Difference between revisions of "Aeolian Sand Transport"

Of 358 river-corridor arch sites (RM 0-240), 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 sites are currently blocked by vegetation from receiving aeolian sand.

• Cultural Resources Page
• Sediment Page

• Does aeolian sand transport research support the use of sand bar building from HFEs as a means to provide a source of aeolian sands to preserve and protect archaeological sites?

2017

• Fluvial-aeolian sediment connectivity during the current HFE protocol: alteration on fluvial-aeolian sediment connectivity in Grand Canyon PPT

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
• Linkages between controlled floods, eddy sandbar dynamics, and riparian vegetation along the Colorado River in Marble Canyon, Arizona, USA

2015

• Conditions and Processes affecting sand resources at archaeological sites

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.”
• "In this study, aeolian deposition, even with anthropogenic forcing via fluvial sand-bar building high flow dam releases, was found to be generally insufficient to offset the effects of precipitation-induced gullying."