## 3 Results
### Relationship between Burial and Catchment Area
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **Counties** & **Max burial \%** & **Local Minimum** & **Local Maximum** & **Ascending Slope** & **Ascending Intercept** & **Desending Slope** & **Desending Intercept** \\ \hline  & Washington, DC & 79.4 (3.0) & 0.1 & 1.2 & 37.20 & 10.10 & \(-\)9.28 & 65.21 \\
**Tie 1** & Arlington County, VA & 47.4 (3.5) & 0.1 & 1.3 & 21.75 & 18.34 & \(-\)13.30 & 65.60 \\  & Independent Clusters, VA & 78.0 (4.0) & 0.2 & 0.8 & 36.09 & 17.82 & 24.8\({}^{\dagger}\) & 34.96\({}^{\dagger}\) \\ \hline  & Prince George’s County, MD & 15.0 (1.3) & 0.2 & 1.2 & 7.36 & 6.90 & \(-\)3.71 & 19.59 \\
**Tie 2** & Montgomery County, MD & 129 (0.8) & 0.2 & 0.8 & 11.06 & 4.75 & \(-\)4.48 & 16.88 \\  & Pairless County, VA & 18.0 (1.3) & 0.25 & 1.3 & 9.95 & 6.64 & \(-\)9.33 & 26.89 \\ \hline  & Frederick County, MD & 9.1 (3.5) & 0.35 & 1.4 & 0.89 & 3.35 & 0.22 \({}^{\dagger}\) & 4.30 \({}^{\dagger}\) \\
**Tie 3** & London County, VA & 73.0 (0.2) & 0.25 & 1.3 & 3.61 & 1.88 & \(-\)1.62 & 8.30 \\  & Prince William County, VA & 9.0 (1.0) & 0.15 & 1.0 & 5.25 & 4.34 & \(-\)2.63 & 11.83 \\ \hline  & Washington County, MD & 8.2 (2.3) & 0.1 & 2.2 & 1.74 & 1.42 & \(-\)2.90 & 13.46 \\
**Tie 4** & Jefferson County, NV & 12.6 (0.1) & 0.2 & 0.8 & 1.78 \({}^{\dagger}\) & 3.19 \({}^{\dagger}\) & \(-\)0.08 \({}^{\dagger}\) & 4.48 \({}^{\dagger}\) \\  & Clarke County, VA & 3.8 (2.2) & 0.7 & 2.1 & 0.85 & \(-\)0.01 & \(-\)1.12 \({}^{\dagger}\) & 5.16 \({}^{\dagger}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Characteristics of the distribution of burial prediction in relation to catchment area for the sixteen study counties. Results include analyses for both the ascending and descending limbs of the burial distribution. Results with daggers (\({}^{\dagger}\)) are for models where the slope of the ascending or descending limbs was not significant. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Counties** & **Limb** & **FAC** & **R\({}^{2}\)** & **SST** & **SLOPE** & **R\({}^{2}\)** & **SST** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Tier 1**} & Washington, DC & Ascending & *** & 0.91 & 2183.87 & *** & 0.95 & 2183.9 \\  & & Desending & * & 0.18 & 5624.6 & *** & - & - \\  & & Ascending & *** & 0.65 & 1335.17 & *** & 0.96 & 1335.17 \\  & & Desending & ** & 0.38 & 4672.4 & *** & 0.62 & 4672.4 \\  & & Ascending & ** & 0.81 & 450.05 & -- & - & - \\  & & Desending & ** & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Tier 2**} & Prince George’s County, MD & Ascending & *** & 0.86 & 69.312 & *** & 0.95 & 69.313 \\  & & Desending & *** & 0.75 & 210.571 & *** & 0.71 & 210.57 \\  & & Ascending & *** & 0.96 & 35.493 & *** & 0.99 & 35.492 \\  & & Desending & *** & 0.97 & 379.15 & *** & 0.87 & 379.16 \\  & & Fairfax County, VA & Ascending & *** & 0.86 & 126.375 & *** & 0.99 & 126.374 \\  & & Desending & *** & 0.96 & 503.26 & ** & 0.45 & 503.27 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Tier 3**} & Frederick County, MD & Ascending & *** & 0.86 & 1.01895 & -- & - & - \\  & & Desending & - & - & - & - & - \\  & & Ascending & *** & 0.89 & 16.044 & *** & 0.96 & 16.0435 \\  & & Desending & *** & 0.68 & 39.097 & *** & 0.56 & 39.097 \\  & & Ascending & *** & 0.92 & 18.042 & *** & 0.98 & 18.0419 \\  & & Desending & *** & 0.88 & 114.503 & *** & 0.60 & 114.502 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Tier 4**} & Washington County, MD & Ascending & *** & 0.81 & 33.0171 & *** & 0.64 & 33.017 \\  & & Desending & ** & 0.46 & 41.182 & -- & - & - \\  & & Ascending & -- & - & - & - & - \\  & & Desending & -- & - & - & - & - \\  & & Ascending & *** & 0.60 & 3.4154 & -- & - & - \\  & & Desending & * & 0.35 & 10.0001 & -- & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
Notes Significance codes: 0 ***\({}^{\prime}\), 0.001 ***\({}^{\prime}\), 0.01 *\({}^{\prime}\), no significance \({}^{\prime}\)–.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results from linear models consisting of burial–FAC, and burial– SLOPE.