New Publication:
The Geology of Virginia — Special Publication 18
 Research into Virginia’s geology has been conducted for well over two hundred years. This volume provides a modern overview of Virginia’s geology and updates the geologic community on recent advances made in understanding Virginia’s geologic history.
This volume is intended as a resource for professional geologists, graduate students, and upper-level undergraduates. Geologists unfamiliar with Virginia will be able to use this volume as a primer to the region. The volume brings together, as a coherent package, information that is currently widely dispersed throughout the geologic literature.
The hydrogeology of Virginia documented herein is in two parts. Part 1 consists of an overview and description of the hydrogeology within each aquifer system in the Commonwealth. Part 2 includes topics of current relevance including: 1. the Chesapeake Bay impact structure, 2. subsidence/compaction in the Coastal Plain, 3. groundwater age and aquifer susceptibility, 4. the occurrence of groundwater at depth in fractured-rock and karst terrains, and 5. hydrologic response of wells to earthquakes around the world. |
New Publication:
Application of a weighted regression model for reporting nutrient and sediment concentrations, fluxes, and trends in concentration and flux for the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Water-Quality Monitoring Network, results through water year 2012
 In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, estimated fluxes of nutrients and sediment from the bay’s nontidal tributaries into the estuary are the foundation of decision making to meet reductions prescribed by the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and are often the basis for refining scientific understanding of the watershed-scale processes that influence the delivery of these constituents to the bay. Two regression-based flux and trend estimation models, ESTIMATOR and Weighted Regressions on Time, Discharge, and Season (WRTDS), were compared using data from 80 watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Water-Quality Monitoring Network (CBNTN). The watersheds range in size from 62 to 70,189 square kilometers and record lengths range from 6 to 28 years. ESTIMATOR is a constant-parameter model that estimates trends only in concentration; WRTDS uses variable parameters estimated with weighted regression, and estimates trends in both concentration and flux. WRTDS had greater explanatory power than ESTIMATOR, with the greatest degree of improvement evident for records longer than 25 years (30 stations; improvement in median model R2= 0.06 for total nitrogen, 0.08 for total phosphorus, and 0.05 for sediment) and the least degree of improvement for records of less than 10 years, for which the two models performed nearly equally. Flux bias statistics were comparable or lower (more favorable) for WRTDS for any record length; for 30 stations with records longer than 25 years, the greatest degree of improvement was evident for sediment (decrease of 0.17 in median statistic) and total phosphorus (decrease of 0.05). The overall between-station pattern in concentration trend direction and magnitude for all constituents was roughly similar for both models. A detailed case study revealed that trends in concentration estimated by WRTDS can operationally be viewed as a less-constrained equivalent to trends in concentration estimated by ESTIMATOR. Estimates of annual mean flow-adjusted (ESTIMATOR) and flow-normalized (WRTDS) concentration for years initially constituting the end of a water-quality record showed a similar degree of variability as data for additional years were incrementally added and the initial estimates “aged.” On the basis of the results of this broad comparison of the two models, the U.S. Geological Survey is adopting WRTDS as the primary model for estimating constituent fluxes and trends throughout the CBNTN. Nutrient and sediment flux and trend estimates, based on WRTDS, are summarized narratively and tabulated in appendixes for all stations for which fluxes or trends were reported through water year 2012. |
U.S. Department of the Interior
| U.S. Geological Survey
