Alaska Range.
Bedrock and surficial geology units mapped by Holmes (1965) within the Yerrick Creek and
Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 drainages (Figure 2.7) include Qc (colluvium – mixtures of
rubble, talus, alluvium, and loess), Qag (flood-plain gravelly alluvium), Qt (talus – angular
boulders), Qdgl (moraine deposits from Donnelly glaciations), Qdm (moraine deposits from
Delta glaciations), Qg (fan-apron and alluvial-fan deposits – mostly gravel; gravel from local
sources), pCb (Birch Creek Schist – schist, gneiss, quartzite, and amphibolites), Qdf (glacio-
fluvial deposits), and Qts (stream-terrace deposits – mostly silt and sand).
The Birch Creek Schist is the predominant bedrock geologic form in the study area as mapped by
Holmes (1965). The Precambrian or early Precambrian Birch Creek Schist is a thick group
extensive in area resulting from one or more periods of high grade regional metamorphism
(Holmes, 1965). Schist (gray quartz-mica; chloritic; and graphitic), gneiss (gray or light brown
biotite; gray hornblende; and hornblende-biotite), quartzite (white to light brown or gray or
greenish gray), and amphibolites (black) are the main rock types in the mapped area (Holmes,
1965).
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 11
Figure 2.5. Surficial geologic map of the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project area (Carrara,
2004)
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008 LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 12 Figure 2.6. Key to geologic map (Figure 2.5).
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 13
Figure 2.7. Bedrock and surficial geology (Holmes, 1965).
2.2 SAMPLE LOCATIONS
The two streams directly impacted by the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project are Yerrick Creek
and Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1. Yerrick Creek has the larger drainage basin, which includes
approximately eight tributaries identifiable on the 1:63,360 scale USGS map. Two small streams
merge to form the headwaters of Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1. Both Cathedral Rapids Creek
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 14
No. 1 and Yerrick Creek drain to the north into the Tanana River. The proposed diversions, as of
September 2008, would discharge into Yerrick Creek downstream (north) of the old pipeline
corridor) and at a separate downstream location on Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1.
2.3 WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
The water quality parameters measured are listed in Table 2.8. The physical and chemical
parameters include alkalinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, hardness (calculated), pH,
settleable solids, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, temperature, and turbidity. Two
other general parameters commonly measured are chloride and fluoride. Chloride is necessary
for performing an ion balance. Fluoride is included because it is required by the ADEC. The
nutrient parameters include nitrate, phosphate, and sulfate. The remaining parameters in Table
2.8 are metals and trace elements. Hardness is calculated from measured parameters. Analysis
of all parameters will be on unfiltered samples, so the results are total, not dissolved
concentrations
Table 2.8. Surface water quality parameters.
Laboratory
Antimony Chloride Magnesium Sodium Total Dissolved Solids
Arsenic Chromium Manganese Sulfate Total Suspended Solids
Barium Copper Mercury Zinc Weak Acid Dissociable
Beryllium Fluoride Potassium Cyanide
Cadmium Iron Selenium Total Cyanide
Calcium Lead Silver
Field
Flow pH Conductivity Temperature Turbidity
Alkalinity Nitrate Color Settleable Solids Dissolved Oxygen
Orthophosphate Nitrite
2.4 METHODOLOGY
Field and laboratory water quality parameters were measured in accordance with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency manual Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes
or Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Open channel flow was
measured using Model 1205 Price type “mini” current meter. In-situ measurements of
conductivity, temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen were accomplished with YSI 63 and YSI 95
meters. Color, turbidity, and alkalinity were measured in the field within 24 hours of sample
collection using the Hach DR890 Colorimeter, Hach 2100P Turbidimeter, and Hach digital
titrator. A table showing analytes and methods is included in Appendix B.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 15
SGS Environmental Services, Inc. was the analytical laboratory selected for the monitoring
program. SGS Environmental Services, Inc. is an ADEC Certified Chemistry Lab. Duplicate
samples were not collected as part of this sampling effort. Laboratory quality assurance and
quality control measures and results are shown in the laboratory data report in Appendix B.
3.0 RESULTS
Measurements and samples were taken at 3 locations. The sample sites, shown in Figure 3.1, are
located at:
• The approximate diversion site for Yerrick Creek, which is also the transducer location as
of September 2008;
• The approximate diversion site for Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1; and
• A downstream site near the old pipeline corridor’s intersection with Yerrick Creek, which
was intended to be at the discharge or re-entry site for water diverted from Yerrick Creek.
The discharge point will actually be downstream of the sample site.
The Yerrick Creek diversion site is also the location where AP&T personnel have conducted
flow studies and are presently recording stage data on a continuous basis with a permanently
installed pressure transducer. The data collected by AP&T is not included in this report, but
should be comparable based on location.
The Yerrick Creek downstream site is also in immediate vicinity of field work conducted by
Denali-The Alaska Gas Pipeline personnel. Data from their efforts, if made available, should be
comparable based on location.
Physical and chemical measurements made in the field are presented in Table 3.1. Laboratory
analysis results are shown in Table 3.2. Hardness (Table 3.2) was calculated from the calcium
and magnesium concentrations. Iron, zinc, and manganese could have been included, but were
all either not detected, or detected at levels below the practical quantitation limit and are
therefore minor contributors to total hardness.
Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 are clear, oligotrophic (low nutrient levels),
and well oxygenated. The moderately high pH for surface water suggests contact with some
kind of carbonate rock within the drainage.
Laboratory results confirm that Yerrick Creek and Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 have minimal
levels of most dissolved substances.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 16
Laboratory quality assurance and quality control information were reviewed. No problems were
identified that would affect data quality. For additional details, see the case narrative on page 2
of the laboratory data report in Appendix B.
Figure 3.1. Sample site locations.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 17
Table 3.1. Field measurements.
Parameter Yerrick Creek
Diversion
Yerrick Creek
Downstream Site
Cathedral Rapids
Creek Diversion
Latitude 63° 20.639’ N 63° 22.442’ 63° 21.090’ N
Longitude 143° 37.715’ W 143° 36.769 143° 43.151’ W
Elevation (feet) 2272 1856 2455
Width (feet) 44 51.5 18.5
Discharge (CF/S) 110 99 27
Temperature (°C) 4.5 6.2 5.0
pH 8.01 8.14 8.18
Specific Conductance (µS) 260 277 384
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 16.02 18.511 12.39
Settleable Solids (mL/L) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 57.6 64.0 80.4
Color (PtCo units) 4 6 0
Turbidity (NTU) 0.91 0.89 0.70
Nitrate-N (mg/L) 0.01 0.03 0.01
Nitrite-N (mg/L) 0.002 0.002 0.002
Orthophosphate (mg/L) 0.18 0.19 0.21
1Whitewater – supersaturated.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 18
Table 3.2. Laboratory analyses.
Parameter Units Yerrick Creek
Diversion
Yerrick Creek
Downstream Site
Cathedral Rapids
Creek Diversion
Sample ID AP&T 01 AP&T 03 AP&T 02
Sample Date/Time 9/03/08 12:27 9/03/08 17:50 9/03/08 15:05
Antimony ug/L 0.621 J 0.454 J < 0.310
Arsenic ug/L < 1.50 < 1.50 < 1.50
Barium ug/L 32.2 31.8 44.1
Beryllium ug/L < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.500
Cadmium ug/L < 0.600 < 0.600 < 0.600
Calcium ug/L 43500 42700 57600
Chromium ug/L < 1.20 < 1.20 < 1.20
Copper ug/L < 1.80 < 1.80 < 1.80
Iron ug/L < 310 < 310 < 310
Lead ug/L < 0.310 < 0.310 < 0.310
Magnesium ug/L 7880 7790 12900
Manganese ug/L 0.859 J 0.907 J 1.08 J
Mercury ug/L < 0.0620 < 0.0620 < 0.0620
Potassium ug/L 3290 3330 3660
Selenium ug/L < 0.620 < 0.620 < 0.620
Silver ug/L < 0.620 < 0.620 < 0.620
Sodium ug/L 2400 2460 3250
Zinc ug/L < 7.80 < 7.80 < 7.80
Chloride mg/L 0.0880 J < 0.0310 0.0800 J
Fluoride mg/L 0.0750 J 0.0870 J 0.049 J
Sulfate mg/L 81.8 81.0 119
Total Cyanide mg/L 0.0022 J < 0.0015 0.0017 J
Weak Acid Dissociable Cyanide mg/L < 0.0015 < 0.0015 < 0.0015
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 183 176 253
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 1.00 0.400 J 0.700
Hardness (calc.: Ca, Mg) mg/L* 141 139 197
*as CaCO3
J = analyte was detected below the practical quantitation limit
Analytes that were not detected are reported as < the minimum detection limit.
Alaska Power and Telephone, 1311-01 October 7, 2008
LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD REPORT: HYDROLOGIC BASELINE STUDY Page 19
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
As there are no chemical abnormalities that would warrant further investigation of the streams to
be impacted by the hydroelectric project and flow data has been collected regularly by AP&T
personnel, no additional hydrology field work should be required before permitting or
construction.
5.0 CLOSURE
TPECI holds all information acquired during this investigation in the strictest confidence with
AP&T. We will not release any information to any party other than Graystar Pacific Seafoods
unless AP&T has notified us of their approval to do so.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2008. Basin Fact Sheet for Tok.
Accessed online at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/eh/docs/dw/DWP/Tok.pdf on 7-Oct-2008.
Carrara, P.E. 2004. Surficial Geologic Map of the Tanacross B-6 Quadrangle, East-Central
Alaska.
Curran, J.H., Meyer, D.F., and Tasker, G.D. 2003. Estimating the magnitude and frequency of
peak streamflows for ungaged sites and streams in Alaska and conterminous basins in
Canada. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4188.
Holmes, G.W. 1965. Geologic reconnaissance along the Alaska Highway Delta River to Tok
Junction, Alaska. Geological Survey Bulletin 1181-H.
Mack, S.F. 1987. Peak flows at the Alaska Highway from the Rhoads-Granite Creek drainages,
Mt. Hayes Quadrangle, Alaska. Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.
Public-data File 87-5.
Mack, S.F. 1988. Peak flows from Rhoads-Granite Creek (1987), Mt. Hayes Quadrangle,
Alaska. Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. Public-data File 88-
10.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. National Water Information System. Accessed
at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis on 30-July-2008. Sites: 632257143353500, 15476000,
and 15475997.
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE SITE MAPS
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Yerrick Creek Map
Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 Map
Yerrick Creek Diversion Site Map
Yerrick Creek Diversion Site Photos
Upper Left: aerial view
Upper Right: site view
Middle Left: upstream view
Middle Right: downstream view
Lower Left: sediment view
Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 Diversion Site Map
Cathedral Rapids Creek No. 1 Site Photos
Upper Left: aerial view
Upper Right: site view
Middle Left: upstream view
Middle Right: downstream view
Lower Left: sediment view
Yerrick Creek Downstream Site Map
Yerrick Creek Downstream Site Photos
Upper Left: aerial view
Upper Right: site view
Middle Left: upstream view
Middle Right: downstream view
Lower Left: sediment view
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS METHODS
LABORATORY DATA REPORT (SGS WO# 1084964)
WATER ANALYSIS METHODS
Method/
Instrument
Parameter Matrix Container Preservative Hold
Time
Analysis
Location
Metals, Total
SM 6020
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
Water 250 or 500
mL HDPE
HNO3; 4°C 180 days Laboratory
EPA 7470 Mercury Water 250 or 500
mL HDPE
HNO3; 4°C 28 days Laboratory
EPA 300.0 Chloride Water 60 mL
Nalgene
4°C 28 days Laboratory
EPA 300.0 Fluoride Water 60 mL
Nalgene
4°C 28 days Laboratory
Hach Method 8192 Nitrate Water N/A N/A ASAP Field
Hach Method 8048
equivalent to
EPA Method 365.2
and Standard
Method 4500-PE
Orthophosphate Water N/A N/A ASAP Field
EPA 300.0 Sulfate Water 60 mL
Nalgene
4°C 28 days Laboratory
SM 4500CN-C,E Cyanide Water 60 or 250 mL
Nalgene
NaOH; 4°C 14 days Laboratory
SM 4500CN-I Weak Acid
Dissociable
Cyanide
Water 60 or 250 mL
Nalgene
NaOH; 4°C 14 days Laboratory
SM 2540C Total Dissolved
Solids
Water 250 or 500
mL HDPE
4°C 7 days Laboratory
SM 2540D Total Suspended
Solids
Water 1 L HDPE 4°C 7 days Laboratory
Model 1205 Price
Type “Mini”
Current Meter
Flow Water In-Situ N/A N/A In-Situ
YSI 63 pH Water In-Situ N/A N/A In-Situ
YSI 63 Conductivity Water In-Situ N/A N/A In-Situ
YSI 63 Temperature Water In-Situ N/A N/A In-Situ
Hach 8203 Alkalinity Water N/A N/A ASAP Field
Hach DR 890
Colorimeter
Method 8025
Color Water N/A N/A ASAP Field
YSI 95 Dissolved
Oxygen
Water In-Situ N/A N/A In-Situ
Imhoff Cone Settleable Solids Water N/A N/A ASAP Field
Hach 2100P
Turbidimeter
EPA Method 180.1
Turbidity Water N/A N/A ASAP Field
Page 1 of 50
Alaska Division Technical Director
Stephen C. Ede
2008.10.01
11:25:31 -08'00'
Page 2 of 50
Page 3 of 50
Alaska Division Technical Director
Stephen C. Ede
2008.10.01
11:25:49 -08'00'
Page 4 of 50
Page 5 of 50
Page 6 of 50
Page 7 of 50
Page 8 of 50
Page 9 of 50
Page 10 of 50
Page 11 of 50
Page 12 of 50
Page 13 of 50
Page 14 of 50
Page 15 of 50
Page 16 of 50
Page 17 of 50
Page 18 of 50
Page 19 of 50
Page 20 of 50
Page 21 of 50
Page 22 of 50
Page 23 of 50
Page 24 of 50
Page 25 of 50
Page 26 of 50
Page 27 of 50
Page 28 of 50
Page 29 of 50
Page 30 of 50
Page 31 of 50
Page 32 of 50
Page 33 of 50
Page 34 of 50
Page 35 of 50
Page 36 of 50
Page 37 of 50
Page 38 of 50
Page 39 of 50
Page 40 of 50
Page 41 of 50
Page 42 of 50
Page 43 of 50
Page 44 of 50
Page 45 of 50
Page 46 of 50
Page 47 of 50
Page 48 of 50
Page 49 of 50
Page 50 of 50
APPENDIX C
DATA SHEETS AND FIELD NOTEBOOK
9.3.4. – PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
Tok, Alaska
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
February 2009
Prepared for:
Alaska Power and Telephone Company
PO Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Prepared by:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
i
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE..............................................................................................................1
PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................................2
2. METHODS.......................................................................................................................................................3
FIELD INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................................................................3
MAPPING ...........................................................................................................................................................5
3. PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION.......................................................................6
VEGETATION .....................................................................................................................................................7
HYDROLOGY......................................................................................................................................................9
SOILS ...............................................................................................................................................................11
4. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................................12
ATTACHMENTS..............................................................................................................................................14
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................14
APPENDICES....................................................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX A: WEATHER AND CLIMATE DATA .................................................................................................15
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY TABLE ......................................................................................................................18
APPENDIX C: PHOTOGRAPHS ...........................................................................................................................19
APPENDIX D: FIELD DATA FORMS ...................................................................................................................20
Figures
FIGURE 1: PROJECT VICINITY MAP .........................................................................................................................2
FIGURE 2: YERRICK CREEK PHOTOS.......................................................................................................................3
FIGURE 3: NWI MAPPING OF PROJECT AREA .........................................................................................................6
FIGURE 4: YERRICK CREEK WETLANDS MAP .........................................................................ATTACHED MAP BOOK
Tables
TABLE 1: PROJECT AREA INFORMATION ................................................................................................................ 3
TABLE 2: VEGETATION AT WETLAND DATA FORM SITES – DOMINANT SPECIES PER PLOT ..................................... 8
TABLE 3: INDICATORS AT WETLAND DATA FORM SITES WITH WETLAND HYDROLOGY ...................................... 11
TABLE 4: S SOILS AT WETLAND DATA FORM SITES FOUND TO HAVE HYDRIC SOILS .......................................... 12
TABLE 5: MAPPED AREA SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 13
1
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
1. Introduction and Purpose
The purpose of this report is to identify and describe wetlands and other waters within an
approximately 700-acre area along Yerrick Creek near Tok, Alaska (Figure 1). The area
contains land owned by the State of Alaska and by Tanacross, Inc.
