Late Cenozoic Sedimentary Evolution of Pagri‐Duoqing Co graben,Southern End of Yadong‐Gulu Rift,Southern Tibet

The north trending rifts in southern Tibet represent the E–W extension of the plateau and confirming the initial rifting age is key to the study of mechanics of these rifts. Pagri–Duoqing Co graben is located at southern end of Yadong–Gulu rift, where the late Cenozoic sediments is predominately composed of fluvio-lacustrine and moraine. Based on the sedimentary composition and structures, the fluvio-lacustrine could be divided into three facies, namely, lacustrine, lacustrine fan delta and alluvial fan. The presence of paleo-currents and conglomerate components and the provenance of the strata around the graben indicate that it was Tethys Himalaya and High Himalaya. Electron spin resonance (ESR) dating and paleo-magnetic dating suggest that the age of the strata ranges from ca. 1.2 Ma to ca. 8 Ma. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating showed that moraine in the graben mainly developed from around 181–109 ka (late Middle Pleistocene). Combining previous data about the Late Cenozoic strata in other basins, it is suggested that 8–15 Ma may be the initial rifting time. Together with sediment distribution and drainage system, the sedimentary evolution of Pagri could be divided into four stages. The graben rifted at around 15–8 Ma due to the eastern graben-boundary fault resulting in the appearance of a paleolake. Following by a geologically quiet period about 8–2.5 Ma, the paleolake expanded from east to west at around 8–6 Ma reaching its maximum at ca. 6 Ma. Then, the graben was broken at about 2.5 Ma. At last, the development of the glacier separated the graben into two parts that were Pagri and Duoqing Co since the later stages of the Middle Pleistocene. The evolution process suggested that the former three stages were related to the tectonic movement, which determined the basement of the graben, while the last stage may have been influenced by glacial activity caused by climate change.     

Using analytic element models to delineate drinking water source protection areas

Since 1999, Ohio EPA hydrogeologists have used two analytic element models (AEMs), the proprietary software GFLOW and U.S. EPA's WhAEM, to delineate protection areas for 535 public water systems. Both models now use the GFLOW2001 solution engine, integrate well with Geographic Information System (GIS) technology, have a user-friendly graphical interface, are capable of simulating a variety of complex hydrogeologic settings, and do not rely upon a model grid. These features simplify the modeling process and enable AEMs to bridge the gap between existing simplistic delineation methods and more complex numerical models. Ohio EPA hydrogeologists demonstrated that WhAEM2000 and GFLOW2000 were capable of producing capture zones similar to more widely accepted models by applying the AEMs to eight sites that had been previously delineated using other methods. After the Ohio EPA delineated protection areas using AEMs, more simplistic delineation methods used by other states (volumetric equation and arbitrary fixed radii) were applied to the same water systems to compare the differences between various methods. GIS software and two-tailed paired t-tests were used to quantify the differences in protection areas and analyze the data. The results of this analysis demonstrate that AEMs typically produce significantly different protection areas than the most simplistic delineation methods, in terms of total area and shape. If the volumetric equation had been used instead of AEMs, Ohio would not have protected 265 km2 of critical upgradient area and would have overprotected 269 km2 of primarily downgradient land. Since an increasing number of land-use restrictions are being tied to drinking water protection areas, this analysis has broad policy implications.