Cultural Heritage and Coastal Resiliency: An Assessment of Archaeological Sites in North Carolina By Matthew J Harrup July,2022 Director of Dissertation: Charles Ewen Major Department: Department of Coastal Studies ABSTRACT Climate change is impacting archaeological sites on North Carolina’s coast. Sea-level rise and landscape inundation are often emphasized as the primary threat to cultural heritage from climate change; erosion is identified as the more significant hazard for archaeological sites because of its deterioration of the landscape. A meta-analysis of coastal vulnerability assessments provides a framework for cultural resource managers to address heritage sites under their management. An interdisciplinary assessment applies decadal projections to rank North Carolina’s 5000-plus coastal archaeological sites by vulnerability to erosion and cultural significance, establishing a foundation for near-term planning. Finally, a case study examines a major archaeological site in North Carolina experiencing rapid erosion. Innovative mitigation measures deployed at the site are considered within the context of archaeology and the implications for future research. Cultural Heritage and Coastal Resiliency: An Assessment of Archaeological Sites in North Carolina A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Coastal Studies East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in Coastal Resource Management By Matthew J Harrup July, 2022 © Matthew J. Harrup, 2022 Cultural Heritage and Coastal Resiliency: An Assessment of Archaeological Sites in North Carolina By Matthew J. Harrup APPROVED BY: Director of Dissertation Charles Ewen PhD Committee Member I. Randolph Daniel PhD Committee Member David Mallinson PhD Committee Member Burrell Montz PhD Committee Member John Mintz Chair of the Department Coastal Studies Sidartha Mitra PhD Interim Dean of the Graduate School Kathleen T Cox, PhD Acknowledgements I would like to thank those who have helped me complete this dissertation: dissertation director Charles Ewen; committee members Randolph Daniel, David Mallinson, Burrell Montz and John Mintz; fellow grad students Tom Vogel, Brian Bartlett, and Dominic Bush; the staff at North Carolina Office of State Archaeology; the staff at BrunswickTown/Fort Anderson State Historic Site; the faculty and staff of the Coastal Resources Management program and the Department of Coastal Studies, especially Sidartha Mitra and Shelia Ellis; and Levi and Roman Harrup. Table of Contents List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1: Coastal Vulnerability Assessments for Cultural Resource Managers: Systematic Approaches and Key Considerations .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Works Cited ............................................................................................................................................................................................22 Chapter 2: A Regional Vulnerability Assessment of archaeological sites on North Carolina’s coast ......................................24 Works Cited ............................................................................................................................................................................................45 Chapter 3: A Vulnerability Assessment of BrunswickTown/Fort Anderson State Historic Site, Brunswick County, North Carolina, USA .........................................................................................................................................................................................47 Works Cited ............................................................................................................................................................................................72 Conclusion: .............................................................................................................................................................................................74 Appendix: Archaeological Site Vulnerability Data ...........................................................................................................................79 List of Tables Table 1.1 Ranges for Vulnerability Ranking of Variables on the US Atlantic Coast ..................................................................14 Table 1.2 Selected vulnerability assessments .....................................................................................................................................17 Table 2.1 Sea Level Rise Projections, Outer Banks, NC .................................................................................................................32 Table 2.2 Vulnerability ..........................................................................................................................................................................41 Table 2.3 Vulnerability scores ..............................................................................................................................................................42 Table 3.1 Sea Level Rise Projections, Wilmington, NC...................................................................................................................64 List of Figures Figure 0.1 Archaeological Sites Coastal North Carollina................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 1.1 Pass, Scope, and Data relationship...................................................................................................................................19 Figure 2.1 Archaeological Sites below 30 feet elevation ..................................................................................................................31 Figure 2.2 Low sediment bank with exposed shell midden. Currituck County. ..........................................................................33 Figure 2.3 Eroding high sediment bank. Roanoke Island. ..............................................................................................................34 Figure 2.4 Vulnerable Sites Coastal North Carolina.........................................................................................................................43 Figure 2.5 Selected Vulnerable Sites ...................................................................................................................................................44 Figure 3.1 USGS NC 75min topographic map. ................................................................................................................................53 Figure 3.2 c.1765 Sauthier map of Brunswick Town .......................................................................................................................55 Figure 3.3 Excavation of colonial wharf between tides ...................................................................................................................57 Figure 3.4 Cypress trough (yellow arrow) incised in clay floor.......................................................................................................58 Figure 3.5 Catch basin for flowing tar ................................................................................................................................................58 Figure 3.6 Foundation of beehive oven .............................................................................................................................................59 Figure 3.7 Control points for georefernced map. St. Phillips Church...........................................................................................60 Figure 3.8 Control points for georefrenced map. St. Phillips church marked .............................................................................60 Figure 3.9 Streamflow in commercial port area depicting areas for potential erosion ...............................................................61 Figure 3.10 Lidar image of BTFA shoreline ....................................................................................................................................62 Figure 3.11 Sauthier map depicting historic shoreline .....................................................................................................................62 Figure 3.12 GPR image showing anomalies of tavern structure ....................................................................................................63 Figure 3.13 Image of potential ballast pile (a) and shipwreck (b), BTFA waterfront .................................................................63 Figure 3.14 Passing container ship; ARM in foreground ................................................................................................................65 Figure 3.15 Wave attenuators and riprap near Battery A. ...............................................................................................................66 Figure 3.16 Attenuating waves at BTFA ............................................................................................................................................67 Figure 3.17 Sediment accretion at BTFA ...........................................................................................................................................68 Figure 3.18 Light blue indicating inundation with 0.5m sea level rise...........................................................................................69 Figure 3.19 Georeferenced Sauthier’s Map, southern port area ....................................................................................................70 Introduction Vulnerability of coastal cultural heritage sites from climate change has been a global concern for the past two decades (Anderson, 2017; Caffrey, Beavers, & Hoffman, 2018; Daire, et al., 2013; Dupont & Eetvelde, 2013). Identifying which climate-change effects deserve attention and prioritizing action has become a concern for cultural resource managers, researchers, and stakeholders (Daly, 2014; Forino, Mackee, & von Meding, 2016; Westley, Bell, Renouf, & Tarasov, 2012). Archaeological sites are distinct from other heritage sites. Preservation and integrity are critical conditions for all cultural heritage; preservation and integrity of archaeological sites are dependent on the conservation of its terrestrial environment (Hardesty & Little, 2000). Coastal North Carolina is home to over 5000 known archaeological sites vulnerable to climate change (Fig 0.1). Sea-level rise and accelerated erosion are the two effects of climate change directly impacting coastal archaeological sites. Although marine transgression and landscape inundation are destructive events, erosion is prioritized here for sites in coastal North Carolina. Inundation does not necessarily eliminate any chance of preservation; erosion removes the conditions on which sites depend for integrity and preservation. This motivates the primary research questions for this dissertation: Which sites are most vulnerable to erosion? and Which sites are most vulnerable within an actionable timeframe? Secondary research questions are How should a cultural resource manager approach constructing a vulnerability assessment? and What can be learned from erosion and mitigation at a major archaeological site? Figure 0.1 Archaeological Sites Coastal North Carolina; Image courtesy Lea Abbott Global mean sea-level (GMSL) is largely a result of warming oceans and land ice mass loss. Relative sea- level rise (RSLR) varies between regions, driven by glacio-isostatic adjustment (GIA), ocean dynamics, and other processes (Kopp, Horton, Kemp, & Tobaldi, 2015). North Carolina’s Science panel endorsed a projected 1-meter sea-level rise by 2100 for planning purposes (N.C. Coastal Resources Comission Science Panel on Coastal Hazards, 2010). More recent studies refine those studies temporally (decadal) and regionally (Outer Banks, Wilmington). Kopp projects a highly likely rise of 24-59 cm in Duck, NC by 2050, and 18-58 cm in Wilmington by 2050. Studies of erosion rates in North Carolina’s estuarine system (The Neuse River and a Tar-Pamlico River sub-estuary) find an average of .5-meters per year for all shoreline types (Eulie, Corbett, & Walsh, 2017; Riggs and Ames, 2013). These rates are also relative to 2 local conditions, for example the height of sediment banks or in the case of BrunswickTown/Fort Anderson on the Cape Fear River, river dredging, and wave action generated by passing vessels . Coastal vulnerability assessments were developed in the United States Geological Service (USGS) to project potential physical responses from shorelines based on relative (local or regional) sea-level rise projections (Thieler & Hammar-Klose,1999). This effective method creates a numeric value system which can weigh incongruous variables of vulnerability and is expressed as a Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI). Cultural resource managers have adapted and modified CVI’s in the last decade, assessing heritage sites in diverse shorelines around the globe (Daire, et al., 2013; Reeder-Myers, 2015; Johnson, Marrack, & Dolan, 2015). This innovation has proven effective in identifying likely effects and sites potentially needing mitigation. Resource managers naturally assess sites within their purview, but without standardization of methodology results have been uneven. This dissertation examines vulnerability assessments by cultural resource managers, develops a modified CVI for North Carolina, and presents a case study of erosion, mitigation, and archaeology at BrunswickTown/Fort Anderson. A “journal” or “chapter” approach is employed in this dissertation. Each chapter is meant to stand alone for publication, while informing the other chapters. Although each chapter addresses vulnerability differently, a degree of redundancy is unavoidable. The chapters are organized in a “3 Pass” hierarchy of increasingly narrowing scope. This organization is adopted from a proposed method of approaching vulnerability assessments of coastal sites (Westley, 2019). A 1st Pass assessment is usually a broad and geographically large analysis, for example the southeastern coast of the United States. 2 nd Pass assessments address regional or local issues; 3rd Pass assessments address specific sites or tightly constrained groupings of sites. Chapter 1, Coastal Vulnerability Assessments for Cultural Resource Managers: Systematic Approaches and Key Considerations provides cultural resource managers and planners with a framework for beginning vulnerability assessments. Published assessments were evaluated for effectiveness, synchronization of data and geographic size. Key characteristics of effective assessments are identified as appropriate scale, data 3 selection and data resolution. The identification and incorporation of recent, local studies of sea -level rise projections, erosion rates, or other pertinent data is a best practice. The inclusion of cultural value rankings is endorsed as a tool for refining vulnerability assessments, especially for large datasets despite limitations and spatial variation. Two studies are considered as 1 st Pass assessments of the coastal United States (Anderson, 2017; Reeder-Myers, 2015). Chapter 2, A regional vulnerability assessment: archaeological sites on North Carolina’s coast is a 2nd Pass, regional assessment which prioritizes identifying sites vulnerable to erosion over inundation by leveraging relative sea-level rise projections and local erosion rates. Elevation, distance to shoreline data and cultural significance are used in constructing a modified CVI. Using short-term projections, the modified CVI narrows over 5000 potential sites vulnerable to climate change to an actionable 958 sites vulnerable to erosion by 2050. 21 sites are found to be very highly vulnerable, 169 highly vulnerable, 461 moderately vulnerable, and 307 having low vulnerability. Underscored is the necessity of refining analyses further to the local or site level, where the condition of specific shorelines, especially hardened ones, will affect vulnerability. Chapter 3, A vulnerability assessment of BrunswickTown/Fort Anderson State Historic Site, Brunswick County, North Carolina, USA is a 3rd Pass case study which considers the local processes and mitigation efforts which are endangering this important site. BrunswickTown/Fort Anderson (BTFA) is experiencing heavy erosion from sea-level rise, channel dredging, passing container ships, wave action, and increased storm activity. The commitment of enormous resources resulting in innovative erosion control measures such as wave attenuators which also provide oyster habitats are likely to mitigate site deterioration for a large portion of the site. Here the archaeology of BTFA is considered within the context of these protective measures. Low-lying areas remain vulnerable to erosion and inundation, however, including a colonial- period port and a potential antebellum slave quarter. Prioritizing these areas for research, more accurate 4 mapping of their archaeological features, monitoring shoreline erosion and accretion along the waterfront, and stakeholder collaboration provide a sound basis for preserving BTFA’s cultural heritage. A 3 Pass organization facilitates the identification of erosion as the most significant threat for North Carolina’s coastal sites from climate change. What was previously a vaguely defined problem of how to address thousands of sites being inundated within a hundred years can now be narrowed to less than one thousand sites at risk of eroding by 2050, with less than two hundred being highly vulnerable. This identification frames the issue with a much higher utility for managers, planners, and stakeholders. It also provides a framework for further refining assessments by examining best practices for CVI construction for cultural resource managers and examining the innovative measures undertaken at BTFA. 5 Chapter 1: Coastal Vulnerability Assessments for Cultural Resource Managers: Systematic Approaches and Key Considerations Abstract In the past decade, cultural resource managers have begun adopting vulnerability assessments as a tool for determining the resiliency of cultural heritage sites in coastal regions. Here published coastal vulnerability assessments are categorized using a “3 Pass” organization relating to broads-scale, regional, and site- specific assessments. Key characteristics of practical assessments include: ? Appropriate spatial scale ? Adopting local physical data ? Data resolution ? Selective socio-economic data ? Measures of significance The inclusion of difficult cultural value rankings, thus far largely avoided, will expand assessments at regional and site-specific level by providing managers with a more refined toolkit for resource allocation and decisions on mitigation. . Introduction Almost five decades have passed since the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972) affirmed the interaction between natural processes, anthropogenic activities, and the necessity of preserving cultural resources. Since then, accelerated marine transgression and coastal erosion as products of human-induced climate change have concerned cultural resource managers and stakeholders (UNESCO, 1972; Dawson,2011; Erlandson, 2012; ICOMOS, 2020). The relatively recent adoption and accessibility of technologies such as GIS and remote sensing in the field of cultural resource management (CRM), along with increasing public awareness of the potential threats related to climate change and a willingness by cultural resource managers to use interdisciplinary methods of assessment have resulted in a p roliferation of coastal vulnerability studies focused on tangible cultural resources. Without a standard methodology, including an agreed upon system of determining vulnerability, and definition of terms, the effectiveness of published assessments is uneven. Wide variation exists in methods, data, and purpose, leading in some cases to mismatched scale, data, and processes. Despite the twenty years since Hammar-Klose and Theiler published their Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI), applying the CVI to cultural resources is still generally in a “first-pass” embryonic stage (Westley, 2019). Westley advocates for a 3-tiered assessment of coastal resources which is adopted here: a large-scale 1st pass to identify major hazards; a 2nd pass which addresses regional vulnerability; followed by 3 rd pass, site-specific assessments (Westley, 2019). What are other methods and key characteristics for cultural resource managers to consider before constructing vulnerability assessments? How do scales, data, and other variables correspond with one another? This study uses published vulnerability assessments to provide cultural resource managers with a basis for building CVI’s. 7 Background While no standardized methodology exists for vulnerability assessments of coastal cultural resources, the groundwork is in place based on the CVI developed by the United State Geological Survey (USGS) along with guiding documents from cultural heritage management institutions. Coastal vulnerability assessments took shape largely within the USGS in 1990 with Gornitz’ vulnerability assessment of the East Coast of the United States to sea-level rise. (Gornitz, 1990). Gornitz also published A coastal hazards database for the U.S. West Coast and The development of a coastal vulnerability assessment database, vulnerability to sea-level rise in the U.S. southeast (Gornitz, 1994). He followed this with a geographically refined study in 2001, Impacts of sea level rise in New York City metropolitan area. Hammar-Klose and Thieler’s 2001 publication Coastal Vulnerability to sea-level rise; A preliminary database for the U.S. Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico coasts introduced the Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI), the basis for many vulnerability indices and methods used today. The CVI ranks geological and physical process variables that contribute to coastal vulnerability such as erosion and inundation: Tidal Range (influences inundation); Wave Height (associated with inundation); Coastal slope (linked to shoreline retreat and inundation); Shoreline Erosion Rates; Geomorphology (linked to erodibility of a shoreline); and Historical Rates of Relative Sea-Level Rise (linked to eustatic sea-level rise and isostatic processes) (Thieler & Hammar-Klose, 1999; Thieler & Hammar-Klose, 2000) (Table 1.1). Each physical variable was assigned a numeric value based on the vulnerability of a shoreline. For example, the rocky- cliff shorelines of the northeastern United States, with relatively slower rates of sea-level rise, were considered less vulnerable than the Gulf Coast sandy shorelines, which have higher rates of sea -level rise and higher rates of erosion. The CVI is expressed mathematically as the “the square root of the geometric mean of these values, or the square root of the product of the ranked variable divided by the total number of variables, or CVI= ? ((a*b*c*d*e*f)/6), where a=geomorphology, b=coastal slope, c=relative sea -level rise 8 rate, d=shoreline erosion/accretion rate, e= mean tide range, and f=mean wave height. The following is an example of geologic and physical process variable ranking: Variable Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 1 2 3 4 5 Rocky Medium Low cliffs, Cobble Barrier beaches, cliffed cliffs, Glacial drift, Beaches, Sand beaches, Salt GEOMORPHOLOGY coasts, fjords Indented Alluvial Estuary, marsh, Mud flats, coasts plains Lagoon Deltas, Mangrove, Coral reefs SHORELINE >2.0 1.0-2.0 -1.0-1.0 -2.0- -1.0 <-2.0 EORSION/ACCRETION (m/yr) COASTAL SLOPE (%) >2.0 1.20-0.90 0.90-0.60 0.60-0.30 <0.30 RELATIVE SEA- <1.8 1.8-2.5 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.4 >3.4 LEVEL CHANGE (mm/yr) MEAN WAVE HEIGHT <0.55 0.55-0.85 0.85-1.05 1.05-1.25 >1.25 (m) MEAN TIDE RANGE >6.0 4.0-6.0 2.0-4.0 1.0-2.0 <1.0 9 (m) Table 1.1 Ranges for Vulnerability Ranking of Variables on the US Atlantic Coast; from Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of Cumberland Island National Seashore to Sea-Level Rise (2004) This approach required several caveats. The authors note that predicting coastal evolution was not straightforward and lacked a standardized methodology. Furthermore, the authors observed that human modification of the shoreline, such as commercial and residential development, beach nourishment, jetties, and other engineered adaptations along with state and federal permitting processes might be the primary driver of coastal evolution in certain areas (Thieler & Hammar-Klose, 1999). Two key developments spurred the use of vulnerability assessments by cultural resource managers. First, a series of “raise the alarm” articles were published, especially As the world warms: rising seas, coastal archaeology, and the erosion of maritime history, cited in every Western Hemisphere article studied for this analysis (Erlandson, 2012). Rather than a ranking of vulnerability or other quantitative process, it simply lays bare the likelihood of lost coastal heritage from climate change. Erlandson suggests that a global collaborative effort is needed, that archaeologists should consult more with indigenous populations, and radiocarbon dating should be incorporated more into coastal resource surveys. Second were influentia l directives and guidance documents produced by the United Nations and its educational wing (UNESCO), advisory bodies such as the International Convention on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and guidance from the National Park Service (UNESCO, 1972; ICOMOS, 2020; National Park Service, 2018). These form a consensus that coastal cultural heritage vulnerability assessments should assist in determining future mitigation management. These documents in some ways defined the process for resource managers. The definition of vulnerability (or vulnerability assessment) itself is not agreed upon in the literature but is determined by the characteristics being measured. Daly’s (2014) definition is “Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and 10 its adaptive capacity” (Daly, 2014, pp. 270-271). Daly notes that it is largely subjective, and usually a combination of biophysical and socio-economic factors. McLaughlin and Cooper (2011) express it as narrative-like equation: Vulnerability = characteristics (resilience and susceptibility) + coastal forcing + socio-economic factors. Forino et al. (2016) defines a vulnerability assessment as “assessing the degree of susceptibility to which elements at risk are exposed to a hazard”. In some instances, vulnerability is used interchangeably with risk. This stems from lack of standardization and borrowing from associated fields; translation from other languages might also play a role. The CVI continues to heavily influence cultural resource managers because of its explicit ranking system and relative ease of translation for land managers who are concerned with projections of landscape change. Rendering physical data into a data ranking system provides a coherent approach to managers who are tasked with putting them into practice. Methods In order to develop guidelines and approaches for cultural resource managers assessing vulnerability, ten published vulnerability assessments from around the globe were selected based on geographic diversity and their focus on cultural heritage management. These stood out as the most utilitarian on the basis that they used geologic or physical process data, were not just theoretical or merely suggested approaches, and could be reasonably categorized into the 3 pass categories. The assessments are focused on cultural heritage, and do not include the studies discussed above. Assessments were evaluated on their effectiveness in determining vulnerability for cultural resources and whether a synthesis of study objective, method, scale, and data resolution (the ability to diffe rentiate between two closely spaced data points) exists (Table 1.2). An example would be if the scale of the study correlated with the stated objective and available data. One article from each “Pass” is discussed more fully below. 11 First Author Country Scale Area # of Assessed (sq.km) sites Daire France 1st Pass 2974 2500+ SLR; Erosion Reeder-Myers CA., TX., VA. 1st Pass 4343 3623 Multiple USA Ezcurra Puerto Rico 1st Pass 9104 1185 SLR Anderson SE USA 1st Pass na 14000+ SLR Hadjimatsis Cyprus 1st Pass 9251 8 Seismic Wang Taiwan 2nd 2053 113 Flooding Pass/Regional Reeder-Myers Houston USA 2nd 2336 na Hurricane Pass/Regional Westley N. Ireland 2nd 5 67 Erosion Pass/Regional Dupont Belgium Site Specific 2.5 1 Multiple Forino Australia Site Specific .5 1 Multiple Thompson Hawaii USA Site Specific .5 2 SLR Table 1.2 Selected vulnerability assessments 12 Results The studies in Table 1.2 examined a range of natural processes (sea-level rise, flooding, erosion) at different scales and assessed a wide variety of cultural heritage sites. Only Reeder-Myers used a form of the CVI as part in a study of separate geographic regions within the United States. Wang (2015) used a ranking system which incorporated a physical process variable (precipitation), and Daire et al. (2012) used a ranking system which incorporated vulnerability to erosion. Reflecting the early stages of utility for cultural resource managers, Anderson (2017) and Ezcurra (2017) used only elevation data as an indicator of vulnerability to sea-level rise. Creatively, Johnson (2015) incorporated data from a tsunami to project landscape change from sea-level rise. The synthesis between scale, objectives, and data resolution is reflected in the utility of the assessments (Fig 1.1). Issues with scale often interact with the other components of vulnerability assessments. Data resolution might not be available or usable for the intended analysis. For example, Westley’s assessment of sites in Newfoundland initially proposed local bathymetry as part of the study (Westley, Bell, Renouf, & Tarasov, 2011). The assessment was modified as the objective was a 2nd pass regional study, while the available bathymetric resolution was 1 km, more suitable for a 1st pass assessment. Anderson’s 1st pass study of sea-level rise on coastal archaeological sites in the southeastern United States presents an applicable synthesis of data and scale: using elevation as proxy for vulnerability, the author reveals over 14000 vulnerable sites (see below) (2017). Similarly, Reeder-Myer’s use of the CVI in examining archaeological sites in three different coastal regions in the United States, including areas of California (rocky cliffs), Texas (low-energy Gulf Coast), and southeastern Virginia (Atlantic) depicts an appropriate 13 synthesis of scale and objectives (2015). The author uses a modified CVI to compare each region’s vulnerability versus the United States as a whole. In each geographic region, archaeological sites are restricted to 5 km from shoreline and less than 1 meter above mean sea level, illustrating the differences in vulnerability for sites near each shoreline type. Figure 1.1 Pass, Scope, and Data relationship Data accessibility is one of the biggest contributors to usability among the studies. Several studies, in particular theory-based ones, avoid the implementation of physical process data altogether. The authors of a vulnerability assessment of an abandoned wastewater treatment plant in Newcastle, Australia, present a Cultural Heritage Resiliency Index (CHRI) based on Hazard, Exposure, and Vulnerability Scores (Forino, et al, 2016). In this study, Hazard analysis metrics consists of Location, Probability of Occurrence (storms), Magnitude and Duration. The Exposure metric is scored on Current Use, Direct Economic Impacts, and Indirect Economic Impacts. Vulnerability is based on Structural Condition, Heritage Fabric, and Historical 14 Damage. The scores are tallied and scored on a 100-point system. However, no process data at all is presented. For example, recent strong storm activity meant that probability, magnitude, and duration received high scores (no other data was given). Although low-lying and near the coast, no sea-level rise data is included, but location and elevation scores are high. The structure of the assessment appeared well- thought out, but lack of any data makes it difficult to examine the CHRI’s utility. An example of a flawed synthesis of scales and resolution is a 1st Pass assessment of heritage sites in Cyprus. The authors focused on only eight cultural heritage sites, discussed only four, with little description of the sites (Hadjimitsis, Afapiou, Alexakis, & Sarris, 2013). They use two different statistical methods to prioritize the sites, which was unnecessary for such a small sample size and with little variation in the topography, climate, or erosion. Their use of seismic maps is interesting and might be applicable in the region, but the inclusion of a “distance to roads” variable as a measure of vulnerability does not match the other broad-scale features of a 1st pass assessment. These asynchronous approaches ultimately don’t reconcile satisfactorily. Socio-economic measures have been included in several assessments, especially theoretical ones (Wang, 2015) (Forino et al, 2016) (Dupont & Van Eetvelde, 2012). Parsing out the myriad variables and methodologies for determining socio-economic strength and weaknesses is beyond the scope of this paper. A case can be made that there is a correlation with the adaptive capacity of a population and the adaptive capacity of its heritage sites. Economists make this case in terms of the value of cultural heritage increasing through development, tourism, and higher population density (Throsby, 1999; Eppink & Wright, 2016). But at odds with this is the manner that most cultural resource management is conducted and its purpose. Cultural resource management is generally used to protect sites from being destroyed by development. Thus, areas of intense development, which are, in fact, being subjected to greater scrutiny and preservation- related activities (which in itself spurs economic development in terms of tourism, etc.) are going to have higher socio-economic values over the course of time. A stronger case must be made that socio-economic 15 scores are indeed a measure of vulnerability in the case of cultural heritage preservation. A case could also be made for the inverse; poorer areas are less likely to have their cultural heritage impacted by development. The dearth of cultural value (significance) data is perhaps the most glaring omission in the studies. It is generally understood among cultural resource professionals that many sites are lost or in the process of being lost and there is simply not the resources, time, or desire to save them all. Avoiding this thorny issue is certainly pragmatic, but it leaves the decision or consequence to local resource managers without guidance. This might be the most appropriate place for decisions related to preservation to be made, but in some cases cultural significance absolutely needs to be considered, especially 2 nd and 3rd pass assessments. This may be seen as a data resolution issue as well, particularly the assessment of archaeological sites which might not have been fully surveyed. Some studies categorize sites chronologically or by other generic methods which at least allow identification of significant sites (Daire, et al., 2012) (Westley, 2019) (Forino, Mackee, & von Meding, 2016). It should also be noted that 2nd and 3rd pass studies might be used to determine significance in cases where new sites are discovered. Discussion The “3 Pass” hierarchy of coastal vulnerability assessments organizes studies based on geographical size and data refinement. Determining which pass is appropriate prior to developing a CVA would benefit cultural resource stakeholders by guiding choices in how refined acquired data needs to be, potentially saving significant time and resources. This organization is also useful because cultural heritage CVA’s are created by two different stakeholders with two different approaches: cultural resource professionals interested in coastal physical processes, and natural scientists interested in cultural heritage. Using an organization which spans both approaches is a necessary consistency for future CVA development. 16 1st Pass: Anderson’s Sea-level rise and archaeological site destruction: An example from the southeastern United States using DINAA (Digital Index of North American Archaeology) is concerned with long-term processes over a large geographic area. The author examines a 1-meter rise along the southern Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, and projects 14000+ sites to be affected, including 1000 sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The study uses location data from DINAA, a multi-institutional digital repository for archaeological sites, to visualize site distribution. A representative large-scale study, it does not delve into the differences in localized sea-level projections. The study advocates for linking large, state- scale databases so guidance on mitigation can be determined at a federal level. Privacy concerns are seemingly assuaged by not publishing location or property ownership data. Resolution at 20 -km sq. grid cells is far too large to examine local features. Using only elevation as a measure of vulnerability makes sense given the object of the study: investigating a large area, large datasets, and creating a decision - making process which might cover the entire southeastern United States. 2nd Pass: Westley’s Refining Broad-Scale Vulnerability Assessment of Coastal Archaeological Resources, Lough Foyle, Northern Ireland is a 2nd pass assessment which builds on a 1st pass assessment of the region around Lough Foyle, Northern Ireland by the author (2019). The 1st Pass study entailed historic aerial photos overlain by decades-old inaccurate locational data, eliminating analysis of local erosion rates or the resiliency of sites to erosion. The 2nd pass assessment was an integrated desk-based study and field assessment of a 10km stretch of beach. Using the Digital Shoreline Analysis System (DSAS), an extension found in GIS, historic orthophotos (a digital image of an aerial photograph where distortions have been removed) were processed to show shoreline change in 20 meter transects. The orthophotos themselves had a 0.25-meter resolution, sufficient for local features. A field survey mapped vegetation change and location data for extant sites, as well as mapping 51 new sites, from iron-age lithics eroding from bluffs to WWII concrete and metal infrastructure. A priority classification system was developed from site significance (based on U.K. criteria), site condition and risk level (state of erosion). The study concludes by suggesting 17 that local cultural resource managers should become familiar with shoreline or coastal change within their purview, and decision-making should be based on the best data available. 3rd Pass/Site Specific: Thompson’s Threats to Coastal Archaeological Sites and the Effects of Future Climate Change: Impacts of the 2011 Tsunami and an Assessment of Future Sea Level Rise at Honaunau, Hawai’i studied the effects of the 2011 9.0 magnitude Tohoku earthquake off the coast of Japan which caused a tsunami in Hawaii (2015). The study area was a 13-acre ceremonial complex with extant walls, structures, and intact sub-surface archaeological deposits, within Pu’uhonua o Honaunau National Park. The survey used hand-tapes and hand-held GPS units to map a debris line deposited 150 meters from the shoreline within the park. It mapped 59 previously undocumented sub-surface features exposed by the tsunami and 49 displaced artifacts, including lithics, ceramics, marine material, and metal. The undermining of several structures and walls was evident as well. The study determined which areas might be affected most by sea-level rise, as well as the severity of the effects to cultural features. Although sea- level rise and a sudden series of large waves will produce rather different consequences, the visualization of increased sea levels within a specific site is invaluable for mitigation planning. Summary There may never be a uniform method of producing vulnerability assessments for coastal cultural resources. Differences in definitions, political environments, management structure, and interpretations of cultural significance are substantial obstacles. Nevertheless, these studies show key considerations, and a systematic approach can guide cultural resource managers grappling with long-term decision making for cultural heritage under their care. The following considerations should be considered: Appropriate scale 18 The scale of assessment will be determined by the objectives and available data. A modified CVI for 1st Pass assessments can be used if topography is highly variable (rocky cliffs, low-energy beaches). Selecting one or two hazards (SLR, erosion) is advisable when addressing high numbers of sites. Anthropogenic o r socio- economic data are better suited to 2nd Pass assessments. Where possible, these should build on earlier studies. Adopting local physical data (if possible) 2nd Pass (regional) and site-specific assessments should pre-determine accessible process data prior to constructing CVI’s. Shoreline change rates, local or historic SLR, tide gauges, lidar, and erosion rates are examples of data which might be incorporated. Where possible, local assessments and data should be chosen for assessments. Use of applicable data resolution In the case of coastal vulnerability assessments, adequate data resolution usually requires the use of remote sensing techniques (e.g., airborne lidar, terrestrial laser scanning, bathymetric sonar). 50-meter intervals aren’t accurate enough on site-specific assessments; the geographic size and objectives will determine necessary resolution. For site-specific assessments, advances in remote sensing that can be deployed on drones make high resolution data much more accessible. Selective socio-economic data The inclusion of socio-economic data should be used with caution. Thus far, the relationship between socio-economic variables and cultural heritage valuation is unclear. In the event of inclusion, socio- economic data is most applicable as a measure of adaptive capacity most appropriate for 2nd Pass assessments. 19 Measures of significance These should be evaluated and selective carefully; measures and processes of defining significance varies widely across political and social boundaries. In the United States, significance is based on a site’s eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP. Sites must be at least 50 years old and fall under at least one of four criteria: a) The property must be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; b) the property must be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; c) the property must embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d) the property must show, or may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory. Criterion d is most often cited for archaeological sites (Little, 2007). The process for determining significance in any administrative or political environment must be explained. Conclusion 3rd pass, site specific assessments are the most effective for cultural resource managers. This likely stems from the increasing use of GIS over the past decade by cultural resource managers, familiarity with the data, and familiarity with this type of assessment. A combination of remote-sensing, GIS, and a smaller circumscribed area and knowledge of the area through field work present the most straight-forward studies. Archaeologists and historians are often tasked with evaluating landscapes through a variety of methods. 20 Incorporating physical data is less of an obstacle in these cases. Less understood among social scientists are large scale impacts or physical process projections. Awareness of climate change impacts to cultural resources has expanded in the past decade, and the CVI continues to influence assessors. As resource managers adopt and modify vulnerability assessments, issues with scale, data resolution, and the inclusion of anthropogenic variables should become less of an obstacle. The 3- pass organization provides a structure for cultural resource managers to consider before constructing vulnerability assessments. Interdisciplinary training is becoming more prevalent and should lead to better assessments from those in the profession of studying and preserving cultural heritage. While some professionals are already in the process of refining broad-scale assessments (see Westley and Reeder- Myers), more 1st pass studies are needed for resource managers to begin refining studies for resource allocation. 