This report describes locations within the project area that are subject to the jurisdiction of
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) under authority of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. By federal law (Clean Water Act) and associated policy, it is necessary to avoid
project impacts to wetlands wherever practicable, minimize impact where impact is not
avoidable, and in some cases compensate for the impact. The focus of this document is on
delineation of wetlands. Wetlands, waters of the U.S., and uplands (non-wetlands), as
referenced in this report, are defined as:
Wetlands. “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33
Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 328.3(b)). Wetlands are a subset of “waters of the
U.S.” Note that the “wetlands” definition does not include unvegetated areas such as streams
and ponds.
Waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. include other waterbodies regulated by the USACOE,
such as lakes, ponds, and streams, in addition to wetlands. The ponds and streams mapped in
the project area are “waters of the U.S.” but not “wetlands”.
Uplands. Non-water and non-wetland areas are called uplands.
As described in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual,
wetlands must possess the following three characteristics:
1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: Vegetation community dominated by plant species that are
typically adapted for life in saturated soils.
2. Wetland Hydrology: Inundation or saturation of the soil during the growing season.
3. Hydric Soils: Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions.
2
Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map
3
Project Location and Environment
The project area is located along Yerrick Creek, a cobble-, gravel- and sand-substrate creek
which crosses the Alaska Highway at approximately milepost 1339 (Figure 2). Most of the
project area is undeveloped, with an open gravel waterway, adjacent forests, abandoned
gravel side channels in various states of revegetation, and heavily forested banks (see images
below). Specific legal and geographic descriptions for the property required for Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determinations are included in Table 1.
Figure 2: Photos of Yerrick Creek
Figure 2: Yerrick Creek Photos
Table 1: Project Area Information
1. APPLICANT: Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T)
2. WATERWAY: Yerrick Creek
3. LOCATION:
A. Narrative: The project area is along Yerrick Creek near Tok, Alaska, approximately 20 miles west of Tok at
milepost 1339 of the Alaska Highway.
B. Legal Description:
Sections: 36 and 1, 2, 11, and 14 Township: 19N and 18N Range: 9E Meridian: Copper River
Latitude/Longitude (WGS84 Datum): N55.0667159 / W132.1461172
4. SOURCE(S):
USGS Maps: Tanacross B-6
NWI Maps: Tanacross B-6, digital interpretation
Soil Maps: None
Corps Wetland Maps: None
Aerial Photographs: True Color Aerial Photography, 2008, provided by AP&T. Color Infrared High Altitude Aerial
Photography, 1978, from the Alaska GeoData Center archives.
Other: Reconnaissance-level field survey with wetland data forms, written site observations, and photographs from
HDR Alaska, Inc. site visit dated August 21-25, 2008.
2. Methods
Two steps were used to inventory wetlands and waterbodies in the project area. These two
steps include:
Field Investigation
A five-day site visit was completed between August 21 and 25, 2008, to identify any
wetlands and other waters potentially under the jurisdiction of the USACOE. USACOE
guidance on Alaska’s growing season references the end of the growing season to generally
4
follow several continuous days below 28°F. Temperature and precipitation data for the three-
month period prior to the field investigation (June 2008 through August 2008) was reviewed
to determine the degree to which any recent climatic events may have influenced field
hydrology and vegetation indicators. Weather and climate data are given in Appendix A,
including monthly summaries of temperature and precipitation, recording period average, and
stream gage output for part of 2008 for Yerrick Creek.
The general trend in the summer of 2008 was a colder, wetter season than normal. Over the
three-month period preceding the field visit, the average maximum temperature in °F (64.87
for June, 63.9 for July, and 61.52 for August) was lower than the average maximum
temperature for the recording period of 1954 to 2005 (71 for June, 73 for July, and 68 for
August) (NOAA 2008). The average minimum temperature (48.39 for June, 48.55 for July,
and 42.9 for August) was higher than the average minimum temperature for the recording
period (40 for June, 43 for July, and 39 for August). Precipitation for June 2008 was 2.12
inches compared to an average of 1.82 inches. July precipitation average for the period 1946
to 2008 is 2 inches, compared to the single year (2008) measurement of 6.68 inches. August
average is 1.2 inches, compared to the 2008 measurement of 0.79 inches. The much higher
than average precipitation in July led to higher than normal water levels in the creek, and
unusual conditions at the study site during the field survey. Side channels that normally lack
water experienced flow during July, according to AP&T personnel familiar with the project
area. Observations of side channels by AP&T personnel and HDR scientists suggested that
such channels had not experienced any flow in over 20 years. A stream gage on the main
channel of Yerrick Creek was knocked out during an especially high storm at the end of July.
Scientists collected detailed information on soil conditions, hydrology, and plant community
composition. A summary table listing plot number, wetland status, wetland mapping code
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping program
(USFWS 2006), and photo numbers is found in Appendix B. Photographs taken at each of
the data collection locations are included in Appendix C. Locations were studied using the
U.S. Corps of Engineers 1987 wetland delineation manual’s (USACOE 1987) and 2007
Alaska Regional Supplement’s (USACOE 2007) three-parameter method of determining an
area’s wetland status. Standard 2007 Alaska Regional Supplement Corps of Engineers data
sheets were completed at these sites and are included in Appendix D. Each location visited
during the field visit was logged into a handheld global positioning system (GPS) Archer
Field PC unit. Representative photographs and observational data were collected at each plot.
While in the field, wetland/upland boundaries were determined by completing standard
wetland data forms near observable transition zones between wetter and drier areas. A
wetland determination is completed in the area with questionable wetland status, then the
boundary identified in the appropriate direction between that point and obvious wetlands or
uplands. The wetland/upland boundary between the two data plots is then notated on paper
aerial photography maps of the area for later guidance in Geographic Information System
(GIS) mapping of wetland/upland boundaries. In addition, photo points were taken at more
sites to document conditions at a wider range of locations. For these points, a data sheet was
not completed, but photos were taken and conditions were notated in a field notebook.
5
Mapping
Scientists analyzed aerial photography and NWI wetland mapping in a GIS map
environment. GPS locations of field-visited sites and wetland/upland boundaries were
overlaid on aerial photography and notes and photographs completed at each site were
reviewed to identify any wetlands or waterbodies present within the project area. The process
of delineating wetlands from aerial photography included using the following methods:
Vegetation clues: On aerial photography, scientists looked for saturation-adapted vegetation
communities, indicative canopy structure and height, and presence of hydrophytic plant
species. A common example is dwarf spruce trees, which are indicative of a limitation to
growth such as excessively wet soils.
Evidence of soil saturation: Visible evidence of wetland hydrology was sought, including
surface water and darker areas of photos indicating surface saturation. A site’s proximity to
streams, open water habitat, and marshes may be indicative of shallow subsurface water.
Existing mapping: Wetland mapping from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s National Wetland
Inventory mapping program is available for the project area (USFWS 2006). This mapping is
generally an effective tool for large-scale planning and analysis of wetlands but not suitable
for smaller site-specific projects such as needed for this study. NWI mapping is primarily
based on aerial photographic interpretation with limited ground truthing, and therefore
wetland boundaries tend to be oversimplified with many smaller wetland complexes not
included in the mapping. According to available NWI mapping for USGS quadrangle
Tanacross B-6, wetlands occur in the project area (Figure 3). Four pond polygons and two
evergreen shrub polygons were mapped at the fringe of the project area, in mostly forested
areas to the west of the creek channel. The main creek channel is mapped as riverine waters,
with seven shrub polygons mapped on channel islands or on the edge of the main channel.
Areas with marginal evidence of wetland characteristics were mapped conservatively as
wetlands. Preliminary JDs do not make legally binding determinations, therefore individual
sites can be assessed at a later date if necessary (USACOE, June 2008).
6
Figure 3: NWI Mapping of Project Area
7
3. Results
No detailed vegetation or soil mapping was available for the project area prior to the field
study. Information presented below is summarized from data collected at 28 wetland data
form locations over the five-day field investigation (Appendix D). Locations of each data
collection location are displayed on Figure 4. Of the 28 wetland data form locations, 6 were
determined to occur in wetlands and 3 in other waters of the U.S.
Vegetation
At wetland data form locations, 15 out of the 28 sites had hydrophytic vegetation (Table 2).
Dominant plant species are shown by stratum for each plot. The most common trees in the
project area include white spruce (Picea glauca), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), and
some paper birch (Betula papyrifera). The most common shrub is alder (Alnus crispa).
Saplings of white spruce and cottonwood are also common in the shrub layer. Common
graminoids include bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis) and a variety of sedges
(Carex spp.). Common forbs include timberberry (Geocaulon lividum) and dwarf fireweed
(Chamerion latifolium). Mosses and lichens were found primarily in forested plots.
8 Table 2: Vegetation at Wetland Data Form Sites – Dominant Species per Plot Tree Stratum Shrub Stratum black spruce felt-leaved willow balsam poplar paper birch white spruce bog kalmia Labrador tea black spruce diamond willow alder dwarf birch crowberry red currant Picea mariana Salix alexensis Populus balsamifera Betula papyrifera Picea glauca Andromeda polifolia Ledum groenlandicum Picea mariana Salix pulchra Alnus crispa Betula glandulifera Empetrum nigrum Ribes triste Plot Number FACW FAC FACU FACU FACU OBL FACW FACW FACW FAC FAC FAC FAC 101 1 1 1 103 1 1 104 1 105 1 106 1 107 1 1 1 1 108 1 109 1 1 110 1 1 116 1 1 1 118 1 119 120 121 1 1 1 122 1 1 1 124 1 125 1 1 1 126 1 1 128 1 130 1 1 132 1 1 1 133 1 134 1 1 1 135 1 136 1 137 1 1 138 1 1 139 1
9 Table 3, continued Shrub Stratum Herbaceous Stratum bog blueberry lingonberry bunchberry dogwood white spruce balsam poplar prickly rose boreal bog sedge NT sedge water sedge marsh five-finger marsh horsetail Biglow's sedge Vaccinium uliginosum Vaccinium vitis-idaea Cornus canadensis Picea glauca Populus balsamifera Rosa acicularis Carex magellanica Carex utriculata Carex aquatilis Comarium palustris Equisetum pratense Carex biglowii Plot Number FAC FAC FACU FACU FACU FACU OBL OBL OBL OBL FACW FAC 101 1 1 103 1 1 104 105 106 107 108 109 1 110 116 1 118 1 1 119 1 1 120 1 1 121 122 1 124 1 125 126 128 1 1 130 1 132 1 133 134 135 1 136 1 137 138 1 139 1
10 Table 4, continued Herbaceous Stratum bluejoint reedgrass fireweed dwarf fireweed Menzies' campion common horsetail timberberry bluebells boreal sagebrush glaucous bluegrass field locoweed purple reedgrass Calamagrostis canadensis Chamerion angustifolium Chamerion latifolium Silene menziesii ssp. williamsii Equisetum arvense Geocaulon lividum Mertensia paniculata Artemisia arctica Poa glauca Oxytropis campestris Calamagrostis purpurascens Plot Number FAC FAC FAC FAC FACU FACU FACU NI NI NI NI 101 103 1 104 1 1 105 1 106 1 107 1 1 108 1 109 1 1 110 1 116 1 118 1 119 1 120 121 1 1 122 1 124 1 125 1 126 1 1 128 130 1 132 1 133 1 1 134 1 1 135 1 1 1 136 1 1 1 1 137 1 138 1 1 1 139 1
11
Hydrology
The project area is situated along the valley bottom and slopes of the Yerrick Creek drainage.
Yerrick Creek experiences a declining flow along the surveyed length due to subterranean
flow. The unusually high precipitation and storm events in July filled channels that normally
do not experience flow, and in some cases, likely did not experience any flow for over 20
years, according to observations of persons familiar with the study area. Hydrological
indicators were carefully examined at plot data collection locations that occurred in side
channels to ensure that data collected was not influenced by conditions deviating from
normal. All efforts were made by wetland scientists to consider normal conditions despite the
unusual weather conditions preceding the field data collection time.
At wetland data form locations, 13 out of the 28 sites had wetland hydrology (Table 3).
Commonly seen primary indicators included surface water, saturation, high water table, and
drift deposits. Common secondary indicators included drainage patterns, geomorphic
position, stunted or stressed plants, and FAC-neutral test.
Table 5: Indicators at Wetland Data Form Sites with Wetland Hydrology
Field Observations Primary Wetland
Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Plot
Number Surface Water Depth (inches) Water Table Depth (inches) Saturation Depth (inches) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Image (B7) Water Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic relief (D4) FAC Neutral Test (D5) 101 0-10 11 5 X X X X X X X
104 0-24 0 0 X X X X X X X X
105 X X X X X
108 0-24 0 0 X X X X X X X X X
109 X X X
118 12 0 0 X
119 X
120 2 0 0 X X X X X X
126 11 6 X X X X X
128 4 0 0 X X X X X X X
129 0 8 4 X X X
133 X X X
136 X
Soils
Both hydric and non-hydric soil conditions were observed in soil pits examined during the
field visit. Soils were carefully assessed by wetland scientists to consider soils under normal
conditions, despite the unusual rainfall of the season. Hydric soils were encountered at 6 of
the 28 wetland data form sites (Table 4). Indicators of hydric soil included histosol, histic
12
epipedons, and several other indicators that fell under problematic soil conditions. Analysis
of conditions at all sites with problematic hydric soils that are listed in Table 4 concluded that
the site did contain a hydric soil as per USACE direction (USACE 1987, 2007). Specific
characteristics of the sampled mineral soils, including color and texture, are included on the
wetland data forms (Appendix D).
Table 6: Soils at Wetland Data Form Sites Found to Have Hydric Soils
Hydric Soil Indicators
Plot
Number
Histosol or
Histel (A1)
Histic
Epipedon
(A2)
Restrictive
Layer Type
Restrictive
Layer Depth
(inches)
Other Indicator of Hydric Soils or
“Waters” Status
101 X Permafrost 16
104
Outwash, Entisol (Substrate too young
and coarse to show redox features and
with too little organic carbon to promote
reduction)
108
Outwash, Entisol (Substrate too young
and coarse to show redox features and
with too little organic carbon to promote
reduction)
118 No pit, emergent vegetation and 12"
standing water present
120
Hydrophytic vegetation, primary hydrology
indicator, concave landscape, positive
alpha-alpha dipyridyl
126 X
128 X
130 X
4. Conclusion
Wetland locations are based upon the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydrologic
indicators, and hydric soil indicators. Other waters of the U.S. are based on the investigators’
judgement about the location of the ordinary high water mark of Yerrick Creek. Based on the
findings above, it has been determined that areas displayed as wetlands or waters on Figure 4
meet the USACOE criteria for being classified as wetland or fall below the plane of Ordinary
High Water (OHW) of Yerrick Creek. Approximately 21.3% (147.1 acres), a conservative
delineation, of the mapped acres were determined to meet the USACOE requirements for
being classified as wetlands or other waters, and are listed and described in Table 5. The
areas shown as wetlands and other waters on Figure 4 may be subject to jurisdiction under
Section 404. For the purpose of this PJD, it is assumed that Yerrick Creek is a Relatively
Permanent Tributary to Traditional Navigable Waters, and that the mapped wetlands are
“adjacent” to Yerrick Creek. Most of the mapped wetland areas are not within the proposed
project construction areas.
13
The remainder of the mapped project area, approximately 78.7% (542.6 acres) of the mapped
area, lacks one or more of the required three parameters to support classifying an area as
wetland (Table 5), and is not below the plane of OHW of Yerrick Creek. The areas would not
be subject to jurisdiction under Section 404. As project plans are developed, if construction
would affect wetlands or other waters, AP&T may wish to refine wetland boundaries by
further field investigation and consideration of the jurisdictional status of any affected
wetlands.
Yerrick Creek and its adjacent active bars are waters of the US below the creek’s OHW
mark. OHW is particularly difficult to define for a braided channel such as this one. There
may be some areas within the river bars shown on Figure 4 that are not actually below OHW.
