Difference between revisions of "Aeolian Sand Transport"

Revision as of 12:10, 23 March 2017

---	---	---

Updates
[1] [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
Cultural Resources Page Sediment Page
Presentations and Papers
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)
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.”

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 |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;"|
@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 |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.”
 |}