Difference between revisions of "Aeolian Sand Transport"

From Glen Canyon Dam AMP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 41: Line 41:
 
|style="color:#000;"|
 
|style="color:#000;"|
  
'''Collin et al. 2016:'''
+
[[File:AeolianClassification.jpg|center|500px]] [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/15jan20/Attach_03.pdf]
*Aeolian deposition was found at 4 sites (30%) where partial infilling occurred preventing further erosion.
+
[[File:AeolianCulturalSites.jpg|center|500px]] [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/15jan20/Attach_03.pdf]
*“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.
+
 
 +
Of 358 river-corridor arch sites (RM0-240), 74 (21%) are adjacent and upwind of sandbars receiving HFE sand (Type 1 and Type 2a). 43 of these sites are currently blocked by vegetation from receiving aeolian sand.  
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 54: Line 55:
  
 
|}
 
|}
 
  
 
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top;"|
 
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top;"|
Line 82: Line 82:
 
|style="color:#000;"|
 
|style="color:#000;"|
  
 +
'''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.”
  
 
|}
 
|}

Revision as of 12:10, 23 March 2017




---
---
---

Updates

AeolianClassification.jpg
[1]
AeolianCulturalSites.jpg
[2]

Of 358 river-corridor arch sites (RM0-240), 74 (21%) are adjacent and upwind of sandbars receiving HFE sand (Type 1 and Type 2a). 43 of these sites are currently blocked by vegetation from receiving aeolian sand.

Questions

  • 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?

Links

Presentations and Papers

2016

2014

Other Stuff

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.”