Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 6:351374, 2011 Copyright 2011 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN:

: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 online DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2010.520076

Impact Assessment of Current and Future Sea-Level Change on Coastal Archaeological ResourcesIllustrated Examples From Northern Newfoundland
Kieran Westley,1 Trevor Bell,2 M. A. P. Renouf,3 and Lev Tarasov4
Centre for Maritime Archaeology, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, UK 2 Department of Geography, Memorial University, St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada 3 Department of Archaeology, Memorial University, St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada 4 Department of Physics and Physical Oceanography, Memorial University, St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada
1

ABSTRACT Coastal archaeological heritage is potentially vulnerable to increased erosion resulting from predicted future sea-level rise and increased storminess. As all sites cannot be protected, it is essential that heritage managers know which sites and landscapes are most at risk so they can prioritize resources and decision-making most effectively. One method of doing so is through desk-based modeling of coastal vulnerability. This article outlines the advantages and limitations of such an approach and demonstrates the application of a desk-based model to case studies from Newfoundlands coast. The rate of future sea-level rise around Newfoundland is complicated by its glacio-isostatic recovery since the

Received 19 May 2010; accepted 2 July 2010. Address correspondence to Kieran Westley, Centre for Maritime Archaeology, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Co. Derry, Northern Ireland BT52 1SA, UK. E-mail: kl.westley@ulster.ac.uk

351

Kieran Westley et al.

last ice age. The rst step therefore in this assessment is to combine output from glacio-isostatic adjustment models with appropriate rates of global eustatic sea-level rise. Next, these data are integrated with existing information on coastal characteristics (topography, surcial geology, erosion rates) to assess coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise. Finally, overlay of known archaeological sites identies those locations at greatest risk from destructive coastal changes. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of such models for regional-scale analyses but caution against the use of low resolution data to generate site-specic predictions.
Keywords change sea-level rise, coastal vulnerability, coastal erosion, cultural heritage, climate

INTRODUCTION Erosion by waves and tides is a constant threat facing coastal archaeological resources, capable of destroying or damaging cultural sites and landscapes, and resulting in the loss of invaluable and unrecoverable information. Although coastal erosion is a natural phenomenon with actively eroding archaeological sites documented from across the world (e.g., Carrasco et al. 2007; Fitzpatrick et al. 2006; Jones et al. 2008), it is predicted that erosion rates will accelerate over the next century due to rising sea-levels and increased storm activity resulting from anthropogenic climate change (FitzGerald et al. 2008; Meehl et al. 2007). This will potentially result in a range of destructive coastal responses, for example cliff retreat or collapse, coastal ooding, beach and barrier retreat, and saltmarsh erosion (Murphy et al. 2009). Intensied erosion in turn implies an increase in the number of threatened archaeological sites (Cassar 2005; Erlandson 2008). For example, it is extrapolated based on known incidences of erosion that as many as 12,000 sites could be at risk in Scotland alone (see below and Shorewatch website: www.shorewatch.co.uk). While progress has been made in recognizing the scale of the problem (e.g., Blankholm 2009; English Heritage 2008), there remain considerable challenges facing archaeologists and heritage managers, not least in developing and implementing effective strategies to mitigate the impact of destructive coastal changes (Flatman 2009).

Previous research suggests that effective management requires the acceptance that all sites cannot be saved (Cassar 2005; Murphy et al. 2009). The construction of coastal defenses is simply not feasible in every case and may conict with the interests of other coastal stakeholders. Instead, resources must be prioritized towards sites and landscapes of relatively higher importance and vulnerability. Moreover, studies such as Cassar (2005) and National Trust (2005) also advocate that mitigation strategies incorporate both shortand long-term threats, effectively anticipating future problems as well as dealing with immediate ones. To develop long-term strategies, heritage managers need information on the location and relative importance of cultural sites and landscapes, the range of anticipated coastal responses to predicted climate changes, and a future vulnerability assessment of coastal landscapes. Two different, but complementary, approaches can provide such information. The eld-based approach is exemplied by assessment surveys of the Scottish coastline by the SCAPE Trust, a charitable organization that researches, promotes, and conserves Scotlands coastal archaeology. Their surveys document the geomorphology, geology, and archaeology of a given section of coastline and assess the threat of erosion (e.g., Moore and Wilson 1997; see also SCAPE Trust website: www.scapetrust.org). At present, approximately one-third of the Scottish coast has been mapped, identifying nearly 11,500 sites, of which around 3,500 are deemed to be at risk from erosion (Dawson 2007). Field-based surveys are

