SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Geology Today”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

USGS2009

A brief geologic history of Volusia County, Florida

Volusia County is in a unique and beautiful setting. This Florida landscape is characterized by low coastal plains bordered by upland areas of sandy ridges and many lakes. Beautiful streams and springs abound within the vicinity. Underneath the land surface is a deep layer of limestone rocks that stores fresh, clean water used to serve drinking and other needs. However, the landscape and the subsurface rocks have not always been as they appear today. These features are the result of environmental forces and processes that began millions of years ago and are still ongoing. This fact sheet provides a brief geologic history of the Earth, Florida, and Volusia County, with an emphasis on explaining why the Volusia County landscape and geologic structure exists as it does today.

Florida↗

USGS2013

Geomorphic and vegetation processes of the Willamette River floodplain, Oregon: current understanding and unanswered science questions

This report summarizes the current understanding of floodplain processes and landforms for the Willamette River and its major tributaries. The area of focus encompasses the main stem Willamette River above Newberg and the portions of the Coast Fork Willamette, Middle Fork Willamette, McKenzie, and North, South and main stem Santiam Rivers downstream of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dams. These reaches constitute a large portion of the alluvial, salmon-bearing rivers in the Willamette Basin. The geomorphic, or historical, floodplain of these rivers has two zones - the active channel where coarse sediment is mobilized and transported during annual flooding and overbank areas where fine sediment is deposited during higher magnitude floods. Historically, characteristics of the rivers and geomorphic floodplain (including longitudinal patterns in channel complexity and the abundance of side channels, islands and gravel bars) were controlled by the interactions between floods and the transport of coarse sediment and large wood. Local channel responses to these interactions were then shaped by geologic features like bedrock outcrops and variations in channel slope. Over the last 150 years, floods and the transport of coarse sediment and large wood have been substantially reduced in the basin. With dam regulation, nearly all peak flows are now confined to the main channels. Large floods (greater than 10-year recurrence interval prior to basinwide flow regulation) have been largely eliminated. Also, the magnitude and frequency of small floods (events that formerly recurred every 2–10 years) have decreased substantially. The large dams trap an estimated 50–60 percent of bed-material sediment—the building block of active channel habitats—that historically entered the Willamette River. They also trap more than 80 percent of the estimated bed material in the lower South Santiam River and Middle and Coast Forks of the Willamette River. Downstream, revetments further decrease bed-material supply by an unknown amount because they limit bank erosion and entrainment of stored sediment. The rivers, geomorphic floodplain, and vegetation within the study area have changed noticeably in response to the alterations in floods and coarse sediment and wood transport. Widespread decreases have occurred in the rates of meander migration and avulsions and the number and diversity of landforms such as gravel bars, islands, and side channels. Dynamic and, in some cases, multi-thread river segments have become stable, single-thread channels. Preliminary observations suggest that forest area has increased within the active channel, further reducing the area of unvegetated gravel bars. Alterations to floods and sediment transport and ongoing channel, floodplain, and vegetation