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.
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?
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.”
