Yesterday, I mentioned the results of the Virginia DGMR symposium's breakout session on Blue Ridge geology. Today, for completeness' sake, I'll also post the results of the other two breakout sessions (one on the Valley and Ridge province, and one on water issues):

Session 2: Unresolved Issues in Valley and Ridge Geology
In general, the consensus was that continued support for detailed geologic mapping is needed, which provides essential information for a number of major issues that need to be resolved. Major issues discussed during the Breakout Session generally fell into one or more (much overlap) of the following categories:

Geologic Framework:
Need to find better ways to communicate the value of geologic mapping (e.g. beyond the anticipated development along the I-81 Corridor).
Better communication between geologists working in the BR and VR regarding the timing and influence of major tectonic events; presently somewhat disconnected.
Evaluate the influence of basement normal faults.
Better understanding of the sequencing of thrust faults in the VR.
Better understanding of the transition between brittle and ductile fracturing in the VR.
Influence of the Rome Trough on VR structural framework.
Better understand the link between Allegheny Front and BR overthrust.
Better define stratigraphic units with economic and geohazard potential that are currently lumped (e.g. SDu, Ols, etc).
More focus on deep stratigraphy, where there is potential for deep saline aquifers that may provide geologic storage of CO2.

Geologic Hazards:
Identify, evaluate, and prioritize geologic hazards in VR.
Karst/sinkhole digital database; better understanding of the interplay between geologic controls and land use.
Large block slides, recognizing risk areas.
Better understand the nature of brittle on ductile fractures in context of subsidence risk along the western margin of the Blue Ridge
Quaternary history (e.g. evaluation of flood risks)

Economic:
Better understand the distribution of high-Ca limestones; not just limited to the middle-Ordovician units.
Stratigraphic relationships between Devonian shale units (e.g. Millboro, Marcellus)
Evaluate occurrences and distribution of non-polishing aggregate resources.
Evaluate occurrences and distribution of high purity silica (glass sands); (e.g. depositional character of the Oriskany).

Other:
Source and structural implications of Eocene-age igneous rocks (Highland Co) and alkaline dikes (Augusta Co).
Need for improved educational outreach.

Session 3: Integrating Geologic and Hydrologic studies - Benefits and Challenges
The group was divided into geologic information providers, hydrologic information providers, and hydrogeologic information users. The provider groups developed a list of the most important types of information they provide. The User group developed a list of the most important types of information they need. Based on the results of this exercise and the interest of the group, the remainder of the meeting focused on addressing gaps in available information for end users.

Geologic data providers provide:
Geologic formation information - descriptions, structure data, "cover" materials
Fracture/joint data and analysis
Detailed and regional maps
Ground truth on karst features

Hydrologic data providers provide:
Well data - location, yield, logs, geochemistry
Spring data - location, discharge, geochemistry, dye trace results
Water use information - ground water and surface water
Technical /Assistance
Hydrographs

Users of hydrogeologic information need:
Geologic maps at an appropriate scale.
Water well data - yield, depth to water table, etc.
Hydrographs

Users noted the following characteristics of information would be helpful:
Widely available and accessible information (Internet)
Standardized - uniformity of format and methodology (example pumping tests) on at least a statewide basis
Geologic descriptions and maps could include a characterization of saprolite.

Providers and users believed there was good agreement between the type of information that is being provided and that which is needed. The clear problem was recognized to be a lack of data in many places and the lack of easily accessible information (digital format, available on internet)
To address this problem, it was suggested the users of hydrogeologic information may be able to provide some assistance, such as:
Well data - construction characteristics, yield, drawdown, geochemistry over time
Soil data - maps, field notes
GIS Capabilities and data processing - especially county governments.

An identified issue:
Disconnect in some cases between geologists and soil scientists

Next Steps:
Water for America initiative may be an opportunity for geologic and hydrologic data providers to work together at the state level and provide hydrogeologic information to end users.

Based on USGS efforts in Northern Shenandoah Valley, integrated studies have both benefits and challenges. A future meeting to highlight these may be helpful to state level geologists and hydrologists.

Labels: caves, conferences, geology, valley and ridge, virginia, water resources