responses result in a modern Willamette River Basin. Here, the floodplain influenced by the modern flow and sediment regimes, or the functional floodplain, is narrower and inset with the broader and older geomorphic floodplain. The functional floodplain is flanked by higher elevation relict floodplain features that are no longer inundated by modern floods. The corridor of present- day active channel surfaces is narrower, enabling riparian vegetation to establish on formerly active gravel bar surfaces. The modern Willamette River Basin with its fundamental changes in the flood, sediment transport, and large wood regimes has implications for future habitat conditions. System-wide future trends probably include narrower floodplains and a lower diversity of landforms and habitats along the Willamette River and its major tributaries compared to historical patterns and today. Furthermore, specific conditions and future trends will probably vary between geologically stable, anthropogenically stable, and dynamic reaches. The middle and lower segments of the Willamette River are geologically stable, whereas the South Santiam and Middle Fork Willamette Rivers were historically dynamic, but are now largely stable in response to flow regulation and revetment construction. The upper Willamette and North Santiam Rivers retain some dynamic characteristics, and provide the greatest diversity of aquatic and riparian habitats under the current flow and sediment regime. The McKenzie River has some areas that are more dynamic, whereas other sections are stable due to geology or revetments. Historical reductions in channel dynamism also have implications for ongoing and future recruitment and succession of floodplain forests. For instance, the succession of native plants like black cottonwood is currently limited by (1) fewer low-elevation gravel bars for stand initiation; (2) altered streamflow during seed release, germination, and stand initiation; (3) competition from introduced plant species; and (4) frequent erosion of young vegetation in some locations because scouring flows are concentrated within a narrow channel corridor. Despite past alterations, the Willamette River Basin has many of the physical and ecological building blocks necessary for highly functioning rivers. Management strategies, including environmental flow programs, river and floodplain restoration, revetment modifications, and reclamation of gravel mines, are underway to mitigate some historical changes. However, there are some substantial gaps in the scientific understanding of the modern Willamette basin that is needed to efficiently integrate these blocks and to establish realistic objectives for future conditions. Unanswered questions include: 1. What is the distribution and diversity of landforms and habitats along the Willamette River and its tributaries? 2. What is the extent of today’s functional floodplain—the part of the river corridor actively formed and modified by fluvial processes? 3. How are landforms and habitats in the Willamette River Basin created and sustained by present-day flow and sediment conditions? 4. How is the succession of native floodplain vegetation shaped by present-day flow and sediment conditions? Answering these questions will produce baseline data on the current distributions of landforms and habitats (question 1), the extent of the functional floodplain (question 2), and the effects of modern flow and sediment regimes on future floodplain landforms, habitats, and vegetation succession (questions 3 and 4). Addressing questions 1 and 2 is a logical next step because they underlie questions 3 and 4. Addressing these four questions would better characterize the modern Willamette Basin and help in implementing and setting realistic targets for ongoing management strategies, demonstrating their effectiveness at the site and basin scales, and anticipating future trends and conditions.