Table 7: Mapped Area Summary
Wetland Type NWI Mapping Code Approximate Area
(Acres)
Seasonally flooded emergent persistent
herbaceous wetland PEM1C 0.51
Semipermanently flooded emergent persistent
herbaceous wetland PEM1F 3.89
Saturated needle-leafed evergreen forest/broad-
leafed scrub-shrub wetland PF04/SS3B 5.07
Saturated needle-leafed evergreen forest wetland PFO4B 0.68
Seasonally flooded broad-leafed scrub-shrub
wetland PSS1C 0.10
Saturated broad-leafed evergreen/needle-leaved
scrub-shrub wetland PSS3/4B 42.24
Seasonally flooded broad-leafed evergreen scrub-
shrub/persistent herbaceous wetland PSS3/EM1B 0.64
Seasonally flooded broad-leafed evergreen scrub-
shrub wetland PSS3B 0.37
Seasonally flooded broad-leafed evergreen/broad-
leafed evergreen scrub-shrub wetland PSS4/3B 5.92
Saturated needle-leafed evergreen scrub-shrub
wetland PSS4B 14.33
Permanently flooded unconsolidated bottom
palustrine wetland PUBH 3.35
Temporarily flooded upper perennial
unconsolidated floor/permanently flooded
unconsolidated bottom wetland
R3USA/UBH 69.96
Upland (non-wetland) U 542.56
Total Mapped Area 689.63
Total Wetlands and Other Waters 147.1 acres (21.3%)
Total Upland (non-wetland) 542.6 acres (78.7%)
14
Determination Made By
Elizabeth Bella, Chris Wrobel, and Irina Lapina
Wetland Scientists
HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: February 2008
Attachments
Figure 4: Yerrick Creek Wetlands Map Book
References
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. National Weather Service, Alaska Regional
Headquarters. Monthly and annual climate data summaries. Available online at
http://www.arh.noaa.gov/climate.php.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June 26, 2008. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02. Available online at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/Policies/RGL08-02.pdf..
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory (USACOEEL). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. Vicksburg, MS.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center. 2007. Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0). Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Federal Register. November 13, 1986 Part II. Rules and Regulations, Vol. 51, No. 219. U.S. Department of
Defense. Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. 33 CFR Parts 320-330, Regulatory Programs
of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. National Wetland Inventory Mapping for USGS Quadrangle Tanacross
B-6. Available online at: http://enterprise.nwi.fws.gov/shapedata/alaska/.
15
Appendices
Appendix A: Weather and Climate Data
http://www.arh.noaa.gov/climate.php
NOAA National Weather Service Alaska Regional Headquarters Data
Period of Record:1946 to 2008
Observed (°F) Observed Extreme Temperature (°F)
Day 2008 Max
Temp:
Min
Temp:
Precipitation
(inches):
Highest
Max:
Lowest
Max:
Highest
Min:
Lowest
Min:
1-Jun 63 47 0 87 1958 44 1947 57 1990 31 1969
2-Jun 69 47 0 80 1958 44 1947 57 1979 32 1947
3-Jun 67 49 T 85 1958 44 1974 57 1957 32 1974
4-Jun 61 49 T 84 1957 40 2006 56 1985 27 1961
5-Jun 61 49 0 85 1957 44 1963 60 1958 26 2006
6-Jun 64 44 T 84 1951 49 1985 60 1986 31 1963
7-Jun 66 49 0.01 84 1958 52 1983 57 1965 36 1991
8-Jun 67 48 T 84 1946 51 1970 55 1969 30 1992
9-Jun 56 45 0.09 83 1947 50 1983 56 2006 32 1961
10-Jun 62 47 0.02 79 1971 52 1959 60 2006 34 1991
11-Jun 63 44 T 80 1972 52 1955 56 2005 35 1987
12-Jun 61 48 0.32 81 1992 52 1979 56 2005 36 1960
13-Jun 68 44 0 85 1972 48 1952 59 1969 36 1955
14-Jun 69 47 0 91 1969 45 1954 58 1972 37 1971
15-Jun 71 48 0.36 91 1969 50 1985 60 1950 32 1960
16-Jun 64 48 0.08 81 1948 52 1985 58 1968 36 1960
17-Jun 59 50 T 88 1948 56 1982 58 1946 40 1987
18-Jun 67 52 0.01 86 1967 52 1980 62 1948 36 1982
19-Jun 69 55 0.09 82 1958 51 1949 58 1967 35 1960
20-Jun 75 50 0 88 1958 53 2005 58 1958 41 1951
21-Jun M M M 90 1991 47 1956 58 1969 33 1968
22-Jun 72 55 T 82 1987 50 2006 60 1969 38 1993
23-Jun 61 50 0.56 85 1971 50 1963 57 1983 33 1949
24-Jun 57 48 0.28 90 1991 50 1964 58 1971 39 1961
25-Jun M M M 86 1983 44 1949 60 1980 35 1949
26-Jun M M M 83 1991 50 1949 63 1983 34 1949
27-Jun M M M 85 1957 49 1949 65 1969 36 1960
28-Jun M M M 81 1986 8 1971 68 1968 -11 1971
29-Jun M M M 85 1992 48 1949 70 1968 34 1949
30-Jun M M M 87 1992 47 1971 64 1987 35 1971
JUNE 2008
AVERAGE 64.87 48.39 Total: 1.82
JUNE
NORMAL 71 40 2.12
1-Jul M M M 83 1991 47 1945 58 1985 32 1971
2-Jul M M M 82 1990 55 1981 60 1958 34 1960
3-Jul 80 48 T 85 1958 57 1969 62 1955 36 1961
4-Jul 82 53 T 91 1958 57 1959 62 1990 37 1961
16
5-Jul 79 53 T 86 1990 55 1949 62 1968 44 1960
6-Jul 72 58 0.07 84 1986 57 1981 63 1980 41 1963
7-Jul 70 53 0.01 82 1982 54 1981 60 1986 42 1993
8-Jul 55 49 0.23 85 1951 54 1981 62 1968 43 1992
9-Jul 68 50 0.01 82 1946 54 1957 60 1968 38 1991
10-Jul 69 52 0.08 88 1975 54 1964 59 1989 36 1960
11-Jul 68 53 0.15 85 1975 48 1954 60 1980 35 1960
12-Jul 73 52 0.01 89 1960 55 1962 59 1980 38 1990
13-Jul 68 52 0.04 85 1960 55 1959 60 1975 36 1961
14-Jul 58 51 0.13 85 1967 53 1971 64 1989 38 1961
15-Jul 71 46 0.01 85 1993 57 1960 62 1954 42 1991
16-Jul 72 52 0 88 1951 53 1955 60 1993 38 1960
17-Jul 63 49 0.27 83 1993 47 2003 62 1947 38 2003
18-Jul 51 46 0.53 79 1993 51 2008 57 1988 39 1961
19-Jul 58 45 T 84 1990 52 1965 59 1978 41 1966
20-Jul 56 47 0.1 85 1990 51 1973 59 1990 38 1968
21-Jul 64 45 0.27 81 1976 51 1956 60 2006 42 1959
22-Jul 55 42 0.16 83 1955 54 1959 61 1952 40 1968
23-Jul 58 44 T 86 1990 58 2008 60 1961 42 1971
24-Jul 67 43 T 86 1990 52 1965 62 1990 38 1988
25-Jul 62 49 T 90 1955 49 1969 60 1947 40 1991
26-Jul 68 50 0.54 85 1955 48 1957 59 1978 40 1961
27-Jul 55 49 0.41 86 1953 53 1963 63 1977 39 1957
28-Jul 51 44 2.27 83 1953 8 1971 62 1958 -11 1971
29-Jul 59 43 0.36 85 1977 59 2008 60 1962 38 1975
30-Jul 53 46 0.28 88 1977 53 2008 62 1947 42 1971
31-Jul 48 44 0.75 85 1978 48 2008 58 1965 35 1968
JULY 2008
AVERAGE 63.9 48.55 Total: 6.68
JULY
NORMAL 73 43 2
1-Aug 60 45 0.1 87 1976 56 1982 64 1993 34 1968
2-Aug 70 44 0.3 79 1962 56 1971 64 1953 35 1948
3-Aug 54 44 0.13 82 1977 50 2003 59 1986 40 1964
4-Aug M M M 88 1977 49 1947 60 1986 36 1968
5-Aug M M M 80 1968 56 1962 62 1977 34 1946
6-Aug M M M 86 1968 54 1949 60 1981 33 1946
7-Aug M M M 85 1968 45 1969 58 1981 33 1969
8-Aug 49 41 0.03 79 1977 42 1969 61 1981 33 1969
9-Aug 53 37 0.01 82 1957 53 2008 62 1977 34 1969
10-Aug M M M 85 2005 43 1969 63 1979 29 1969
11-Aug 61 44 0.05 86 1980 50 1965 59 1945 33 1969
12-Aug 68 35 0 84 1980 46 1969 59 1958 33 1969
13-Aug 66 49 0 85 1990 48 1973 66 1975 29 1969
14-Aug 71 45 T 86 1990 45 1946 57 1991 26 1969
15-Aug 67 50 T 85 1990 50 1983 64 1979 27 1969
16-Aug 67 46 0.04 84 1957 42 1981 64 1979 36 1981
17-Aug 59 49 0.11 80 2007 48 1946 63 1990 28 1981
17
18-Aug M M M 81 1977 53 1992 56 1977 32 1947
19-Aug 60 45 T 81 1950 51 1987 57 2007 35 2005
20-Aug 59 42 0 81 1973 49 1981 55 1950 33 1946
21-Aug 62 37 T 86 1977 42 1946 56 1972 31 1974
22-Aug 64 49 0.02 84 1977 41 1948 56 1963 30 1989
23-Aug M M M 79 1979 44 1948 57 1989 25 1986
24-Aug 58 39 T 82 1979 45 1983 55 1963 22 1948
25-Aug 60 43 0 80 1981 45 1983 57 1989 31 1993
26-Aug 62 38 0 78 1981 38 1984 57 1989 27 1991
27-Aug M M M 80 1981 40 1984 61 1957 29 1991
28-Aug 62 41 T 82 1949 8 1971 63 1989 -11 1971
29-Aug M M M 82 1949 40 1984 51 1951 28 1991
30-Aug 60 38 0 85 1974 40 1948 56 1949 25 1955
31-Aug M M M 77 1974 42 1962 49 1993 23 1987
AUGUST
2008
AVERAGE
61.52 42.9 Total = 0.79
AUGUST
NORMAL 68 39 1.2
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmak.html
Western Regional Climate Center, wrcc@dri.edu
Monthly Climate Summary for Tok, AK
Period of Record : 6/11/1954 to 12/31/2005
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average Max.
Temperature (°F)
-6.6 7.7 25 44 60.4 71 73 68 54 32 8.9 -3.5 36.2
Average Min.
Temperature (°F)
-25 -16 -6 16 29.5 40 43 39 29 13 -9.9 -22 10.8
Average Total
Precipitation
(inches)
0.35 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 2.1 2 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.43 9.22
18
Appendix B: Summary Table
Plot Number Plot Type JD Status NWI Code Photo Numbers
101 JD W PSS3/4C 124-pit, 125-surface, 126-W, 127-E, 128-S
102 PP-RW* W R4SBH 129-W, 130-E
103 JD U U 131-pit, 132-surface, 133-E, 134-W, 135-S
104 JD W R3UB1/2H 136-N, 137-E, 138-S, 139-W
105 JD U U 144-N, 145-S, 146-pit, 147-surface
106 JD U U 148-pit, 149-surface, 150-E, 151-SW, 152-N
107 JD U U 153-pit, 154-surface, 155-N, 156-S
108 JD W R3US1/2C 157-W, 158-N, 159-E, 160-S, 161-SW
109 JD U U 162-N, 163-SE, 164-SW, 165-NW, 166-pit, 167-surface
110 JD U U 168-pit, 169-surface, 170-SE, 171-S, 172-N
111 PP-RU U U 173-SW, 174-NW, 175-NE
112 PP-RW W R3UB2H 180-channel, 181-channel
113 PP-RU U U 182-NW, 183-SE, 184-SE-channel, 185-N
114 PP-RU W R3UBH 186-NW, 187-SE
115 PP-RW W R4SB2C 188-N, 189-S
116 JD U U 190-pit, 191-surface, 192-N, 193-S
117 PP-RW W R4UBF 194-NW, 195-SE
118 JD W PEM1F (Center of polygon is
PUBH)
196-water, 197-E, 198-W, 199-pond
119 JD U U 200-pit, 201-surface, 202-NE, 203-N, 204-hydro
120 JD W PEM1F 205-pit, 206-redox, 207-alpha-alpha, 208-E, 209-W
121 JD U U 210-N, 211-S, 212-pit, 213-surface
122 JD U U 216-N, 217-S, 218-pit, 219-surface
123 PP-RW W R3UB1/2H (Gravel Bar is
R3US1/2C or A)
220-NE, 221-SW, 222-S
124 JD U U 226-NE, 227-SW, 228-SE, 229-pit, 230-surface
125 JD U U 233-N, 234-S, 235-windthrow, 236-pit, 237-surface
126 JD W PSS4B 238-N, 239-N, 241-pit, 242-surface
127 PP-RW U U 243-N, 244-S, 245-pit
128 JD W PEM1/SS3C (PEM1C
adjacent)
246-N, 247-S, 248-water
129 PP-RW W PUBH (PEM1C on fringe) 249-NE, 250-W, 251-W
130 JD W PF04/SS3B 252-NE, 253-SW, 254-pit, 255-surface
131 PP-RW W PF04/SS3B 256-N, 257-S, 260-pit, 261-surface
132 JD U U 262-NE, 263-SE, 264-S, 267-pit, 268-surface
133 JD U U 269-NE, 270-SE, 271-SW
134 JD U U 272-NE, 273-SW, 274-pit, 275-surface
135 JD U U 277-NE, 278-SE, 279-SW
136 JD U U 280-N, 281-SW (cliff), 282-SW, 283-pit, 284-surface
137 JD U U 292-NE, 293-SW, 294-pit, 295-surface
138 JD U U 297-N, 298-S, 299-pit, 300-surface
139 JD U U 305-N, 306-W, 307-S, 310-pit, 311-surface
140 PP-RU U U 312-NE, 313-SW
*PP-RW or PP-RU: Photopoint Plot at a Representative Wetland or Waters (RW) or a
Representative Upland (RU) site, where photos and basic information are recorded instead of
the entire field form, due to similarity in site conditions with previously surveyed plots.
19
Appendix C: Photographs
Included as a Word document:
AppendixC_photos_yerrick.doc
20
Appendix D: Field Data Forms
Included as an Adobe document:
AppendixD_plotfieldforms_yerrick.pdf
9.3.5. – HERITAGE RESOURCE SURVEY
(Report has sensitive information and is not available to the
general public)
Office of History and Archaeology: Cultural Resources Report Coversheet
(Must Accompany All Compliance Reports Submitted to OHA/SHPO)
Office of History and Archaeology
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1310
Anchorage, AK 99501-3565
Phone: (907) 269-8721 Fax (907) 269-8908
http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/oha/index.htm
Was this survey/investigation(Check one): Negative Positive X
Negative = no cultural resource sites are reported or updated. Positive = cultural resource sites are reported or updated.
Note: Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) numbers are required for reported cultural resource sites, including
buildings. AHRS numbers can be obtained by contacting Joan Dale at 907-269-8718).
Project/Report Information:
● Report Title: 2009 Cultural Resource Survey of Alaska Power & Telephone’s Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric
Project near MP 1334 of the Alaska Highway, Alaska
● Report Author(s): Molly Proue, M.A., R.P.A., and Burr Neely, M.A., R.P.A.
● Report Date: November 2009
● Submitting Organization/Agency Northern Land Use Research, Inc.
● Project Name and Project Number: 09-968 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
● Principal Investigator (PI) name: Peter M. Bowers, M.A., R.P.A.
Geographic Information (attach an extra sheet or cite report page numbers if necessary)
● USGS Mapsheet (1:63,360 if available) Tanacross B-6
● Meridian/Township / Range / Section (MTRS) location: (all affected sections)
Format example: “F021N018E|13-14” C019N009E, Section 36; C018N009E, Sections 1, 2, 11, and 14
● Verbal description of survey area
(for example: “123 Acme Street,” “confluence of Fish and Moose creeks,” “Milepost 9-16 …”
The middle portion of the Yerrick Creek drainage, south of the Alaska Highway, 22 miles west of Tok.
● Does this report contain boundary coordinates for the surveyed area? Yes No X Page #(s)
● Does this report contain boundary coordinates for reported sites? Yes No X Page #(s)
● Land owner(s): State of Alaska and Tanacross Native Corp.
● Answer one: Acres Surveyed 127 Hectares Surveyed
Cultural Resources Management (CRM) Information
● List AHRS numbers of new and updated sites – (do not list sites that are merely described in the background section).
TNX-211 and TNX-212
● Is the report part of a National Historic Preservation Act - Section 106 consultation? Yes X No
● Is the report part of an Alaska Historic Preservation Act compliance consultation? Yes No X
● Does the report’s data support a submitting agency’s determination of eligibility? Yes X No
● Does the report’s data support a submitting agency’s determination of effect? Yes X No
● Was this report submitted to fulfill State Field Archaeology Permit requirements?
Permit No.: Permit Application # 2009-27 Yes X No
● Was this project and/or report overseen or authored by someone meeting the minimum
qualifications of the Sec. of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines (48 FR 44738-44739)? Yes X No
● Is the Principal Investigator’s resume’ appended to the report or on file at OHA? Yes X No
Revised 3/29/07
Page | 31
9.4 2009 Denali Commission List of Distressed Communities
Denali Commission
510 L Street, Suite 410
Anchorage, AK 99501
907.271.1414 tel
907.271.1415 fax
888.480.4321 toll free
www.denali.gov
Issue: Distressed Community Criteria 2009 Update
Date: June 2009
Background:
This 2009 annual update of the distressed community list prepared by the Alaska
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section,
uses the most current population, employment and earnings data available to
identify those Alaska communities considered “distressed”. The distressed status is
determined by comparing average income of a community to full-time minimum
wage earnings, the percentage of the population earning greater than full-time
minimum wage earnings and a measure of the percentage of the population
engaged in year-round wage and salary employment.
More Community Data Available
This report uses enhanced physical place of residence information to better
identify the community of residence for Permanent Fund Dividend applicants age
16 and over. Communities included in this report are closely aligned with those
used in the annual population place estimates prepared by the Alaska
Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
Attached is a list of Alaska communities with employment and earnings information
used to determine their distressed community status for 2009. Maps by economic
region that show locations of communities that meet the distressed criteria are also
included.
Surrogate Standard Background
The Denali Commission adopted alternate methods of determining community
eligibility when census data were not available for the 2000 update. That
“surrogate” standard considered additional data and methodology. For this 2009
update, we compiled the data required to implement a “surrogate” standard to
determine eligibility.
Data Sources and Methodology
Three sources of data are used for the 2009 update:
• 2008 Permanent Fund Dividend applications (PFD). This information
includes the applicant’s age, social security number (SSN), and physical
place of residence.
• Alaska unemployment insurance wage records for calendar year 2008.
This information includes wage and salary worker earnings from all
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 2
private, state and local government employers. Federal government,
military, and self-employed earnings are not available and not included in
the earnings estimate.
• Calendar year 2007 Commercial Fisheries Entry Commissions (CFEC)
total fish value data by community, the most recent data available.
All 2008 PFD applicants age 16 and over in 2008 were assigned to an Alaska
borough/census area and community by place of residence. PFD applicants age
16 and over were matched with wage and employment information by SSN.
CFEC 2007 total fish values were added to wage and salary earnings to compute
community average market income.
2009 Update Surrogate Standard
A community that meets two of the following three surrogate standard criteria is
considered distressed:
Criteria 1 Average market income in 2008 is less than $14,872.
Average market income = Community UI Earnings + Community CFEC Earnings
Number Residents 16 and Over
$14,872 = Minimum Wage ($7.15/hour x 2,080 hours/year)
Any community with an average market income of less than $14,872 in 2008 meets this
criteria.
Criteria 2 More than 70% of residents 16 and over earned less than $14,872 in
2008.
Percent Residents w/Earnings < than $14,872 = 100 x Number Residents w/Earnings < than $14,872
Number Residents 16 and Over
Any community with more than 70% of its residents earning less than $14,872 in 2008
meets this criteria.
Criteria 3 Less than 30% of residents 16 and over worked all four quarters of 2008.
Percent Residents Employed All 4 Quarters = 100 x Number Residents Employed All 4 Quarters
Number Residents 16 and Over
Any community with less than 30% of its residents employed all four quarters of 2008
meets this criteria.
Appeals
The Denali Commission recognizes that in some cases the data collection and
application methodology does not accurately reflect the appropriate classification
of some communities. Therefore, the Commission is open to reviewing a
community’s classification as “non-distressed.” Any community that believes a
“non-distressed” classification was determined in error may appeal to the Denali
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 3
Commission. Appeals determinations will be made in lieu of new information
(relevant economic data and facts) which demonstrate the data compiled by the
DOL&WD was erroneous, invalid, or outdated. Additionally, the Commission will
take into consideration the past economic status of a community as determined
by the Denali Commission’s annual Distressed Community Criteria lists dating
back to 2002. Past economic statuses will not, however, be the single
determining factor for successful appeals. They will be considered in addition to
the new information provided. New information must come from a verifiable
source and be robust and representative of the entire community and/or
population.
In addition to demonstrating the data compiled by the DOL&WD was erroneous,
invalid, or outdated, the new information must demonstrate a community does
meet at least two of the three Surrogate Standard criteria as defined above for
classification as a distressed community.
Appeals must be sent in writing to the attention of the Denali Commission
Director of Programs who will make an appeal determination based on the new
verifiable information presented and will provide a response in writing within 30
days.
Send appeals to:
Denali Commission
Attention: Director of Programs
510 L Street, Suite 410
Anchorage, AK 99501
*The last section of the “Communities that meet 2009 Distressed Criteria” below
contains the names of communities which have successfully appealed their
status as “non-distressed” and received a “distressed” classification from the
Commission.
Distressed Communities as Defined by Surrogate Standard
The following is a list of communities that meet the surrogate standard for
distressed communities.
Communities that meet 2009 Distressed Criteria
AKHIOK CITY
AKIACHAK CDP
AKIAK CITY
ALAKANUK CITY
ALATNA CDP
ALCAN BORDER CDP
ALEKNAGIK CITY
ALENEVA CDP
ALLAKAKET ANVSA
AMBLER CITY
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 4
Communities that meet 2009 Distressed Criteria
ANGOON CITY
ANVIK CITY
ARCTIC VILLAGE CDP
ATMAUTLUAK CDP
BELUGA CDP
BETTLES CITY
BIG DELTA CDP
BIRCH CREEK CDP
BREVIG MISSION CITY
CENTRAL CDP
CHALKYITSIK CDP
CHASE CDP
CHEFORNAK CITY
CHEVAK CITY
CHICKEN CDP
CHIGNIK LAGOON
CHIGNIK LAKE
CHINIAK CDP
CHISANA
CHITINA CDP
CHUATHBALUK CITY
CIRCLE CDP
CLAM GULCH CDP
CLARKS POINT CITY
COOPER LANDING CDP
COVENANT LIFE CDP
CROOKED CREEK CDP
CROWN POINT CDP
DOT LAKE CDP
DRY CREEK CDP
EAGLE CITY
EAGLE VILLAGE
EDNA BAY
EEK CITY
EIELSON AFB
EKWOK CITY
ELFIN COVE CDP
ELIM CITY
EMMONAK CITY
EXCURSION INLET CDP
FERRY CDP
FORT GREELY CDP
FOX RIVER CDP
FUNNY RIVER CDP
GAMBELL CITY
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 5
Communities that meet 2009 Distressed Criteria
GAME CREEK CDP
GLACIER VIEW CDP
GOODNEWS BAY CITY
GRAYLING CITY
GULKANA CDP
GUSTAVUS CDP
HALIBUT COVE CDP
HAPPY VALLEY CDP
HARDING-BIRCH LAKES CDP
HEALY LAKE CDP
HOBART BAY CDP
HOLLIS CDP
HOLY CROSS CITY
HOOPER BAY CITY
HOPE CDP
HUSLIA CITY
HYDABURG CITY
HYDER CDP
KAKE CITY
KALTAG CITY
KARLUK CDP
KASIGLUK CDP
KENNY LAKE CDP
KIPNUK CDP
KIVALINA CITY
KLUKWAN CDP
KODIAK STATION CDP
KOKHANOK CDP
KOLIGANEK CDP
KONGIGANAK CDP
KOTLIK CITY
KOYUK CITY
KOYUKUK CITY
KUPREANOF CITY
KWETHLUK CITY
KWIGILLINGOK CDP
LAKE LOUISE CDP
LAKE MINCHUMINA CDP
LIVENGOOD CDP
LOWER KALSKAG CITY
LUTAK CDP
MANLEY HOT SPRINGS CDP
MANOKOTAK CITY
MARSHALL CITY
MCCARTHY CDP
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 6
Communities that meet 2009 Distressed Criteria
MENTASTA LAKE CDP
MEYERS CHUCK
MINTO CDP
MOSQUITO LAKE CDP
MOUNTAIN VILLAGE CITY
MUD BAY CDP
NANWALEK CDP
NAPAKIAK CITY
NAUKATI BAY CDP
NELCHINA CDP
NEW STUYAHOK CITY
NEWTOK CDP
NIKOLAEVSK CDP
NIKOLAI CITY
NINILCHIK CDP
NONDALTON CITY
NOORVIK CITY
NORTHWAY CDP
NORTHWAY VILLAGE
NULATO CITY
NUNAM IQUA CITY
OLD HARBOR CITY
OUZINKIE CITY
PAXSON CDP
PELICAN CITY
PERRYVILLE CDP
PILOT STATION CITY
PITKAS POINT CDP
PLATINUM CITY
POINT BAKER CDP
POPE-VANNOY LANDING CDP
PORT ALEXANDER
PORT ALSWORTH CDP
PORT GRAHAM CDP
PORT PROTECTION CDP
PORTAGE CREEK CDP
QUINHAGAK CITY
RAMPART CDP
RED DEVIL CDP
RUBY CITY
RUSSIAN MISSION CITY
SAVOONGA CITY
SCAMMON BAY CITY
SELAWIK CITY
SELDOVIA CITY
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 7
Communities that meet 2009 Distressed Criteria
SHAGELUK CITY
SHISHMAREF CITY
SKWENTNA CDP
SLANA CDP
SLEETMUTE CDP
STEBBINS CITY
STEVENS VILLAGE CDP
STONY RIVER CDP
SUSITNA CDP
TANACROSS CDP
TATITLEK CDP
TELLER CITY
TENAKEE SPRINGS CITY
TETLIN CDP
THOMS PLACE
THORNE BAY CITY
TOGIAK CITY
TOKSOOK BAY CITY
TOLSONA CDP
TONSINA CDP
TRAPPER CREEK CDP
TULUKSAK CDP
TUNTUTULIAK CDP
TUNUNAK CDP
TWIN HILLS CDP
UGASHIK CDP
UPPER KALSKAG CITY
VENETIE CDP
WHALE PASS CDP
WHITESTONE CAMP CDP
WILLOW CREEK CDP
WISEMAN CDP
Y CDP
*Communities Classified as Distressed through the Appeals Process
The following communities have successfully completed the appeals process and
been reclassified by the Denali Commission as distressed communities:
HAINES (Granted 2008)
GLENNALLEN (Granted 2007)
CHENEGA (Granted 2006)
NANWALEK (Granted 2006)
ATMAUTLUAK (Granted 2005)
GEORGETOWN (Granted 2005)
KONGIGANAK (Granted 2005)
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 8
MCGRATH (Granted 2005)
NAPASKIAK (Granted 2005)
NEWTOK (Granted 2005)
OSCARVILLE (Granted 2005)
SHAKTOOLIK (Granted 2005)
BREVIG MISSION (Granted 2005)
PORT GRAHAM (Granted 2004)
NEWHALEN (Granted 2001)
Communities that do not meet 2009 Distressed Criteria
ADAK CITY
AKUTAN CITY
ANAKTUVUK PASS CITY
ANCHOR POINT CDP
ANCHORAGE
ANDERSON CITY
ANIAK CITY
ATKA CITY
ATQASUK CITY
BARROW CITY
BEAR CREEK CDP
BEAVER CDP
BETHEL CITY
BIG LAKE CDP
BUCKLAND CITY
BUFFALO SOAPSTONE CDP
BUTTE CDP
CANTWELL CDP
CHENEGA CDP
CHICKALOON CDP
CHIGNIK CITY
CHISTOCHINA CDP
COFFMAN COVE CITY
COHOE CDP
COLD BAY CITY
COLDFOOT CDP
COLLEGE CDP
COPPER CENTER CDP
COPPERVILLE CDP
CORDOVA CITY
CRAIG CITY
DEERING CITY
DELTA JUNCTION CITY
DELTANA CDP
DIAMOND RIDGE CDP
DILLINGHAM CITY
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 9
Communities that do not meet 2009 Distressed Criteria
DIOMEDE CITY
DOT LAKE VILLAGE
EGEGIK CITY
ESTER CDP
EVANSVILLE CDP
FAIRBANKS CITY
FALSE PASS CITY
FARM LOOP CDP
FISHHOOK CDP
FORT YUKON CITY
FOUR MILE ROAD CDP
FOX CDP
FRITZ CREEK CDP
GAKONA CDP
GALENA CITY
GATEWAY CDP
GLENNALLEN CDP
GOLOVIN CITY
HAINES CDP
HEALY CDP
HOMER CITY
HOONAH CITY
HOUSTON CITY
HUGHES CITY
IGIUGIG CITY
ILIAMNA CITY
JUNEAU CITY
KACHEMAK CITY
KAKTOVIK CITY
KALIFORNSKY CDP
KASAAN CITY
KASILOF CDP
KENAI CITY
KETCHIKAN CITY
KIANA CITY
KING COVE CITY
KING SALMON CDP
KLAWOCK CITY
KNIK RIVER CDP
KNIK-FAIRVIEW CDP
KOBUK CITY
KODIAK CITY
KOTZEBUE CITY
LAKES CDP
LARSEN BAY CITY
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 10
Communities that do not meet 2009 Distressed Criteria
LAZY MOUNTAIN CDP
LEVELOCK CDP
LIME VILLAGE CDP
LOWELL POINT CDP
MCGRATH CITY
MCKINLEY PARK CDP
MEADOW LAKES CDP
MEKORYUK CITY
MENDELTNA CDP
METLAKATLA
MOOSE CREEK CDP
MOOSE PASS CDP
NAKNEK CDP
NAPASKIAK CITY
NELSON LAGOON CDP
NENANA CITY
NEWHALEN CITY
NIGHTMUTE CITY
NIKISKI CDP
NIKOLSKI CDP
NOATAK CDP
NOME CITY
NORTH POLE CITY
NORTHWAY JUNCION CDP
NUIQSUT CITY
NUNAPITCHUK CITY
OSCARVILLE CDP
PALMER CITY
PEDRO BAY CDP
PETERSBURG CITY
PETERSVILLE CDP
PILOT POINT CDP
PLEASANT VALLEY CDP
POINT HOPE CITY
POINT LAY CDP
POINT MACKENZIE CDP
PORT HEIDEN CITY
PORT LIONS CITY
PRIMROSE CDP
PRUDHOE BAY
RED DOG MINE CDP
RIDGEWAY CDP
SAINT GEORGE CITY
SAINT MARYS CITY
SAINT MICHAEL CITY
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 11
SAINT PAUL CITY
SALAMATOF CDP
SALCHA CDP
SAND POINT CITY
SAXMAN CITY
SELDOVIA VILLAGE CDP
SEWARD CITY
SHAKTOOLIK CITY
SHUNGNAK CITY
SILVER SPRINGS CDP
SITKA CITY
SKAGWAY CITY
SOLDOTNA CITY
SOUTH NAKNEK CDP
STERLING CDP
SUNRISE CDP
SUTTON-ALPINE CDP
TAKOTNA CDP
TALKEETNA CDP
TANAINA CDP
TANANA CITY
TAZLINA CDP
TOK CDP
TWO RIVERS CDP
TYONEK CDP
UNALAKLEET CITY
UNALASKA CITY
VALDEZ CITY
WAINWRIGHT CITY
WALES CITY
WASILLA CITY
WHITE MOUNTAIN CITY
WHITTIER CITY
WILLOW CDP
WOMENS BAY CDP
WRANGELL CITY
YAKUTAT
Communities that are determined distressed when plus/minus 3% formula*
is applied to data.
The following is the list of criteria for communities that do not meet the 2009
surrogate standard for distressed communities.
