Geology Reports⌕ Search

subject

Professional Paper

Professional Paper: explore 13 source-linked works published from 2023 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: usgs. Collection updated 2026-09-14. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

USGS2026

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗
USGS2026

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona↗
USGS2026

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2026

Distributed volcanic fields—Patterns, products, processes, and plumbing

Distributed volcanic fields—also referred to as “monogenetic fields” or simply “volcanic fields”—are found on every continent, on the seafloors, and in every tectonic setting on Earth. Yet, our understanding of what constitutes a distributed volcanic field, and our knowledge of the common products, spatiotemporal patterns in activity, and plumbing systems of these fields, are commonly poor and (or) debated. Here we provide an overview of the current understanding of distributed volcanic fields (DVFs) through review and compilation of published data, with an emphasis on understanding the characteristics of fields that are essential to prepare for future hazardous volcanic activity. Distributed fields can erupt restricted to variable magma compositions. Activity in these fields produces nearly all types of volcanoes, including scoria and spatter cones, maars, low shields, lava fields, stratovolcanoes, and calderas, but monogenetic volcanoes are the defining characteristic of DVFs. The number of vents and lifespans of DVFs vary greatly; vent numbers range from 2 to greater than 1,000, and fields can remain active for 150,000 to 10 million years. Some characteristics of DVFs appear field dependent. Although the volumes of single monogenetic eruptions within DVFs globally are variable (from less than 0.1 to a few cubic kilometers), each field may have a characteristic range in eruption volumes. Eruptions within distributed volcanic fields can have a random distribution and timing, but spatial and (or) temporal vent clustering and alignment are common, and eruptions may be time or volume predictable. Average eruption recurrence intervals in DVFs span over an order of magnitude, from less than 3 to greater than 100 thousand years. Exposures of the shallow portions of older systems reveal that many magma batches end their ascent before reaching the surface, with some dikes stopping within only meters of the surface. Petrologic insights into the deeper plumbing systems of DVF volcanoes indicate variable depths of magma crystallization and (or) stalling, and that magma transport and storage systems may be unique to a particular DVF and its underlying crustal structure. Both seismic and petrologic data for mafic DVF eruptions corroborate intrusions of magma into storage systems in the months to years before eruption, as well as variable ascent rates through the crust (days to weeks). Few distributed fields are closely monitored, as they erupt infrequently, but these observations imply that the amount of time available to install monitoring instrumentation after the first felt seismicity may be short, as precursory activity is frequently on the order of days to months for modern DVF eruptions. Satellite-based geodesy may provide useful warning in such cases. This chapter concludes with outstanding questions and areas for future research that will aid in our understanding and preparedness for future DVF eruptions.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2026

Stratigraphic notes—Volume 3, 2026

This is the third volume in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) series of reports on stratigraphy entitled “Stratigraphic Notes,” which consists of short papers that highlight stratigraphic studies, changes in stratigraphic nomenclature, and explanations of stratigraphic names and concepts used on published geologic maps. “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 by National Geologic Map Database personnel into Geolex, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/ ). 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 at https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1879 .

Professional Paper↗
USGS2026

Cambrian and Ordovician stratigraphy, conodont biostratigraphy, and microfacies analysis to support 1:24,000-scale geologic mapping of the southern Lake Champlain valley, New York and Vermont

Introduction Geologic mapping in the southern Lake Champlain valley of New York and Vermont (fig. 1) has required evaluation of stratigraphic nomenclature used since the early 1900s. The paleogeography of the Cambrian and Ordovician adjacent to the Adirondack Highlands, the high-relief mountains of Proterozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks of northern New York, has impacted the lithostratigraphic succession, facies changes, and several hiatuses that occur within the package of clastic and carbonate rocks that demonstrates overall deepening consistent from the southern to northern Appalachians. The stratigraphic nomenclature used for the geologic mapping of the Cambrian and Ordovician strata of the study area is derived from evaluation of names put forth by previous workers from areas of northern New York and western Vermont. Descriptions of type localities or type sections and other criteria set forth by the North American Stratigraphic Code (North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature [NACSN], 2021) were consulted. The North American Stratigraphic Code states that lithostratigraphic units, such as the fundamental unit, the formation, be defined by lithic character and be mappable (NACSN, 2021, Article 24). However, some early workers (Walcott, 1912; Kay, 1937; Fisher and Hanson, 1951; Oxley and Kay, 1959) have defined stratigraphic units based on fossil content, which may or may not be facies dependent, and hence may not be mappable as lithostratigraphic units. Although preservation of older names takes priority in stratigraphic nomenclature (NACSN, 2021, Article 7), some do not have adequately defined stratotypes or are located a distance away with different lithologies than that in the study area. Biostratigraphy can be a helpful tool for understanding correlations and facies changes. Herein, conodont biostratigraphy is utilized to date and correlate separate lithologic units. Further, microfacies analyses of units through inspection of petrographic thin sections provide paleogeographic information that helps in understanding the genesis of geologic units.