21 Works Cited Anderson DG, B. T. (2017). Sea-level rise and archaeological site destruction: An example from the southeastern United States using DINAA (Digital Index of North American Archaeology). Plos One, 12(11). doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188142 Caffrey, M., Beavers, R., & Hoffman, C. (2018). Sea level rise and storm surge projections for the National Park Service. Natural Resources Repot NPS/NRSS/NRR-2018/1648. Fort Collins: National Park Service. Daire, M. Y., Lopez-Romero, E., Proust, J.-N., Regnauld, H., Pian, S., & Shi, B. (2012). Coastal Changes and Cultural Heritage: Assessment of the Vulnerability of the Coastal Heritage in Western France. Island and Coastal Archaeology, 168-182. Daly, C. (2014). A Framework for Assessing the Vulnerability of Archaeological Sites to Climate Change: Theory, Development, and Application, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Site. Conservation and Mangement of Archaeological Sites, 268-282. doi: 10.1179/1350503315Z.00000000086 Dawson, T. (2011). Erosion and Coastal Archaeology: Evaluating the Threat and Prioritising Action. University of St. Andrews; SCAPE. Edinbergh: University of St. Andrews. Dupont, L., & Van Eetvelde, V. (2012). Assessing the potential impacts of climate change on traditional landscapes and their heritage values on the local level :Case studies in the Dender basin in Flanders, Belgium. Land Use Policy, 179-191. Eppink, F., & Wright, W. (2016). Drivers of heritage value: A meta-analysis of monetary valuation studies of cultural heritage. Ecological Economics, 277-284. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.001 0921-8009 Erlandson, J. M. (2012). As the world warms: rising seas, coastal archaeology, and the erosion of maritime history. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 137-142. Eulie, D. O., Corbett, D. R., & Walsh, J. (2017). Shoreline Erosion and decadal sediment accumulation in the Tar - Pamlico estuary, North Carolina, USA: A source-to-sink analysis. Estuarine,Coastal and Shelf Science, 246-258. Retrieved 10 03, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.10.011 Ezcurra, P., & Rivera-Collazo, I. C. (2017). An assessment of the impacts of climate change on Puerto Rico's Cultural Heritage with a case study on sea-level rise. Journal of Cultural Heritage. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.01.016 Forino, G., Mackee, J., & von Meding, J. (2016). A proposed assessment index for climate change-related risk for cultural heritage protection in Newcastle (Australia). International Journal of Risk Reduction, 235-248. Gornitz, V. (1990). Vulnerability of the East Coast, U.S.A. to future sea level rise. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue. Gornitz, V. M. (1994). The development of a coastal risk assessment database:Vulnerability to sea-level rise in the U.S. southeast. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue. 22 Gornitz, V., & White, T. W. (1992). A coastal hazards database for the U.S. East Coast. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Hadjimitsis, D., Agapiou, A., Alexakis, D., & Sarris, A. (2013). Exploring natural and anthropogenic risk for cultural heritage in Cyprus using remote sensing and GIS. International Journal of Digital Earth, 115-142. Hardesty, D. L., & Little, B. J. (2000). Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and Historians. Walnut Creek, Ca.: Altimira Press. ICOMOS. (2020, 05 12). Resolution 20GA/15 - Cultural Heritage and the Climate Emergency. Retrieved 10 19, 2021, from International Conference on Monuments and Sites: https://www.icomos.org/en Johnson, A., Marrack, L., & Dolan, S. (2015). Threats to Coastal Archaeological Sites and the Effects of Future Climate Change: Impacts of the 2011 Tsunami and an Assessment of Future SeaLevel Rise at H?naunau, Hawai’i. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 232-252. doi:10.1080/15564894.2014.980472 Kopp, R. E., Horton, B. P., Kemp, A. C., & Tobaldi, C. (2015). Past and future sea-level rise along the coast of North Carolina, USA. Climate Change, 2-13. doi: doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1451-x McLaughlin, S., & Cooper, A. G. (2011). A multi-scale coastal vulnerability index: a tool for coastal managers? Envrionmental Hazards, 233-248. N.C. Coastal Resources Comission Science Panel on Coastal Hazards. (2010). North Carolina Seal-Level Rise Assessment Report. Raleigh: N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management. National Park Service. (2018, 2 22). Retrieved from Moving the Lighthouse: https://www.nps.gov/caha/learn/historyculture/themovefaqs.htm Reeder-Myers, L. A. (2015). Cultural Heritage at Risk in the Twenty-First Century: A Vulnerability Assessment of Coastal Archaeological Sites in the United States. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 436-445. doi: 10.1080/15564894.2015.1008074 Riggs, S., & Ames, D. (2003). Drowning the North Carolina Coast: Sea-Level Rise and Estaurine Dynamics. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Sea Grant Pub, No. UNC-SG-01-11. Thieler, E., & Hammar-Klose. (1999). National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the US Atlantic Coast. Woods Hole, MA: Geoloogical Survey Open File Report 99-593. Thieler, E., & Hammar-Klose, E. (2000). National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: Results for the US Pacific Coast. Woods Hole, MA: Geological Survey Open File Report 00-179. Thieler, E., & Hammar-Klose, E. (2000). National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise; Preliminary Results for the US Gulf of Mexico Coast. Woods Hole, MA: Geological Survey Open File Report 00-179. Throsby, D. (1999). Cultural Capital. Journal of Cultural Economics, 3-12. UNESCO. (1972). UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE. Retrieved 10 19, 2021, from UNESCO: https://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/ Westley, K. (2019). Refining Broad-Scale Vulnerability Assessment of Coastal Archaeological Resources, Lough Foyle, Northern Ireland,. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 226-246. doi:10.1080/15564894.2018.1435592 23 Chapter 2: A regional vulnerability assessment of archaeological sites on North Carolina’s coast Abstract Increased awareness of climate change by cultural resource managers has led to the adoption of vulnerability assessments identifying threatened coastal resources. Over five thousand archaeological sites in North Carolina’s coastal region are vulnerable to erosion intensified by sea-level rise and greater storm activity. Here relative sea-level rise projections, local erosion rates and cultural significance are considered in constructing a regional vulnerability assessment. 21 sites are found to be very highly vulnerable, 169 highly vulnerable, 461 moderately vulnerable, and 307 having low vulnerability. Introduction Over five thousand archaeological sites have been documented along North Carolina’s coast, threatened by natural and physical processes accelerated by climate change, including rising sea level, increased flooding, and more powerful storms (Fig 2.1). These processes in turn accelerate secondary effects like erosion, salt-water intrusion, and the change and migration of coastal habitats, posing a threat to the archaeological records of those who have lived there: Native Americans, Europeans, and African Americans. North Carolina’s coastal region consists of several drowned river-valley systems and interfluves buried under marine and estuarine sediments of varying thickness. Isostatic processes persisting from the last ice age c. 20,000 years BP and the nature of the underlying crystalline basement rocks define the region’s geology and geography. From Cape Lookout to the Virginia border, land subsidence and a gently sloping continental shelf produce large estuaries, embayment’s, and barrier islands jutting outward to the Gulf Stream. To the south, shallower crystalline basement and a slight uplift of the land and steeper coastal plain produce barrier islands hugging the shoreline and a slightly less-rapid rise in sea-level (Riggs & Ames, 2003; Van de Plassche, et al., 2014; Kopp, Horton, Kemp, & Tobaldi, 2015). Figure 2.1 Archaeological Sites below 30 feet elevation; courtesy Lea Abbott 26 Sea-level Rise Institutions which have analyzed Global Mean Sea-Level rise (GMSL) and local or Relative Sea-Level Rise (RSLR) include the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the North Carolina Science Panel, and the National Park Service. Kopp et al. (2015) studied RSLR for the North Carolina coast using a combination of process and statistical models, expert assessment, and elicitation. Analyzing historical tide gauge models, reconstruction of Common Era sea levels through rates of salt-marsh accretion and geological data, the authors constructed a Gaussian model which projects RSLR not substantially different from the North Carolina Science Panel (Table 2.1). Projections are usually given in a range according to how much reduction of green-house gases is achievable, or Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). The figures below are from the 8.5 RCP, or “Business as Usual” model which projects no change in greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC, 2016). Sea level rise projections are more accurate in the near-term in part because green-house gases (GHG’s) affect global climate relatively slowly, thus variability is lessened in the short term. Limiting the extent of projections to 30 years provides a more accurate assessment of potential impacts, limits the scope of possible actions, and focuses on archaeological sites which need immediate mitigation. 27 Year Kopp et al 2015 NC Science NPS 2018 (OBX) Panel 2010 2030 4.72-12.99 in (8- 5.90 in (15 cm) 27 cm) 2040 5.51-10.63 in (11- 24 cm) 2050 9.44-23.22 in (18- 11.91 in (30 cm) 48 cm) 2100 21.26-60.63 in 39.37 in (100 cm) 32.28 in (82 cm) (42-132 cm) Table 2.1 Sea Level Rise Projections, Outer Banks, NC Erosion on North Carolina’s Coastal Plain Erosion is the primary threat to coastal archaeological sites. Riggs and Ames’ 2003 analysis of shoreline erosion along the Neuse River estuary in central and northeast North Carolina from 1958-1998 showed that ninety-three percent of the estuary was experiencing erosion (Riggs & Ames, 2003). Low sediment banks (Figure 2.2), defined as less than five feet of elevation and eighty-five percent of the shore-zone, eroded fastest at an average of 3.3 feet (1 m) per year. High sediment banks (Figure 2.3), defined as banks between five and twenty feet of elevation, and bluffs, defined as greater than twenty feet of elevation, eroded less rapidly, an average of 2.6 feet (0.8 m) a year from greater amounts of parent material and potential presence of stabilizing vegetation. The authors note that increased storm activity as a result of climate change will likely increase 28 erosion rates in the study area. A more recent (2017) analysis of shoreline erosion in the Tar-Pamlico sub estuary found average erosion rates to be 0.5 meters per year (1.64 feet) (Eulie, Corbett, & Walsh, 2017). All of these processes place archaeological sites in peril. Figure 2.2 Low sediment bank with exposed shell midden. Currituck County. Photo by Lea Abbott 29 Figure 2.3 Eroding high sediment bank. Roanoke Island. Photo by Lea Abbott Site Significance and Cultural Resource Management Archaeological sites reflect shared human history and represent important sources of data for the reconstruction of the past. The preservation and significance of archaeological sites are uniquely dependent on the integrity of the landscape in which they are positioned. Moving an intact archaeological site is quite different than moving a historic building, as was the case of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. While moving a historic building may alter its significance due to its removal from its original context (see below), much of the 30 architectural data it represents remains available to the researcher (Hardesty & Little, 2000). This is not true of a buried archaeological site, where its removal destroys the original context. Hence, laws were passed to affect in situ preservation or, if not possible, the recovery of data that was threatened to be lost. In the United States, most archaeology is regulated by legislation and agencies that are referred to under the rubric of cultural resource management (CRM). The modern CRM system was essentially created by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and subsequent enabling legislation including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969), Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974), Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979) and the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (1987) (Little, 2007). Another key cultural resource regulation which provides the system in which most archaeology is completed includes36 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 60, which established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and lists the criteria for evaluating cultural heritage sites. Finally, there are a series of guidelines produced by the federal government further expanding on these regulations, for example the Federal Register. To undertake their management responsibilities, many federal agencies in the United States employ their own cultural resource specialists and archaeologists, including the Department of the Interior, FEMA, and each major armed forces branch. One important responsibility of cultural resource managers is to protect sites from land or real estate development. The implementation of these regulations is assigned to the states and a State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Cultural resources are assessed according to their significance. Legal significance is assessed according to the resource’s eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Sites. Significance is a complex definition derived from a site’s age and relationship to national or broad cultural values and may be assessed under four criteria: A) association with significant event; B) association with significant people; C) exemplifies a specific high artistic value, design, or type; and D) the site yields, or is likely to yield important information on history or prehistory. Archeological sites are usually assessed under criterion D. Significance generally requires a high amount of integrity, thus the position in or within a landscape is not only critical to data collection for scientific inquiry, but also its cultural significance according to federal 31 guidelines. Ironically, the excavation of a site, while recovering important data, destroys its integrity, thus removing its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (Little, 2007) (Hardesty & Little, 2000). In North Carolina, archaeological sites are administered by the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA). The OSA manages an archaeological preservation program, an inventory of archaeological sites, and the enforcement of G.S. 70 Article 2, the North Carolina Archaeological Resource Protection Act. Additionally, the OSA is tasked with the management of the NHPA, human burials, and the assessment of potential National Register sites (Section 106 Archaeology Guidance, 2009). Depending upon the nature of the threat, a CRM archaeological survey may be required. Factors such as geology, landscape slope, loss of integrity, poorly drained soils, and presence of other know archaeological sites may either rule out the need for a survey or determine the intensity of a survey. As such, a pragmatic threat-assessment system is crucial to the cultural resource manager. CRM archaeological surveys fall under three general categories, or phases, depending on the assessment needs of a site. Phase I surveys consist of pedestrian assessments, often of large tracts of land, to determine if there are potential cultural resources extant. Phase II surveys assess the significance of discovered resources by incorporating sub-surface testing, such as test pits placed at intervals or limited excavation units; and Phase III occurs when a site cannot be avoided. It is the data recovery phase accomplished through the excavation of a site (Section 106 Archaeology Guidance, 2009). From 2009-2019 three hundred and thirty-three CRM investigations (all phases) were conducted in the 25 coastal counties included in this study. Some archaeological sites may be deemed significant to local communities or interest groups, but do not meet the criteria currently in place for inclusion on the National Register. These criteria change over time. For example, the study of marginalized, or enslaved populations is a relatively new field of research, and prior to 1960 most archaeologists were concerned with the reconstruction of prehistory and thus focused on sites related to indigenous populations. New methods following the development of historical archaeology propagated research into colonial and antebellum lifeways, and eventually into more specialized research topics such as the industrial period, military sites, and farmsteads among many others. Technology and new analytic 32 techniques such as: remote sensing, geoarchaeology, and computer applications expanded rapidly in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Consequently, the concept of significance began to shift as well, encompassing a much broader range of sites and greater landscapes which now require management. Site Survival: Topographic Analogues The biggest threat to coast archaeological sites is erosion. Erosion by marine transgression is a destructive event primarily through the re-leveling of topographic features, followed by the overall inundation of the landscape. The survival of a terrestrial site post-transgression depends on its position in the landscape prior to a transgressive event (Garrison, 2011; Lenihan, et al., 1982). Studies of analogous events such as reservoir construction resulting in flooding of cultural sites and underwater (inundated) sites on the continental shelf in North America and Europe concur that while erosion is wholly destructive, rapid inundation without total re- leveling (on deeply buried sites) provides a measure of preservation (Lenihan, et al., 1982; Flemming, 2020). Rapid inundation can be beneficial to the preservation of sites and the material culture retained therein. Because of the anaerobic environment, inundated sites have provided a wealth of organic material rarely found on terrestrial sites, such as prehistoric paddles, canoes, leather items and funerary features (Flemming, 2020). Reliable projections of which sites might survive, or which sites are most at risk have yet to be developed. Site survival is tied to protection against erosion. Extensive features of the pre-inundated landscape survive on the continental shelf of Europe which faced the open sea. These sites survived multiple cycles of sea-level rise and decline and highly dynamic environments (Flemming, 2020). Broad conclusions may be drawn for site survival. A pre-condition for survival is being deeply buried pre-inundation, with enough over burden to withstand erosive action, or rapidly buried through sedimentation post-inundation. These conditions do not predict survival; they are only a pre-condition of survival (Garrison, 2011). For example, prehistoric sites re-examined after the filling of reservoirs in the American Southwest found that sites which were rapidly inundated were better preserved than those at the shallower areas near the water’s edge that were subject to prolonged wave action (Lenihan, et al., 1982). The most important factor for survival is a significant source of sediment. Contributing factors which may favor archaeological site survival include very low beach gradient and offshore 33 gradient which attenuate wave action, minimum wind fetch, local geography featuring estuaries and beach bars, near-shore islands, or other local landscape characteristics which protect from wind and wave action during marine transgression. Partially preserved landscape features which survive on the continental shelf of North America include paleo- river channels, related terraces, and freshwater sediments. The discovery of sites within these drowned landscapes is usually the result of industrial activities such as gas and oil exploration and fishing, further complicating the relationship between terrestrial and offshore sites (Flemming, 2020). It is difficult to determine whether the sites are found because of an intrinsic ability to survive a particular environment, or because exploration focuses on one area and ignores another. Coastal vulnerability assessments (CVA) developed in the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), began in 1990 with Vulnerability of the East Coast, U.S.A. to sea level rise, followed by a coastal hazard database for the U.S. West coast, and a vulnerability assessment and coastal vulnerability database for the U.S. southeast (Gornitz V. , 1990). The Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) was introduced in 2001 by Hammar-Klose and Theiler. The CVI assigns a numeric value of shoreline vulnerability by ranking physical process and geological variables linked to inundation, erosion, and relative sea-level rise: tidal range, wave height, coastal slope, shoreline erosion rates, geomorphology, and historical rates of relative sea-level rise. The CVI illustrated the relative vulnerability of distinct coastlines and allowed non-specialists to consider more specific projections of coastal change, for example rates of relative sea-level rise versus global ones. Following the CVI, publications by the National Park Service (NPS) and international organizations (UNESCO, ICOMOS) provided initial guidance in developing coastal vulnerability assessments for cultural resource management, advocating for the inclusion of physical variables and measures of cultural significance. In 2012, Erlandson’s paper As the world warms: rising seas, coastal archaeology, and the erosion of maritime history influenced cultural resource managers to seriously consider the ramifications of climate change for the resources under their administration. The CVI’s ranking system provided an approach and method for managers to incorporate the data into their assessments. The adoption of GIS and remote-sensing has allowed 34 managers to construct desk-based assessments of large geographic areas and large numbers of cultural heritage sites. Coastal vulnerability assessments for cultural resources are still in an early stage and have been applied to diverse environments such as Cyprus, Northern Ireland, and Puerto Rico (Hadjimitsis, Agapiou, Alexakis, &Sarris,2013; Westley, 2019; Ezcurra&Rivera-Collazo, 2017). While extremely diverse methods and approaches have been proposed, a standard methodology has yet to be agreed upon or implemented. Differences in political environments, approaches to valuing cultural heritage, and access to technology appear to be mitigating factors delaying the adoption of a universal methodology. The assessment strategy proposed here adopts a “3 Pass” hierarchy for organizing and systemically refining coastal vulnerability assessments as outline by Westley (2019). A hierarchical approach can be phased in or targeted according to the resource or threat being managed. 