Oregon↗

USGS2020

Indonesia and the United States team up to reduce impacts from dangerous volcanoes

With 75 historically active volcanoes, Indonesia is the world’s most volcanically active nation. Its volcanoes are legendary throughout the world, with the notorious 19th-century eruptions at Mount Tambora (1815) and Krakatau (1883), and the eruption that created the giant Toba Caldera in Sumatra (75,000 years ago)—the Earth’s largest volcanic eruption in the past 100,000 years. Just in the past 20 years, more than 36 volcanoes have erupted, some multiple times, threatening millions of people. The Government of Indonesia responds to this daunting volcanic threat from Indonesia’s Center for Volcanology and Geologic Hazards Mitigation (CVGHM) offices in Bandung. From there, dozens of staff members coordinate operations at 77 small observatories spread out across the 5,000-kilometer-long archipelago that is Indonesia. For more than 50 years, the United States has worked in partnership with the Government of Indonesia to reduce the risk of volcanic eruptions and to save lives. Today, the two governments cooperate through an agreement between CVGHM and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP). Each year CVGHM and VDAP representatives convene to discuss priorities for the upcoming 12 months. They outline a series of training efforts, field campaigns, equipment deployments, and timely topics that require further exploration and development.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2023

Stratigraphic Notes

Welcome to the resurrected series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports on stratigraphy entitled “Stratigraphic Notes.” For several decades, until the mid-1990s, the USGS published volumes of short papers that highlighted stratigraphic studies, changes in stratigraphic nomenclature, and explanations of stratigraphic names and concepts used on published geologic maps. The purpose was to encourage formal documentation on these topics. Today (2023) the need for such documentation has become especially important because of the increasing number of informal reports that use new or updated stratigraphic nomenclature. Because the North American Stratigraphic Code does not recognize informal reports as proper publications to formalize stratigraphic studies, a report series such as “Stratigraphic Notes” is needed to bridge this gap. “Stratigraphic Notes” is a long-term (multiyear), multivolume publication containing articles that address updates or revisions to stratigraphic nomenclature (and whose content ultimately will be incorporated into Geolex, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/ ). The papers in “Stratigraphic Notes” are meant to be an outlet to communicate changes in stratigraphic nomenclature, to support geologic map publications, and to facilitate compilation of new geologic maps and their databases. The goal is to publish a new volume each year, each of which will contain papers that present results of stratigraphic studies drawn from scientific interpretations of stratigraphic and biostratigraphic changes related to changes in environments of deposition and facies, as well as interpretations of igneous and metamorphic units. We welcome papers for the “Stratigraphic Notes” series from geoscientists of the USGS, of State Geological Surveys, and from academicians. Papers can be submitted for publication in “Stratigraphic Notes” by contacting the USGS Geologic Names Committee ( gnc@usgs.gov ). As new “Stratigraphic Notes” volumes are published, links to the volumes will be posted here at https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1879 .

Professional Paper↗

USGS2011

U.S. Geological Survey: A synopsis of Three-dimensional Modeling

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is a multidisciplinary agency that provides assessments of natural resources (geological, hydrological, biological), the disturbances that affect those resources, and the disturbances that affect the built environment, natural landscapes, and human society. Until now, USGS map products have been generated and distributed primarily as 2-D maps, occasionally providing cross sections or overlays, but rarely allowing the ability to characterize and understand 3-D systems, how they change over time (4-D), and how they interact. And yet, technological advances in monitoring natural resources and the environment, the ever-increasing diversity of information needed for holistic assessments, and the intrinsic 3-D/4-D nature of the information obtained increases our need to generate, verify, analyze, interpret, confirm, store, and distribute its scientific information and products using 3-D/4-D visualization, analysis, modeling tools, and information frameworks. Today, USGS scientists use 3-D/4-D tools to (1) visualize and interpret geological information, (2) verify the data, and (3) verify their interpretations and models. 3-D/4-D visualization can be a powerful quality control tool in the analysis of large, multidimensional data sets. USGS scientists use 3-D/4-D technology for 3-D surface (i.e., 2.5-D) visualization as well as for 3-D volumetric analyses. Examples of geological mapping in 3-D include characterization of the subsurface for resource assessments, such as aquifer characterization in the central United States, and for input into process models, such as seismic hazards in the western United States.

Book chapter↗

USGS2014

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Montana

Elevation data are essential to a broad range of applications, including forest resources management, wildlife and habitat management, national security, recreation, and many others. For the State of Montana, elevation data are critical for flood risk management, infrastructure and construction management, agriculture and precision farming, geologic resource assessment and hazard mitigation, natural resources conservation, and other business uses. Today, high-density light detection and ranging (lidar) data are the primary sources for deriving elevation models and other datasets. Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies work in partnership to (1) replace data that are older and of lower quality and (2) provide coverage where publicly accessible data do not exist. A joint goal of State and Federal partners is to acquire consistent, statewide coverage to support existing and emerging applications enabled by lidar data. The National Enhanced Elevation Assessment evaluated multiple elevation data acquisition options to determine the optimal data quality and data replacement cycle relative to cost to meet the identified requirements of the user community. The evaluation demonstrated that lidar acquisition at quality level 2 for the conterminous United States and quality level 5 ifsar data for Alaska with a 6- to 10-year acquisition cycle provided the highest benefit/cost ratios. The new 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) initiative selected an 8-year acquisition cycle for the respective quality levels. 3DEP, managed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Office of Management and Budget Circular A–16 lead agency for terrestrial elevation data, responds to the growing need for high-quality topographic data and a wide range of other 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Montana↗

USGS2014

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for New Mexico

Elevation data are essential to a broad range of applications, including forest resources management, wildlife and habitat management, national security, recreation, and many others. For the State of New Mexico, elevation data are critical for infrastructure and construction management, natural resources conservation, flood risk management, agriculture and precision farming, geologic resource assessment and hazard mitigation, forest resources management, and other business uses. Today, high-density light detection and ranging (lidar) data are the primary sources for deriving elevation models and other datasets. Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies work in partnership to (1) replace data that are older and of lower quality and (2) provide coverage where publicly accessible data do not exist. A joint goal of State and Federal partners is to acquire consistent, statewide coverage to support existing and emerging applications enabled by lidar data. The National Enhanced Elevation Assessment evaluated multiple elevation data acquisition options to determine the optimal data quality and data replacement cycle relative to cost to meet the identified requirements of the user community. The evaluation demonstrated that lidar acquisition at quality level 2 (table 1) for the conterminous United States and quality level 5 ifsar data (table 1) for Alaska with a 6- to 10-year acquisition cycle provided the highest benefit/cost ratios.The 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) initiative selected an 8-year acquisition cycle for the respective quality levels. 3DEP, managed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Office of Management and Budget Circular A–16 lead agency for terrestrial elevation data, responds to the growing need for high-quality topographic data and a wide range of other 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

New Mexico↗

USGS2013

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Alaska

Elevation data are essential to a broad range of applications, including forest resources management, wildlife and habitat management, national security, recreation, and many others. For the State of Alaska, elevation data are critical for aviation navigation and safety, natural resources conservation, oil and gas resources, flood risk management, geologic resource assessment and hazards mitigation, forest resources management, and other business uses. Today, high-quality light detection and ranging (lidar) data and interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) are the primary sources for deriving elevation models and datasets. Federal, State, and local agencies work in partnership to (1) replace data, on a national basis, that are older and of lower quality and (2) provide coverage where publicly accessible data do not exist. Recent mapping information for the majority of land in Alaska is not available because clouds, smoke, and remoteness have hampered data collection. Lidar data have been collected only at selected coastal areas, cities, refuges, and parks. Within the last decade, ifsar technology has become the most effective tool for overcoming the challenges to acquiring elevation data for Alaska because this technology can penetrate clouds. State efforts for the collection of ifsar data are being coordinated through Alaska’s Statewide Digital Mapping Initiative (SDMI), a cooperative program implemented across six State of Alaska departments and the University of Alaska. Federal efforts are coordinated through the Alaska Mapping Executive Committee (AMEC), chaired by the Department of the Interior with membership from 15 Federal agencies and representatives from the State of Alaska. Coordination by SDMI and AMEC avoids duplication of effort and ensures a unified approach to consistent, statewide data acquisition; the enhancement of existing data; and support for emerging applications. The 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) initiative, managed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), responds to the growing need for high-quality topographic data and a wide range of other three-dimensional representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Alaska↗

USGS1982

The Giles County, Virginia, seismogenic zone-- Seismological results and geological interpretations