Additional communities that meet distressed criteria when using
plus/minus 3% formula
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 12
ANCHOR POINT CDP
ANDERSON CITY
BEAVER CDP
BUCKLAND CITY
COHOE CDP
DOT LAKE VILLAGE
FORT YUKON CITY
FRITZ CREEK CDP
HAINES CDP
HOMER CITY
HOONAH CITY
KACHEMAK CITY
KIANA CITY
Additional communities that meet distressed criteria when using
plus/minus 3% formula
KOBUK CITY
LARSEN BAY CITY
LEVELOCK CDP
MCKINLEY PARK CDP
NAPASKIAK CITY
NENANA CITY
NIGHTMUTE CITY
NIKOLSKI CDP
NUNAPITCHUK CITY
POINT HOPE CITY
POINT MACKENZIE CDP
PORT LIONS CITY
SAINT MICHAEL CITY
SALCHA CDP
SELDOVIA VILLAGE CDP
SHUNGNAK CITY
SOUTH NAKNEK CDP
WALES CITY
WHITTIER CITY
WILLOW CDP
WRANGELL CITY
3% Criteria
Criteria 1 Average earnings in 2008 from UI covered employment and fishing less than
$14,872 x 1.03 = $15,318 (change from $14,872)
Criteria 2 The percentage of residents 16 and over with 2008 earnings less than
minimum wage of $14,872 greater than 67% (change from 70%)
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 13
Criteria 3 The percentage of residents 16 and over employed in all four quarters of 2008
is less than 33% (change from 30%)
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Borough/Census Area and Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
Aleutians East Borough
AKUTAN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 28,396 41.9 72.0
COLD BAY CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,035 46.3 50.0
FALSE PASS CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 57,770 57.7 50.0
KING COVE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 41,778 63.5 36.2
NELSON LAGOON
CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 38,340 65.4 36.5
SAND POINT CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 47,564 64.0 38.1
Aleutians West Census Area
ADAK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,785 60.7 26.8
ATKA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,377 46.9 63.3
NIKOLSKI CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 14,971 68.2 36.4 Yes
SAINT GEORGE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,695 66.2 33.8
SAINT PAUL CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 27,056 59.2 42.6
UNALASKA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 40,743 33.8 67.1
Anchorage Municipality
ANCHORAGE Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,814 53.7 46.9
Bethel Census Area
AKIACHAK CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 11,477 75.1 27.8
AKIAK CITY Distressed Non-Distressed 10,885 70.4 44.2
ANIAK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,790 57.8 42.2
ATMAUTLUAK CDP Distressed Distressed 7,875 80.9 23.0
BETHEL CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 28,323 47.8 49.0
CHEFORNAK CITY Distressed Distressed 11,206 78.0 45.5
CHUATHBALUK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,981 76.7 35.0
CROOKED CREEK
CDP Distressed Distressed 9,767 76.7 34.9
EEK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,585 76.6 37.8
GOODNEWS BAY
CITY Distressed Distressed 12,293 76.4 29.7
KASIGLUK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,131 80.0 36.5
KIPNUK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,404 79.5 31.0
KONGIGANAK CDP Distressed Distressed 8,975 81.0 35.4
KWETHLUK CITY Distressed Distressed 9,523 76.0 30.1
KWIGILLINGOK CDP Distressed Distressed 11,249 71.8 38.7
LIME VILLAGE CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 11,676 64.3 35.7
LOWER KALSKAG
CITY Distressed Distressed 7,970 78.8 33.3
MEKORYUK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,197 65.8 42.6
NAPAKIAK CITY Distressed Distressed 9,049 79.2 40.7
NAPASKIAK CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 10,889 69.9 37.7 Yes
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 14
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Borough/Census Area and Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
NEWTOK CDP Distressed Distressed 8,396 80.7 43.6
NIGHTMUTE CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 12,136 67.9 47.4 Yes
NUNAPITCHUK CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 12,205 69.6 46.1 Yes
OSCARVILLE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,932 48.3 62.1
PLATINUM CITY Distressed Distressed 10,158 82.4 35.3
QUINHAGAK CITY Distressed Distressed 11,186 75.6 33.2
RED DEVIL CDP Distressed Distressed 7,895 86.7 23.3
SLEETMUTE CDP Distressed Distressed 8,650 80.0 36.9
STONY RIVER CDP Distressed Distressed 10,181 80.6 27.8
TOKSOOK BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 12,693 75.4 40.3
TULUKSAK CDP Distressed Distressed 6,254 86.2 25.9
TUNTUTULIAK CDP Distressed Distressed 11,458 73.4 35.2
TUNUNAK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,981 79.3 35.7
UPPER KALSKAG
CITY Distressed Distressed 10,477 75.5 31.3
Bristol Bay Borough
KING SALMON CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 32,077 48.8 38.4
NAKNEK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 30,456 55.9 39.2
SOUTH NAKNEK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,530 68.8 17.2 Yes
Denali Borough
ANDERSON CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,923 68.6 31.4 Yes
CANTWELL CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,355 65.5 31.6
FERRY CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 10,708 76.7 16.7
HEALY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,048 60.6 37.3
MCKINLEY PARK CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 15,131 66.8 27.4 Yes
Dillingham Census Area
ALEKNAGIK CITY Distressed Distressed 18,970 70.3 29.7
CLARKS POINT CITY Distressed Distressed 10,431 88.9 33.3
DILLINGHAM CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,258 50.8 46.7
EKWOK CITY Distressed Distressed 12,338 72.0 37.8
KOLIGANEK CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 13,862 72.0 30.5
MANOKOTAK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,486 82.8 23.2
NEW STUYAHOK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,777 76.7 34.7
PORTAGE CREEK
CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
TOGIAK CITY Distressed Distressed 13,226 79.3 25.6
TWIN HILLS CDP Distressed Distressed 9,870 74.1 34.5
Fairbanks North star Borough
COLLEGE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,633 53.3 46.6
EIELSON AFB Distressed Distressed 4,757 88.2 12.0
ESTER CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,875 52.3 46.2
FAIRBANKS CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,929 60.8 40.4
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 15
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Borough/Census Area and Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
FOX CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,995 52.0 45.6
HARDING-BIRCH
LAKES CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 16,571 70.1 25.7
MOOSE CREEK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,711 64.0 37.1
NORTH POLE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,706 60.2 41.4
PLEASANT VALLEY
CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,967 61.0 36.8
SALCHA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,932 68.3 31.3 Yes
TWO RIVERS CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,622 51.7 46.5
Haines Borough
COVENANT LIFE CDP Distressed Distressed 10,881 73.8 29.2
EXCURSION INLET
CDP Distressed Distressed ND 76.9 15.4
HAINES CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,640 70.5 31.4 Yes
LUTAK CDP Distressed Distressed 12,377 66.7 25.0
MOSQUITO LAKE CDP Distressed Distressed 11,708 76.1 24.4
MUD BAY CDP Distressed Distressed 13,501 69.5 29.7
Hoonah-Angoon Census Area
ANGOON CITY Distressed Distressed 11,678 72.2 31.7
ELFIN COVE CDP Distressed Distressed 38,219 87.9 24.2
GAME CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
GUSTAVUS CDP Distressed Distressed 11,866 82.2 19.0
HOBART BAY CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
HOONAH CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 16,366 72.0 31.2 Yes
KLUKWAN CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 12,394 71.1 38.9
PELICAN CITY Distressed Distressed 25,854 77.6 22.4
TENAKEE SPRINGS
CITY Distressed Distressed 11,922 81.9 26.6
WHITESTONE CAMP Distressed Non-Distressed 8,779 85.7 14.3
Juneau Borough
JUNEAU CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,495 50.7 49.8
Kenai Peninsula Borough
ANCHOR POINT CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,677 68.7 30.0 Yes
BEAR CREEK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,559 53.9 44.0
BELUGA CDP Distressed Distressed 18,017 73.7 26.3
CLAM GULCH CDP Distressed Distressed 21,990 71.8 25.8
COHOE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,821 68.8 30.4 Yes
COOPER LANDING
CDP Distressed Distressed 13,274 76.9 19.8
CROWN POINT CDP Distressed Distressed 14,808 64.0 26.0
DIAMOND RIDGE CDP Non-Distressed N/A 17,447 66.8 33.5
FOX RIVER CDP Distressed Distressed 5,044 87.4 15.7
FRITZ CREEK CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 16,422 68.7 31.8 Yes
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 16
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Borough/Census Area and Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
FUNNY RIVER CDP Distressed Distressed 16,188 71.3 28.4
HALIBUT COVE CDP Distressed Distressed 27,996 90.9 12.1
HAPPY VALLEY CDP Distressed Distressed 13,150 75.9 22.3
HOMER CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 33,217 68.6 32.2 Yes
HOPE CDP Distressed Distressed 11,380 77.6 19.4
KACHEMAK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,236 68.4 31.1 Yes
KALIFORNSKY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,574 57.8 43.3
KASILOF CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 27,574 66.3 34.6
KENAI CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,894 58.5 43.3
LOWELL POINT CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,340 56.1 46.3
MOOSE PASS CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 18,159 66.5 30.5
NANWALEK CDP Distressed Distressed 10,163 76.1 32.1
NIKISKI CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,878 62.1 39.0
NIKOLAEVSK CDP Distressed Distressed 20,578 79.0 21.9
NINILCHIK CDP Distressed Distressed 16,037 73.6 24.1
PORT GRAHAM CDP Distressed Distressed 12,370 70.5 34.8
PRIMROSE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,529 64.0 33.3
RIDGEWAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,022 61.9 38.5
SALAMATOF CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,181 64.5 35.9
SELDOVIA CITY Distressed Distressed 25,153 76.9 27.5
SELDOVIA VILLAGE
CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 13,297 69.1 33.1 Yes
SEWARD CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,657 57.0 42.1
SOLDOTNA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,776 59.7 42.7
STERLING CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,807 60.9 39.5
SUNRISE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,554 56.3 31.3
TYONEK CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 13,438 65.8 33.3
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
KETCHIKAN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,973 56.2 45.0
SAXMAN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,142 66.9 37.0
Kodiak Island Borough
AKHIOK CITY Distressed Distressed 12,688 72.5 52.5
ALENEVA CDP Distressed Distressed 10,330 83.3 16.7
CHINIAK CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 13,197 71.7 23.3
KARLUK CDP Distressed Distressed 12,212 73.9 43.5
KODIAK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 42,358 55.6 51.4
KODIAK STATION CDP Distressed Distressed 6,960 85.3 17.7
LARSEN BAY CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,675 70.2 31.6 Yes
OLD HARBOR CITY Distressed Distressed 18,844 82.9 28.3
OUZINKIE CITY Distressed Non-Distressed 14,719 74.1 40.1
PORT LIONS CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 18,225 72.3 32.7 Yes
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 17
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Borough/Census Area and Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
WOMENS BAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,184 63.5 35.7
Lake and Peninsula Borough
CHIGNIK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 50,220 44.9 51.0
CHIGNIK LAGOON Distressed Distressed 80,571 79.4 25.4
CHIGNIK LAKE Distressed Non-Distressed 9,977 82.2 28.8
EGEGIK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,726 64.0 34.0
IGIUGIG CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,254 58.6 55.2
ILIAMNA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,022 51.1 42.9
KOKHANOK CDP Distressed Distressed 11,167 78.4 30.4
LEVELOCK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,100 69.2 32.7 Yes
NEWHALEN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,267 47.5 45.9
NONDALTON CITY Distressed Distressed 11,836 76.5 29.5
PEDRO BAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,090 62.5 37.5
PERRYVILLE CDP Distressed Distressed 15,266 77.1 29.2
PILOT POINT CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,041 69.6 47.8
POPE-VANNOY
LANDING CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
PORT ALSWORTH
CDP Distressed Distressed 10,014 82.4 22.4
PORT HEIDEN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 31,410 53.0 40.9
UGASHIK CDP Distressed Distressed 35,151 75.0 16.7
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
BIG LAKE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,451 65.2 35.0
BUFFALO
SOAPSTONE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,950 57.0 41.6
BUTTE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,156 60.0 40.3
CHASE CDP Distressed Distressed 19,813 72.3 27.7
CHICKALOON CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,802 65.7 32.9
FARM LOOP CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,527 62.3 39.4
FISHHOOK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,566 57.7 42.7
GATEWAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,339 57.1 43.0
GLACIER VIEW CDP Distressed Distressed 15,934 71.2 23.7
HOUSTON CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,539 63.9 36.4
KNIK RIVER CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,980 59.1 39.7
KNIK-FAIRVIEW CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,329 56.4 43.3
LAKE LOUISE CDP Distressed Distressed 12,629 83.3 16.7
LAKES CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,670 58.3 42.6
LAZY MOUNTAIN CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,643 63.5 36.3
MEADOW LAKES CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,534 61.8 38.0
PALMER CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,863 61.8 40.2
PETERSVILLE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,527 66.7 33.3
POINT MACKENZIE
CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 16,721 69.9 30.8 Yes
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 18
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Borough/Census Area and Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
SKWENTNA CDP Distressed Distressed 5,032 88.6 7.1
SUSITNA CDP Distressed Distressed 10,582 80.8 11.5
SUTTON-ALPINE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,872 64.2 33.2
TALKEETNA CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 16,717 66.5 34.3
TANAINA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,923 56.2 44.2
TRAPPER CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 12,176 76.5 23.7
WASILLA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,153 61.0 39.2
WILLOW CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 17,539 69.4 29.3 Yes
Y CDP Distressed Distressed 12,583 75.5 25.6
Nome Census Area
BREVIG MISSION CITY Distressed Distressed 9,672 76.1 38.5
DIOMEDE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 14,117 63.9 51.4
ELIM CITY Distressed Distressed 11,293 71.9 36.2
GAMBELL CITY Distressed Distressed 8,954 77.9 31.7
GOLOVIN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,194 55.6 60.6
KOYUK CITY Distressed Distressed 11,414 75.3 38.9
NOME CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 28,859 49.1 49.7
SAINT MICHAEL CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 13,528 69.7 32.8 Yes
SAVOONGA CITY Distressed Distressed 9,942 78.9 25.9
SHAKTOOLIK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,659 65.1 44.1
SHISHMAREF CITY Distressed Distressed 9,466 78.6 36.5
STEBBINS CITY Distressed Distressed 8,198 80.0 30.1
TELLER CITY Distressed Distressed 11,405 72.2 38.1
UNALAKLEET CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,593 64.7 37.2
WALES CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 12,225 69.1 46.8 Yes
WHITE MOUNTAIN
CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 13,572 66.9 43.1
North Slope Borough
ANAKTUVUK PASS
CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,441 63.1 33.3
ATQASUK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,637 61.7 34.4
BARROW CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,072 47.8 41.8
KAKTOVIK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,552 53.4 45.5
NUIQSUT CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,796 57.6 34.6
POINT HOPE CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 14,582 63.0 30.9 Yes
POINT LAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,115 55.7 32.9
PRUDHOE BAY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 67,434 13.6 81.8
WAINWRIGHT CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,683 61.4 28.3
Northwest Arctic Borough
AMBLER CITY Distressed Non-Distressed 12,909 72.5 27.5
BUCKLAND CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 14,769 67.2 32.1 Yes
DEERING CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,491 60.9 43.5
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 19
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Borough/Census Area and Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
KIANA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,056 71.7 33.1 Yes
KIVALINA CITY Distressed Distressed 12,131 75.4 32.9
KOBUK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,458 68.4 28.9 Yes
KOTZEBUE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 27,127 52.0 46.7
NOATAK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,047 69.5 47.4
NOORVIK CITY Distressed Distressed 13,930 71.9 28.8
RED DOG MINE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed ND 0.0 100.0
SELAWIK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,795 74.6 24.1
SHUNGNAK CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 14,073 67.7 30.5 Yes
Petersburg Census Area
KAKE CITY Distressed Distressed 14,190 71.2 36.2
KUPREANOF CITY Distressed Distressed 8,198 75.0 25.0
PETERSBURG CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 35,319 69.6 33.1
PORT ALEXANDER Distressed Distressed 33,538 90.2 12.2
Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan/Hyder Census Area
COFFMAN COVE CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 17,621 65.2 32.6
CRAIG CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,289 65.0 38.1
EDNA BAY Distressed Distressed 20,202 82.4 11.8
