Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · ofr6735

Geologic reconnaissance of possible powersites at Spur Mountain, Tyee, and Eagle lakes, southeastern Alaska

Abstract

Spur Mountain, Tyee, and Eagle Lakes fill glacially scoured bedrock basins in the Coast Range of southeastern Alaska. The bedrock consists of granitic intrusive rocks and high rank metamorphic rocks associated with or resulting from emplacement of the Coast Range batholith. Spur Mountain damsite is underlain by granodiorite and diorite. The foundation properties of the bedrock are excellent, but the narrowness of the ridge that forms the right abutment and two prominent joint sets that intersect the abutments at high angles may be serious disadvantages. Two possible tunnel routes extend from the upper and lower ends of the lake to the Hulakon River and Unuk River valleys, respectively. They are approximately the same length and both are underlain by intrusive rocks with similar physical properties. Both routes are geologically satisfactory and the choice of one, will probably depend on other factors. The reservoir is underlain and surrounded by impermeable granodiorite, diorite, or related rocks. The abutments of the Tyee Lake damsite are in massive quartz diorite. The channel section is filled to an undetermined depth with coarse talus which is probably too permeable to grout. If the talus deposit is too deep to be removed economically, it might be possible to develop the site by drawing the lake down. The tunnel and penstock route is underlain by granodiorite, composite gneiss, hornblendite, and quartz diorite which are impermeable except possibly along two zones of close-spaced or open joints. The powerhouse site on Bradfield Canal is underlain by quartz diorite similar to the bedrock at damsite. The Eagle Lake powersite includes two possible damsites. The Eagle Lake damsize at the outlet of Eagle Lake is underlain by composite gneiss consisting of foliated biotite gneiss interlayered with banded quartz diorite, which is largely concealed with thin deposits of soil and colluvium. The foliation strikes normal to the alignment of the dam, and minor leakage along foliation planes might be expected. The possibility of a deep buried channel or solution cavities in marble underlying the stream bed should be considered. The other damsite is located at the outlet of Little Eagle Lake about 2 1/2 miles below the Eagle Lake damsite. The drainage area and storage capacity above the Little Eagle Lake site would be about 70 percent greater than for the Eagle Lake damsite, but the dam would have to be three to four times larger than the one at Eagle Lake to reach the same water level. This dam may be economically feasible due to large volumes of impervious fill material available for construction of an earthfill dam near Little Eagle Lake. Four saddles, which are probably abandoned stream channels, are in a low divide at the head of Eagle Lake. The depth and permeability of fill in the saddles are unknown factors which should be investigated. The tunnel route extends from the headward part of Eagle River to the head of Bell Arm and is underlain by poorly foliated gneissic quart diorite.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 55.43574345350419° to 56.419416363887734° latitude; -132.34743902675507° to -130.62859519915568° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

James E. Callahan, Alexander Andrew Wanek. 1967. Geologic reconnaissance of possible powersites at Spur Mountain, Tyee, and Eagle lakes, southeastern Alaska. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr6735

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona