Difference between revisions of "Aeolian Sand Transport"

Of 358 river-corridor arch sites (RM0-240), 74 (21%) are adjacent and upwind of sandbars receiving HFE sand (Type 1 and Type 2a) that don't have some sort of topographic barrier. Of these, 43 are currently blocked by vegetation from receiving aeolian sand.

• Cultural Resources Page
• Sediment Page

• Does Aeolian sand transport research support the use of anthropogenic sand bar building as a means to provide a source of aeolian sands to preserve and protect archaeological sites?
• Or would current stabilization measures carried out by the NPS be more likely to be successful, predictable, and immediate at protecting archaeological sites?

2016

• Collins et al. 2016. Relations between rainfall–runoff-induced erosion and aeolian deposition at archaeological sites in a semi-arid dam-controlled river corridor, Earth Surf. Process. Landforms
• East et. al. 2016. Conditions and processes affecting sand resources at archeological sites in the Colorado River corridor below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper

2014

• Gully annealing by Aeolian sediment: Field and remote-sensing investigation in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons (Sankey)

Collin et al. 2016:

• Aeolian deposition was found at 4 sites (30%) where partial infilling occurred preventing further erosion.
• “Despite this promise for archaeological site preservation, our observations show that gully annealing can only occur under a specific set of conditions related to fluvial sand availability and wind transport direction.”