HOLLIS CDP Distressed Distressed 13,883 71.7 31.5
HYDABURG CITY Distressed Distressed 16,977 72.5 24.8
HYDER CDP Distressed Distressed 5,692 89.6 11.7
KASAAN CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 14,516 66.7 35.9
KLAWOCK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,570 66.8 36.0
METLAKATLA Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,528 63.7 38.0
NAUKATI BAY CDP Distressed Distressed 8,366 84.6 18.8
POINT BAKER CDP Distressed Distressed ND 91.3 13.0
PORT PROTECTION
CDP Distressed Distressed 3,037 92.6 14.8
THORNE BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 12,986 75.3 25.8
WHALE PASS CDP Distressed Distressed 3,088 90.5 9.5
Sitka Borough
SITKA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,706 58.7 43.3
Skagway Municipality
SKAGWAY CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,753 59.6 34.0
Southeast Fairbanks Census Area
ALCAN BORDER CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
BIG DELTA CDP Distressed Distressed 16,107 70.5 28.6
CHICKEN CDP Distressed Distressed ND 93.8 6.3
DELTA JUNCTION
CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,322 64.8 35.3
DELTANA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,868 64.9 33.0
DOT LAKE CDP Distressed Distressed 6,434 76.2 23.8
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 20
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Borough/Census Area and Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
DOT LAKE VILLAGE Non-Distressed Distressed 11,888 69.2 30.8 Yes
DRY CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 2,280 93.3 5.0
EAGLE CITY Distressed Distressed 8,532 79.0 23.5
EAGLE VILLAGE Distressed Distressed 6,871 86.6 17.9
FORT GREELY CDP Distressed Distressed 13,206 79.2 17.5
HEALY LAKE CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 5,296 81.8 27.3
NORTHWAY CDP Distressed Distressed 10,830 74.7 26.5
NORTHWAY
JUNCTION CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 20,466 63.4 41.5
NORTHWAY VILLAGE Distressed Distressed 11,333 77.6 24.1
TANACROSS CDP Distressed Distressed 11,405 73.6 23.1
TETLIN CDP Distressed Distressed 6,986 84.6 20.5
TOK CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 16,574 66.5 33.1
Valdez-Cordova Census Area
CHENEGA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,544 46.9 44.9
CHISANA Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
CHISTOCHINA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,326 67.1 34.2
CHITINA CDP Distressed Distressed 9,344 81.9 27.7
COPPER CENTER
CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,208 68.4 33.7
COPPERVILLE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,216 59.6 42.6
CORDOVA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 37,062 62.3 36.0
GAKONA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,410 62.8 36.1
GLENNALLEN CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,538 67.8 36.5
GULKANA CDP Distressed Distressed 12,411 70.4 33.8
KENNY LAKE CDP Distressed Distressed 12,418 75.1 25.9
MCCARTHY CDP Distressed Distressed 7,392 82.4 10.3
MENDELTNA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,756 64.4 37.3
MENTASTA LAKE CDP Distressed Distressed 12,105 76.1 19.6
NELCHINA CDP Distressed Distressed 16,341 71.2 25.4
PAXSON CDP Distressed Distressed 16,385 80.0 15.0
SILVER SPRINGS CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,820 63.5 32.2
SLANA CDP Distressed Distressed 7,777 77.1 14.7
TATITLEK CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 14,513 77.8 30.6
TAZLINA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,896 62.5 37.5
TOLSONA CDP Distressed Distressed 11,188 72.4 24.1
TONSINA CDP Distressed Distressed 11,312 76.2 20.6
VALDEZ CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 37,124 49.4 51.4
WHITTIER CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 16,759 67.4 29.3 Yes
WILLOW CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,720 77.6 23.1
Wade Hampton Census Area
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 21
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Borough/Census Area and Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
ALAKANUK CITY Distressed Distressed 8,919 80.6 27.4
CHEVAK CITY Distressed Distressed 8,948 78.7 33.3
EMMONAK CITY Distressed Distressed 12,814 71.1 35.4
HOOPER BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 8,465 79.5 30.2
KOTLIK CITY Distressed Distressed 9,486 79.5 32.6
MARSHALL CITY Distressed Distressed 12,078 72.0 39.4
MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
CITY Distressed Distressed 12,415 73.0 36.7
NUNAM IQUA CITY Distressed Distressed 11,310 73.3 54.3
PILOT STATION CITY Distressed Distressed 8,726 80.7 30.2
PITKAS POINT CDP Distressed Distressed 8,229 81.1 32.1
RUSSIAN MISSION
CITY Distressed Distressed 10,357 74.9 37.0
SAINT MARYS CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 14,656 66.4 37.4
SCAMMON BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 8,506 80.8 30.6
Wrangell Borough
MEYERS CHUCK Distressed N/A ND 100.0 5.3
THOMS PLACE Distressed Distressed ND 62.5 25.0
WRANGELL CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,648 68.1 31.8 Yes
Yakutat Borough
YAKUTAT Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,288 65.8 38.0
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area
ALATNA CDP Distressed Distressed 8,374 88.2 11.8
ALLAKAKET ANVSA Distressed Distressed 8,554 80.8 27.2
ANVIK CITY Distressed Distressed 13,177 73.2 44.6
ARCTIC VILLAGE CDP Distressed Distressed 9,874 78.4 26.7
BEAVER CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 11,809 67.8 37.3 Yes
BETTLES CITY Distressed Distressed 10,781 81.0 28.6
BIRCH CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 2,059 94.1 0.0
CENTRAL CDP Distressed Distressed 10,536 83.8 20.0
CHALKYITSIK CDP Distressed Distressed 11,012 71.2 39.0
CIRCLE CDP Distressed Distressed 4,813 92.3 12.8
COLDFOOT CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,002 57.9 42.1
EVANSVILLE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 31,679 40.0 60.0
FORT YUKON CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 13,712 68.2 33.0 Yes
FOUR MILE ROAD
CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 31,644 53.3 53.3
GALENA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,236 54.5 37.9
GRAYLING CITY Distressed Distressed 7,100 82.7 27.3
HOLY CROSS CITY Distressed Distressed 7,197 81.1 28.7
HUGHES CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 12,101 65.6 49.2
HUSLIA CITY Distressed Distressed 9,150 76.6 22.3
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 22
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Borough/Census Area and Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
KALTAG CITY Distressed Distressed 9,308 78.7 24.7
KOYUKUK CITY Distressed Distressed 8,867 78.8 37.9
LAKE MINCHUMINA
CDP Distressed Distressed ND 73.3 20.0
LIVENGOOD CDP Distressed Distressed 10,664 81.0 16.7
MANLEY HOT
SPRINGS CDP Distressed Distressed 14,240 74.4 28.2
MCGRATH CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,725 61.3 34.7
MINTO CDP Distressed Distressed 9,398 79.7 27.5
NENANA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,389 68.1 27.7 Yes
NIKOLAI CITY Distressed Distressed 6,674 86.1 13.9
NULATO CITY Distressed Distressed 10,838 72.8 33.2
RAMPART CDP Distressed Distressed 9,945 78.9 47.4
RUBY CITY Distressed Distressed 14,524 70.7 36.8
SHAGELUK CITY Distressed Distressed 7,903 82.1 23.9
STEVENS VILLAGE
CDP Distressed Distressed 7,016 85.7 25.0
TAKOTNA CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 20,634 54.5 54.5
TANANA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 14,408 63.2 34.8
VENETIE CDP Distressed Distressed 6,923 84.9 21.6
WISEMAN CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 18,332 76.9 23.1
Cells marked with ND were not able to be disclosed due to confidentiality policies.
Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section; Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 23
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
ADAK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,785 60.7 26.8
AKHIOK CITY Distressed Distressed 12,688 72.5 52.5
AKIACHAK CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 11,477 75.1 27.8
AKIAK CITY Distressed Non-Distressed 10,885 70.4 44.2
AKUTAN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 28,396 41.9 72.0
ALAKANUK CITY Distressed Distressed 8,919 80.6 27.4
ALATNA CDP Distressed Distressed 8,374 88.2 11.8
ALCAN BORDER CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
ALEKNAGIK CITY Distressed Distressed 18,970 70.3 29.7
ALENEVA CDP Distressed Distressed 10,330 83.3 16.7
ALLAKAKET ANVSA Distressed Distressed 8,554 80.8 27.2
AMBLER CITY Distressed Non-Distressed 12,909 72.5 27.5
ANAKTUVUK PASS CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,441 63.1 33.3
ANCHOR POINT CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,677 68.7 30.0 Yes
ANCHORAGE Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,814 53.7 46.9
ANDERSON CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,923 68.6 31.4 Yes
ANGOON CITY Distressed Distressed 11,678 72.2 31.7
ANIAK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,790 57.8 42.2
ANVIK CITY Distressed Distressed 13,177 73.2 44.6
ARCTIC VILLAGE CDP Distressed Distressed 9,874 78.4 26.7
ATKA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,377 46.9 63.3
ATMAUTLUAK CDP Distressed Distressed 7,875 80.9 23.0
ATQASUK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,637 61.7 34.4
BARROW CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,072 47.8 41.8
BEAR CREEK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,559 53.9 44.0
BEAVER CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 11,809 67.8 37.3 Yes
BELUGA CDP Distressed Distressed 18,017 73.7 26.3
BETHEL CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 28,323 47.8 49.0
BETTLES CITY Distressed Distressed 10,781 81.0 28.6
BIG DELTA CDP Distressed Distressed 16,107 70.5 28.6
BIG LAKE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,451 65.2 35.0
BIRCH CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 2,059 94.1 0.0
BREVIG MISSION CITY Distressed Distressed 9,672 76.1 38.5
BUCKLAND CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 14,769 67.2 32.1 Yes
BUFFALO SOAPSTONE Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,950 57.0 41.6
BUTTE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,156 60.0 40.3
CANTWELL CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,355 65.5 31.6
CENTRAL CDP Distressed Distressed 10,536 83.8 20.0
CHALKYITSIK CDP Distressed Distressed 11,012 71.2 39.0
CHASE CDP Distressed Distressed 19,813 72.3 27.7
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 24
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
CHEFORNAK CITY Distressed Distressed 11,206 78.0 45.5
CHENEGA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,544 46.9 44.9
CHEVAK CITY Distressed Distressed 8,948 78.7 33.3
CHICKALOON CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,802 65.7 32.9
CHICKEN CDP Distressed Distressed ND 93.8 6.3
CHIGNIK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 50,220 44.9 51.0
CHIGNIK LAGOON Distressed Distressed 80,571 79.4 25.4
CHIGNIK LAKE Distressed Non-Distressed 9,977 82.2 28.8
CHINIAK CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 13,197 71.7 23.3
CHISANA Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
CHISTOCHINA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,326 67.1 34.2
CHITINA CDP Distressed Distressed 9,344 81.9 27.7
CHUATHBALUK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,981 76.7 35.0
CIRCLE CDP Distressed Distressed 4,813 92.3 12.8
CLAM GULCH CDP Distressed Distressed 21,990 71.8 25.8
CLARKS POINT CITY Distressed Distressed 10,431 88.9 33.3
COFFMAN COVE CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 17,621 65.2 32.6
COHOE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,821 68.8 30.4 Yes
COLD BAY CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,035 46.3 50.0
COLDFOOT CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,002 57.9 42.1
COLLEGE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,633 53.3 46.6
COOPER LANDING CDP Distressed Distressed 13,274 76.9 19.8
COPPER CENTER CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,208 68.4 33.7
COPPERVILLE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,216 59.6 42.6
CORDOVA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 37,062 62.3 36.0
COVENANT LIFE CDP Distressed Distressed 10,881 73.8 29.2
CRAIG CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,289 65.0 38.1
CROOKED CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,767 76.7 34.9
CROWN POINT CDP Distressed Distressed 14,808 64.0 26.0
DEERING CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,491 60.9 43.5
DELTA JUNCTION CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,322 64.8 35.3
DELTANA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,868 64.9 33.0
DIAMOND RIDGE CDP Non-Distressed N/A 17,447 66.8 33.5
DILLINGHAM CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,258 50.8 46.7
DIOMEDE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 14,117 63.9 51.4
DOT LAKE CDP Distressed Distressed 6,434 76.2 23.8
DOT LAKE VILLAGE Non-Distressed Distressed 11,888 69.2 30.8 Yes
DRY CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 2,280 93.3 5.0
EAGLE CITY Distressed Distressed 8,532 79.0 23.5
EAGLE VILLAGE Distressed Distressed 6,871 86.6 17.9
EDNA BAY Distressed Distressed 20,202 82.4 11.8
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 25
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
EEK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,585 76.6 37.8
EGEGIK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,726 64.0 34.0
EIELSON AFB Distressed Distressed 4,757 88.2 12.0
EKWOK CITY Distressed Distressed 12,338 72.0 37.8
ELFIN COVE CDP Distressed Distressed 38,219 87.9 24.2
ELIM CITY Distressed Distressed 11,293 71.9 36.2
EMMONAK CITY Distressed Distressed 12,814 71.1 35.4
ESTER CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,875 52.3 46.2
EVANSVILLE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 31,679 40.0 60.0
EXCURSION INLET CDP Distressed Distressed ND 76.9 15.4
FAIRBANKS CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,929 60.8 40.4
FALSE PASS CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 57,770 57.7 50.0
FARM LOOP CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,527 62.3 39.4
FERRY CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 10,708 76.7 16.7
FISHHOOK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,566 57.7 42.7
FORT GREELY CDP Distressed Distressed 13,206 79.2 17.5
FORT YUKON CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 13,712 68.2 33.0 Yes
FOUR MILE ROAD CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 31,644 53.3 53.3
FOX CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,995 52.0 45.6
FOX RIVER CDP Distressed Distressed 5,044 87.4 15.7
FRITZ CREEK CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 16,422 68.7 31.8 Yes
FUNNY RIVER CDP Distressed Distressed 16,188 71.3 28.4
GAKONA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,410 62.8 36.1
GALENA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,236 54.5 37.9
GAMBELL CITY Distressed Distressed 8,954 77.9 31.7
GAME CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
GATEWAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,339 57.1 43.0
GLACIER VIEW CDP Distressed Distressed 15,934 71.2 23.7
GLENNALLEN CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,538 67.8 36.5
GOLOVIN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,194 55.6 60.6
GOODNEWS BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 12,293 76.4 29.7
GRAYLING CITY Distressed Distressed 7,100 82.7 27.3
GULKANA CDP Distressed Distressed 12,411 70.4 33.8
GUSTAVUS CDP Distressed Distressed 11,866 82.2 19.0
HAINES CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,640 70.5 31.4 Yes
HALIBUT COVE CDP Distressed Distressed 27,996 90.9 12.1
HAPPY VALLEY CDP Distressed Distressed 13,150 75.9 22.3
HARDING-BIRCH LAKES
CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 16,571 70.1 25.7
HEALY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,048 60.6 37.3
HEALY LAKE CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 5,296 81.8 27.3
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 26
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
HOBART BAY CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
HOLLIS CDP Distressed Distressed 13,883 71.7 31.5
HOLY CROSS CITY Distressed Distressed 7,197 81.1 28.7
HOMER CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 33,217 68.6 32.2 Yes
HOONAH CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 16,366 72.0 31.2 Yes
HOOPER BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 8,465 79.5 30.2
HOPE CDP Distressed Distressed 11,380 77.6 19.4
HOUSTON CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,539 63.9 36.4
HUGHES CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 12,101 65.6 49.2
HUSLIA CITY Distressed Distressed 9,150 76.6 22.3
HYDABURG CITY Distressed Distressed 16,977 72.5 24.8
HYDER CDP Distressed Distressed 5,692 89.6 11.7
IGIUGIG CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,254 58.6 55.2
ILIAMNA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,022 51.1 42.9
JUNEAU CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,495 50.7 49.8
KACHEMAK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,236 68.4 31.1 Yes
KAKE CITY Distressed Distressed 14,190 71.2 36.2
KAKTOVIK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,552 53.4 45.5
KALIFORNSKY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,574 57.8 43.3
KALTAG CITY Distressed Distressed 9,308 78.7 24.7
KARLUK CDP Distressed Distressed 12,212 73.9 43.5
KASAAN CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 14,516 66.7 35.9
KASIGLUK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,131 80.0 36.5
KASILOF CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 27,574 66.3 34.6
KENAI CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,894 58.5 43.3
KENNY LAKE CDP Distressed Distressed 12,418 75.1 25.9
KETCHIKAN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,973 56.2 45.0
KIANA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,056 71.7 33.1 Yes
KING COVE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 41,778 63.5 36.2
KING SALMON CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 32,077 48.8 38.4
KIPNUK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,404 79.5 31.0
KIVALINA CITY Distressed Distressed 12,131 75.4 32.9
KLAWOCK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,570 66.8 36.0
KLUKWAN CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 12,394 71.1 38.9
KNIK RIVER CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,980 59.1 39.7
KNIK-FAIRVIEW CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,329 56.4 43.3
KOBUK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,458 68.4 28.9 Yes
KODIAK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 42,358 55.6 51.4