New York, Vermont↗
USGS2026

Tephra from Kīlauea’s 2008–2018 lava lake eruption—Proximal deposits and dispersal characteristics

A network of ten buckets was established early in the 2008–2018 summit eruption at Kīlauea to collect proximal tephra ejected from the new, informally named the “Overlook crater”; the buckets were emptied on most days of the eruption thereafter. This report summarizes the results of more than 2,400 different sampling intervals (most 1–3 days long) during the eruption, focusing on the physical and dispersal characteristics of the tephra deposits. The network was within about 300 meters south of the vent to capture tephra dispersed by the dominant northeast trade wind. The juvenile tephra mainly reflected spattering at the southeast (SE) sink, a downwelling area in the southeastern part of the lava lake in the Overlook crater that remained in the same area throughout the eruption, with admixtures of solid rock and secondary minerals derived from the wall of the crater. The proportion of juvenile material to lithic material ranged widely early in the eruption but was generally greater than 90 percent for the last 6 years of the eruption as lake level rose and the crater walls decreased in height and became more stable. The accumulation rate of tephra at each bucket was strongly dependent on the location of the bucket and reflects the interplay between lava lake level and wind direction and speed. The mass per unit area (m/a) of collected tephra was a maximum of about 97 kilograms per square meter for the entire eruption, equivalent to a thickness of about 75 millimeters. Thirty-two explosive events with a volcanic explosivity index of −2 to −4 deposited much of the tephra in the network. Fifteen of these rock-fall-induced events occurred within 6 days of one another. Pele’s hair, a volcanic glass predominantly associated with quieter activity at the vent in the final half of the eruption, was dispersed more than 60 kilometers downwind from the lava lake and formed a nearly continuous deposit near the Overlook crater. This eruption was probably the most frequently sampled long-lasting eruption in history, but most of the deposits are ephemeral. The collected samples, although generally of small mass, are retained by the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory and are available for detailed study.

Hawaii↗
USGS2026

High-resolution magnetic survey using an unoccupied aerial vehicle to constrain buried lava flow geometry, volume, and eruptive history of Little Cones, Crater Flat, Nevada

Magnetic surveys are an important tool used to augment geologic mapping in distributed volcanic fields. Using magnetic anomalies, it is possible to model the geometry of shallowly buried volcanic features, such as conduits, sills, and lava flows. This subsurface mapping is important for understanding eruption dynamics and emplacement of lava flows, and it sometimes reveals buried volcanoes no longer visible at the surface. These data are critical to better interpret the numbers, styles, and magnitudes of eruptions in distributed volcanic fields and their associated volcanic hazards. New advances in unoccupied aerial vehicles (UAVs) offer an attractive middle range of resolution and aerial coverage between ground-based magnetic surveys and aeromagnetic surveys. Here, we present the results of a UAV fluxgate magnetic survey of the Little Cones, Nevada, scoria cones, which have been the target of previous ground and aeromagnetic surveys. The magnetic anomalies at Little Cones are of interest because the surrounding alluvium conceals lava flows that erupted from Little Cones, making it very difficult to understand the volume and morphology of lava flows from geologic mapping alone. Nonlinear inversion of UAV-collected magnetic data were used to model the thickness and morphology of buried Little Cones’ lava flows with higher precision than achieved previously. The sequence of events and calculated flow characteristics are then interpreted. The total volume of Little Cones, including concealed lava flows, is approximately 0.016 cubic kilometer, and the initial sheet flow erupted in less than 24 hours. The findings presented herein demonstrate that UAV-based magnetic surveys are a reliable method of data collection and an efficient alternative to other survey methods, facilitating development of a three-dimensional perspective of distributed volcanic fields.