1st Pass, broadscale assessments identify generalized vulnerabilities such as sea-level rise or site distribution for large areas; 2nd Pass, regional assessments refine analyses to a more constrained area where localized effects can be considered; 3rd Pass studies are site specific or might incorporate a limited number of sites in a tightly constrained location. The vulnerability assessment considered here, for archaeological sites in North Carolina’s coastal region is a regional, 2nd Pass assessment. Two 1st Pass studies, Anderson’s Sea-level rise, and archaeological site destruction: An example from the southeastern United States using DINAA (Digital Index of North American Archaeology) and Reeder-Myers’ Cultural Heritage at Risk in the Twenty-First Century: A Vulnerability Assessment of Coastal Archaeological Sites in the United States provide an overall context for the possibility of the effects of sea-level rise on coastal archaeological sites in the United States. Anderson links large databases of location and elevation data in the southeastern United States against a backdrop of global sea-level rise projections, advocating for federal-level decision making. 1st Pass studies’ identification of generalized threats and consideration of broader themes such as site distribution provide a primary framework for refined analysis. Reeder-Myers (2015) demonstrates relative vulnerability of different 35 coastal systems: Pacific coast, Gulf coast, and Atlantic coast corresponding to early CVI’s by Hammar-Klose and Theiler (2000). Methods For this study, legacy data on elevation, distance to water, and significance were gathered from the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology. Several counties (Tyrell, Hertford, Camden) usually included in the coastal region were excluded from the study because data were incomplete across variables. Onslow county was excluded due to the presence of Camp Lejeune, a large United States Marine base which dominates the county and retains its own cultural resource management program, thus skewing the distribution of site data. Collection of initial site data was restricted to areas of less than thirty feet of elevation and within 100 feet (30.48 m.) of the shoreline. This is based on the most rapid erosion rate of 3.3 ft (1 m)/year in the Neuse River Estuary study projected to 2050 (3.3 ft.x30 years). This study uses a modified cultural heritage vulnerability model (Vulnerability = Exposure + Sensitivity) adjusted to North Carolina’s coastal environment (Appendix A). The following definitions are adapted from Daly’s framework for archaeological site vulnerability (Daly, 2014): Vulnerability: The extent of a climate-change related event on an archaeological site. Exposure: The extent to which an archaeological site is exposed to climate-related impacts. Distance to water and elevation are used in this study. Sensitivity: The extent to which external stimuli will affect an archaeological site. Cultural Significance as evidenced by eligibility for the NHRP is used as a measure of sensitivity. The data are in two different forms: physical (Elevation and Distance to Water) and subjective (Cultural Significance) and were placed in categories from low to very high and ranked 1-4 (Table 2.2). The index expressed as an equation is Vulnerability= (Elevation+Distance to Water+Cultural Significance)/# of variables (3). 36 Vulnerability Variable Low Moderate High Very High 1 2 3 4 Elevation >20 ft 10-20 ft 5-10 ft 0-5 ft feet(m) (6.09m) (3.048-6.09m) (1.52-3.048m) (0-1.52m) Bluffs High Sediment Banks High Sediment Banks Low Sediment Banks Distance to shoreline 75-100 ft 50-75 ft 25-50 0-25 ft feet (m) (22.86- 15.24-22.86m) (7.62-15.24 m) (0-7.62 m) 30.48m) Cultural Significance Not Recorded Unassessed Not Eligible Eligible (Eligibility for NHRP) Table 2.2 Vulnerability 37 Results Due to legal privacy restrictions, no exact site locations or identity of ownership] will be published here. The index produced scores from 1-4, with 4 considered the most vulnerable. 21 sites received scores of 4 across all variables and are considered extremely vulnerable (Table 2.3) (Fig 2.4) (Appendix A). These sites are eligible for the National Register, at 0 -5ft (0-1.52m) elevation and at the water’s edge. Vulnerability Very High High Moderate Low Score 4 3.5-3.9 2.5-3.5 1-2.5 # of sites 21 169 461 307 Table 2.3 Vulnerability scores 38 Figure 2.4 Vulnerable Sites Coastal North Carolina Discussion Three Woodland sites (a prehistoric indigenous culture spanning 100 BC-1600 AD) along the Yaupon River in northeastern North Carolina were selected to illustrate vulnerability scores (Fig 2.5). These sites (31PQ11, 31PQ154, 31CO170) in Perquimans and Chowan counties are less than 2 miles from one another and are found in similar geographical and environmental settings. The similarities in culture and setting show the 39 vulnerability scores are sensitive to a site’s position in the landscape and erosion vulnerability and eligibility for the NRHP. Figure 2.5 Selected Vulnerable Sites 31PQ11 is eligible for the NHRP and is scored as Very Highly Vulnerable. 31PQ11’s is only 3 feet (0.91 m) and 0 feet (0 m) from the water’s edge, making it highly vulnerable to erosion with a vulnerability score of 4. It is possible the site may have already experienced deterioration from erosion and a single storm could destroy much of the site. An unknown factor is the site size but given the 3.3 ft (1m) / year average erosion rates used in this study, it’s clear the site is a great risk to being lost. It is highly unlikely this site will survive until 2050. 40 31PQ154, across Bethel Creek (a tributary of the Yaupon River), has a much greater chance of survival in the next 30 years than 31PQ11 given its position in the landscape. At 12 feet (3.65 m) in elevation and 30 feet (9.14 m) from the creek, it is unlikely to completely erode in the coming decades, however storms, boat wakes, or changes in shorelines might impact it significantly. 31CO170 is a moderately vulnerable site on the south side of the Yaupon River. Like 31PQ154, 31CO170 has an NHRP score of 2, and like 31PQ11 is 3 feet (1 m) in elevation. However, it is 10 feet (3.05 m) from the shoreline, therefore is likely to survive for a few years before becoming highly vulnerable. Fig (2.5) makes it easy to visually compare site’s vulnerability based on distance to water. But vulnerability scores are influenced by eligibility for the NRHP (only those with a score of 4 are rated Very Highly Vulnerable). The three sites compared above also illustrate how crucial it is for local studies and ground- truthing. While the sites vary widely in their vulnerability scores, any of the events mentioned above could drastically change the scores or in the case of shoreline hardening, remove them from this study. Figure 2.4 displays site distribution of the vulnerability index. Two observations are evident: sites cluster along prominent rivers and are more heavily concentrated in the central and north-eastern regions versus the south- eastern. The construction of the index, which uses distance to water as a variable, is a factor in this result. But more importantly, this distribution underscores the interaction between North Carolina’s coastal environment, history of human settlement, and the history of archaeology in the region. Underlying geology, as discussed above, results in different natural environments which heavily influence settlement patterns. Central and north- eastern coastal North Carolina are largely characterized by one of the largest estuary systems in the world, the historically resource-rich Albemarle-Pamlico estuary. Major rivers include the Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, Pungo, Chowan, Pasquotank, and Alligator, along with smaller tributaries and bays. Off-shore barrier islands (the Outer Banks) circumscribe a shallow, wide estuary. The south-eastern region has 1 major river, the Cape Fear, along with the smaller New River and the White Oak River. (The New and White Oak Rivers are found in Onslow County which has been excluded from this study as noted above). Barrier islands are adjacent to the coast, and no major estuaries are present. While the index is attenuated to sites vulnerable to erosion, and 41 therefore sites will be along waterways, site distribution also reflects fundamental regional distinctions which influenced human settlement and North Carolina’s maritime heritage. Beyond regional distinctions in natural resources, this is also a result of more archaeology being conducted in the area during the 20th century, and the emphasis on prehistoric sites for much of the 20 th century. In the mid- 1950’s archaeologist William Haag from LSU conducted a series of archaeological surveys in the region, focusing on the Albemarle region, and exclusively searching for prehistoric sites (Haag, 1958). In the 1960’s archaeologists Joffrey Coe, Lewis Binford, and Stanley South conducted numerous surveys in the Albemarle region, especially along the Roanoke River. Many of the sites eligible for the NRHP were discovered from these surveys. The development of CRM archaeology also likely influences distribution of sites along the coast, especially in the Wilmington/ New Hanover County area which has experienced tremendous growth leading to infrastructure and deployment of CRM archaeology. Site distribution from the vulnerability index scores must therefore be seen as the result of the interplay of regional distinctions in available natural resources, settlement patterns, and the processes of recovering the past. The distribution maps also underscore the weaknesses of desk-based assessments. This study uses legacy data, and each of the sites are close enough to the shoreline to have been impacted by erosion, for example a storm event, and therefore would fall under a different score. Future Research This study focuses on archaeological site loss; a future companion study of site protection would provide a more accurate picture of vulnerability. Importantly, sites already afforded protection by shoreline hardening (riprap, bulkheads, artificial and natural oyster beds,) should be evaluated. If in good condition, these sites could be 42 considered low risk, despite proximity to water. However, in North Carolina’s dynamic environment, shoreline hardening is rarely a permanent exercise and care should be taken to evaluate these structures. Ground-truthing is a crucial next step in determining each site’s integrity and assessing activities on the adjacent shorelines which may change rapidly. Monitoring activities can certainly be accomplished by citizen science. Many regions, particularly in Europe, have implemented successful schemes. But simply importing a system into North Carolina likely will prove to be difficult. Differences in approaches to archaeology, legal and privacy concerns, and access to resources should all be considered. An interesting focus for future research is the projection of site survivability after inundation. As noted, this is largely the purview of underwater archaeology and generally consists of research on submerged prehistoric sites or shipwrecks. Accurate projections of survivability in a localized setting seem remote, however. Site erosion threatens the recovery of data on historic populations who left little or no documented records. Marginalized populations often lived in marginalized areas and were unlikely to have been able to choose where they lived and worked. These areas were likely much closer to water and lower elevations, meaning a greater risk of inundation, erosion, and flooding. Many of these areas are likely already inundated or eroded and since lost. Conclusion North Carolina’s obstacles in terms of mitigating risks to eroding archaeological sites are a dynamic natural coastal system, a rapidly growing population, and increasingly popular coastal destinations. A regulatory environment characterized by overarching federal guidance and local or state implementation makes it difficult to simply import a model developed in other countries or even other regions with different sets of obstacles and differing approaches to archaeology. The 3 Pass approach is a method of organizing and systematically 43 refining coastal vulnerability analyses. This desk-based approach is useful in resource planning, management, and characterizing vulnerability for large geographic areas. Although regional CVA’s provide a method for CRM professionals to analyze large quantities of sites, several weaknesses are evident, derived from the approach as well as specific to the environment of North Carolina’s coastal plain. Including cultural significance variables is complex and easily misunderstood and must be understood within the context of how significance is determined. Archaeological site size and topography present another difficulty. A small, well-constrained site on a bluff is quite different than a large site spanning different elevations and in the process of heavy erosion. Sites can vary widely in size, to include dozens of acres and different vulnerabilities within the same site. This is also a snapshot of a rapidly changing environment. There are other mitigating factors to natural threats to archaeological sites. The desirability of living in North Carolina’s coastal region may lessen the impact of erosion in terms of anthropogenic modification of the shoreline (such as shoreline hardening). In Eulie’s 2017 study of shoreline change in the Tar-Pamlico sub-estuary, 27.4% of the shoreline had been modified, some 15.7 km, an increase from 19.6% in 1998 (Eulie, Corbett, & Walsh, 2017). These modifications were largely hardening of low sediment banks, using rock, piers, jetties, and other structures. This rapid change is reflected in Hammar-Klose and Thieler’s assertion that coastal policy may be the most influential driver of shoreline change (Thieler & Hammar-Klose,1999). Despite the attention given to sea-level rise and the drowning of cultural heritage sites, erosion is the more serious risk for archaeological sites in North Carolina’s coastal region. This regional study has identified and categorized vulnerability for nearly 1000 sites containing the rich heritage of the region’s maritime past. Future studies should focus on assessing the vulnerability of individual sites, using more refined methods and data, and monitoring shoreline change. 44 Works Cited Anderson DG, B. T. (2017). Sea-level rise and archaeological site destruction: An example from the southeastern United States using DINAA (Digital Index of North American Archaeology). Plos One, 12(11). doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188142 Daly, C. (2014). A Framework for Assessing the Vulnerability of Archaeological Sites to Climate Change: Theory, Development, and Application, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Site. Conservation and Mangement of Archaeological Sites, 268-282. doi: 10.1179/1350503315Z.00000000086 Erlandson, J. M. (2012). As the world warms: rising seas, coastal archaeology, and the erosion of maritime history. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 137-142. Eulie, D. O., Corbett, D. R., & Walsh, J. (2017). Shoreline Erosion and decadal sediment accumulation in the Tar- Pamlico estuary, North Carolina, USA: A source-to-sink analysis. Estuarine,Coastal and Shelf Science, 246-258. Retrieved 10 03, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.10.011 Ezcurra, P., & Rivera-Collazo, I. C. (2017). An assessment of the impacts of climate change on Puerto Rico's Cultural Heritage with a case study on sea-level rise. Journal of Cultural Heritage. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.01.016 Flemming, N. (2020). Forward. In G. Bailey, N. Galanidou, H. Peeters, H. Jons, & M. Mennenga, The Archaeology of Europe's Drowned Landscapes. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Open. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37367-2 Garrison, E. G. (2011). PREHISTORIC SITE POTENTIAL AND HISTORIC SHIPWRECKS ON THE ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF. Washington, DC: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement . Gornitz, V. (1990). Vulnerability of the East Coast, U.S.A. to future sea level rise. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue. Haag, W. (1958). Archaeology of Coastal North Caolina. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Hadjimitsis, D., Agapiou, A., Alexakis, D., & Sarris, A. (2013). Exploring natural and anthropogenic risk for cultural heritage in Cyprus using remote sensing and GIS. International Journal of Digital Earth, 115-142. Hardesty, D. L., & Little, B. J. (2000). Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and Historians. Walnut Creek, Ca.: Altimira Press. ICOMOS. (2020, 05 12). Resolution 20GA/15 - Cultural Heritage and the Climate Emergency. Retrieved 10 19, 2021, from International Conference on Monuments and Sites: https://www.icomos.org/en IPCC. (2016). Fifth Assessment Report. Paris: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Kopp, R. E., Horton, B. P., Kemp, A. C., & Tobaldi, C. (2015). Past and future sea-level rise along the coast of North Carolina, USA. Climate Change, 2-13. doi: doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1451-x Lenihan, D. J., Carrell, T. L., Fosberg, S., Murphy, L., Rayl, S. L., & Ware, J. A. (1982). The Final Report of the National Resevoir Inundation Study. Denver: National Park Service. Little, B. J. (2007). Historical Archaeology: Why The Past Matters. Walnut Creek, N.C.: Left Coast Press. National Park Service. (2018, 2 22). Retrieved from Moving the Lighthouse: https://www.nps.gov/caha/learn/historyculture/themovefaqs.htm 45 Reeder-Myers, L. A. (2015). Cultural Heritage at Risk in the Twenty-First Century: A Vulnerability Assessment of Coastal Archaeological Sites in the United States. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 436-445. doi: 10.1080/15564894.2015.1008074 Riggs, S., & Ames, D. (2003). Drowning the North Carolina Coast: Sea-Level Rise and Estaurine Dynamics. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Sea Grant Pub, No. UNC-SG-01-11. (2009). Section 106 Archaeology Guidance. Raleigh, N.C.: State of North Carolina, Office of State Archaeology. Thieler, E., & Hammar-Klose. (1999). National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the US Atlantic Coast. Woods Hole, MA: Geoloogical Survey Open File Report 99-593. Thieler, E., & Hammar-Klose, E. (2000). National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: Results for the US Pacific Coast. Woods Hole, MA: Geological Survey Open File Report 00-179. Thieler, E., & Hammar-Klose, E. (2000). National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise; Preliminary Results for the US Gulf of Mexico Coast. Woods Hole, MA: Geological Survey Open File Report 00-179. UNESCO. (1972). UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE. Retrieved 10 19, 2021, from UNESCO: https://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/ Van de Plassche, O., Wright, A. J., Horton, B. P., Englehart, S. E., Kemp, A. C., Mallinson, D., & Kopp, R. E. (2014). Estimating tectonic uplift of the Cape Fear Arch (south-eastern United States) using reconstructions of Holocene relative sea level. Journal of Quartenary Science, 749-759. Westley, K. (2019). Refining Broad-Scale Vulnerability Assessment of Coastal Archaeological Resources, Lough Foyle, Northern Ireland,. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 226-246. doi:10.1080/15564894.2018.1435592 46 Chapter 3: A vulnerability assessment of BrunswickTown/Fort Anderson State Historic Site, Brunswick County, North Carolina, USA Abstract BrunswickTown/Fort Anderson is a multi-component archaeological site in coastal North Carolina experiencing high rates of erosion from sea-level rise, channel dredging, passing container ships, wave action, and increased hurricane activity. Extensive and innovative erosion control measures partially mitigate site deterioration, but low-lying areas which have yet to be fully assessed remain at risk of inundation, including a colonial-period commercial port district and an antebellum slave quarter. Future mitigation should build on these actions by prioritizing low-lying areas for investigation, coordination between stakeholders, and preparation for salvage archaeology. Introduction North Carolina’s archaeological resources are being lost. The coastal environment is eroding as correlated sea- level rise, wave action, and increased storm activity interact. Riggs and Ames’ analysis of four decades of shoreline erosion of the Neuse River estuary in central and northeast North Carolina (1958-1998) showed that ninety-three percent of the estuary was experiencing erosion (Riggs & Ames, 2003). Low sediment banks, defined as less than five feet of elevation and compromising eighty-five percent of the shore-zone, eroded fastest at an average of 3.3 feet (1 m) per year. High sediment banks defined as banks between five and twenty feet of elevation, and bluffs, defined as greater than twenty feet of elevation, eroded less rapidly, an average 2.6 feet (0.79 m) a year from greater amounts of parent material and potential presence of stabilizing vegetation. The authors note that increased storm activity because of climate change will likely increase erosion rates in the study area. A more recent (2017) analysis of shoreline erosion in the Tar-Pamlico sub-estuary found average erosion rates to average approximately 0.5 meters per year (1.64 feet) (Eulie, Corbett, & Walsh, 2017). BrunswickTown/Fort Anderson BTFA) is one of the most important archaeological sites in the southeastern United States (Figs 3.1, 3.2). Its complexity is one of its most intriguing features: a well-preserved earthen Civil War fort (Fort Anderson) superimposed on the foundations of a colonial port town (BrunswickTown). BTFA lies on the west bank of the Cape Fear River, midway between Wilmington, N.C., and the Atlantic Ocean. The 80-plus acre site is characterized by a central bluff approximately 30 feet (9.14 m) above sea-level, flanked by low-lying areas to the north and south. 48 Figure 3.1 USGS NC 75min topographic map. BTFA (red arrow) at center-right. 49 Major figures in colonial North Carolina settled in BrunswickTown and the surrounding area beginning in 1725, including Roger Moore, Cornelius Harnett, Governor Burrington, Edward Mosely and William Dry. Events of the Stamp Act Crisis (1765), the first armed resistance to the landing of taxation “Stamps”, unfolded here. It once had a jail, a courthouse, a church, and was the site of several governor’s councils. BrunswickTown peaked in the mid 1700’s, losing influence to a burgeoning port at Wilmington. After burning by the British and the capture of its enslaved population during the Revolutionary War, it was absorbed by neighboring Orton Plantation during the early antebellum (C. 1820) period (South, 2012). Fort Anderson remains one of the best-preserved earthen forts in the southern United States. Constructed as one of a series of forts meant to cover blockade runners gunning up the Cape Fear River during the Civil War, it also provided protection for Orton’s substantial rice fields and lumber mill. Although it wasn’t the site of a major engagement, it was part of the overall operations which heralded the end of the war. Following the fall of nearby Fort Fisher, the nearly empty fort was shelled for three days. After the war, Fort Anderson, along with the walls of c.1760 St. Phillips church, remained an important site and touchstone for the local population. After re-discovery of the colonial town by a history student in 1958, over eighty acres of Orton Plantation’s southern boundary were eventually donated to the State of North Carolina by James Sprunt, inheritor of Orton. Encompassing Fort Anderson, St. Phillips, Russelborough (a colonial governor’s mansion), BrunswickTown and the port/commercial area, BTFA is now administered as a State Historic Site and is on the National Register of Historic Places (South, 2012). 50 Figure 3.2 c.1765 Sauthier map of Brunswick Town, courtesy of ECU Archaeology at BTFA 1958-1968 marked the first period of professional archaeology at BrunswickTown. Historian Lawrence Lee reconstructed the town’s layout, followed by archaeologist Stanley South who led excavations of several structures in the central portion of town. South developed influential methods of analysis and interpretation in the nascent discipline of historical archaeology during his decade at the site. The dense undergrowth and lack of qualified personnel to assist with the digs constrained excavations to clearly observable brick and ballast stone foundations of the central bluff along with the ruins of the governor’s mansion at Russelborough which is adjacent to BrunswickTown and part of the historic site. South surveyed much of the northern portion of the site. However, he took a new position in South Carolina before he could extend excavations into the lower areas such as the port area and the brick and ballast foundations. 51 South’s archaeological work took place during the theoretical transition from primarily descriptive archaeology to scientifically oriented processualism. Influenced by his friend Lewis Binford and trained by renowned UNC - CH professor Joffre Coe, South developed his pattern-recognition techniques utilizing the data recovered at BrunswickTown (South, 1977). South published or disseminated his findings through academic journals and books, conference proceedings, lectures, and interested local groups. Among his notable publications are Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology (1977), Archaeological Pathways to Historic Site Development (2002), An Archaeological Evolution (2007), and Archaeology at Colonial Brunswick (2010). He developed the site for public interest, enlisting interpreters who used recovered clothing items such as buttons on their costumes for authenticity (South, 2012). During the1990’s research interest in the site revived, resulting in a symposium re-examining South’s work (R.P. Stephen Davis, 1997). Archaeology did not resume until a joint William Peace University/Wake Tech field school in 2009 which investigated 10 brick and ballast stone foundations (see below) as well as a colonial- period foundation. Recovered artifacts include nails, spikes, faunal assemblages, projectile points, and antebellum-period ceramics (Beaman, Melomo, & McKee, 2018). Still, it would be another decade before fieldwork returned in earnest. Erosion along the waterfront prompted ECU’s initial field school in 2015 under Charles Ewen, Director o f the Phelps Archaeological Laboratory (Fig 3.3) to begin salvage excavations. Exposed features of a colonial crib- cob wharf required data recovery between tidal cycles and recorded construction techniques and the terrestrial wharf terminus. Remote-sensing surveys recorded naval-store production sites (tar kilns) along the first terrace above the wharf. Tar kilns are characterized by a raised earthen ring 20-50 feet in diameter, surrounding a packed-clay floor. A banked floor was incised with a wooden trough leading to a catch-basin outside the earthen ring (Figs 3.4, 3.5). Longleaf pine stacked within the ring was fired up to a week, allowing the resin to reduce and flow through the trough as tar. As noted above, this was the raison d’etre for BrunswickTown. 52 Figure 3.3 Excavation of colonial wharf between tides; Triton oyster mattress in background 53 Figure 3.4 Cypress trough (yellow arrow) incised in clay floor Figure 3.5 Catch basin for flowing tar (black arrow) Following the 2015 field school a long-term research initiative was formalized between East Carolina University and the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources. In 2016 an ECU field school investigated what had been interpreted as features associated with what was then believed to be the Edward Moseley ruin, N5 and N6, on Lot 35. Excavations revealed a colonial period structure interpreted as the base of a beehive oven (Hollowell, Master’s Thesis, 2018) (Fig 3.6). Simultaneously, a gun emplacement was investigated in Fort Anderson’s Battery B in preparation for the placement of a restored Civil War period cannon (Hildebran, Master’s Thesis, 2018). ECU’s 2017 field school continued in the area of Lot 35 (Guttierez, Master’s Thesis, 2018). 54 Figure 3.6 Foundation of beehive oven; previously Edward Moseley ruin Lot 35 Outbuildings associated with the Hepburn-Reanolds house were investigated in 2018 (Byrnes, Master’s Thesis, 2019). The Hepburn-Reanolds house was originally excavated by Stanley South 50 years prior, and the outbuildings were suspected to be a detached kitchen (South, 2012). On the adjacent lot to the east, a structure interpreted as a Colonial-period tavern was discovered during GPR prospecting and partially excavated in 2018. Roughly half of the building was excavated in 2019; complete excavation has been paused until recovery from the pandemic (Mulkey, Master’s Thesis, 2021). Remote Sensing at BTFA The innovative field techniques initiated by South in the 1960s continue in the present. Remote Sensing has been used extensively at BTFA. Lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) was used to accurately geo-reference Sauthier’s map and identify the location of extant structures. This method interpolates elevation data to create a 55 Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Control points on the colonial period map and DEM (here shown as a Google Earth Image) are then rectified in ArcGIS (Geospatial Information System mapping) to produce an accurate representation. GIS was also used to explore the port area using the hydrology tool (Figs 3.7, 3.8). This tool employs a smoothed DEM to detect streambeds, which was overlaid by the georeferenced map. Most importantly for future archaeology, areas of historic and potential erosion within the heavy foliage can be delineated and show the evolution of the landform from the 1769 Sauthier’s map to the present (Fig 3.9). Figure 3.7 Control points for georeferenced map. St. Phillips Church (red rectangle in foreground) 56 Figure 3.8 Control points for georeferenced map. St. Phillips church marked "A" Figure 3.9 Streamflow in commercial port area depicting areas for potential erosion; colors denote stream segments 57 The erosion at BTFA is especially apparent in a comparison of Lidar imagery and the geo-referenced colonial map near Battery A of Fort Anderson (Figs 3.10, 3.11). Battery A appears in relief in both images; figure 3.10 shows the edge of Battery A ending adjacent to the Cape Fear River; the geo-refenced 1768 map indicates the loss of a significant amount of land and several buildings. Figure 3.10 Lidar image of BTFA shoreline (yellow arrows) Figure 3.11 Sauthier map depicting historic shoreline 58 Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) surveys have been crucial for investigating other potential areas of research. The ability to rule out large areas without sub-surface testing is an overlooked utility of GPR. The colonial tavern was originally detected while prospecting an adjacent lot near the Hepburn-Reanolds outbuildings (Fig 3.12) (The Lost Tavern, 2019), and the tar kilns were excavated following detection by GPR and magnetometer surveys. Figure 3.12 GPR image showing anomalies of tavern structure (black box). Data recorded with GSSI SIR 400 MHz; processed with Radan 7 ECU’s Department of Maritime Studies has systematically surveyed BTFA’s submerged waterfront using side- scan sonar (Fig 3.13). While results are preliminary, potential targets for further investigation have been identified (Borelli, 2021). This is likely to be an effective way of surveying BTFA’s shoreline, which is fronted by a large platform marsh and features several incised coves. 59 Figure 3.13 Image of potential ballast pile (a) and shipwreck (b), BTFA waterfront. Courtesy of ECU Maritime Studies Erosion and Inundation at BTFA BTFA was selected as a case study for vulnerability of coastal archaeological sites in North Carolina because of its historical importance, the environmental challenges it faces to loss of site integrity, and administrative efforts to slow or mitigate the increasing serious loss of cultural landscapes due to erosion and inundation. Recent studies project a possible 0.5m rise of sea level by 2050 in Wilmington, N.C., 13 miles upriver from BTFA (Kopp, Horton, Kemp, & Tobaldi, 2015; N.C. Coastal Resources Comission Science Panel on Coastal Hazards,2010) (Table 3.1). 60 Table 3.1 Sea Level Rise Projections, Wilmington, NC The erosion at BTFA became more extreme in 2008 after the United States Army Corps of Engineers dredged the channel in front of the wharf area in 2006, as part of a larger project which modernized and expanded the Port of Wilmington (Report, 2020). Deepening and widening the channel allowed more and larger ships to pass through. The intensified wave action along with repeated exposure to hurricanes exposed the crib -cob style wharf structure and inspired data recovery by East Carolina University’s 2015 field school and efforts by the state of North Carolina to preserve the site (Byrd, Master’s Thesis, 2018). Under normal tidal forces and wave action, the tar-soaked timbers of the colonial wharf survived nearly three- hundred years. This was aided by a protective layer of marsh sediments. The erosive consequences of the passage of the huge container ships overwhelmed the natural stabilizing plant cover. The wharf examined here was exposed at the shoreline, but its full extent reached much farther into the Cape Fear to service ocean-going vessels forced to remain in the deeper channel. The threat to this historic feature and others, as yet undiscovered, led the state of North Carolina to undertake innovative mitigation efforts. 61 Mitigation at BTFA In 2012, 279 linear feet of riprap was positioned in front of Battery A of Fort Anderson, and 500 linear feet of Triton Marine Mattress was constructed parallel to Battery B ( fig 3.3). These initial efforts proved to be less effective at attenuating wave action than hoped. The increased waves produced by the expanded ship traffic combined with multiple hurricanes overwhelmed the mattresses and erosion continued beyond the barrier. More drastic action was called for. Phase I of a large-scale effort to protect the shoreline commenced in 2016-2017 with the installation of 220 linear feet (of a planned 5000 ft) of the Atlantic Reefmaker System (ARM), which incorporates a design to attenuate wave action and simultaneously provide habitat for local faunal communities of oysters by allowing flushing throughout the system and sediment accretion by slowing material redistribution (Figs 3.14,3.15,3.16). Figure 3.14 Passing container ship; ARM in foreground. (Image courtesy Atlantic Reefmaker) Although the initial system proved effective, a redesign was implemented for Phase II (2018) and Phase III (2019) as a response to unexpected wave dynamics, which approached the shoreline at a direction more parallel than oblique (Todd & Eulie, 2017). 62 Figure 3.15 Wave attenuators and riprap near Battery A. (Image courtesy of Atlantic Reefmaker) The redesign protected an additional 240 linear feet in phase II, and nearly 1000 feet in Phase III. The system includes a modular design for adjustments to sea-level rise as well as attenuating wave action. The design incorporates natural oyster shell and is saturated in oyster spat (oyster larvae attached to a surface) and accommodates recruitment of sessile (attached to a substrate) and non-sessile marine fauna (Todd & Eulie, 2017). Funding for the protective system came from a variety of sources: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office for Coastal Management provided grants after Hurricanes Michael and Florence, of which $1,141,050 was appropriated by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and matching funds of $830,000 were provided. The North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (NCDCNR) allocated $2,002,500 along with $1,516,669 matching funds (Masselle, nd) (Report, 2020) (Todd & Eulie, 2017). Finally, substantial riprap has been placed on the northern side of the site which faces an exposed cove and the river (Fig 3.15). 63 Figure 3.16 Attenuating waves at BTFA (Image courtesy of Atlantic Reefmaker) While an exact analysis of erosion mitigation at this stage has not been completed, early findings of the wave- attenuation efforts suggest the preventative measures against sediment distribution have led to the accretion of a one-meter sediment bank in at least one area shore-ward of the ARM (fig 3.17). Local marine species have begun to utilize the structure as well, with reports of a suitable habitat for several bass species, crab, and flounder (Todd & Eulie, 2017). A notable uptick in recreational fishing near the structure has been reported. 64 Figure 3-17 Sediment accretion at BTFA Vulnerable Sites While wave attenuators are expected to alleviate some of the erosive forces of wave action, especially to the higher bluffs, flanking these to the extreme northern and southern portions of BTFA are low-lying areas which have not been systematically surveyed. These are difficult environments to access archaeologically, characterized by intermittent creeks and swamps surrounded by dense vegetation, making it too wet for easy land excavation and too shallow for underwater archaeology. However, both areas are at risk (fig 3.18). 65 Southern Section: A colonial commercial port The southern end of BrunswickTown is the location of a commercial district including a colonial-period port. The only surviving map of the area (Fig 3.2, 3.19) depicts large warehouses, the intersection of multiple roads, and various outbuildings. As a naval store export site, the warehouses are likely where tar and pitch, along with other commodities, were stored prior to shipping. Topographical features, such as an incised shoreline facing a creek, appear to be associated with the port area but their usage has yet to be determined. Pedestrian surveys into the area reveal ballast and brick foundations, and Lidar imagery confirms other structures are likely present in the dense undergrowth. Figure 3.18 Light blue indicating inundation with 0.5m sea level rise. NOAA SLR Viewer South excavated a multi-room structure perched on the edge of higher ground along the road to port area (South, 2012). He interpreted the structure as a tailor-shop or boarding house. Closer inspection of recovered artifacts such as clinkers (coal) and tools suggest a black-smith shop serving the needs of the port and town. 66 The commercial port area could potentially reveal local aspects of the trans-Atlantic trade and BrunswickTown’s role in the extraction of resources from the Carolina’s coastal plain and sandhill regions. The location of the ferry which connected Charleston with points north during the early colonial period should be a focus for further surveys. Features of a working colonial port should be expected: blacksmiths, kilns for reducing tar into pitch, ship repair, and storage for the naval stores and other exports. Further research and excavations in the southern section would also illuminate the lifeways of those workers of the colonial period who held property and are present in the historical record: carpenters, block makers, brickmakers, victualers, merchants, and surgeons. Crucially, excavations would expose the lifeways of those only sparsely encountered through Brunswick Burnished ware, the pottery attributed to Brunswick Town’s colonial enslaved population (South, 2012). This important research topic was not a priority during the 1960s and should be addressed while the data are still relatively intact. Figure 3.19 Georeferenced Sauthier’s Map, southern port area (ESRI, 2015) 67 Northern Section: A potential slave quarter On the north side of BTFA, approximately 40 brick and stone features are found ( fig 3.18), mortared with daub, abandoned in the woods south of an antebellum rice plantation (Orton). The main group consists of 4 rows of 6 features oriented east-west, with the remaining brick and ballast piles scattered along the ridges of a swamp. These are likely the remains of the chimney bases of a short-lived slave quarter and its environs of lower-lying swampy creeks. Earlier interpretations associated these foundation rows with Fort Anderson, as “overflow barracks” which housed soldiers emptying other forts (South, 2012; Beaman, Melomo, & McKee, 2018). This interpretation arose from several sources: the proximity of the earthworks, the absence of archaeology related to slavery during the initial investigations during the 1960’s, and the map of Fort Anderson, shown above, which depicts barracks on the southeastern edge of the fort (thus not the original barracks). It’s difficult to conceptualize soldiers fleeing abandoned forts and gunboats as the war ended in chaos, stopping to build neatly laid out houses, carrying with them decades-old ceramics. Another interpretation has been housing for post-war refugees (freed slaves). Re-use remains a possibility but not yet supported by historic accounts. The most parsimonious interpretation is that they are the remains of an ephemeral slave village, of a potential imported Gullah-Geechee culture, lasting only a few decades until the outbreak of war. The Gullah-Geechee culture, largely associated with enslaved populations on low country South Carolina rice plantations has been documented more recently in southeastern North Carolina. The National Park Service has included Brunswick County in its “Gullah-Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor” (NPS, 2019). Descendants of enslaved populations at Eagle’s Island, a rice plantation upriver from BrunswickTown, consider themselves Gullah -Geechee (Ring Shout wit de NC Gullah/Geechee Famlee!, 2022). While still circumstantial, the presence of antebellum 68 artifacts on a rice plantation within the corridor suggests this conclusion. However, this area is also threatened, requiring further investigation to settle the disputed interpretations. Orton Plantation, founded by Roger Moore, fell into disrepair after the Revolutionary War through mismanagement. By the 1820’s, however, Orton was again a working plantation. From 1820-1840 it changed hands several times, and importantly began cultivating rice, using techniques from the South Carolina low country which relied on tidal forces. Its slave population grew as well, likely with laborers familiar with tidal rice agriculture. In the early 1840’s Orton was put up for sale, advertised as having 200 slaves and 40 slave houses (Hood, 2013). The question is whether the 40-plus foundations represent these houses. Archaeological site survival post-marine transgression and eventual inundation depends on several pre- conditions, which do not necessarily ensure survival (Garrison, 2011; Lenihan, et al., 1982; Flemming, 2020). A site’s position in the landscape is crucial to surviving the re-leveling of topographic features. Sites which are deeply buried, have an abundance of parent material, or experience rapid sedimentation have some measures of resiliency. These may be subject to anoxic environments, inhibiting aerobic bacterial growth, which breaks down organic compounds. Factors which might influence site survival include beach and offshore gradients which attenuate wave action, local geography, and wind fetch. While erosion is not as sharply evident in the northern and southern section as the central high bluff and the batteries of Fort Anderson, the Northern and Southern sections discussed here represent the most at-risk portions of BTFA as well as the areas most likely to shed light on less-understood aspects of the colonial and antebellum experience of laborers in southeastern North Carolina. Discussion Erosion at BTFA illustrates the challenges for North Carolina’s coastal archaeological sites. Fortunately, Brunswick Town/Fort Anderson has been the recipient of resources to slow the most rapidly eroding portions of the site. The installation of wave attenuators is innovative and addresses continuing sea-level rise. The design promotes sediment accretion, provides a habitat for local species, and hopefully introduces a successful 69 oyster population. Mitigation of shoreline loss has been flexible. The initial oyster mattresses, while also innovative and provided a potential oyster habitat, were ineffective against the wave-action of the passing container ships. The ability to adjust where necessary as local conditions change is an important lesson. The effects of sea-level rise, erosion, and increased storm activity and intensity should be viewed as an ongoing event. Although few sites will warrant the resources dedicated to BTFA, there are lessons which might be applied to other coastal sites. Each site must be evaluated within a local context. BTFA’s unique threat of channel dredging and increased wave action from container ships called for a specialized solution. Coordination among stakeholders is crucial. ECU’s Department of Anthropology and Phelps Archaeo logy Lab has been engaged in research and excavation at BTFA since 2013. ECU’s Program in Maritime Studies continue to assess BTFA’s submerged waterfront as placement of the ARMs continues. UNCW is monitoring the ARM installation for shoreline accretion and habitat changes and has conducted its own archaeological field school at BTFA. These entities, along with BTFA’s management team and North Carolina’s Office of State Archaeology, should facilitate a plan for salvage operations, especially for storm events. Large hurricanes and storms are projected to occur more often in the coming decades (IPCC, 2016). In addition, North Carolina recently announced further expansion to the Port of Wilmington, providing capabilities for more sh ipping (Perchick, 2022). Increases in storm activity and shipping will likely cause destructive events similar to the waterfront damage which spurred ECU’s initial field school in 2015. The low-lying southern port section, at greatest risk for inundation, should be prioritized for future research. Pedestrian surveys and remote sensing show that it is potentially rich in archaeological sites and data. A systematic mapping survey, possible subsurface testing, along with an assessment of erosion will provide a basis for excavation. Continuing to leverage technology is the most effective method of preliminarily investigating these areas. Employing GPR will be extremely challenging given the dense foliage, but significant areas might be cleared. A Lidar-capable drone would be an efficient place to start, providing a higher-resolution map than the aerial Lidar currently used. For features nearest the waterfront, synchronizing with side-scan sonar surveys would provide a larger picture of potential areas for investigation. 70 While important features have been discovered using GPR and Lidar, ruling out potential targets helps prioritize sites for further work. Lidar, as shown above, has been used to accurately geo-reference Sauthier’s map, demonstrating the location and significance of shoreline loss. In both the northern and southern sections, closer correlation of features identified through Lidar imagery and Sauthier’s map should be included in future surveys. Resources are limited; the installation of wave attenuators allows prioritization of sites which now have become most at risk. Coastal sites as large as BTFA are rare, but the same strategy can be applied to smaller sites. Resources should be prioritized for the most vulnerable areas while moving investigations into areas which won’t receive protection. Finally, low-lying areas with known archaeological sites should be considered as especially vulnerable not only from potential inundation and potential erosion, but from the likelihood that these areas contain valuable information on historically marginalized populations which were crucial to the construction, operation and maintenance of historic BrunswickTown. 71 Works Cited Atlantic Reefmaker. (2022, March 15). Brunswick Town/Fort Anderson Shoreline Protection Phase 1, 2 & 3A. Retrieved from atlanticreefmaker.com: https://atlanticreefmaker.com/case-studies/brunswick-town-fort-anderson-shoreline- protection/ Eulie, D. O., Corbett, D. R., & Walsh, J. (2017). Shoreline Erosion and decadal sediment accumulation in the Tar- Pamlico estuary, North Carolina, USA: A source-to-sink analysis. Estuarine,Coastal and Shelf Science, 246-258. Retrieved 10 03, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.10.011 Flemming, N. (2020). Forward. In G. Bailey, N. Galanidou, H. Peeters, H. Jons, & M. Mennenga, The Archaeology of Europe's Drowned Landscapes. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Open. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37367-2 Garrison, E. G. (2011). PREHISTORIC SITE POTENTIAL AND HISTORIC SHIPWRECKS ON THE ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF. Washington, DC: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement . Guttierez, G. (2018). Moseley's Life in Ruins: The Excavation of Lot 34 and its Structural Remains at Brunswick Town. Master's Thesis. Greenville, N.C.: East Carolina University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10342/6916 Hildebran, D. (2018). Research Design of Fort Anderson. Master's Thesis. Greenville, N.C.: East Carolina University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10342/6169 Holloway, A. J. (2017). BRUNSWICK’S BAKERS: THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESIGATION OF A DWELLING AND BAKE OVEN AT LOT 35 IN BRUNSWICK TOWN STATE HISTORIC SITE. Master's Thesis. Greenville, N.C.: East Carolina University. IPCC. (2016). Fifth Assessment Report. Paris: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Kopp, R. E., Horton, B. P., Kemp, A. C., & Tobaldi, C. (2015). Past and future sea-level rise along the coast of North Carolina, USA. Climate Change, 2-13. doi: doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1451-x Lenihan, D. J., Carrell, T. L., Fosberg, S., Murphy, L., Rayl, S. L., & Ware, J. A. (1982). The Final Report of the National Resevoir Inundation Study. Denver: National Park Service. Mulkey, M. (2021). A Possible Colonial Tavern Site in Brunswick, North Carolina. Masters Thesis. Greenville,NC: East Carolina University. N.C. Coastal Resources Comission Science Panel on Coastal Hazards. (2010). North Carolina Seal-Level Rise Assessment Report. Raleigh: N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management. NPS. (2019, September 27). Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor. Retrieved from www.nps.gov. Perchick, M. (2022, March 8). Gov. Cooper touts Port of Wilmington expansion to help ease supply chain issues. Retrieved March 18, 2022, from abc channel 11 news: https://abc11.com/port-of-wilmington-supply-chain-shortages-economic- crisis/11633052/ R.P. Stephen Davis, J. (Ed.). (1997). North Carolina Archaeology. 46. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from http://www.rla.unc.edu/publications/ncarch/nca_46.pdf Riggs, S., & Ames, D. (2003). Drowning the North Carolina Coast: Sea-Level Rise and Estaurine Dynamics. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Sea Grant Pub, No. UNC-SG-01-11. Ring Shout wit de NC Gullah/Geechee Famlee! (2022, May 19). Retrieved from gullahgeecheenation.com. Smith, H. P. (2014). Revisiting the Port of Brunswick : A Research Design for the Waterfront of Brunswick Town/Fort Anderson State Historic Site, Winnabow, North Carolina (Master's Thesis, East Carolina University). MAster's Thesis. Greenville, NC: East Carolina University. 72 South, S. (2012). Archaeology at Colonial Brunswick. Raleigh: North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources. The Lost Tavern. (2019, July 2). Retrieved April 13, 2020, from ECU News Services: https://news.ecu.edu/2019/07/02/the-lost-tavern/ Todd, P., & Eulie, D. (2017). SHORELINE PROTECTION OF HISTORIC AND COASTAL RESOURCES. DREDGING SUMMIT & EXPO ’19 PROCEEDINGS (p. 18). Chicago: Western Dredging. Retrieved from https://www.westerndredging.org/phocadownload/2019_Chicago/Proceedings/5B-1.pdf 73 Conclusion North Carolina’s maritime heritage is being lost to erosion. Archaeological sites are often the only method of reconstructing past lifeways in the absence of written documents. Preservation of coastal heritage against climate change is an enormous challenge facing cultural resource managers and stakeholders. Focusing on long-term projections of sea-level rise and inundation does little to provide answers for planning over the next decades. This study re-frames the problem by centering the issue on erosion rather than sea-level rise, or landscape deterioration over landscape inundation. It identifies significant sites most likely to be lost from erosion, and examines research and mitigation at BTFA as an important and innovative example of site preservation. Refining studies to a more local or site perspective in order to capture local conditions is re-iterated through each chapter. The primary research questions for this study were Which sites are most vulnerable to erosion? and Which sites are most vulnerable within an actionable timeframe? Secondary research questions were How should a cultural resource manager approach constructing a vulnerability assessment? and What can be learned from erosion and mitigation at a major archaeological site? Answering these questions was facilitated by the organization of chapters into a “3 Pass” hierarchy (see introduction), adopted from examples of other vulnerability assessments (Westley, 2019). Thus, it informed the focus of each chapter (from broadscale to local), but also the organization itself. It should be noted that a 1 st Pass study of coastal United States were considered unnecessary for this study as effective, broadscale ones were already published (Anderson, et al., 2017; Reeder-Myers, 2015). Chapter 1, Coastal Vulnerability Assessments for Cultural Resource Managers: Systematic Approaches and Key Considerations addressed the problems in constructing coastal vulnerability index. Published studies from around the globe varied widely in data, methods, and scope, but key elements were still identifiable. The synchronicity of objectives, geographic size, and data are important characteristics of utility. Cultural resources have esoteric qualities that are difficult to quantify but attempts to include measures of cultural significance assist managers in refining analyses. Chapter 2, A regional vulnerability assessment: archaeological sites on North Carolina’s coast prioritizes erosion over inundation as the most significant threat. identified sites vulnerable to erosion rather than inundation. Local, short-term projections were used to construct a modified Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI), which ranked sites according to vulnerability. Of 5000 potential sites vulnerable to climate change, 958 sites are vulnerable to erosion by 2050. 21 sites are very highly vulnerable, 169 highly vulnerable, 461 moderately vulnerable, and 307 having low vulnerability; this provides a more actionable description of archaeological sites potentially needing mitigation. This study should be complemented by a companion study of shoreline hardening. This dissertation has focused on which sites are vulnerable; the follow-up should be identifying which sites are protected from erosion. This will greatly refine the study and provide a solid footing for mitigation planning. Initial studies might be desk-based and completed through GIS, but change is constant for North Carolina’s shorelines, and shorelines are rapidly hardening in man y areas (Eulie, Corbett, & Walsh, 2017). Therefore, ground-truthing will be necessary in refining this assessment. Chapter 3, A vulnerability assessment of BrunswickTown/Fort Anderson State Historic Site, Brunswick County, North Carolina, USA is a 3rd Pass case study which considers local processes and mitigation efforts. BTFA is an exceptional site on the west bank of the Cape Fear River. Not only famous for archaeological methods developed there, but it has also hosted numerous field schools over the past decade which have helped re-interpret North Carolina’s colonial maritime history. Heavy erosion has threatened colonial, antebellum, and Civil War-period archaeological features, and North Carolina has invested heavily mitigating loss through the installation of innovative wave attenuators which also provide oyster habitats. This study examines how mitigation can inform future research, and prioritizes lower-elevation 75 sites vulnerable to inundation, including a largely unstudied colonial commercial port area and a potential antebellum slave village. Stakeholder collaboration, planning for future erosional events, and more accurate mapping are principles for guiding future work at BTFA. Future Research The next steps in preserving North Carolina’s coastal archaeological heritage should be centered on involving and collaborating with more resource managers, stakeholders, and the public. Re-framing the issue around erosion will provide more clarity than simply reciting sea-level rise projections. An analysis of erosion of archaeological sites on the lower Cape Fear River should be considered. The past decade of research and work at BTFA has been highly successful and transformed how the site (as part of Orton plantation) is interpreted. Once considered a colonial rice plantation, the production and export of naval stores is now the most significant theme. But the larger interpretation of BTFA and Orton is within the larger context of the regional settlement of the lower Cape Fear. As noted in chapter 3, the port at Wilmington is expanding, meaning even greater vessel traffic; sea-levels will continue to rise causing greater inundation and erosion. A desk-based study using GIS could quantify shoreline change for the 13 miles from Southport to Wilmington, providing an overview of the compounding effects of wave action from vessel traffic and climate change. Cultural resource management firms physically visit potential sites and perform most archaeological surveys in North Carolina. Site loss undermines their business; therefore, they are already significant stakeholders and should have a sound understanding of the challenges ahead. Involving them in the process of shoreline assessment as a way to leverage preservation efforts is crucial. For CRM projects near 76 vulnerable sites, a shoreline assessment or at minimum a description (hardened, eroding) of the shoreline might be included in reporting for the Area of Potential Affects (APE). Similarly, projects often begin with a scoping process where recorded sites are identified within a 1-mile radius of a potential undertaking. For projects near shorelines, the APE might be modified to consider large portions of the relevant shoreline. Citizen science is a current buzzword in natural and environmental sciences. It implies the inclusion of the public, usually in monitoring the environment in some way. Citizen science has been used effectively Europe, in particular Scotland, to map coastal archaeological sites and monitor them for erosion. Volunteers are sometimes trained in filling out and submitting basic forms assessing erosion, especially after storm events. While this brings tremendous resources to bear, it also requires a system in place to organize and manage volunteers, incorporate erosion assessments into planning, and action when sites are at high risk for deterioration. Further complicating the importation of this system are the differences in the relation of citizenry to public and private land. Private landowners in North Carolina are not likely to allow regular monitoring of sites on their property. However, initial incorporation of citizen science might take place on state owned land where managers might lack the resources to cover all areas on a regular basis. Volunteers might be organized on the community level, providing feedback to local resource managers. Assessing site protection from shoreline hardening, involving CRM firms, engaging in citizen science, and emphasizing the lower Cape Fear River underscore the lessons of BTFA. The refining of assessments to the local and site level and understanding local conditions will be key in preserving North Carolina’s coastal archaeological heritage. The process of assessment must be seen as ongoing and continuous process of monitoring shoreline erosion and hardening. North Carolina’s stakeholders should be commended for their efforts in addressing eroding cultural heritage. The innovative work at BTFA, from the design by Atlantic Reefmaker to the willingness to invest resources, complements the work of site personnel, students and archaeologists. Limited resource will require innovation, flexibility, and collaboration in the future to slow eroding heritage. Hammar-Klose and Theiler cautioned in their seminal 1999 CVI that despite all of these 77 efforts, human manipulation and engineering of the coastline may ultimately determine how a coast evolves, overtaking natural processes. This will hold true for the integrity of coastal archaeological sites. 78 Appendix: Archaeological Site Vulnerability Data Vulnerability Data SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31BW117 Brunswick 5 4 0 4 4 4 31BW130 Brunswick 5 4 0 4 4 4 31BW358 Brunswick 3 4 0 4 4 4 31BW39 Brunswick 5 4 0 4 4 4 31CK58 Currituck 1 4 0 4 4 4 31CK59 Currituck 1 4 0 4 4 4 31CK60 Currituck 1 4 0 4 4 4 31CO89 Chowan 3 4 5 4 4 4 31CV148 Craven 4 4 0 4 4 4 31CV89 Craven 4 4 0 4 4 4 31DR87 Dare 1 4 0 4 4 4 31DR90 Dare 1 4 0 4 4 4 31NH730 New Hanover 0 4 0 4 4 4 31NH731 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 4 4 31PQ10 Perquimans 3 4 0 4 4 4 31PQ11 Perquimans 3 4 0 4 4 4 31PQ14 Perquimans 3 4 0 4 4 4 31PQ16 Perquimans 3 4 0 4 4 4 31PQ18 Perquimans 3 4 0 4 4 4 31PQ20 Perquimans 3 4 0 4 4 4 31PQ21 Perquimans 3 4 0 4 4 4 31BF156 Beaufort 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF255 Beaufort 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF258 Beaufort 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF259 Beaufort 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF260 Beaufort 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF261 Beaufort 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF262 Beaufort 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF263 Beaufort 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF264 Beaufort 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF265 Beaufort 2 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31BF268 Beaufort 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF269 Beaufort 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF287 Beaufort 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF3 Beaufort 4 4 3 4 3 3.666667 31BF31 Beaufort 1 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31BF37 Beaufort 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 3 1BF44 Beaufort 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 Page 1 of 24 80 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31BF47 Beaufort 0 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31BF64 Beaufort 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF74 Beaufort 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BF89 Beaufort 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BW267 Brunswick 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BW72 Brunswick 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BW73 Brunswick 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BW74 Brunswick 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31BW84 Brunswick 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CK10 Currituck 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CK11 Currituck 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CK118 Currituck 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CK13 Currituck 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CK19 Currituck 1 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31CK22 Currituck 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CK25 Currituck 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CK26 Currituck 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CK31 Currituck 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CK32 Currituck 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CK61 Currituck 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CO19 Chowan 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR104 Carteret 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR121 Carteret 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR122 Carteret 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR123 Carteret 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR124 Carteret 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR126 Carteret 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR136 Carteret 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR138 Carteret 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR149 Carteret 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR152 Carteret 2 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31CR165 Carteret 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR174 Carteret 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR177 Carteret 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR178 Carteret 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR181 Carteret 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR188 Carteret 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR190 Carteret 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR191 Carteret 1 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31CR192 Carteret 5 4 6 4 3 3.666667 Page 2 of 24 81 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31CR2 Carteret 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR250 Carteret 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR273 Carteret 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR30 Carteret 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR305 Carteret 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR306 Carteret 2 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31CR31 Carteret 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR310 Carteret 2 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31CR311 Carteret 2 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31CR32 Carteret 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR325 Carteret 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR330 Carteret 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR38 Carteret 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR4 Carteret 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR59 Carteret 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR62 Carteret 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR65 Carteret 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR67 Carteret 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR69 Carteret 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CR78 Carteret 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CV118 Craven 1 4 3 4 3 3.666667 31CV13 Craven 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CV14 Craven 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CV17 Craven 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CV253 Craven 3 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31CV329 Craven 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CV330 Craven 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31CV85 Craven 5 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31DR28 Dare 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31DR44 Dare 1 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31DR77 Dare 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31DR8 Dare 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31GA2 Gates 0 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31GA3 Gates 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31GA4 Gates 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31GA6 Gates 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31GA7 Gates 3 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31HF17 Hertford 3 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31HY22 Hyde 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31HY25 Hyde 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 Page 3 of 24 82 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31HY28 Hyde 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31HY29 Hyde 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31HY48 Hyde 3 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31HY5 Hyde 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31MT6 Martin 4 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31NH107 New Hanover 5 4 3 4 3 3.666667 31NH118 New Hanover 5 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31NH145 New Hanover 3 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31NH151 New Hanover 5 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31NH177 New Hanover 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH217 New Hanover 5 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31NH255 New Hanover 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH260 New Hanover 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH374 New Hanover 0 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31NH416 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH417 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH449 New Hanover 5 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31NH45B New Hanover 5 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31NH497 New Hanover 2 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH501 New Hanover 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH504 New Hanover 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH557 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH559 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH563-2 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH579 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH737 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH98 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31NH99 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PD168 Pender 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PD19 Pender 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PD2 Pender 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PD297 Pender 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PD298 Pender 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PD3 Pender 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PD300 Pender 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PD4 Pender 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PD5 Pender 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PD6 Pender 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PD78 Pender 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PK13 Pasquotank 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 Page 4 of 24 83 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31PK15 Pasquotank 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PK85 Pasquotank 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PK9 Pasquotank 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PM101 Pamlico 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PM102 Pamlico 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PM11 Pamlico 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PM20 Pamlico 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PM36 Pamlico 3 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31PM6 Pamlico 1 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31PM90 Pamlico 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PM92 Pamlico 1 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PM93 Pamlico 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PM94 Pamlico 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PM95 Pamlico 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PM96 Pamlico 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PM97 Pamlico 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PM98 Pamlico 4 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31PQ172 Perquimans 5 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31PQ201 Perquimans 4 4 5 4 3 3.666667 31PT35 Pitt 3 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31WH10 Washington 5 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31WH12 Washington 0 4 0 4 3 3.666667 31WH4 Washington 5 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31WH5 Washington 5 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31WH6 Washington 5 4 1 4 3 3.666667 31BF81 Beaufort 5 4 10 3 4 3.666667 31CK67 Currituck 5 4 10 3 4 3.666667 31CR290 Carteret 10 3 0 4 4 3.666667 31DR57 Dare 10 3 0 4 4 3.666667 31PQ19 Perquimans 7 3 0 4 4 3.666667 31PQ24 Perquimans 3 4 10 3 4 3.666667 31PQ32 Perquimans 7 3 0 4 4 3.666667 31BF232 Beaufort 5 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31BF250 Beaufort 5 4 5 4 2 3.333333 31BF256 Beaufort 5 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31BF389 Beaufort 0 4 1 4 2 3.333333 31BF416 Beaufort 5 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31BF419 Beaufort 0 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CK129 Currituck 0 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CK170 Currituck 3 4 7 4 2 3.333333 Page 5 of 24 84 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31CK197 Currituck 3 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CK214 Currituck 1 4 -1 4 2 3.333333 31CO141 Chowan 3 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CO172 Chowan 3 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CO173 Chowan 3 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CO174 Chowan 3 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CO175 Chowan 3 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CO176 Chowan 3 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CO177 Chowan 3 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CR186 Carteret 0 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CR196 Carteret 1 4 2 4 2 3.333333 31CR199 Carteret 5 4 2 4 2 3.333333 31CR201 Carteret 0 4 2 4 2 3.333333 31CR203 Carteret 3 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CR249 Carteret 5 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31CV366 Craven 5 4 2 4 2 3.333333 31HF246 Hertford 5 4 1 4 2 3.333333 31HF247 Hertford 5 4 3 4 2 3.333333 31HY74 Hyde 1 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31NH780 New Hanover 0 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31NH90-4 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31NH92-1 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31PD308 Pender 5 4 1 4 2 3.333333 31PD329 Pender 5 4 5 4 2 3.333333 31PK104 Pasquotank 2 4 5 4 2 3.333333 31PK78 Pasquotank 2 4 5 4 2 3.333333 31PK79 Pasquotank 2 4 5 4 2 3.333333 31PK96 Pasquotank 0 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31PK97 Pasquotank 2 4 5 4 2 3.333333 31PK98 Pasquotank 2 4 5 4 2 3.333333 31PK99 Pasquotank 2 4 5 4 2 3.333333 31PM13 Pamlico 0 4 5 4 2 3.333333 31PM32 Pamlico 1 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31PM33 Pamlico 0 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31PM34 Pamlico 1 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31PM35 Pamlico 2 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31PM50 Pamlico 5 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31PM51 Pamlico 5 4 5 4 2 3.333333 31PM53 Pamlico 5 4 5 4 2 3.333333 31PM54 Pamlico 5 4 5 4 2 3.333333 Page 6 of 24 85 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31PM62 Pamlico 2 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31PM66 Pamlico 1 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31PM87 Pamlico 1 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31PM91 Pamlico 4 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31PQ209 Perquimans 3 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31PQ215 Perquimans 1 4 2 4 2 3.333333 31PQ216 Perquimans 1 4 2 4 2 3.333333 31PQ68 Perquimans 3 4 0 4 2 3.333333 31BF117 Beaufort 7 3 7 4 3 3.333333 31BF17 Beaufort 1 4 15 3 3 3.333333 31BF206 Beaufort 5 4 15 3 3 3.333333 31BF211 Beaufort 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31BF212 Beaufort 0 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31BF56 Beaufort 1 4 15 3 3 3.333333 31BF58 Beaufort 10 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31BF87 Beaufort 1 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31BF95 Beaufort 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31BF96 Beaufort 1 4 13 3 3 3.333333 31BR27 Bertie 8 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31BR39 Bertie 3 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31BR45 Bertie 4 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31BW384 Brunswick 3 4 15 3 3 3.333333 31BW390 Brunswick 1 4 15 3 3 3.333333 31BW411 Brunswick 10 3 2 4 3 3.333333 31BW464 Brunswick 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31BW702 Brunswick 10 3 5 4 3 3.333333 31CM65 Camden 1 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31CR10 Carteret 6 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31CR129 Carteret 8 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31CR147 Carteret 0 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31CR166 Carteret 1 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31CR185 Carteret 1 4 14 3 3 3.333333 31CR29 Carteret 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31CR304 Carteret 10 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31CR323 Carteret 8 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31CR42 Carteret 5 4 15 3 3 3.333333 31CR63 Carteret 8 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31CR70 Carteret 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31CR76 Carteret 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31CR77 Carteret 5 4 15 3 3 3.333333 Page 7 of 24 86 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31CR90 Carteret 7 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31CRMAM Carteret 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31CV18 Craven 6 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31DP210 Duplin 10 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31DR11 Dare 7 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31DR19 Dare 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31DR21 Dare 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31DR34 Dare 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31DR35 Dare 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31DR49 Dare 8 3 1 4 3 3.333333 31DR50 Dare 6 3 1 4 3 3.333333 31DR65 Dare 1 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31DR82 Dare 9 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31GA1 Gates 3 4 15 3 3 3.333333 31GA11 Gates 0 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31GA25 Gates 3 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31HF282 Hertford 10 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31HF41 Hertford 3 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31HY2 Hyde 1 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31HY20 Hyde 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31HY4 Hyde 1 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31HY7 Hyde 4 4 15 3 3 3.333333 31JN37 Jones 6 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31NH109 New Hanover 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31NH174 New Hanover 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31NH175 New Hanover 10 3 5 4 3 3.333333 31NH230 New Hanover 10 3 7 4 3 3.333333 31NH258 New Hanover 3 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31NH401 New Hanover 10 3 5 4 3 3.333333 31NH403 New Hanover 10 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31NH412 New Hanover 10 3 5 4 3 3.333333 31NH437 New Hanover 10 3 5 4 3 3.333333 31NH451 New Hanover 6 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31NH490 New Hanover 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31NH574 New Hanover 10 3 5 4 3 3.333333 31NH79 New Hanover 10 3 5 4 3 3.333333 31PD296 Pender 10 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31PD299 Pender 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31PK16 Pasquotank 7 3 0 4 3 3.333333 31PK84 Perquimans 1 4 10 3 3 3.333333 Page 8 of 24 87 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31PM16 Pamlico 1 4 15 3 3 3.333333 31PM18 Pamlico 3 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31PM2 Pamlico 4 4 15 3 3 3.333333 31PM22 Pamlico 5 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31PM26 Pamlico 4 4 15 3 3 3.333333 31PM27 Pamlico 1 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31PQ33 Perquimans 1 4 10 3 3 3.333333 31PT11 Pitt 4 4 8 3 3 3.333333 31BF245 Beaufort 10 3 10 3 4 3.333333 31BF246 Beaufort 10 3 10 3 4 3.333333 31BW106 Brunswick 7 3 15 3 4 3.333333 31BW139 Brunswick 10 3 10 3 4 3.333333 31BW140 Brunswick 10 3 10 3 4 3.333333 31BW20 Brunswick 5 4 20 2 4 3.333333 31BW361 Brunswick 11 2 0 4 4 3.333333 31BW423 Brunswick 10 3 10 3 4 3.333333 31CO59 Chowan 13 2 5 4 4 3.333333 31CR197 Carteret 20 2 0 4 4 3.333333 31NH91 New Hanover 20 2 5 4 4 3.333333 31PD256 Pender 5 4 20 2 4 3.333333 31PQ22 Perquimans 3 4 20 2 4 3.333333 31PQ23 Perquimans 3 4 20 2 4 3.333333 31PQ34 Perquimans 3 4 20 2 4 3.333333 31BR90 Bertie 3 4 0 4 1 3 31CK133 Currituck 1 4 0 4 1 3 31CK9 Currituck 1 4 0 4 1 3 31CR150 Carteret 2 4 6 4 1 3 31CR194 Carteret 5 4 0 4 1 3 31CR379 Carteret 5 4 5 4 1 3 31CR383 Carteret 5 4 5 4 1 3 31CR61 Carteret 5 4 0 4 1 3 31CV124 Craven 3 4 5 4 1 3 31CV404 Craven 5 4 0 4 1 3 31NH662-2 New Hanover 5 4 0 4 1 3 31NH752 New Hanover 4 4 0 4 1 3 31PD273-5 Pender 0 4 0 4 1 3 31PM19 Pamlico 4 4 0 4 1 3 31PM52 Pamlico 5 4 0 4 1 3 31BF122 Beaufort 10 3 0 4 2 3 31BF205 Beaufort 5 4 15 3 2 3 Page 9 of 24 88 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31BF233 Beaufort 5 4 10 3 2 3 31BF248 Beaufort 10 3 0 4 2 3 31BF347 Beaufort 5 4 15 3 2 3 31BF391 Beaufort 7 3 2 4 2 3 31BF407 Beaufort 5 4 10 3 2 3 31BF408 Beaufort 3 4 10 3 2 3 31BF409 Beaufort 3 4 10 3 2 3 31BF415 Beaufort 10 3 0 4 2 3 31BR188 Bertie 2 4 10 3 2 3 31BW391 Brunswick 10 3 5 4 2 3 31BW744 Brunswick 5 4 10 3 2 3 31BW746 Brunswick 10 3 1 4 2 3 31BW747 Brunswick 10 3 1 4 2 3 31BW758 Brunswick 10 3 5 4 2 3 31CO170 Chowan 3 4 10 3 2 3 31CO171 Chowan 3 4 10 3 2 3 31CV147 Craven 5 4 10 3 2 3 31CV15 Craven 5 4 15 3 2 3 31CV361 Craven 5 4 10 3 2 3 31CV362 Craven 5 4 10 3 2 3 31JN102 Jones 7 3 5 4 2 3 31JN115 Jones 5 4 14 3 2 3 31JN120 Jones 10 3 5 4 2 3 31NH674 New Hanover 6 3 0 4 2 3 31NH90-13 New Hanover 6 3 0 4 2 3 31NH95-3 New Hanover 10 3 0 4 2 3 31PD303 Pender 10 3 5 4 2 3 31PK101 Pasquotank 2 4 15 3 2 3 31PM15 Pamlico 10 3 5 4 2 3 31PQ135 Perquimans 3 4 10 3 2 3 31PQ202 Perquimans 4 4 15 3 2 3 31PQ207 Perquimans 3 4 10 3 2 3 31PQ208 Perquimans 3 4 10 3 2 3 31PQ214 Perquimans 3 4 15 3 2 3 31PT609 Pitt 10 3 5 4 2 3 31WH18 Washington 10 3 0 4 2 3 31BF103 Beaufort 5 4 20 2 3 3 31BF105 Beaufort 5 4 20 2 3 3 31BF106 Beaufort 5 4 20 2 3 3 31BF114 Beaufort 5 4 20 2 3 3 Page 10 of 24 89 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31BF278 Beaufort 5 4 20 2 3 3 31BF30 Beaufort 1 4 20 2 3 3 31BF35 Beaufort 4 4 20 2 3 3 31BF39 Beaufort 0 4 20 2 3 3 31BF40 Beaufort 5 4 20 2 3 3 31BF45 Beaufort 10 3 10 3 3 3 31BF71 Beaufort 7 3 12 3 3 3 31BR169 Bertie 12 2 0 4 3 3 31BW125 Brunswick 10 3 15 3 3 3 31BW127 Brunswick 20 2 5 4 3 3 31BW235 Brunswick 15 2 5 4 3 3 31BW42 Brunswick 16 2 0 4 3 3 31CK119 Currituck 3 4 20 2 3 3 31CK14 Currituck 20 2 0 4 3 3 31CK33 Currituck 7 3 10 3 3 3 31CK5 Currituck 3 4 20 2 3 3 31CR101 Carteret 15 2 0 4 3 3 31CR120 Carteret 4 4 20 2 3 3 31CR132 Carteret 15 2 0 4 3 3 31CR137 Carteret 4 4 20 2 3 3 31CR162 Carteret 10 3 15 3 3 3 31CR164 Carteret 1 4 20 2 3 3 31CR39 Carteret 11 2 0 4 3 3 31CR52 Carteret 15 2 0 4 3 3 31CR55 Carteret 5 4 20 2 3 3 31CR84 Carteret 1 4 20 2 3 3 31CR85 Carteret 4 4 20 2 3 3 31CR87 Carteret 1 4 20 2 3 3 31CV2 Craven 3 4 20 2 3 3 31CV26 Craven 5 4 20 2 3 3 31CV312 Craven 5 4 20 2 3 3 31CV352 Craven 10 3 15 3 3 3 31DR12 Dare 3 4 20 2 3 3 31DR18 Dare 13 2 0 4 3 3 31DR22 Dare 5 4 20 2 3 3 31DR40 Dare 4 4 20 2 3 3 31GA119 Gates 20 2 0 4 3 3 31HF16 Hertford 5 4 20 2 3 3 31HF80 Hertford 15 2 5 4 3 3 31HY34 Hyde 5 4 20 2 3 3 Page 11 of 24 90 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31HY40 Hyde 5 4 20 2 3 3 31NH112 New Hanover 14 2 0 4 3 3 31NH281 New Hanover 15 2 4 4 3 3 31NH316 New Hanover 15 2 0 4 3 3 31NH321 New Hanover 14 2 0 4 3 3 31NH364 New Hanover 20 2 0 4 3 3 31NH366 New Hanover 15 2 5 4 3 3 31NH367 New Hanover 15 2 5 4 3 3 31NH372 New Hanover 15 2 5 4 3 3 31NH378 New Hanover 5 4 20 2 3 3 31NH392 New Hanover 15 2 5 4 3 3 31NH42B New Hanover 20 2 5 4 3 3 31NH49 New Hanover 20 2 2 4 3 3 31NH496 New Hanover 0 4 20 2 3 3 31NH78 New Hanover 10 3 10 3 3 3 31NH89 New Hanover 20 2 5 4 3 3 31PD218 Pender 7 3 10 3 3 3 31PD37 Pender 20 2 0 4 3 3 31PK14 Pasquotank 7 3 10 3 3 3 31PK18 Pasquotank 7 3 10 3 3 3 31PK2 Pasquotank 3 4 20 2 3 3 31PK77 Pasquotank 3 4 20 2 3 3 31PM23 Pamlico 5 4 20 2 3 3 31PM24 Pamlico 5 4 20 2 3 3 31PM5 Pamlico 5 4 20 2 3 3 31PM7 Pamlico 5 4 20 2 3 3 31PQ171 Perquimans 9 3 10 3 3 3 31PQ199 Perquimans 4 4 20 2 3 3 31PQ56 Perquimans 7 3 10 3 3 3 31PT264 Pitt 13 2 0 4 3 3 31PT29 Pitt 20 2 0 4 3 3 31PT502 Pitt 16 2 0 4 3 3 31BF226 Beaufort 10 3 20 2 4 3 31BF244 Beaufort 10 3 20 2 4 3 31BR161 Bertie 25 1 5 4 4 3 31BR162 Bertie 26 1 5 4 4 3 31BW77 Brunswick 10 3 20 2 4 3 31CO87 Chowan 6 3 20 2 4 3 31DR75 Dare 1 4 30 1 4 3 31ED372 Edgecombe 12 2 15 3 4 3 Page 12 of 24 91 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31PD242 Pender 7 3 20 2 4 3 31PD244 Pender 13 2 10 3 4 3 31PD257 Pender 7 3 20 2 4 3 31PQ27 Perquimans 7 3 20 2 4 3 31BF26 Beaufort 5 4 15 3 1 2.666667 31CK24 Currituck 10 3 0 4 1 2.666667 31CO144 Chowan 10 3 5 4 1 2.666667 31CR151 Carteret 2 4 10 3 1 2.666667 31CV27 Craven 5 4 10 3 1 2.666667 31JN109 Jones 10 3 5 4 1 2.666667 31NH747 New Hanover 4 4 10 3 1 2.666667 31NH750 New Hanover 6 3 0 4 1 2.666667 31NH755 New Hanover 4 4 10 3 1 2.666667 31WH13 Washington 10 3 0 4 1 2.666667 31BF102 Beaufort 5 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31BF120 Beaufort 0 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31BF123 Beaufort 20 2 5 4 2 2.666667 31BF186 Beaufort 10 3 13 3 2 2.666667 31BF188 Beaufort 10 3 10 3 2 2.666667 31BF228 Beaufort 10 3 10 3 2 2.666667 31BF229 Beaufort 10 3 10 3 2 2.666667 31BF230 Beaufort 10 3 10 3 2 2.666667 31BF231 Beaufort 10 3 10 3 2 2.666667 31BF412 Beaufort 3 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31BF413 Beaufort 6 3 10 3 2 2.666667 31BF421 Beaufort 5 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31BF422 Beaufort 1 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31BR234 Bertie 13 2 1 4 2 2.666667 31BW615 Brunswick 19 2 5 4 2 2.666667 31BW693 Brunswick 20 2 5 4 2 2.666667 31CK200 Currituck 12 2 5 4 2 2.666667 31CK209 Currituck 12 2 0 4 2 2.666667 31CK40 Currituck 3 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31CK72 Currituck 3 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31CO178 Chowan 4 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31CR184 Carteret 5 4 21 2 2 2.666667 31CR339 Carteret 15 2 5 4 2 2.666667 31CR382 Carteret 10 3 10 3 2 2.666667 31CV1 Craven 4 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31CV141 Craven 5 4 20 2 2 2.666667 Page 13 of 24 92 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31CV201 Craven 20 2 6 4 2 2.666667 31CV226 Craven 5 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31CV251 Craven 20 2 5 4 2 2.666667 31CV290 Craven 18 2 5 4 2 2.666667 31CV332 Craven 20 2 0 4 2 2.666667 31CV334 Craven 20 2 0 4 2 2.666667 31HF249 Hertford 20 2 2 4 2 2.666667 31JN138 Jones 11 2 0 4 2 2.666667 31JN64 Jones 16 2 0 4 2 2.666667 