KODIAK STATION CDP Distressed Distressed 6,960 85.3 17.7
KOKHANOK CDP Distressed Distressed 11,167 78.4 30.4
KOLIGANEK CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 13,862 72.0 30.5
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 27
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
KONGIGANAK CDP Distressed Distressed 8,975 81.0 35.4
KOTLIK CITY Distressed Distressed 9,486 79.5 32.6
KOTZEBUE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 27,127 52.0 46.7
KOYUK CITY Distressed Distressed 11,414 75.3 38.9
KOYUKUK CITY Distressed Distressed 8,867 78.8 37.9
KUPREANOF CITY Distressed Distressed 8,198 75.0 25.0
KWETHLUK CITY Distressed Distressed 9,523 76.0 30.1
KWIGILLINGOK CDP Distressed Distressed 11,249 71.8 38.7
LAKE LOUISE CDP Distressed Distressed 12,629 83.3 16.7
LAKE MINCHUMINA CDP Distressed Distressed ND 73.3 20.0
LAKES CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,670 58.3 42.6
LARSEN BAY CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,675 70.2 31.6 Yes
LAZY MOUNTAIN CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,643 63.5 36.3
LEVELOCK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,100 69.2 32.7 Yes
LIME VILLAGE CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 11,676 64.3 35.7
LIVENGOOD CDP Distressed Distressed 10,664 81.0 16.7
LOWELL POINT CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,340 56.1 46.3
LOWER KALSKAG CITY Distressed Distressed 7,970 78.8 33.3
LUTAK CDP Distressed Distressed 12,377 66.7 25.0
MANLEY HOT SPRINGS
CDP Distressed Distressed 14,240 74.4 28.2
MANOKOTAK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,486 82.8 23.2
MARSHALL CITY Distressed Distressed 12,078 72.0 39.4
MCCARTHY CDP Distressed Distressed 7,392 82.4 10.3
MCGRATH CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,725 61.3 34.7
MCKINLEY PARK CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 15,131 66.8 27.4 Yes
MEADOW LAKES CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,534 61.8 38.0
MEKORYUK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,197 65.8 42.6
MENDELTNA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,756 64.4 37.3
MENTASTA LAKE CDP Distressed Distressed 12,105 76.1 19.6
METLAKATLA Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,528 63.7 38.0
MEYERS CHUCK Distressed N/A ND 100.0 5.3
MINTO CDP Distressed Distressed 9,398 79.7 27.5
MOOSE CREEK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,711 64.0 37.1
MOOSE PASS CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 18,159 66.5 30.5
MOSQUITO LAKE CDP Distressed Distressed 11,708 76.1 24.4
MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
CITY Distressed Distressed 12,415 73.0 36.7
MUD BAY CDP Distressed Distressed 13,501 69.5 29.7
NAKNEK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 30,456 55.9 39.2
NANWALEK CDP Distressed Distressed 10,163 76.1 32.1
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 28
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
NAPAKIAK CITY Distressed Distressed 9,049 79.2 40.7
NAPASKIAK CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 10,889 69.9 37.7 Yes
NAUKATI BAY CDP Distressed Distressed 8,366 84.6 18.8
NELCHINA CDP Distressed Distressed 16,341 71.2 25.4
NELSON LAGOON CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 38,340 65.4 36.5
NENANA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,389 68.1 27.7 Yes
NEW STUYAHOK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,777 76.7 34.7
NEWHALEN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,267 47.5 45.9
NEWTOK CDP Distressed Distressed 8,396 80.7 43.6
NIGHTMUTE CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 12,136 67.9 47.4 Yes
NIKISKI CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,878 62.1 39.0
NIKOLAEVSK CDP Distressed Distressed 20,578 79.0 21.9
NIKOLAI CITY Distressed Distressed 6,674 86.1 13.9
NIKOLSKI CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 14,971 68.2 36.4 Yes
NINILCHIK CDP Distressed Distressed 16,037 73.6 24.1
NOATAK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,047 69.5 47.4
NOME CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 28,859 49.1 49.7
NONDALTON CITY Distressed Distressed 11,836 76.5 29.5
NOORVIK CITY Distressed Distressed 13,930 71.9 28.8
NORTH POLE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,706 60.2 41.4
NORTHWAY CDP Distressed Distressed 10,830 74.7 26.5
NORTHWAY JUNCTION
CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 20,466 63.4 41.5
NORTHWAY VILLAGE Distressed Distressed 11,333 77.6 24.1
NUIQSUT CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,796 57.6 34.6
NULATO CITY Distressed Distressed 10,838 72.8 33.2
NUNAM IQUA CITY Distressed Distressed 11,310 73.3 54.3
NUNAPITCHUK CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 12,205 69.6 46.1 Yes
OLD HARBOR CITY Distressed Distressed 18,844 82.9 28.3
OSCARVILLE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,932 48.3 62.1
OUZINKIE CITY Distressed Non-Distressed 14,719 74.1 40.1
PALMER CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,863 61.8 40.2
PAXSON CDP Distressed Distressed 16,385 80.0 15.0
PEDRO BAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,090 62.5 37.5
PELICAN CITY Distressed Distressed 25,854 77.6 22.4
PERRYVILLE CDP Distressed Distressed 15,266 77.1 29.2
PETERSBURG CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 35,319 69.6 33.1
PETERSVILLE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,527 66.7 33.3
PILOT POINT CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,041 69.6 47.8
PILOT STATION CITY Distressed Distressed 8,726 80.7 30.2
PITKAS POINT CDP Distressed Distressed 8,229 81.1 32.1
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 29
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
PLATINUM CITY Distressed Distressed 10,158 82.4 35.3
PLEASANT VALLEY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,967 61.0 36.8
POINT BAKER CDP Distressed Distressed ND 91.3 13.0
POINT HOPE CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 14,582 63.0 30.9 Yes
POINT LAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,115 55.7 32.9
POINT MACKENZIE CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 16,721 69.9 30.8 Yes
POPE-VANNOY
LANDING CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
PORT ALEXANDER Distressed Distressed 33,538 90.2 12.2
PORT ALSWORTH CDP Distressed Distressed 10,014 82.4 22.4
PORT GRAHAM CDP Distressed Distressed 12,370 70.5 34.8
PORT HEIDEN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 31,410 53.0 40.9
PORT LIONS CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 18,225 72.3 32.7 Yes
PORT PROTECTION
CDP Distressed Distressed 3,037 92.6 14.8
PORTAGE CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
PRIMROSE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,529 64.0 33.3
PRUDHOE BAY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 67,434 13.6 81.8
QUINHAGAK CITY Distressed Distressed 11,186 75.6 33.2
RAMPART CDP Distressed Distressed 9,945 78.9 47.4
RED DEVIL CDP Distressed Distressed 7,895 86.7 23.3
RED DOG MINE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed ND 0.0 100.0
RIDGEWAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,022 61.9 38.5
RUBY CITY Distressed Distressed 14,524 70.7 36.8
RUSSIAN MISSION CITY Distressed Distressed 10,357 74.9 37.0
SAINT GEORGE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,695 66.2 33.8
SAINT MARYS CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 14,656 66.4 37.4
SAINT MICHAEL CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 13,528 69.7 32.8 Yes
SAINT PAUL CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 27,056 59.2 42.6
SALAMATOF CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,181 64.5 35.9
SALCHA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,932 68.3 31.3 Yes
SAND POINT CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 47,564 64.0 38.1
SAVOONGA CITY Distressed Distressed 9,942 78.9 25.9
SAXMAN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,142 66.9 37.0
SCAMMON BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 8,506 80.8 30.6
SELAWIK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,795 74.6 24.1
SELDOVIA CITY Distressed Distressed 25,153 76.9 27.5
SELDOVIA VILLAGE
CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 13,297 69.1 33.1 Yes
SEWARD CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,657 57.0 42.1
SHAGELUK CITY Distressed Distressed 7,903 82.1 23.9
SHAKTOOLIK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,659 65.1 44.1
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 30
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
SHISHMAREF CITY Distressed Distressed 9,466 78.6 36.5
SHUNGNAK CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 14,073 67.7 30.5 Yes
SILVER SPRINGS CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,820 63.5 32.2
SITKA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,706 58.7 43.3
SKAGWAY CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,753 59.6 34.0
SKWENTNA CDP Distressed Distressed 5,032 88.6 7.1
SLANA CDP Distressed Distressed 7,777 77.1 14.7
SLEETMUTE CDP Distressed Distressed 8,650 80.0 36.9
SOLDOTNA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,776 59.7 42.7
SOUTH NAKNEK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,530 68.8 17.2 Yes
STEBBINS CITY Distressed Distressed 8,198 80.0 30.1
STERLING CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,807 60.9 39.5
STEVENS VILLAGE CDP Distressed Distressed 7,016 85.7 25.0
STONY RIVER CDP Distressed Distressed 10,181 80.6 27.8
SUNRISE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,554 56.3 31.3
SUSITNA CDP Distressed Distressed 10,582 80.8 11.5
SUTTON-ALPINE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,872 64.2 33.2
TAKOTNA CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 20,634 54.5 54.5
TALKEETNA CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 16,717 66.5 34.3
TANACROSS CDP Distressed Distressed 11,405 73.6 23.1
TANAINA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,923 56.2 44.2
TANANA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 14,408 63.2 34.8
TATITLEK CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 14,513 77.8 30.6
TAZLINA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,896 62.5 37.5
TELLER CITY Distressed Distressed 11,405 72.2 38.1
TENAKEE SPRINGS
CITY Distressed Distressed 11,922 81.9 26.6
TETLIN CDP Distressed Distressed 6,986 84.6 20.5
THOMS PLACE Distressed Distressed ND 62.5 25.0
THORNE BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 12,986 75.3 25.8
TOGIAK CITY Distressed Distressed 13,226 79.3 25.6
TOK CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 16,574 66.5 33.1
TOKSOOK BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 12,693 75.4 40.3
TOLSONA CDP Distressed Distressed 11,188 72.4 24.1
TONSINA CDP Distressed Distressed 11,312 76.2 20.6
TRAPPER CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 12,176 76.5 23.7
TULUKSAK CDP Distressed Distressed 6,254 86.2 25.9
TUNTUTULIAK CDP Distressed Distressed 11,458 73.4 35.2
TUNUNAK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,981 79.3 35.7
TWIN HILLS CDP Distressed Distressed 9,870 74.1 34.5
TWO RIVERS CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,622 51.7 46.5
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 31
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Place
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
TYONEK CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 13,438 65.8 33.3
UGASHIK CDP Distressed Distressed 35,151 75.0 16.7
UNALAKLEET CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,593 64.7 37.2
UNALASKA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 40,743 33.8 67.1
UPPER KALSKAG CITY Distressed Distressed 10,477 75.5 31.3
VALDEZ CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 37,124 49.4 51.4
VENETIE CDP Distressed Distressed 6,923 84.9 21.6
WAINWRIGHT CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,683 61.4 28.3
WALES CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 12,225 69.1 46.8 Yes
WASILLA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,153 61.0 39.2
WHALE PASS CDP Distressed Distressed 3,088 90.5 9.5
WHITE MOUNTAIN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 13,572 66.9 43.1
WHITESTONE CAMP
CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 8,779 85.7 14.3
WHITTIER CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 16,759 67.4 29.3 Yes
WILLOW CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 17,539 69.4 29.3 Yes
WILLOW CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,720 77.6 23.1
WISEMAN CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 18,332 76.9 23.1
WOMENS BAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,184 63.5 35.7
WRANGELL CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,648 68.1 31.8 Yes
Y CDP Distressed Distressed 12,583 75.5 25.6
YAKUTAT Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,288 65.8 38.0
Cells marked with ND were not able to be disclosed due to confidentiality policies.
Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section; Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 32
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Distressed Status
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
AKHIOK CITY Distressed Distressed 12,688 72.5 52.5
AKIACHAK CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 11,477 75.1 27.8
AKIAK CITY Distressed Non-Distressed 10,885 70.4 44.2
ALAKANUK CITY Distressed Distressed 8,919 80.6 27.4
ALATNA CDP Distressed Distressed 8,374 88.2 11.8
ALCAN BORDER CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
ALEKNAGIK CITY Distressed Distressed 18,970 70.3 29.7
ALENEVA CDP Distressed Distressed 10,330 83.3 16.7
ALLAKAKET ANVSA Distressed Distressed 8,554 80.8 27.2
AMBLER CITY Distressed Non-Distressed 12,909 72.5 27.5
ANGOON CITY Distressed Distressed 11,678 72.2 31.7
ANVIK CITY Distressed Distressed 13,177 73.2 44.6
ARCTIC VILLAGE CDP Distressed Distressed 9,874 78.4 26.7
ATMAUTLUAK CDP Distressed Distressed 7,875 80.9 23.0
BELUGA CDP Distressed Distressed 18,017 73.7 26.3
BETTLES CITY Distressed Distressed 10,781 81.0 28.6
BIG DELTA CDP Distressed Distressed 16,107 70.5 28.6
BIRCH CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 2,059 94.1 0.0
BREVIG MISSION CITY Distressed Distressed 9,672 76.1 38.5
CENTRAL CDP Distressed Distressed 10,536 83.8 20.0
CHALKYITSIK CDP Distressed Distressed 11,012 71.2 39.0
CHASE CDP Distressed Distressed 19,813 72.3 27.7
CHEFORNAK CITY Distressed Distressed 11,206 78.0 45.5
CHEVAK CITY Distressed Distressed 8,948 78.7 33.3
CHICKEN CDP Distressed Distressed ND 93.8 6.3
CHIGNIK LAGOON Distressed Distressed 80,571 79.4 25.4
CHIGNIK LAKE Distressed Non-Distressed 9,977 82.2 28.8
CHINIAK CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 13,197 71.7 23.3
CHISANA Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
CHITINA CDP Distressed Distressed 9,344 81.9 27.7
CHUATHBALUK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,981 76.7 35.0
CIRCLE CDP Distressed Distressed 4,813 92.3 12.8
CLAM GULCH CDP Distressed Distressed 21,990 71.8 25.8
CLARKS POINT CITY Distressed Distressed 10,431 88.9 33.3
COOPER LANDING CDP Distressed Distressed 13,274 76.9 19.8
COVENANT LIFE CDP Distressed Distressed 10,881 73.8 29.2
CROOKED CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,767 76.7 34.9
CROWN POINT CDP Distressed Distressed 14,808 64.0 26.0
DOT LAKE CDP Distressed Distressed 6,434 76.2 23.8
DRY CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 2,280 93.3 5.0
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 33
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Distressed Status
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
EAGLE CITY Distressed Distressed 8,532 79.0 23.5
EAGLE VILLAGE Distressed Distressed 6,871 86.6 17.9
EDNA BAY Distressed Distressed 20,202 82.4 11.8
EEK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,585 76.6 37.8
EIELSON AFB Distressed Distressed 4,757 88.2 12.0
EKWOK CITY Distressed Distressed 12,338 72.0 37.8
ELFIN COVE CDP Distressed Distressed 38,219 87.9 24.2
ELIM CITY Distressed Distressed 11,293 71.9 36.2
EMMONAK CITY Distressed Distressed 12,814 71.1 35.4
EXCURSION INLET CDP Distressed Distressed ND 76.9 15.4
FERRY CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 10,708 76.7 16.7
FORT GREELY CDP Distressed Distressed 13,206 79.2 17.5
FOX RIVER CDP Distressed Distressed 5,044 87.4 15.7
FUNNY RIVER CDP Distressed Distressed 16,188 71.3 28.4
GAMBELL CITY Distressed Distressed 8,954 77.9 31.7
GAME CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
GLACIER VIEW CDP Distressed Distressed 15,934 71.2 23.7
GOODNEWS BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 12,293 76.4 29.7
GRAYLING CITY Distressed Distressed 7,100 82.7 27.3
GULKANA CDP Distressed Distressed 12,411 70.4 33.8
GUSTAVUS CDP Distressed Distressed 11,866 82.2 19.0
HALIBUT COVE CDP Distressed Distressed 27,996 90.9 12.1
HAPPY VALLEY CDP Distressed Distressed 13,150 75.9 22.3
HARDING-BIRCH LAKES
CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 16,571 70.1 25.7
HEALY LAKE CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 5,296 81.8 27.3
HOBART BAY CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
HOLLIS CDP Distressed Distressed 13,883 71.7 31.5
HOLY CROSS CITY Distressed Distressed 7,197 81.1 28.7
HOOPER BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 8,465 79.5 30.2
HOPE CDP Distressed Distressed 11,380 77.6 19.4
HUSLIA CITY Distressed Distressed 9,150 76.6 22.3
HYDABURG CITY Distressed Distressed 16,977 72.5 24.8
HYDER CDP Distressed Distressed 5,692 89.6 11.7
KAKE CITY Distressed Distressed 14,190 71.2 36.2
KALTAG CITY Distressed Distressed 9,308 78.7 24.7
KARLUK CDP Distressed Distressed 12,212 73.9 43.5
KASIGLUK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,131 80.0 36.5
KENNY LAKE CDP Distressed Distressed 12,418 75.1 25.9
KIPNUK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,404 79.5 31.0
KIVALINA CITY Distressed Distressed 12,131 75.4 32.9
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 34
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Distressed Status
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
KLUKWAN CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 12,394 71.1 38.9
KODIAK STATION CDP Distressed Distressed 6,960 85.3 17.7
KOKHANOK CDP Distressed Distressed 11,167 78.4 30.4
KOLIGANEK CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 13,862 72.0 30.5
KONGIGANAK CDP Distressed Distressed 8,975 81.0 35.4
KOTLIK CITY Distressed Distressed 9,486 79.5 32.6
KOYUK CITY Distressed Distressed 11,414 75.3 38.9
KOYUKUK CITY Distressed Distressed 8,867 78.8 37.9
KUPREANOF CITY Distressed Distressed 8,198 75.0 25.0
KWETHLUK CITY Distressed Distressed 9,523 76.0 30.1
KWIGILLINGOK CDP Distressed Distressed 11,249 71.8 38.7
LAKE LOUISE CDP Distressed Distressed 12,629 83.3 16.7
LAKE MINCHUMINA CDP Distressed Distressed ND 73.3 20.0
LIVENGOOD CDP Distressed Distressed 10,664 81.0 16.7
LOWER KALSKAG CITY Distressed Distressed 7,970 78.8 33.3