Nevada↗
USGS2026

Evaluation of stream capture related to groundwater pumping, middle Humboldt River Basin, Nevada

Historical, future, and potential stream capture from groundwater pumping in the middle Humboldt River Basin (MHRB), Nevada, is estimated using a calibrated numerical groundwater flow model. The model was developed to estimate (1) stream capture, which is the change in flux between the groundwater system and the Humboldt River and tributaries, and (2) change in streamflow, which is the change in streamflow estimated for the Imlay gage on the Humboldt River (U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 10333000). Historical stream capture for water years (WYs) 1961–2015 is estimated using recorded and estimated groundwater pumping during that period. Future (predictive) stream capture was based on historical stresses (WYs 1961–2015) using a scenario that simulated non-mine pumping from WY 2015 at a uniform rate for 100 years into the future. Potential stream capture throughout the middle Humboldt River Basin from groundwater pumping during varying durations of time are presented in a series of capture maps. Maps also are presented that show the potential to capture from groundwater evapotranspiration, as well as the storage changes for pumping duration of 100 years. Estimates of historical stream capture from the mainstem Humboldt River during the early 1960s are less than 400 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr) when groundwater withdrawals and pumping rates were relatively small compared to more recent times. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, groundwater withdrawals increased and estimated historical stream capture also increased from about 4,000 acre-ft/yr in the late 1980s and early 1990s to as much as 18,800 acre-feet (acre-ft) in WY 1998. In WY 2015, estimated historical stream capture declined to about 13,000 acre-ft because of decreasing groundwater withdrawals and lower streamflow during the drought of WYs 2012–15, resulting in less stream water available for capture. Stream capture was estimated for 100 years into the future based on WY 2015 non-mine pumping rates and mine-dewatering activity through WY 2015. Stream capture is forecast to increase to about 23,000 acre-ft/yr, and streamflow in the Humboldt River could decrease by as much as 19,000 acre-ft/yr. Pumping for mine-dewatering and the associated discharge of that water affects streamflow in the Humboldt River at Imlay, Nevada (U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 10333000). Historically, from WYs 1991 to 2015, streamflow was greater at Imlay gage during active mine-dewatering from mine-water discharge operations and increased by as much as 105,000 acre-ft in WY 1998. The increase was attributed mostly to the discharge of groundwater from mine-related dewatering operations directly into the mainstem Humboldt River or its tributaries, with some of this increase associated with return flows from discharge to rapid infiltration basins. Results indicate that streamflow at Imlay gage is expected to decrease by as much as 1,600 acre-ft/yr 30 years after mine-related pumping and discharge are discontinued. The streamflow reductions at the Imlay gage are expected to then decrease to around 500 acre-ft/yr, 100 years after mine-related pumping and discharge are discontinued. Potential capture maps were produced for pumping durations of 10, 25, 50, and 100 years. Capture map results indicate that areas of greater potential stream capture occur adjacent to the Humboldt River and for upstream tributaries areas north of the Humboldt River.

Nevada↗
USGS2026

Determining Volcanic Risk in Auckland (DEVORA) Research Programme—A transdisciplinary approach to address the challenge of distributed volcanism in an urban environment