31JN99 Jones 5 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31NH201 New Hanover 20 2 7 4 2 2.666667 31NH49-1 New Hanover 20 2 5 4 2 2.666667 31NH621 New Hanover 15 2 5 4 2 2.666667 31NH685 New Hanover 10 3 10 3 2 2.666667 31NH742 New Hanover 10 3 15 3 2 2.666667 31NH749 New Hanover 10 3 10 3 2 2.666667 31NH784 New Hanover 10 3 10 3 2 2.666667 31PD332 Pender 20 2 0 4 2 2.666667 31PK19 Pasquotank 7 3 15 3 2 2.666667 31PK80 Pasquotank 3 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31PM58 Pamlico 15 2 5 4 2 2.666667 31PM86 Pamlico 4 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31PM89 Pamlico 5 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31PQ118 Perquimans 3 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31PQ147 Perquimans 3 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31PQ148 Perquimans 3 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31PQ149 Perquimans 3 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31PQ66 Perquimans 3 4 20 2 2 2.666667 31BF195 Beaufort 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31BF2 Beaufort 5 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31BF25 Beaufort 15 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31BF27 Beaufort 8 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31BF270 Beaufort 0 4 25 1 3 2.666667 31BF29 Beaufort 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31BF34 Beaufort 2 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31BF38 Beaufort 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31BF46 Beaufort 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31BL56 Bladen 25 1 0 4 3 2.666667 31BR32 Bertie 5 4 25 1 3 2.666667 31BW128 Brunswick 15 2 10 3 3 2.666667 Page 14 of 24 93 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31BW305 Brunswick 15 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31BW335 Brunswick 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31BW340 Brunswick 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31BW386 Brunswick 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31BW414 Brunswick 20 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31BW617 Brunswick 19 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31BW679 Brunswick 29 1 3 4 3 2.666667 31CK17 Currituck 20 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31CK39 Currituck 10 3 22 2 3 2.666667 31CM50 Camden 3 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31CO28 Chowan 6 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31CO9 Chowan 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31CR128 Carteret 0 4 25 1 3 2.666667 31CR14 Carteret 3 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31CR172 Carteret 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31CR236 Carteret 15 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31CR24 Carteret 5 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31CR331 Carteret 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31CR46 Carteret 20 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31CR68 Carteret 5 4 25 1 3 2.666667 31CR72 Carteret 5 4 25 1 3 2.666667 31CR73 Carteret 4 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31CR74 Carteret 5 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31CR86 Carteret 3 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31CR88 Carteret 5 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31CV12 Craven 5 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31CV307 Craven 25 1 0 4 3 2.666667 31CV53 Craven 8 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31CV56 Craven 5 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31CV64 Craven 25 1 0 4 3 2.666667 31CV79 Craven 15 2 15 3 3 2.666667 31CV88 Craven 3 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31DR16 Dare 3 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31DR24 Dare 5 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31DR36 Dare 1 4 25 1 3 2.666667 31DR39 Dare 4 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31ED337 Edgecombe 22 1 0 4 3 2.666667 31HF103 Hertford 30 1 5 4 3 2.666667 31HF134 Hertford 25 1 0 4 3 2.666667 31HF159 Hertford 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 Page 15 of 24 94 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31HF168 Hertford 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31HY1 Hyde 1 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31HY27 Hyde 2 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31HY6 Hyde 1 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31HY9 Hyde 3 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31NH103 New Hanover 6 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31NH105 New Hanover 18 2 15 3 3 2.666667 31NH117 New Hanover 5 4 25 1 3 2.666667 31NH208 New Hanover 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31NH239 New Hanover 15 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31NH256 New Hanover 5 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31NH265 New Hanover 25 1 1 4 3 2.666667 31NH297 New Hanover 25 1 0 4 3 2.666667 31NH319 New Hanover 25 1 5 4 3 2.666667 31NH385 New Hanover 15 2 12 3 3 2.666667 31NH440 New Hanover 5 4 25 1 3 2.666667 31NH444 New Hanover 15 2 15 3 3 2.666667 31NH455 New Hanover 15 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31NH461 New Hanover 15 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31NH475 New Hanover 6 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31NH479 New Hanover 6 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31NH512 New Hanover 4 4 25 1 3 2.666667 31NH589 New Hanover 25 1 5 4 3 2.666667 31NH620 New Hanover 20 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31NH622 New Hanover 20 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31NH92 New Hanover 25 1 5 4 3 2.666667 31PD12 Pender 23 1 0 4 3 2.666667 31PD31 Pender 10 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31PD84 Pender 20 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31PK11 Pasquotank 2 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31PK26 Pasquotank 7 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31PK7 Pasquotank 7 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31PK86 Pasquotank 7 3 20 2 3 2.666667 31PM1 Pamlico 5 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31PM12 Pamlico 30 1 5 4 3 2.666667 31PM28 Pamlico 1 4 27 1 3 2.666667 31PM29 Pamlico 1 4 27 1 3 2.666667 31PM31 Pamlico 5 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31PQ158 Perquimans 12 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31PQ160 Perquimans 12 2 10 3 3 2.666667 Page 16 of 24 95 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31PQ161 Perquimans 12 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31PQ162 Perquimans 12 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31PQ170 Perquimans 12 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31PQ53 Perquimans 12 2 10 3 3 2.666667 31PT10 Pitt 5 4 25 1 3 2.666667 31PT525 Pitt 3 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31PT7 Pitt 4 4 30 1 3 2.666667 31BR163 Bertie 26 1 10 3 4 2.666667 31BW157 Brunswick 15 2 20 2 4 2.666667 31BW608 Brunswick 18 2 20 2 4 2.666667 31CR198 Carteret 25 1 10 3 4 2.666667 31PD140 Pender 8 3 30 1 4 2.666667 31PQ1 Perquimans 7 3 30 1 4 2.666667 31BR205 Bertie 20 2 5 4 1 2.333333 31BW556 Brunswick 5 4 20 2 1 2.333333 31BW556-1 Brunswick 5 4 20 2 1 2.333333 31BW556-2 Brunswick 5 4 20 2 1 2.333333 31BW556-3 Brunswick 5 4 20 2 1 2.333333 31CR189 Carteret 10 3 15 3 1 2.333333 31CR218 Carteret 13 2 0 4 1 2.333333 31CR267 Carteret 15 2 1 4 1 2.333333 31CR53 Carteret 15 2 0 4 1 2.333333 31CV264 Craven 14 2 0 4 1 2.333333 31HF72 Hertford 13 2 1 4 1 2.333333 31NH700 New Hanover 10 3 10 3 1 2.333333 31NH707 New Hanover 8 3 10 3 1 2.333333 31PD273 Pender 12 2 0 4 1 2.333333 31PM8 Pamlico 15 2 0 4 1 2.333333 31BF124 Beaufort 21 1 5 4 2 2.333333 31BF307 Beaufort 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31BF384 Beaufort 25 1 1 4 2 2.333333 31BW433 Brunswick 25 1 1 4 2 2.333333 31BW439 Brunswick 7 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31BW529 Brunswick 10 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31BW610 Brunswick 13 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31BW640 Brunswick 29 1 0 4 2 2.333333 31BW647 Brunswick 18 2 15 3 2 2.333333 31BW741 Brunswick 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31BW748 Brunswick 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31BW749 Brunswick 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 Page 17 of 24 96 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31CK205 Currituck 9 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31CO136 Chowan 4 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31CO138 Chowan 4 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31CO139 Chowan 4 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31CO149 Chowan 7 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31CO160 Chowan 7 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31CO161 Chowan 7 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31CO163 Chowan 7 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31CR328 Carteret 22 1 0 4 2 2.333333 31CR353 Carteret 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31CR354 Carteret 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31CR364 Carteret 5 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31CV177 Craven 20 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31CV180 Craven 10 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31CV199 Craven 18 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31CV371 Craven 5 4 25 1 2 2.333333 31HF284 Hertford 20 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31HY60 Hyde 4 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31HY62 Hyde 5 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31HY63 Hyde 5 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31JN114 Jones 10 3 17 2 2 2.333333 31JN42 Jones 13 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31JN98 Jones 5 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31NH722 New Hanover 16 2 15 3 2 2.333333 31NH748 New Hanover 8 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31NH90-10 New Hanover 5 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31NH90-12 New Hanover 7 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31PD302 Pender 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31PD304 Pender 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31PK102 Pasquotank 2 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31PK103 Pasquotank 2 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31PK92 Pasquotank 2 4 25 1 2 2.333333 31PK93 Pasquotank 3 4 25 1 2 2.333333 31PM64 Pamlico 30 1 5 4 2 2.333333 31PM80 Pamlico 5 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31PQ127 Perquimans 5 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31PQ131 Perquimans 6 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31PQ156 Perquimans 4 4 30 1 2 2.333333 31PQ212 Perquimans 3 4 25 1 2 2.333333 31PQ213 Perquimans 3 4 25 1 2 2.333333 Page 18 of 24 97 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31PQ217 Perquimans 3 4 25 1 2 2.333333 31PT358 Pitt 6 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31WH28 Washington 10 3 20 2 2 2.333333 31WH33 Washington 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31WH34 Washington 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31WH35 Washington 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31WH36 Washington 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31WH37 Washington 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31WH38 Washington 15 2 10 3 2 2.333333 31BF52 Beaufort 6 3 24 1 3 2.333333 31BR9 Bertie 10 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31BW176 Brunswick 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31BW181 Brunswick 15 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31BW182 Brunswick 15 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31BW184 Brunswick 22 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31BW339 Brunswick 15 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31BW382 Brunswick 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31BW412 Brunswick 20 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31BW60 Brunswick 6 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31BW619 Brunswick 13 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31BW694 Brunswick 29 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31BW695 Brunswick 30 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31CM9 Camden 10 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31CO13 Chowan 6 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31CO2 Chowan 7 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31CO37 Chowan 7 3 25 1 3 2.333333 31CO46 Chowan 13 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31CR109 Carteret 15 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31CR111 Carteret 6 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31CR116 Carteret 10 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31CR209 Carteret 20 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31CR359 Carteret 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31CR360 Carteret 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31CR9 Carteret 10 3 25 1 3 2.333333 31CV186 Craven 20 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31CV19 Craven 6 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31CV54 Craven 10 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31CV8 Craven 15 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31CV93 Craven 15 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31DR15 Dare 13 2 20 2 3 2.333333 Page 19 of 24 98 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31GA43 Gates 13 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31HF102 Hertford 30 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31HF37 Hertford 10 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31JN53 Jones 20 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31JN69 Jones 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31JN85 Jones 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31JN86 Jones 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31JN87 Jones 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31NH111 New Hanover 8 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31NH127 New Hanover 10 3 25 1 3 2.333333 31NH14 New Hanover 20 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31NH220 New Hanover 15 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31NH330 New Hanover 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31NH331 New Hanover 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31NH380 New Hanover 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31NH397 New Hanover 15 2 18 2 3 2.333333 31NH400 New Hanover 20 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31NH408 New Hanover 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31NH453 New Hanover 6 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31NH462 New Hanover 6 3 25 1 3 2.333333 31NH480 New Hanover 6 3 25 1 3 2.333333 31NH491 New Hanover 6 3 25 1 3 2.333333 31NH552 New Hanover 25 1 15 3 3 2.333333 31NH613 New Hanover 20 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31NH616 New Hanover 20 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31PD146 Pender 6 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31PK27 Pasquotank 7 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31PK29 Pasquotank 7 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31PQ134 Perquimans 15 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31PQ159 Perquimans 12 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31PQ35 Perquimans 8 3 27 1 3 2.333333 31PQ55 Perquimans 7 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31PQ96 Perquimans 7 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31PT19 Pitt 25 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31PT225 Pitt 13 2 20 2 3 2.333333 31PT257 Pitt 7 3 30 1 3 2.333333 31PT503 Pitt 26 1 10 3 3 2.333333 31BR158 Bertie 26 1 20 2 4 2.333333 31BW413 Brunswick 20 2 30 1 4 2.333333 31BW500 Brunswick 13 2 30 1 4 2.333333 Page 20 of 24 99 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31BW606 Brunswick 18 2 30 1 4 2.333333 31GA84 Gates 30 1 20 2 4 2.333333 31PD252 Pender 19 2 30 1 4 2.333333 31WH32 Washington 15 2 30 1 4 2.333333 31BF130 Beaufort 25 1 3 4 1 2 31BF22 Beaufort 5 4 30 1 1 2 31BW755 Brunswick 20 2 10 3 1 2 31CR337 Carteret 20 2 10 3 1 2 31CV263 Craven 21 1 0 4 1 2 31CV354 Craven 16 2 15 3 1 2 31NH662-1 New Hanover 15 2 10 3 1 2 31NH90-5 New Hanover 25 1 0 4 1 2 31PD273-2 Pender 3 4 30 1 1 2 31BF208 Beaufort 16 2 20 2 2 2 31BF353 Beaufort 10 3 25 1 2 2 31BF381 Beaufort 25 1 10 3 2 2 31BL150 Bladen 28 1 15 3 2 2 31BW574 Brunswick 10 3 25 1 2 2 31BW602 Brunswick 20 2 20 2 2 2 31BW723 Brunswick 10 3 30 1 2 2 31BW725 Brunswick 10 3 30 1 2 2 31BW728 Brunswick 10 3 30 1 2 2 31BW729 Brunswick 10 3 30 1 2 2 31BW745 Brunswick 10 3 30 1 2 2 31CO130 Chowan 7 3 25 1 2 2 31CO152 Chowan 11 2 20 2 2 2 31CO157 Chowan 10 3 25 1 2 2 31CO158 Chowan 13 2 20 2 2 2 31CO159 Chowan 13 2 20 2 2 2 31CO162 Chowan 13 2 20 2 2 2 31CO165 Chowan 13 2 20 2 2 2 31CR336 Carteret 9 3 27 1 2 2 31CR351 Carteret 30 1 10 3 2 2 31CR357 Carteret 25 1 10 3 2 2 31CR358 Carteret 25 1 10 3 2 2 31CV156 Craven 10 3 30 1 2 2 31CV246 Craven 15 2 20 2 2 2 31CV250 Craven 20 2 20 2 2 2 31CV275 Craven 10 3 30 1 2 2 31CV283 Craven 10 3 30 1 2 2 Page 21 of 24 100 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31CV306 Craven 20 2 20 2 2 2 31CV397 Craven 25 1 10 3 2 2 31DR66 Dare 6 3 28 1 2 2 31GA63 Gates 7 3 30 1 2 2 31JN70 Jones 22 1 10 3 2 2 31MT159 Martin 6 3 30 1 2 2 31NH652 New Hanover 10 3 30 1 2 2 31NH717 New Hanover 20 2 20 2 2 2 31NH754 New Hanover 15 2 20 2 2 2 31PD286 Pender 12 2 20 2 2 2 31PD295 Pender 9 3 30 1 2 2 31PM40 Pamlico 25 1 15 3 2 2 31PT521 Pitt 26 1 10 3 2 2 31PT70 Pitt 10 3 30 1 2 2 31PT71 Pitt 6 3 30 1 2 2 31BF171 Beaufort 20 2 25 1 3 2 31BF18 Beaufort 17 2 24 1 3 2 31BR218 Bertie 20 2 25 1 3 2 31BW108 Brunswick 25 1 20 2 3 2 31BW159 Brunswick 18 2 30 1 3 2 31BW299 Brunswick 15 2 30 1 3 2 31BW306 Brunswick 15 2 30 1 3 2 31BW486 Brunswick 20 2 30 1 3 2 31BW673 Brunswick 25 1 20 2 3 2 31CR103 Carteret 11 2 30 1 3 2 31CR208 Carteret 30 1 20 2 3 2 31CR242 Carteret 27 1 20 2 3 2 31CR57 Carteret 15 2 25 1 3 2 31DP121 Duplin 26 1 20 2 3 2 31GA113 Gates 15 2 30 1 3 2 31JN15 Jones 30 1 20 2 3 2 31JN18 Jones 25 1 20 2 3 2 31MT52 Martin 16 2 30 1 3 2 31NH114 New Hanover 15 2 25 1 3 2 31NH154 New Hanover 25 1 20 2 3 2 31NH155 New Hanover 25 1 20 2 3 2 31NH233 New Hanover 15 2 25 1 3 2 31NH280 New Hanover 15 2 25 1 3 2 31NH282 New Hanover 15 2 25 1 3 2 31NH326 New Hanover 20 2 25 1 3 2 Page 22 of 24 101 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31NH351 New Hanover 25 1 20 2 3 2 31NH454 New Hanover 15 2 25 1 3 2 31NH488 New Hanover 15 2 25 1 3 2 31NH643 New Hanover 15 2 30 1 3 2 31NH718 New Hanover 25 1 20 2 3 2 31NH719 New Hanover 25 1 20 2 3 2 31PD215 Pender 30 1 20 2 3 2 31PD83 Pender 20 2 30 1 3 2 31PT440 Pitt 30 1 20 2 3 2 31PT45 Pitt 20 2 30 1 3 2 31PT511 Pitt 30 1 20 2 3 2 31CV328 Craven 30 1 30 1 4 2 31CR346 Carteret 27 1 10 3 1 1.666667 31CR350 Carteret 25 1 10 3 1 1.666667 31CR352 Carteret 25 1 10 3 1 1.666667 31NH656 New Hanover 10 3 30 1 1 1.666667 31NH701 New Hanover 22 1 10 3 1 1.666667 31PT259 Pitt 15 2 20 2 1 1.666667 31BF209 Beaufort 15 2 25 1 2 1.666667 31BF306 Beaufort 16 2 25 1 2 1.666667 31BF355 Beaufort 20 2 25 1 2 1.666667 31BF359 Beaufort 25 1 20 2 2 1.666667 31BR207 Bertie 15 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31BW616 Brunswick 16 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31BW618 Brunswick 23 1 20 2 2 1.666667 31BW623 Brunswick 23 1 20 2 2 1.666667 31BW642 Brunswick 17 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31BW645 Brunswick 28 1 20 2 2 1.666667 31BW696 Brunswick 19 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31BW737 Brunswick 15 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31CO155 Chowan 13 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31CR238 Carteret 15 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31CR244 Carteret 25 1 20 2 2 1.666667 31CR245 Carteret 20 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31CR344 Carteret 20 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31CV287 Craven 20 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31CV293 Craven 27 1 20 2 2 1.666667 31CV301 Craven 26 1 20 2 2 1.666667 31CV333 Craven 25 1 20 2 2 1.666667 31CV345 Craven 12 2 30 1 2 1.666667 Page 23 of 24 102 SITE COUNTY ELEV_FT Rank DIST_WATER Rank NRHP Vulnerability Score 31GR202 Greene 20 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31HF255 Hertford 20 2 25 1 2 1.666667 31NH546 New Hanover 15 2 25 1 2 1.666667 31PD287 Pender 15 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31PM72 Pamlico 11 2 25 1 2 1.666667 31PQ153 Perquimans 11 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31PQ154 Perquimans 14 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31PQ155 Perquimans 12 2 30 1 2 1.666667 31PT520 Pitt 26 1 20 2 2 1.666667 31BW245 Brunswick 30 1 25 1 3 1.666667 31BW253 Brunswick 22 1 30 1 3 1.666667 31BW626 Brunswick 26 1 30 1 3 1.666667 31BW670 Brunswick 26 1 30 1 3 1.666667 31BW680 Brunswick 29 1 30 1 3 1.666667 31DP10 Duplin 26 1 25 1 3 1.666667 31HF32 Hertford 29 1 30 1 3 1.666667 31HF42 Hertford 26 1 30 1 3 1.666667 31NH149 New Hanover 25 1 30 1 3 1.666667 31NH169 New Hanover 25 1 30 1 3 1.666667 31NH186 New Hanover 25 1 25 1 3 1.666667 31NH202 New Hanover 25 1 25 1 3 1.666667 31NH222 New Hanover 25 1 25 1 3 1.666667 31NH43 New Hanover 25 1 25 1 3 1.666667 31NH68 New Hanover 25 1 25 1 3 1.666667 31PT493 Pitt 30 1 30 1 3 1.666667 31BF142 Beaufort 25 1 30 1 2 1.333333 31BF147 Beaufort 25 1 30 1 2 1.333333 31BR248 Bertie 30 1 30 1 2 1.333333 31BW442 Brunswick 26 1 30 1 2 1.333333 31BW637 Brunswick 22 1 30 1 2 1.333333 31BW650 Brunswick 22 1 30 1 2 1.333333 31CV163 Craven 28 1 30 1 2 1.333333 31CV245 Craven 25 1 30 1 2 1.333333 31CV298 Craven 25 1 30 1 2 1.333333 31NH543 New Hanover 25 1 25 1 2 1.333333 31NH711 New Hanover 25 1 25 1 2 1.333333 31NH779 New Hanover 22 1 30 1 2 1.333333 31PT137 Pitt 24 1 30 1 2 1.333333 31PT46 Pitt 26 1 30 1 2 1.333333 31BF127 Beaufort 26 1 30 1 1 1 103 105