This paper describes and interprets a newly-recognized 40-km-long seismogenic zone, which is inferred to have been the locus of a damaging earthquake in 1897. That shock was the second largest known to have occurred in the southeastern United States (MMI VIII, m b estimated at 5.8, felt over 725,000 km 2 ). It struck Giles County in southwestern Virginia, and a recurrence would affect populous regions on and near the central Atlantic seaboard. This paper attempts to aid in evaluating that hazard by presenting and synthesizing new seismological data with geological inferences and deductions. A five-station, 60-km aperture seismic network has been in operation in the Giles County locale since early 1978. For the subsequent 3-year monitoring period, 10 microearthquakes (M < 2) have been detected. Eight of those 10 events, plus an additional 4 relocated felt earthquakes (3.2 < M < 4.1; 1959-1976) have a tabular distribution centered at Pearisburg, Virginia. That distribution is about 40 km long, 10 km wide, strikes N. 43° E., and has a nearly vertical extent of from 5 km to 25 km in depth. Thus, a Giles County seismogenic zone is defined presently by 12 earthquakes that span 4 orders of magnitude (0 < M < 4) and 2 decades of time (1959-1980). We conclude that the 1897 earthquake occurred on that seismogenic zone. From the orientation of the tabular zone, from evidence that greatest horizontal compressive stress trends east-northeasterly at seismogenic depths in and near Giles County and from sparse P-wave first-motion data, we infer that the monitored microseismicity probably occurs by right-reverse motion on the seismogenic zone, with the southeast side dropping down with respect to the northwest side. In the Giles County locale, the upper 3-6 km of the crust are Paleozoic sedimentary rocks that have moved some tens of kilometers northwest on nearly horizontal detachment faults. The above-mentioned reliable hypocenters for the region lie below the deepest likely detachment, indicating that Giles County seismicity probably has no simple relationship to surface geology. Since Precambrian time, three deformational episodes could have formed steep faults under today's surface structures, at the observed hypocentral depths. These episodes were as follows: (1) As the Iapetus Ocean (Atlantic's predecessor) opened in late Precambrian or early Paleozoic time, northeast-striking normal faults formed, probably at the inferred Iapetan continental edge in central Virginia and at least as far northwest of that locus as Giles County. (2) In late Paleozoic time, detachment faults loaded the crust with several kilometers of overthrust sedimentary rocks, perhaps forming northeast-striking thrust-load faults in a brittle analogue of isostatic depression caused by thrust masses and much lighter continental glaciers. (3) As the Atlantic Ocean opened in Mesozoic time, other northeast-striking normal faults formed on the present continental margin and inland of it. The N. 43° E.-striking seismogenic zone seems most likely to have resulted from compressional reactivation of an Iapetan normal fault, which also may have been reactivated by late Paleozoic compression and Mesozoic extension. First, the seismogenic zone probably does not occur on a thrust-load fault. The zone underlies detached structures of southern Appalachian orientations (east-northeast), but those structures are not known to be displaced where they cross the zone. Thus, if the zone occurs on a thrust-load fault, the fault and its coeval causative central Appalachian detachments would pre-date the southern Appalachian structures. That deduction contradicts stratigraphic and structural estimates of relative ages of southern and central Appalachian detachments. Second, the zone probably does not result from a Mesozoic normal fault, because known locations of Mesozoic normal faults and grabens are well to the southeast of Giles County. Not yet known is where else in the East reactivated Iapetan normal faults might generate shocks similar to that of 1897. However, our analysis enables us to suggest specific geological and geophysical investigations that may produce results useful in answering that question. Such investigations can concentrate on defining the area of probable occurrence of other Iapetan normal faults, and on determining whether the one inferred to underlie Giles County is uniquely active or is typical of others that might exist elsewhere.

Virginia↗

USGS1992

Topographic mapping

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) produced its first topographic map in 1879, the same year it was established. Today, more than 100 years and millions of map copies later, topographic mapping is still a central activity for the USGS. The topographic map remains an indispensable tool for government, science, industry, and leisure.

General Information Product↗

USGS2004

Mapping a flood before it happens

What's missing from flood forecasts? Maps—The only maps generally available today are maps used for planning. They are maps of theoretical floods, not maps of flooding forecast for an approaching storm. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Weather Service (NWS) have developed a way to bring flood forecasting and flood mapping together, producing flood maps for tomorrow's flood today...and getting them on the Internet in time for those in harm's way to react.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2014

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Arizona

Elevation data are essential to a broad range of applications, including forest resources management, wildlife and habitat management, national security, recreation, and many others. For the State of Arizona, elevation data are critical for infrastructure and construction management, natural resources conservation, flood risk management, geologic resource assessment and hazard mitigation, agriculture and precision farming, and other business uses. Today, high-density light detection and ranging (lidar) data are the primary sources for deriving elevation models and other datasets. Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies work in partnership to (1) replace data that are older and of lower quality and (2) provide coverage where publicly accessible data do not exist. A joint goal of State and Federal partners is to acquire consistent, statewide coverage to support existing and emerging applications enabled by lidar data. The National Enhanced Elevation Assessment evaluated multiple elevation data acquisition options to determine the optimal data quality and data replacement cycle relative to cost to meet the identified requirements of the user community. The evaluation demonstrated that lidar acquisition at quality level 2 for the conterminous United States and quality level 5 interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data for Alaska with a 6- to 10-year acquisition cycle provided the highest benefit/cost ratios. The 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) initiative selected an 8-year acquisition cycle for the respective quality levels. 3DEP, managed by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Office of Management and Budget Circular A–16 lead agency for terrestrial elevation data, responds to the growing need for high-quality topographic data and a wide range of other 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Arizona↗

USGS2015

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Nevada

Elevation data are essential to a broad range of applications, including forest resources management, wildlife and habitat management, national security, recreation, and many others. For the State of Nevada, elevation data are critical for infrastructure and construction management, natural resources conservation, flood risk management, geologic resource assessment and hazard mitigation, agriculture and precision farming, and other business uses. Today, high-density light detection and ranging (lidar) data are the primary sources for deriving elevation models and other datasets. Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies work in partnership to (1) replace data that are older and of lower quality and (2) provide coverage where publicly accessible data do not exist. A joint goal of State and Federal partners is to acquire consistent, statewide coverage to support existing and emerging applications enabled by lidar data. The National Enhanced Elevation Assessment evaluated multiple elevation data acquisition options to determine the optimal data quality and data replacement cycle relative to cost to meet the identified requirements of the user community. The evaluation demonstrated that lidar acquisition at quality level 2 for the conterminous United States and quality level 5 interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data for Alaska with a 6- to 10-year acquisition cycle provided the highest benefit/cost ratios. The 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) initiative selected an 8-year acquisition cycle for the respective quality levels. 3DEP, managed by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Office of Management and Budget Circular A–16 lead agency for terrestrial elevation data, responds to the growing need for high-quality topographic data and a wide range of other 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Nevada↗

USGS2015

Progress on water data integration and distribution: a summary of select U.S. Geological Survey data systems

Critical water-resources issues ranging from flood response to water scarcity make access to integrated water information, services, tools, and models essential. Since 1995 when the first water data web pages went online, the U.S. Geological Survey has been at the forefront of water data distribution and integration. Today, real-time and historical streamflow observations are available via web pages and a variety of web service interfaces. The Survey has built partnerships with Federal and State agencies to integrate hydrologic data providing continuous observations of surface and groundwater, temporally discrete water quality data, groundwater well logs, aquatic biology data, water availability and use information, and tools to help characterize the landscape for modeling. In this paper, we summarize the status and design patterns implemented for selected data systems. We describe how these systems contribute to a U.S. Federal Open Water Data Initiative and present some gaps and lessons learned that apply to global hydroinformatics data infrastructure.

Journal of Hydroinformatics↗

USGS1999

Commemorative naming in the United States

Naming is a basic human tendency; it allows us to perceive the distinct identities of people and places and conveys those characteristics that make them unique. The name of a geographic feature can describe spectacular physical attributes (such as the Grand Canyon or Half Dome in Yosemite National Park), indicate cultural or historical significance (such as Washington Crossing on the Delaware River), or commemorate a worthy individual (such as the Hudson River, named for Henry Hudson, the explorer). Names have many different origins, and regardless of the type of name, they give us a greater familiarity with our surroundings and a sense of belonging to our environment. Naming rivers, mountains, and valleys after individuals was one way settlers marked the land; it signified their lives on these lands were important and, in addition to being a point of reference, usually satisfied the need for stability and enhanced the general concept of sense of place. Even today, naming geographic features after individuals helps us to recognize their special achievements and contributions to the physical or cultural landscape. However, what may be most significant about the present commemorative naming decisions is their permanence. It is important for us to realize that the commemorative names assigned today may last for centuries.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS1998

Commemorative Naming in the United States

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2013

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Idaho

Idaho↗

USGS2013

Seventy-five years of science—The U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Fisheries Research Center

As of January 2010, 75 years have elapsed since Dr. Frederic Fish initiated the pioneering research program that would evolve into today’s Western Fisheries Research Center (WFRC). Fish began his research working alone in the basement of the recently opened Fisheries Biological Laboratory on Lake Union in Seattle, Washington. WFRC’s research began under the aegis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ends its first 75 years as part of the U.S. Geological Survey with a staff of more than 150 biologists and support personnel and a heritage of fundamental research that has made important contributions to our understanding of the biology and ecology of the economically important fish and fish populations of the Nation. Although the current staff may rarely stop to think about it, WFRC’s antecedents extend many years into the past and are intimately involved with the history of fisheries conservation in the Western United States. Thus, WFRC Director Lyman Thorsteinson asked me to write the story of this laboratory “while there are still a few of you around who were here for some of the earlier years” to document the rich history and culture of WFRC by recognizing its many famous scientists and their achievements. This historyalso would help document WFRC’s research ‘footprint’ in the Western United States and its strategic directions. Center Director Thorsteinson concluded that WFRC’s heritage told by an emeritus scientist also would add a texture of legitimacy based on personal knowledge that will all-to-soon be lost to the WFRC and to the USGS. The WFRC story is important for the future as well as for historical reasons. It describes how we got to the place we are today by documenting the origin, original mission, and our evolving role in response to the constantly changing technical information requirements of new environmental legislation and organizational decision-making. The WFRC research program owes its existence to the policy requirements of Federal conservation legislation originating with the construction of Grand Coulee Dam in 1933. The research program was shaped by laws enacted in subsequent years such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), National Environmental Policy Act (1973), Endangered Species Act (1974), and Northwest Power Planning Act (1980), to name only a few. The WFRC has not been constrained by direct management or regulatory responsibility for a particular fishery (such as providing sustainable catch limits data to a resource management structure). Thus, WFRC has been able to concentrate on scientific pursuits and information needs required by contemporary environmental legislation. Over the years, we have pioneered in several important areas of fisheries research including the diagnoses and control of diseases in economically important fish, effects of environmental alterations on the physiological quality and survival of Pacific salmon released from federal mitigation hatcheries, applications in biotelemetry, and the bioenergetics of predator-prey interactions in the Columbia River. The WFRC of today is a widely distributed organization in the Western United States. Knowledge of the historical connections and accomplishments of our predecessors is important beyond the sense of pride and unity it instills in the WFRC family of today. For example, a discerning reader will note the evolution of WFRC’s research from a single disciplinary focus (early era—hatchery disease problems), to multiple disciplines (middle to late era—species, populations, habitats; threatened and endangered species), to the present era (multidisciplinary and with increasing process focus). For the benefit of the current WFRC staff, more emphasis has been placed on the early years rather than on the present day because people are quite naturally more familiar with the recent past than with the research done during the first decades of WFRC’s existence. By every rational measure, the WFRC has evolved into a fisheries research organization well positioned to provide the biological information needed to support the continued conservation and management of our Nation’s living aquatic natural resources. The high standard of excellence that connects WFRC’s past to our present research program provides a firm foundation on which to base the work yet to be done. In another 75 years, WFRC will undoubtedly be a very different place than it is today, but its evolution will be forever rooted in the story of the research and of the people related here. More about the diverse fisheries research projects WFRC scientists are conducting today is available at WFRC’s website: http://wfrc.usgs.gov/.

Washington↗