The Determining Volcanic Risk in Auckland (DEVORA) Research Programme was launched in 2008 to address the challenges associated with monogenetic volcanism in an urban setting and to enhance volcanic risk management in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is a multi-agency, increasingly transdisciplinary (defined here as research that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries by integrating diverse types of knowledge, perspectives, and methods from academic and non-academic participants to create novel solutions to complex problems), and collaborative research program jointly led by Waipapa Taumata Rau University of Auckland and Earth Sciences New Zealand (ESNZ; formerly GNS Science), with core funding from Natural Hazards Commission Toka Tū Ake (NHC; formerly the Earthquake Commission, EQC) and Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Council (AC). The primary research focus of DEVORA is to investigate the geologic history, volcanic hazards, and risk posed by the basaltic intraplate Auckland Volcanic Field. Disruption from ash fall and gas from other Aotearoa New Zealand volcanoes is also considered. DEVORA’s work to explore exposure and vulnerability in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland is also useful for assessing risks from other non-volcanic natural hazards, such as seismic and tsunami hazards. The greater Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland region has an ethnically and socio-economically diverse population of approximately 1.7 million, representing about one-third of the Aotearoa New Zealand population, and hosts critical infrastructure of national significance. The size and nature of the populace, consequential economic base, and important infrastructure within Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland mean that the effects of a volcanic eruption would be felt nationally, including through the disruption of air travel to Aotearoa New Zealand. The hazards from such an eruption could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of people, businesses, and lifelines (critical infrastructure). A considerable challenge for emergency and risk managers is the monogenetic nature of the volcanic field. It is not known where or when the next eruption will occur, how much warning we may get before an eruption, nor how an eruption and its effects might unfold. In this contribution, we highlight the concept and collaborative intent of the DEVORA Programme and show how it has evolved over the 16 years since its inception. We describe how DEVORA has unified more than 100 researchers (including more than 50 graduate students) and numerous stakeholders to address key issues facing Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland and describe how research findings are being implemented into policy and communicated to stakeholder agencies and the public. We also illustrate the broader influence of the DEVORA Programme and provide some learnings that might benefit others embarking on similar integrated projects, especially those focused on distributed volcanism in and near populated areas.

Auckland↗
USGS2026

Forecasting volcanic activity in Germany—A multi-criteria approach

Igneous activity, including shallow intrusions and volcanism, has the potential to disrupt underground critical infrastructure. Notably, future underground infrastructure projects like high-level radioactive waste repositories must be sited in areas of extremely low disruption probability by igneous activity. In Germany, according to the Repository Site Selection Act of 2017 (Standortauswahlgesetz, or StandAG), areas in which Quaternary volcanism is either present or future volcanic activity is expected within the next 1 million years (m.y.) must be excluded from the site selection process. Although the locations of regions with Quaternary volcanism are reasonably well known in Germany, forecasting potential igneous activity at intraplate volcanic fields is challenging, as many processes and their interactions control the spatial distribution of volcanic centers. Here, a semi-quantitative, multi-criteria approach is proposed for a regional evaluation of the relative potential of future igneous activity in Germany. A variety of geoscientific indicators are used, including seismic anomalies in Earth’s mantle, gravity data, tectonic activity, sutures, ground motion, earthquakes, mantle degassing centers, and geochronological data of volcanic rocks. The indicators describe the sequence of processes from potential melt generation in Earth’s mantle, through ascent and accumulation of melt within the lithosphere, to eruption at Earth’s surface. In total, 15 out of 30 proposed geoscientific indicators are selected and quantified using 20 total assigned parameters. Defined threshold values are used to spatially delimit relevant parameter properties to focus on areas with higher potential of future magmatic activity. To consider uncertainties of parameters and their underlying processes, which are usually more spatially extensive below ground, buffer zones are defined in which values of relevance decrease with increasing distance from the initial lateral shape of a parameter. Normalized parameters are combined into an index, whose spatial value distribution is used to differentiate the relative potential of future igneous activity (within the next 1 m.y.). The sensitivity of the results is shown by varying the weighting factors for the relevant parameters in country-wide index maps. Thereby, profiles illustrate the distribution of the resulting index values and respective index fractions of various parameters. Different index maps for the relative potential of future igneous activity are presented and can be used for hazard assessments.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2025

Spatio-temporal evolution of distributed volcanic fields, case studies—Sierra Chichinautzin and Michoacán-Guanajuato, México

An analysis of 1,375 volcanoes in the Michoacán-Guanajuato (1,148 volcanoes in a 26,200 square-kilometer area) and Sierra Chichinautzin (227 volcanoes in a 3,500 square-kilometer area) volcanic fields in central Mexico identified patterns in the spatial and temporal distribution of past eruptions. A cluster agglomerative hierarchical method and kernel analysis confirmed that the Michoacán-Guanajuato volcanic field comprises four volcanic fields (Valle de Santiago, Uruapan, Apatzingán, and Pátzcuaro volcanic fields) controlled by different fault systems, indicating that it is not a single volcanic field but rather a group of volcanic fields (a “superfield”), each of which has distinct characteristics. In the Sierra Chichinautzin volcanic field, well-constrained isotopic ages were used to build a model of how the spatial distribution of the eruptions has changed over time. Two new 40Ar/39Ar ages from a locally recognized volcanic feature near the town of El Cantil, herein called El Cantil volcano (1,537±17 kilo-annum [ka]) and the volcanic feature at Cerro el Elefante (herein called El Elefante dome) (1,485±92 ka) belong to the oldest volcanic group identified in the Sierra Chichinautzin volcanic field, confirming the timing of the beginning of monogenetic volcanism in the region. Based on the volcanic groups identified in the Sierra Chichinautzin volcanic field, the youngest volcanism (less than 35 ka) is found only in the central-western sector of the field. Principal component analysis determined the directional trends of feeder dikes only for vents <10 ka in the Sierra Chichinautzin volcanic field. Possible magma migration paths through the crust were identified using seismic data from both volcanic fields using an earthquake catalog from 1973 to 2023, which includes 9,016 earthquakes in the Michoacán-Guanajuato volcanic field and 841 in the Sierra Chichinautzin volcanic field. The spatial distribution of the hypocenters does not highlight any trend that could be associated with superficial movement of magma in the Sierra Chichinautzin volcanic field. In the Michoacán-Guanajuato volcanic field, however, eight seismic swarms since 1997 have been detected. These swarms are interpreted to result from ascending magma. Strengthening monitoring systems and reinforcing mitigation measures to address volcanic hazards and risk are important means of preparing for future eruptions in both regions. Analysis such as those herein provide insights as to where an eruption might occur and may help mitigate volcanic hazards.

Michoacán-Guanajuato, Sierra Chichinautzin↗
USGS2023

Stratigraphic notes—Volume 1, 2022

This is the first volume in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) series of reports on stratigraphy entitled “Stratigraphic Notes,” which consists of short papers that highlight stratigraphic studies, changes in stratigraphic nomenclature, and explanations of stratigraphic names and concepts used on published geologic maps. “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 by National Geologic Map Database personnel into Geolex, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/ ). 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 at https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1879 . This first volume ("Stratigraphic notes—Volume 1, 2022") includes articles that provide guidance for those who wish to submit papers to “Stratigraphic Notes,” as well as information on how to make your manuscripts compliant for geologic names reviews and how to organize your paper’s content to facilitate inclusion of new or revised names in Geolex. This volume also includes some specific guidance on conducting geologic names reviews of geologic and hydrogeologic reports.

Professional Paper↗
Compare source metadata on this page
WorkPublishedSource identifierSource
Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century2026-09-02pp1909usgs
The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.2026-08-31pp1890Fusgs
Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic2026-08-28pp1879v3Busgs
Distributed volcanic fields—Patterns, products, processes, and plumbing2026-08-28pp1890Ausgs
Stratigraphic notes—Volume 3, 20262026-07-28pp1879v3usgs
Cambrian and Ordovician stratigraphy, conodont biostratigraphy, and microfacies analysis to support 1:24,000-scale geologic mapping of the southern Lake Champlain valley, New York and Vermont2026-07-28pp1879v3Ausgs
Tephra from Kīlauea’s 2008–2018 lava lake eruption—Proximal deposits and dispersal characteristics2026-06-12pp1867Dusgs
High-resolution magnetic survey using an unoccupied aerial vehicle to constrain buried lava flow geometry, volume, and eruptive history of Little Cones, Crater Flat, Nevada2026-06-05pp1890Rusgs
Evaluation of stream capture related to groundwater pumping, middle Humboldt River Basin, Nevada2026-05-14pp1906usgs
Determining Volcanic Risk in Auckland (DEVORA) Research Programme—A transdisciplinary approach to address the challenge of distributed volcanism in an urban environment2026-03-31pp1890Busgs
Forecasting volcanic activity in Germany—A multi-criteria approach2026-03-02pp1890Cusgs
Spatio-temporal evolution of distributed volcanic fields, case studies—Sierra Chichinautzin and Michoacán-Guanajuato, México2025-11-20pp1890Iusgs
Stratigraphic notes—Volume 1, 20222023-07-07pp1879V1usgs

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.