LUTAK CDP Distressed Distressed 12,377 66.7 25.0
MANLEY HOT SPRINGS
CDP Distressed Distressed 14,240 74.4 28.2
MANOKOTAK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,486 82.8 23.2
MARSHALL CITY Distressed Distressed 12,078 72.0 39.4
MCCARTHY CDP Distressed Distressed 7,392 82.4 10.3
MENTASTA LAKE CDP Distressed Distressed 12,105 76.1 19.6
MEYERS CHUCK Distressed N/A ND 100.0 5.3
MINTO CDP Distressed Distressed 9,398 79.7 27.5
MOSQUITO LAKE CDP Distressed Distressed 11,708 76.1 24.4
MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
CITY Distressed Distressed 12,415 73.0 36.7
MUD BAY CDP Distressed Distressed 13,501 69.5 29.7
NANWALEK CDP Distressed Distressed 10,163 76.1 32.1
NAPAKIAK CITY Distressed Distressed 9,049 79.2 40.7
NAUKATI BAY CDP Distressed Distressed 8,366 84.6 18.8
NELCHINA CDP Distressed Distressed 16,341 71.2 25.4
NEW STUYAHOK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,777 76.7 34.7
NEWTOK CDP Distressed Distressed 8,396 80.7 43.6
NIKOLAEVSK CDP Distressed Distressed 20,578 79.0 21.9
NIKOLAI CITY Distressed Distressed 6,674 86.1 13.9
NINILCHIK CDP Distressed Distressed 16,037 73.6 24.1
NONDALTON CITY Distressed Distressed 11,836 76.5 29.5
NOORVIK CITY Distressed Distressed 13,930 71.9 28.8
NORTHWAY CDP Distressed Distressed 10,830 74.7 26.5
NORTHWAY VILLAGE Distressed Distressed 11,333 77.6 24.1
NULATO CITY Distressed Distressed 10,838 72.8 33.2
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 35
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Distressed Status
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
NUNAM IQUA CITY Distressed Distressed 11,310 73.3 54.3
OLD HARBOR CITY Distressed Distressed 18,844 82.9 28.3
OUZINKIE CITY Distressed Non-Distressed 14,719 74.1 40.1
PAXSON CDP Distressed Distressed 16,385 80.0 15.0
PELICAN CITY Distressed Distressed 25,854 77.6 22.4
PERRYVILLE CDP Distressed Distressed 15,266 77.1 29.2
PILOT STATION CITY Distressed Distressed 8,726 80.7 30.2
PITKAS POINT CDP Distressed Distressed 8,229 81.1 32.1
PLATINUM CITY Distressed Distressed 10,158 82.4 35.3
POINT BAKER CDP Distressed Distressed ND 91.3 13.0
POPE-VANNOY
LANDING CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
PORT ALEXANDER Distressed Distressed 33,538 90.2 12.2
PORT ALSWORTH CDP Distressed Distressed 10,014 82.4 22.4
PORT GRAHAM CDP Distressed Distressed 12,370 70.5 34.8
PORT PROTECTION
CDP Distressed Distressed 3,037 92.6 14.8
PORTAGE CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed ND 100.0 0.0
QUINHAGAK CITY Distressed Distressed 11,186 75.6 33.2
RAMPART CDP Distressed Distressed 9,945 78.9 47.4
RED DEVIL CDP Distressed Distressed 7,895 86.7 23.3
RUBY CITY Distressed Distressed 14,524 70.7 36.8
RUSSIAN MISSION CITY Distressed Distressed 10,357 74.9 37.0
SAVOONGA CITY Distressed Distressed 9,942 78.9 25.9
SCAMMON BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 8,506 80.8 30.6
SELAWIK CITY Distressed Distressed 10,795 74.6 24.1
SELDOVIA CITY Distressed Distressed 25,153 76.9 27.5
SHAGELUK CITY Distressed Distressed 7,903 82.1 23.9
SHISHMAREF CITY Distressed Distressed 9,466 78.6 36.5
SKWENTNA CDP Distressed Distressed 5,032 88.6 7.1
SLANA CDP Distressed Distressed 7,777 77.1 14.7
SLEETMUTE CDP Distressed Distressed 8,650 80.0 36.9
STEBBINS CITY Distressed Distressed 8,198 80.0 30.1
STEVENS VILLAGE CDP Distressed Distressed 7,016 85.7 25.0
STONY RIVER CDP Distressed Distressed 10,181 80.6 27.8
SUSITNA CDP Distressed Distressed 10,582 80.8 11.5
TANACROSS CDP Distressed Distressed 11,405 73.6 23.1
TATITLEK CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 14,513 77.8 30.6
TELLER CITY Distressed Distressed 11,405 72.2 38.1
TENAKEE SPRINGS
CITY Distressed Distressed 11,922 81.9 26.6
TETLIN CDP Distressed Distressed 6,986 84.6 20.5
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 36
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Distressed Status
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
THOMS PLACE Distressed Distressed ND 62.5 25.0
THORNE BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 12,986 75.3 25.8
TOGIAK CITY Distressed Distressed 13,226 79.3 25.6
TOKSOOK BAY CITY Distressed Distressed 12,693 75.4 40.3
TOLSONA CDP Distressed Distressed 11,188 72.4 24.1
TONSINA CDP Distressed Distressed 11,312 76.2 20.6
TRAPPER CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 12,176 76.5 23.7
TULUKSAK CDP Distressed Distressed 6,254 86.2 25.9
TUNTUTULIAK CDP Distressed Distressed 11,458 73.4 35.2
TUNUNAK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,981 79.3 35.7
TWIN HILLS CDP Distressed Distressed 9,870 74.1 34.5
UGASHIK CDP Distressed Distressed 35,151 75.0 16.7
UPPER KALSKAG CITY Distressed Distressed 10,477 75.5 31.3
VENETIE CDP Distressed Distressed 6,923 84.9 21.6
WHALE PASS CDP Distressed Distressed 3,088 90.5 9.5
WHITESTONE CAMP
CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 8,779 85.7 14.3
WILLOW CREEK CDP Distressed Distressed 9,720 77.6 23.1
WISEMAN CDP Distressed Non-Distressed 18,332 76.9 23.1
Y CDP Distressed Distressed 12,583 75.5 25.6
ADAK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,785 60.7 26.8
AKUTAN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 28,396 41.9 72.0
ANAKTUVUK PASS CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,441 63.1 33.3
ANCHOR POINT CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,677 68.7 30.0 Yes
ANCHORAGE Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,814 53.7 46.9
ANDERSON CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,923 68.6 31.4 Yes
ANIAK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,790 57.8 42.2
ATKA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,377 46.9 63.3
ATQASUK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,637 61.7 34.4
BARROW CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,072 47.8 41.8
BEAR CREEK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,559 53.9 44.0
BEAVER CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 11,809 67.8 37.3 Yes
BETHEL CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 28,323 47.8 49.0
BIG LAKE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,451 65.2 35.0
BUCKLAND CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 14,769 67.2 32.1 Yes
BUFFALO SOAPSTONE
CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,950 57.0 41.6
BUTTE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,156 60.0 40.3
CANTWELL CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,355 65.5 31.6
CHENEGA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,544 46.9 44.9
CHICKALOON CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,802 65.7 32.9
CHIGNIK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 50,220 44.9 51.0
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 37
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Distressed Status
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
CHISTOCHINA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,326 67.1 34.2
COFFMAN COVE CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 17,621 65.2 32.6
COHOE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,821 68.8 30.4 Yes
COLD BAY CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,035 46.3 50.0
COLDFOOT CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,002 57.9 42.1
COLLEGE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,633 53.3 46.6
COPPER CENTER CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,208 68.4 33.7
COPPERVILLE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,216 59.6 42.6
CORDOVA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 37,062 62.3 36.0
CRAIG CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,289 65.0 38.1
DEERING CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,491 60.9 43.5
DELTA JUNCTION CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,322 64.8 35.3
DELTANA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,868 64.9 33.0
DIAMOND RIDGE CDP Non-Distressed N/A 17,447 66.8 33.5
DILLINGHAM CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,258 50.8 46.7
DIOMEDE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 14,117 63.9 51.4
DOT LAKE VILLAGE Non-Distressed Distressed 11,888 69.2 30.8 Yes
EGEGIK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,726 64.0 34.0
ESTER CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,875 52.3 46.2
EVANSVILLE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 31,679 40.0 60.0
FAIRBANKS CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,929 60.8 40.4
FALSE PASS CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 57,770 57.7 50.0
FARM LOOP CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,527 62.3 39.4
FISHHOOK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,566 57.7 42.7
FORT YUKON CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 13,712 68.2 33.0 Yes
FOUR MILE ROAD CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 31,644 53.3 53.3
FOX CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,995 52.0 45.6
FRITZ CREEK CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 16,422 68.7 31.8 Yes
GAKONA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,410 62.8 36.1
GALENA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,236 54.5 37.9
GATEWAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,339 57.1 43.0
GLENNALLEN CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,538 67.8 36.5
GOLOVIN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,194 55.6 60.6
HAINES CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,640 70.5 31.4 Yes
HEALY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,048 60.6 37.3
HOMER CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 33,217 68.6 32.2 Yes
HOONAH CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 16,366 72.0 31.2 Yes
HOUSTON CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,539 63.9 36.4
HUGHES CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 12,101 65.6 49.2
IGIUGIG CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,254 58.6 55.2
ILIAMNA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,022 51.1 42.9
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 38
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Distressed Status
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
JUNEAU CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,495 50.7 49.8
KACHEMAK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,236 68.4 31.1 Yes
KAKTOVIK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,552 53.4 45.5
KALIFORNSKY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,574 57.8 43.3
KASAAN CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 14,516 66.7 35.9
KASILOF CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 27,574 66.3 34.6
KENAI CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,894 58.5 43.3
KETCHIKAN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,973 56.2 45.0
KIANA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,056 71.7 33.1 Yes
KING COVE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 41,778 63.5 36.2
KING SALMON CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 32,077 48.8 38.4
KLAWOCK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,570 66.8 36.0
KNIK RIVER CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,980 59.1 39.7
KNIK-FAIRVIEW CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,329 56.4 43.3
KOBUK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,458 68.4 28.9 Yes
KODIAK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 42,358 55.6 51.4
KOTZEBUE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 27,127 52.0 46.7
LAKES CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,670 58.3 42.6
LARSEN BAY CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,675 70.2 31.6 Yes
LAZY MOUNTAIN CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,643 63.5 36.3
LEVELOCK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,100 69.2 32.7 Yes
LIME VILLAGE CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 11,676 64.3 35.7
LOWELL POINT CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 26,340 56.1 46.3
MCGRATH CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,725 61.3 34.7
MCKINLEY PARK CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 15,131 66.8 27.4 Yes
MEADOW LAKES CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,534 61.8 38.0
MEKORYUK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,197 65.8 42.6
MENDELTNA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,756 64.4 37.3
METLAKATLA Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,528 63.7 38.0
MOOSE CREEK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,711 64.0 37.1
MOOSE PASS CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 18,159 66.5 30.5
NAKNEK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 30,456 55.9 39.2
NAPASKIAK CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 10,889 69.9 37.7 Yes
NELSON LAGOON CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 38,340 65.4 36.5
NENANA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,389 68.1 27.7 Yes
NEWHALEN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,267 47.5 45.9
NIGHTMUTE CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 12,136 67.9 47.4 Yes
NIKISKI CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,878 62.1 39.0
NIKOLSKI CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 14,971 68.2 36.4 Yes
NOATAK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,047 69.5 47.4
NOME CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 28,859 49.1 49.7
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 39
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Distressed Status
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
NORTH POLE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,706 60.2 41.4
NORTHWAY JUNCTION
CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 20,466 63.4 41.5
NUIQSUT CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,796 57.6 34.6
NUNAPITCHUK CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 12,205 69.6 46.1 Yes
OSCARVILLE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,932 48.3 62.1
PALMER CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,863 61.8 40.2
PEDRO BAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,090 62.5 37.5
PETERSBURG CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 35,319 69.6 33.1
PETERSVILLE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 29,527 66.7 33.3
PILOT POINT CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,041 69.6 47.8
PLEASANT VALLEY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,967 61.0 36.8
POINT HOPE CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 14,582 63.0 30.9 Yes
POINT LAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,115 55.7 32.9
POINT MACKENZIE CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 16,721 69.9 30.8 Yes
PORT HEIDEN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 31,410 53.0 40.9
PORT LIONS CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 18,225 72.3 32.7 Yes
PRIMROSE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,529 64.0 33.3
PRUDHOE BAY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 67,434 13.6 81.8
RED DOG MINE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed ND 0.0 100.0
RIDGEWAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,022 61.9 38.5
SAINT GEORGE CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 19,695 66.2 33.8
SAINT MARYS CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 14,656 66.4 37.4
SAINT MICHAEL CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 13,528 69.7 32.8 Yes
SAINT PAUL CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 27,056 59.2 42.6
SALAMATOF CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,181 64.5 35.9
SALCHA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,932 68.3 31.3 Yes
SAND POINT CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 47,564 64.0 38.1
SAXMAN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,142 66.9 37.0
SELDOVIA VILLAGE
CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 13,297 69.1 33.1 Yes
SEWARD CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,657 57.0 42.1
SHAKTOOLIK CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,659 65.1 44.1
SHUNGNAK CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 14,073 67.7 30.5 Yes
SILVER SPRINGS CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,820 63.5 32.2
SITKA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,706 58.7 43.3
SKAGWAY CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,753 59.6 34.0
SOLDOTNA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 24,776 59.7 42.7
SOUTH NAKNEK CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 25,530 68.8 17.2 Yes
STERLING CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,807 60.9 39.5
SUNRISE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 15,554 56.3 31.3
SUTTON-ALPINE CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 17,872 64.2 33.2
Distressed Community Criteria April 2009
Page 40
Distressed Community Status 2009,
Alaska Communities by Distressed Status
Communities
2009
Distressed
Status
2008
Distressed
Status
Average
earnings in
2008 from UI
employment
and fishing
% w/ 2008
earnings
less than
minimum
wage of
$14,872
%
Employed
all four
quarters
of 2008
Becomes
Distressed in
2009 with 3%
formula
TAKOTNA CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 20,634 54.5 54.5
TALKEETNA CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 16,717 66.5 34.3
TANAINA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,923 56.2 44.2
TANANA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 14,408 63.2 34.8
TAZLINA CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,896 62.5 37.5
TOK CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 16,574 66.5 33.1
TWO RIVERS CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 23,622 51.7 46.5
TYONEK CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 13,438 65.8 33.3
UNALAKLEET CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 18,593 64.7 37.2
UNALASKA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 40,743 33.8 67.1
VALDEZ CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 37,124 49.4 51.4
WAINWRIGHT CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 16,683 61.4 28.3
WALES CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 12,225 69.1 46.8 Yes
WASILLA CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 22,153 61.0 39.2
WHITE MOUNTAIN CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 13,572 66.9 43.1
WHITTIER CITY Non-Distressed Distressed 16,759 67.4 29.3 Yes
WILLOW CDP Non-Distressed Distressed 17,539 69.4 29.3 Yes
WOMENS BAY CDP Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,184 63.5 35.7
WRANGELL CITY Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 20,648 68.1 31.8 Yes
YAKUTAT Non-Distressed Non-Distressed 21,288 65.8 38.0
Cells marked with ND were not able to be disclosed due to confidentiality policies.
Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section; Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission