We investigated the role submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) plays in the delivery of nutrients and copper to the Elizabeth River (Virginia) estuary, a major subestuary of lower Chesapeake Bay. Using an approach based on radium isotopes, we concluded that two distinct sources of groundwater were equally impacting the estuary: a surface (marsh) aquifer and deep aquifer source each with a unique 228 Ra/ 226 Ra activity ratio. Considering each of these sources, we calculated an SGD flux of 1 ϫ 10 6 m 3 d Ϫ1 (Ϯ10%), which represented ϳ6% of the SGD flux for the entire Chesapeake Bay and ϳ5% of the James River, a major source of freshwater to lower Chesapeake Bay. SGD-derived dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP) fluxes averaged 4.5 (Ϯ4.6) and 0.16 (Ϯ0.17) mmol m Ϫ2 d Ϫ1 , respectively, and compared well with area-normalized fluxes to Chesapeake Bay. In contrast, SGD-derived Cu input of 730 (Ϯ390) kg yr Ϫ1 was a relatively small source of Cu (ϳ3%) to the Elizabeth estuary given that surface water inputs, such as antifouling paints associated with naval operations, are a major component of the Cu budget for this system. These findings were in general agreement with prior studies of SGD for this region.Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) is often ignored when constructing geochemical budgets for elements in nearshore environments, mainly because the volume flux is difficult to estimate. However, many studies indicate that SGD may carry significant quantities of nutrients and trace metals to the ocean Moore 1996;Krest et al. 2000;Montlucon and Sanudo-Wilhelmy 2001). In the case of nutrients, SGD has been the principal mechanism for eutrophication in many coastal embayments throughout the world (e.g., Valiela et al. 1990).Various approaches for quantifying SGD include water budgets, seepage meters, and natural tracers (see review by Burnett et al. 2001). The water budget approach, which attempts to balance aquifer inputs (precipitation) with losses (evapotranspiration), often results in a large uncertainty, since SGD is the difference between two very large numbers (e.g., Cambareri and Eichner 1998). Seepage meters, though useful for understanding local-scale patterns of SGD, are labor intensive and therefore require significant effort for quantifying SGD on large spatial scales (e.g., Michael et al.