352

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3 2011

Impact Assessment of Sea-Level Change

also used in England, in the form of Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment Surveys (RCZAS). Like the SCAPE surveys, these are designed to provide enhanced baseline archaeological data (e.g., site type, location and vulnerability) that will inform long-term shoreline management plans (Flatman 2009; Murphy et al. 2009). The main advantage of the eld-based approach is the production of accurate and up-to-date baseline data on both archaeological sites and coastal vulnerability. Its main limitation is the time taken to generate such data. For instance, it has taken 13 years to map one-third of Scotlands 15,000-km-long coastline, while the RCZAS program, ongoing since the 1990s, has yet to map the entirety of Englands coastline. Moreover, to identify long-term trends in coastal change, initial eldwork must be supplemented by repeat surveys or monitoring programs. This can be logistically challenging if there are a large number of sites or a lengthy coastline to cover. Scotland, however, has successfully addressed this challenge through the Shorewatch project, a community-based research and monitoring program (see Shorewatch website: www.shorewatch.co.uk). The above limitations can be offset through use of desk-based models since these are better suited to assessing large areas relatively quickly. Consequently, desk-based approaches may be used as a precursor to eld surveys by quickly identifying and prioritizing vulnerable areas. This approach can either combine records of known archaeological sites with vulnerability assessments created by non-archaeological agencies or devise new vulnerability models using known or predicted parameters of coastal change. For example, the National Trusts risk assessment of their coastal properties in England and Wales employed predictions from the UK government-commissioned Futurecoast project (an analysis of long-term coastal evolution for England and Wales: Burgess et al. 2004) and ood risk maps created by the Environment Agency (National Trust 2005). Similarly, as a precursor to eld survey, the RCZAS program uses the Futurecoast dataset in conjunction with historic maps, aerial photographs, and databases

of archaeological sites and monuments to provide baseline data on coastal heritage and prioritize eld survey areas on the basis of archaeological potential (i.e., known or likely existence of archaeological sites) and the threat of erosion (English Heritage 2007). In contrast, Edwards and OSullivan (2007) prepared a preliminary coastal heritage vulnerability assessment for the Republic of Ireland that relied on a glacio-isostatic model to simulate future patterns of sea-level change combined with topographic and bathymetric data to highlight long-term patterns of coastal evolution. The advantages of desk-based models are that large areas can be mapped relatively quickly, and, given forecasts of future sea-level rise (SLR), estimates of long-term coastal change can be generated. However, the accuracy of these models, and hence their appropriateness for a given situation, is controlled by the scale of analysis and resolution of the baseline data fed into the model. For example, the resolution of the data used to create national-level assessments (e.g., Hammar-Klose and Thieler 2001 for the USA; Shaw et al. 1998 for Canada) is such that continuous segments of coastline, tens of kilometers in length, may be classied with the same vulnerability, whereas in reality the complexity of coastal conguration, topography and geology may result in shorter reaches of widely varying vulnerability along the same coastline segment. This approximation of detail is appropriate for national-level assessments, where the aim is to identify and characterize large-scale differences in coastal vulnerability for an entire country. However, when trying to model the vulnerability of specic smaller features (e.g., towns and cities, archaeological landscapes, coastal infrastructure), it is important to be able to predict vulnerability on scales of kilometers or less and hence this level of detail is not sufcient. These situations require an assessment which attempts to resolve this level of coastal complexity by virtue of an appropriate scale of analysis combined with sufciently high resolution data. Consequently, it is useful to assess the applicability of desk-based approaches on

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

353

Kieran Westley et al.

the basis of their scale of analysis. Thus, Sharples (2006) identies a continuum of approaches from wide-scale rst pass studies (identication of fundamental factors affecting vulnerability) through regional second pass assessments (detailed studies examining regionally variable vulnerability factors) to site specic assessments (increasingly detailed studies of locally variable vulnerability factors). As the study scale decreases, so too does the accuracy of the vulnerability assessment, albeit at the cost of increasing time and expense brought about by the need to collect regionally or locally applicable data. Given recent calls for action on the issue of coastal erosion and threatened archaeology (Erlandson 2008) and for heritage managers to become more integrated with wider coastal zone management (Flatman 2009), there is a strong possibility that deskbased models will become more widely used in heritage management. Therefore, it is essential that heritage managers and archaeologists are aware of their applicability and limitations. To this end, this paper presents a desk-based landscape evolution model that assesses and classies the vulnerability of coastal archaeological landscapes to inundation and erosion across a regional scale and over time-spans of 25 to 100 years. The aim is to demonstrate the effectiveness of such models and highlight their potential role and limitationsparticularly in terms of scale and resolutionin planning for future change. The model is illustrated using case studies from the island of Newfoundland, eastern Canada. Newfoundland represents a good test case as it has an extensive (>1000 known sites) archaeological record combined with a long coastline (>9600 km: Natural Resources Canada 2009) and a sparsely distributed population (480,000 inhabitants: Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency 2008). Given these conditions, a systematic coastal eld survey and associated monitoring program would be time-consuming and logistically challenging. Therefore, we argue that a more effective approach is to prioritize and guide eldwork using the results from desk-based modeling.

NEWFOUNDLAND ARCHAEOLOGY AND COASTAL VULNERABILITY The coast has played an important role for the occupants of Newfoundland from its earliest prehistory to the present day. Its earliest inhabitants were the Maritime Archaic Indians (MAI), whose sites date to between 6.3 and 3.4 ka cal BP (thousand calendar years before present). These people were hunter-gatherers, subsisting on a variety of resources, including marine mammals and seabirds (Bell and Renouf 2003). The MAI are replaced in the archaeological record by two separate but chronologically overlapping groups of Palaeoeskimos, who had migrated south from the Arctic. The Groswater Palaeoeskimos date to between 2.9 and 1.7 ka cal BP, while the Dorset Palaeoeskimos date to between 1.9 and 1.2 ka cal BP. Both groups made considerable use of marine resources, with the Dorset particularly focussed on harp seal hunting (Pastore 1986; Renouf 1999). Overlapping with, and succeeding the Palaeoeskimos were the Recent Indians (2.00.4 ka cal BP), the ancestors of the historically known indigenous Newfoundland people, the Beothuk (Pastore 1992). Though their subsistence behavior was less specialized than the Palaeoeskimos, the placement of the majority of their sites by the coast reects a marine-orientated economy (Renouf 1999). During the period of prehistoric occupation, Newfoundland witnessed a brief episode of Norse colonization at c. 1000 AD. The single known site they left behind is situated on the coast, and when taken along with other evidence of the Norse maritime adaptation (e.g., a long tradition of boat-building, trans-oceanic voyages) highlights the importance of the sea as a means of transport and subsistence to these people (Ingstad and Ingstad 1986; Wallace 2006). Newfoundlands historic period began with its discovery by the explorer John Cabot in 1497 (Pope 1997). From the late fteenth century, reports of abundant cod stocks in its waters drew sh harvesters from France, Portugal, Spain, England, and Ireland. Settlements and their attendant wharves, harbors, and sh processing structures were established on Newfoundland to process and dry

354

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3 2011

Impact Assessment of Sea-Level Change

the cod for export back to Europe. Fishing remained central to the Newfoundland way of life throughout the historic period, and consequently the vast majority of settlements remained close to the shoreline (Pope 2004). This history of occupation has created a rich and varied coastal archaeological record. Prehistoric sites tend to be characterized by scatters of lithics, occasional bone fragments and tools, hearth and midden deposits, and sometimes house foundations and human burials. Historic sites are typied by artifacts (including pottery, metal and glass objects) and the remains of more substantial structures such as wood and stone buildings, docks, quays, and shing stages. To date, little research has been conducted on the vulnerability of Newfoundlands coastal archaeological heritage. Instead, relevant work falls into two categories. First, reports of erosion at individual sites, sometimes accompanied by local attempts at mitigation. An example is the Beaches site, situated on the northeast coast and holding archaeological material spanning Newfoundlands prehistory (i.e., MAI, Groswater and Dorset Palaeoeskimo, Recent Indian and Beothuk). It is estimated that this site has lost approximately 90% of its original area to erosion (McLean 2006). The Burnside Heritage Foundationa local non-prot organizationhas monitored the site annually since 1989 and constructed a breakwater which reportedly reduces, but does not eliminate, erosion (Figure 1B; McLean 2007). Local observations of coastal erosion have also been made in areas without known archaeological sites (see examples in Catto 2006; Catto et al. 2003). Second, there are larger-scale nonarchaeological studies which assessed coastal vulnerability from a socio-economic standpoint. Examples include Shaw et al.s (1998) national-level assessment of coastal sensitivity for Canada, and Catto et al.s (2003) assessment of eastern Newfoundland, presently the only regional-scale assessment conducted on the island (note that this latter assessment does not cover the case study areas discussed in this paper). Both studies indicate that there is a range of future risk levels dependant on bedrock

and surcial geology, geomorphology, topography, rate of SLR and local wave and tidal regimes. Extensive parts of the island have predominantly resistant rocky coastlines which are unlikely to suffer signicant erosion. Elsewhere, however, there are localized areas that either contain deposits of easily eroded unconsolidated sediment in the form of coastal dunes, barriers and bluffs (e.g., Figure 1C), or are low lying and readily inundated. Overall, this suggests that much of the island has low to moderate sensitivity to future SLR, but contains localized zones of high sensitivity (Figure 1A and Shaw et al. 1998). Mapping these localized zones of high vulnerability, however, requires the ner regional-scale approach used here. METHODOLOGY Our approach to the classication of vulnerable coastal archaeological landscapes uses a desk-based landscape evolution model that analyzes extant digital datasets in a GIS environment (ArcGIS 9.2). It is applied to three case study areas selected on the basis of archaeological importance. Each contains a high density of multi-period sites, which in some cases have provided rare or unique material. The areas are south Bonavista Bay, LAnse aux Meadows and Port au Choix (Figure 1A). The assessment methodology is divided into three stages. Model Future SLR This step aims to predict the rate and pattern of future SLR around Newfoundland by combining geophysical models of isostatic uplift/subsidence with predictions of global ocean volume change over the next century. This is necessary because Newfoundland is currently undergoing glacio-isostatic adjustment as a result of past glaciation and therefore will deviate from projected global SLR. Estimate Coastal Retreat The purpose of this stage is to estimate general patterns of future inundation and

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

355

Kieran Westley et al.

Figure 1. a) Distribution of recorded archaeological sites in Newfoundland (database courtesy of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Archaeology Ofce) and location of case studies (blue boxes) overlain with the coastal sensitivity analysis of Shaw et al. (1998). b) Breakwater at the Beaches site built to reduce coastal erosion (photo from McLean 2007). c) Coastal landslide at Daniels Harbour (photo courtesy of M.J. Batterson). Coastal geomorphology here consists of bluffs of unconsolidated sediment. Note that both eroding areas are situated within zones classied as having moderate sensitivity to future SLR. (Color gure available online)

356

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3 2011

Impact Assessment of Sea-Level Change

erosion and hence classify the coastline on the basis of its vulnerability. This can be done using one of two methods: a) ooding a digital elevation model (DEM) involves upward adjustment of the zero contour or active shoreline by a value derived from Stage I. Comparison of the pre- and post-ooding shoreline indicates the amount of coastal retreat; and b) deriving slope angles for the shoreline from the DEM approximates the amount of coastal retreat because the magnitude of inundation is topographically dependent (i.e., low-sloping areas will be ooded more than steeper ones). The effectiveness of method 1 is conditioned by the resolution of the available data. It requires the DEM to be of high resolution; ideally centimetric vertical resolution models created by LIDAR or GPS surveys (e.g., Webster et al. 2004). High vertical resolution is needed to accurately adjust the active shoreline elevation by small amounts, while high horizontal resolution (i.e., closely positioned sample points) is needed to interpolate an accurate depiction of the adjusted shoreline. For Newfoundland, the most readily available DEMs have a horizontal resolution of c. 20 m and a vertical resolution of 1 m (all DEMs were obtained from the Geobase portal: http://www.geobase.ca). The spatial accuracy of our shoreline and storm surge projections therefore is limited by the resolution of our DEM and the magnitude of projected future changes in both vertical and horizontal dimensions. To assess the potential magnitude of coastal erosion, surcial geology maps (1:50,000 to 1:250,000 scale) are consulted to determine the presence/absence of unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated sediments have a greater potential for coastal erosion compared with resistant bedrock and so their presence will enhance coastal retreat by on average 0.1 to 0.5 m/yr, based on mean annual rates of coastal erosion documented by the Newfoundland and Labrador Geological Survey (D. Liverman, personal communication 2008). Many coastal vulnerability assessments also include nearshore bathymetry and wave climate in order to estimate the relative impact of wave energy on different parts of

the shore (e.g., Gornitz et al. 1993). This additional step was not employed in our study due to the resolution of the available datasets. Shaw and Courtneys (2004) bathymetric DEM for Atlantic Canada has a spatial resolution of only 1 km and the wave climate atlas of Eastern Canada (Eid et al. 1991) divides the Newfoundland coast into only four zones, each encompassing several thousand kilometers of coastline. In this study we are attempting to resolve coastal vulnerability at sub-kilometer scales. Overlay Archaeological Sites In this nal stage, the distribution of known sites (based on the ofcial site database held by the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Archaeology Ofce as of November 2007) is overlain onto coastal vulnerability maps of our study areas. Individual site vulnerability can either be classied according to the current vulnerability of the coast on which it is located or its proximity to future shoreline position and predicted surge impacts. In this study we are able to compare results of the two approaches. STAGE I: FUTURE ESTIMATES OF SEA-LEVEL RISE According to the most recent and comprehensive set of global climate predictions devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the next century will see global temperatures increase by 1.16.4 C, and global sea-levels rise by 0.180.59 m at rates of 1.59.7 mm/yr (Meehl et al. 2007). The predicted SLR will be driven by the increased melting of landbased ice (including glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets) and the thermal expansion of ocean water. To account for the possibility of faster ice sheet collapse driven by subglacial meltwater lubrication (Bell et al. 2007) or the removal of buttressing oating ice shelves (Alley et al. 2005) an additional correction factor (the scaled-up ice sheet discharge contribution: Meehl et al. 2007) was calculated which increases the predicted rise by up to 0.17 m

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

357

Kieran Westley et al.

Table 1. Maximum and minimum future SLR at study sites estimated using global predictions combined with GIA model output. Estimated future SLR (cm) Study area Bonavista Bay LAnse aux Meadows Port au Choix 2025 1020 1020 520 2050 2045 1545 1035 2100 40105 40100 2590

Given the uncertainties involved, estimated values have been rounded to the nearest 5 cm. Port au Choix is modeled to have the greatest residual uplift, hence reducing predicted future SLR. Conversely, Bonavista Bay is modeled to be subsiding or stable, hence increasing future SLR. LAnse aux Meadows is situated on the edge of the zone of uplift, hence despite being geographically closer to Port aux Choix, actually experiences predicted SLR that is similar to Bonavista Bay.

by the year 2100. However, many scientists now acknowledge that ice sheets are more dynamic than previously realized and that accelerated ice sheet loss could result in an additional SLR of 0.11.4 m by 2100 (Church et al. 2008; Meier et al. 2007; Rahmstorf 2007). Therefore in this paper, we will use projections of future SLR from Meehl et al. (2007) that have been modied to account for faster-than-predicted SLR. Modied projections of future SLR are calculated for three time steps: 2025, 2050 and 2100 (Table 1). The minimum scenario is an average of the central SLR estimates from Meehl et al. (2007). We are not adopting the lowest projected value because of the high probability that sea levels will rise faster than predicted (see above) and supported by the tendency of recent measured SLR trends to follow the IPCCs worst case scenarios (Church et al. 2008). The maximum scenario is the upper SLR limit from Meehl et al. (2007), plus a doubling of the scaled-up ice sheet contribution (i.e., an extra 0.34 m rise by 2100 rather than 0.17 m). This value was derived by Mote et al. (2008) on the basis that an error factor

of 2 was plausible given the uncertainties involved in predicting future ice melting. The IPCC projections also indicate that the rate of SLR will not be constant over the next century, but instead will accelerate from 2050 onwards. Therefore, an additional calculation is needed to provide reasonable estimates for the 2050 timestep. Effectively, due to post-2050 accelerated rates of rise, maximum and minimum values for this timestep do not simply equate to 50% of the 2100 timestep. Rather, they respectively consist of 39% and 45% of the total SLR by 2100 (percentage values derived by Mote et al. 2008). By contrast, for the 2025 scenarios, a projection equivalent to 50% of the 2050 scenarios is valid because the rate of SLR remains constant between the two timesteps. These global changes in sea level are modied regionally by glacio-isostatic adjustments (GIA) of the Earths crust, a legacy of ice loading during the last glaciation. Newfoundlands pattern of adjustment has been numerically modeled as part of a wider study of North America (Tarasov and Peltier 2005) and is spatially variable, mimicking the ice load history. For example, isostatic uplift increases to the north and west where ice loading was greatest, with subsidence in the south and east (Figure 2). While the Tarasov and Peltier (2005) model more or less replicates the general pattern of change, it diverges from measured rates of relative sealevel change in some areas. For example, Daly et al. (2007) demonstrate a faster rate of SLR over the last 1,000 years on the Port au Port Peninsula (1.3 mm/yr) compared to Placentia (0.6 mm/yr). This is contrary to model predictions which show that Port au Port is presently uplifting and Placentia subsiding or stable (Figure 2) and indicates that the actual area of uplift is spatially more restricted than predicted by the model. Effectively, in this instance, the modeled zone of uplift extends too far down Newfoundlands west coast. Despite some discrepancies, both the modeled and measured data show that maximum rates of residual isostatic uplift and subsidence are generally less than 1.5 mm/yr. These rates are insufcient to counter-balance future SLR given the projected rates of 1.5 to 9.7 mm/yr (Meehl et al.

358

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3 2011

Impact Assessment of Sea-Level Change

Figure 2. GIA modeled rates of present day isostatic uplift and subsidence for Newfoundland. Contour map shows mean uplift, together with maximum and minimum limits (generated from 1 standard deviations). See Tarasov and Peltier (2005) for model description. (Color gure available online)

2007) and the fact the lower end of these projections is likely to be exceeded (see above and Church et al. 2008). Consequently, it is predicted that sea levels around Newfoundland will rise despite isostatic rebound though spatial variability in the rate of rise will be evident. For instance, the magnitude of future SLR on the northwest coast of Newfoundland will be reduced by GIA relative to the south and east coasts. In these latter areas, global SLR may even be exacerbated by subsidence. In the absence of measured SLR trends from the case study areas, the GIA

model presents the best available means of modifying the global projections to provide regionally applicable estimates. Another regional SLR modication is induced by variability in ocean temperature/circulation. According to Meehl et al. (2007), the Northwest Atlantic should experience a + 0.050.1 m adjustment to the global average change between 19801999 and 20802099. For the minimum and maximum estimates, this will be incorporated respectively as an additional 0.05 m or 0.1 m rise by 2100.

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

359

Kieran Westley et al.

Table 2. Criteria used to estimate coastal vulnerability. Vulnerability category High

Criteria for judgment Unconsolidated sediment with any slope value or bedrock with slope of <6 Bedrock with slopes of 612 Bedrock with slopes of >12

Moderate Low

Together, these regional modications are combined with the global SLR predictions to estimate the future trend of SLR for the island as a whole and the three study areas in particular (Table 1). Projected changes in the rate of GIA over the twentieth century are not considered here because they only produce sub-millimeter variations over such time scales. In addition to long-term SLR, we must also consider the effect of storm surges. These can raise sea level by up to several meters resulting in temporary inundation of large tracts of land and enhanced erosion. Surges of 2 to 3 m above mean sea level have been observed in Atlantic Canada over the last 50 years and are predicted to become more common over the next century (Vasseur and Catto 2007). Therefore, this study also models the effect of a 2 m surge at present and future sea-level positions. STAGE II: ESTIMATE COASTAL RETREAT Areas are categorized as having high, moderate, or low vulnerability on the basis of the criteria set out in Table 2. Values for slope angle are based on hypothetical ooding of a tilted planar surface. Thus, given a 1 m SLR, surfaces with slopes of <6 , 612 and >12 will experience coastal retreat of >10 m, 10 5 m and <5 m, respectively. Port au Choix This area consists of two peninsulas Point Riche and Port au Choixlinked to the west coast of mainland Newfoundland by a

narrow isthmus and encompassing c. 26 km of coastline (Figure 3A). A DEM and associated slope mapping reveal that much of the coastline is steep with the exception of the western coast of Point Riche, the isthmus and several areas on the north side of the Port au Choix Peninsula (Figures 3A and B). Geologically, the area contains two substrate types: (i) marine sediment deposited during postglacial inundation; and (ii) bedrock, either covered by a thin sediment veneer inland or exposed as coastal cliffs and platforms, particularly on the two peninsulas (Figure 3B). Based on these data, the entire coastline is sensitive to future SLR with c. 30% classied as moderately vulnerable and c. 70% as highly vulnerable. By comparison, the national-level assessment of Shaw et al. (1998) did not require this level of detail and classied the entire area as moderately vulnerable. The most vulnerable areas are on the north coast of the Point Riche Peninsula, the western tips of both peninsulas, the head of the isthmus and the adjacent mainland (see also Stage III discussion). For the rst two areas, low topography increases the magnitude of long-term retreat and inland penetration of storm surges. In general, erosion on the two peninsulas should be minimal due to the predominance of bedrock substrate. The mainland, isthmus, and a section of the south coast of the Point Riche Peninsula, however, are characterized by erodible unconsolidated sediments and are therefore likely to be at more risk from storm surges and longterm SLR than areas of similar gradient on the outlying peninsulas (Figures 3B and C). It is also worth noting that much of the coast appears vulnerable because cliffs and steeper slopes are commonly fronted by lower gradient beaches or rocky platforms. Therefore, while these are classied as having moderate vulnerability, the cliffs or steeper areas behind will be at less risk from future SLR. LAnse aux Meadows This area consists of a large bay in the westSacred Baycontaining a number of small islands anked to the east by several smaller bays and one large islandQuirpon Island (Figure 4A). The topography is

360

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3 2011

Figure 3. A) 1:50,000 scale DEM of Port au Choix (from Geobase.ca). B) Slope map generated from 1:50,000 scale DEM overlain with distribution of unconsolidated sediments from 1:50,000 scale surcial geology map (Proudfoot and St. Croix 1991). Legend shows both slope in degrees and approximate shoreline retreat assuming the SLR outlined in Table 1. Green areas are most vulnerable with orange and purple zones at moderate to low risk. C) Flooding caused by 2 m and 3 m storm surges (based on the 1:50,000 scale DEM). (Color gure available online)

361

Kieran Westley et al.

Figure 4. A) 1:50,000 scale DEM of LAnse aux Meadows (from Geobase.ca). B) Slope map generated from 1:50,000 scale DEM overlain with distribution of unconsolidated sediments from 1:250,000 scale surcial geology map (Grant 1986). Legend shows both slope in degrees and approximate shoreline retreat assuming the SLR outlined in Table 1. Green areas are most vulnerable with orange and purple zones at moderate to low risk. C) Flooding caused by a 2 m and 3 m storm surge (based on the 1:50,000 scale DEM). (Color gure available online)

362

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3 2011

Impact Assessment of Sea-Level Change

variable with gentler-sloped and straighter shorelines around Sacred Bay compared to the steeper-sloped, more indented coastlines of Quirpon Island (Figures 4A and B). These steeper shorelines are composed mainly of bedrock, with minor areas of raised marine sediments. In contrast, the gentler slopes around Sacred Bay are dominated by unconsolidated shorelines (Figure 4B). Of the c. 55 km of coastline within the study area, c. 60% is classied as high vulnerability, c. 16% as moderate and c. 24% as low. In comparison, Shaw et al. (1998) classied the entire area as moderately vulnerable as a result of their national-level scale of investigation. The most vulnerable areas are concentrated around Sacred Bay where coastlines tend to be gentler-sloped and mainly composed of unconsolidated material. By contrast, coastal sensitivity decreases east of Cape Ardoise as shorelines are predominantly steep and rocky. Local exceptions (e.g., Noddy Bay) include inlets with unconsolidated shorelines between rocky headlands (see also Stage III discussion). Bonavista Bay This area consists of large peninsulas in the west and south, separated from an offshore archipelago by a series of narrow straits and channels (e.g., Bloody Reach; Figure 5A). The islands vary in size from 100 m2 to more than 5 km2. The c. 180 km of coastline within the study area is highly indented with numerous coves and bays (Figure 5A). The steepness of the coastline is similarly variable, with gentler slopes more extensive on the western peninsula compared to the steeper slopes on the southern peninsula and outlying islands (Figures 5A and B). Bedrock, either exposed on the surface or concealed by a thin veneer of sediment, dominates the surcial geology. Coastal areas of unconsolidated sediment, primarily of glacial or glaciouvial origin, are restricted to a small pocket in the northwest of the western peninsula and four of the outlying islands (Lakeman, Willis, Cottle, and Burnt islands; Figure 5B). Of the total length of coastline within the study area, c. 19%, 51%, and 30% are classied as being of low, moderate, and high

Table 3. Criteria used to estimate vulnerability of archaeological sites. Vulnerability category High

Criteria for judgement Within areas of maximum SLR by 2025 and present storm surge zone Within areas of maximum SLR between 2025 and 2100 and future or present storm surge zone Outside areas of maximum SLR by 2100 and future storm surge zone

Moderate

Low

vulnerability, respectively. As in the previous examples, the use of higher resolution data has allowed a more diverse classication than Shaw et al. (1998) whose lower resolution data resulted in a classication of low vulnerability with a single zone of moderate vulnerability. The spatial pattern of vulnerability is variable and reects local geology and topography. The least vulnerable areas concentrate along the northeast-trending series of islands on the eastern side of Bloody Reach. The exceptions are the four islands dominated by unconsolidated glacial sediments. The remainder of the coastline is characterized by high to moderate vulnerability with smaller areas of low sensitivity where the shoreline steepens (see also Stage III discussion). The most extensive surge-induced ooding occurs in the western peninsula and a number of the smaller outlying islands. STAGE III: OVERLAY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Archaeological site vulnerability is classied using criteria set out in Table 3. Port au Choix Port au Choix is a region of considerable archaeological importance, containing

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

363

Kieran Westley et al.

Figure 5. A) 1:50,000 scale DEM of Bonavista Bay (from Geobase.ca). B) Slope map generated from 1:50,000 scale DEM overlain with distribution of unconsolidated sediments from 1:250,000 surcial geology map (Liverman and Taylor 1993). Legend shows both slope in degrees and approximate shoreline retreat assuming the SLR rise outlined in Table 3. Green areas are most vulnerable with orange and purple zones at moderate to low risk. C) Flooding caused by a 2 m and 3 m storm surge (based on the 1:50,000 scale DEM). (Color gure available online)

45 known sites and nd-spots encompassing the full range of Newfoundlands prehistory, with the exception of the Norse. These include exceptional sites such as one of two MAI cemeteries in Newfoundland and Phillips Garden, the largest Dorset site in Newfoundland, and one of the largest in the Canadian North. Sites are distributed across the study area, clustering particularly around

the town of Port au Choix, and the outer coasts of the outlying peninsulas. The sites fall into a range of vulnerability categories with 64% having low risk from future ooding despite the moderate to high vulnerability of the coastline (Figure 6). This arises because they are located several tens of meters inland of the modern coast, typically on higher ground underlain by bedrock (e.g.,

364

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3 2011

Impact Assessment of Sea-Level Change

Figure 6. Estimates of archaeological site vulnerability overlaid onto general coastal vulnerability map for Port au Choix. (Color gure available online)

Figure 7b). Thus, while the general topography of the coast implies a moderate to high degree of vulnerability, the sites are situated far enough away from the shoreline that they are at low risk. The exceptions (16% and 20% of all sites are classied as having moderate and high risk, respectively) are the exposed sites on the western tips of the Port au Choix, Point Riche, and Gargamelle peninsulas, and those situated on the unconsolidated sediments of the isthmus and mainland. For these latter sites, however, vulnerability may be reduced by the fact that some of these areas lie within the modern town of Port aux Choix and the coastal highway. If measures are put in place to protect this infrastructure, the adjacent archaeological sites would also be protected. The richest Palaeoeskimo site in the area, Philips Garden, is situated in a vulnerable area of low slope and is bordered by a

sand and gravel beach (Figure 7a). Although it is not in immediate danger, projections suggest that erosion of the seaward margins of the site may be apparent by 2050 onwards. LAnse aux Meadows The archaeological sites near LAnse aux Meadows cluster at the northeastern tip of Newfoundlands Northern Peninsula, particularly around Sacred Bay and Quirpon. Twenty-eight sites of archaeological significance are situated here, with all periods of Newfoundlands prehistory and history represented. The most important site is the Norse settlement at LAnse aux Meadows, presently the only such evidence in North America. The sites fall into a range of vulnerability categories (50% at low risk, 25% each at

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

365

Kieran Westley et al.

Figure 7. a) Aerial view of Phillips Garden and its adjacent beach; the open meadow is the archaeological site. Note that the edge of the beach encroaches on the edge of the site. b) View of Phillips Garden West from the water showing its geomorphic setting on a bedrock bench (centerground, next to interpretive sign), fronted by a raised sandy gravel beach. The raised beach is actively eroding (exposed beach sediments and toppling vegetation cover) which supports the designation of this shoreline as highly vulnerable. In contrast, the archaeological site is located behind and above the eroding shoreline on top of a 1012 m-high bedrock bench and therefore has low vulnerability of future coastal inundation and erosion. (Color gure available online)

moderate and high risk), mostly following the pattern identied for the Stage II coastal vulnerability assessment. The majority of the most vulnerable sites are situated around Sacred and Noddy Bays, whereas those on Quirpon Island typically have low or moderate vulnerability (Figure 8). For the Norse site at LAnse aux Meadows, which is located on a grass-covered raised beach adjacent to the modern coast, future SLR does present a threat; the site may be at risk from future storm surges by 2050.

Bonavista Bay There are 41 recorded archaeological sites within the Bonavista Bay study area, ranging in age from MAI to historic European. There are a number of important sites in the area, not least the Beaches site, a large multi-period site that is actively eroding. Overall, the sites are widely distributed across the mainland peninsulas and outlying islands with the exception of a dense cluster at Bloody Bay Cove at the tip of the southernmost peninsula (Figure 9A).

The sites in this study area fall into a range of vulnerability categories with the majority (68%) interpreted as having low vulnerability, primarily because they are situated inland of the modern coast (Figure 9A). By contrast only 15% and 17% of archaeological sites are deemed to be of moderate or high risk, respectively. There is not a strong pattern in terms of individual site vulnerabilities, with low risk sites found on the western peninsula (which had been identied as the most vulnerable area on the basis of topography and geology) and some high risk sites amid the steep rocky shorelines of the archipelago. The analysis, however, reveals some of the limitations in the available datasets in that Beaches site, which is known to be actively eroding (Figures 9B, C; McLean 2006, 2007), is classied as being at low risk. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Models of coastal vulnerability potentially form an important component of heritage management responses to coastal erosion. They can supply estimates of vulnerability which can be used to organize and prioritize

366

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3 2011

Impact Assessment of Sea-Level Change

Figure 8. Estimates of archaeological site vulnerability overlaid onto general coastal vulnerability map for LAnse aux Meadows. (Color gure available online)

responses to ongoing erosion and plan for future changes. Important advantages of such approaches are that they can be undertaken relatively quickly (i.e., an area tens of kilometers across can be mapped and categorized in a matter of days) and utilize the recent proliferation of GIS software and digital datasets in archaeological research and management. The assessment presented here for Newfoundland highlights that sea-level around the island will rise, potentially by up to a meter or more over the next century, though it will be slightly less in the northwest due to residual isostatic rebound. Together with regional variations in coastal topography and geology, this SLR results in a diversity of vulnerability estimates within relatively small (i.e., sub-kilometer) areas. When compared with the larger zones classied by Shaw et al.s (1998) national-level assessment (see Figure 1), this highlights that the spatial scale of investigation and resolution of the underlying data are crucial in determining the vulnerability forecasts for a given area, and therefore that the effectiveness of an assessment for a particular purpose hinges on the choice of an appropriate scale of investigation.

Of the areas examined, Port au Choix is the most vulnerable from a geomorphological perspective, with the entirety of its coastline classied as having high to medium vulnerability, LAnse aux Meadows has long stretches of vulnerable coastline particularly around Sacred Bay, and Bonavista Bay has patches of high vulnerability interspersed with large zones of low vulnerability, a reection of the presence of extensive steep bedrock shorelines. Overall, areas more than 100 m from the modern coast should be relatively safe from long-term SLR, though the impact of storm surges could extend further inland, by up to several hundred meters on low-sloping shorelines. With respect to the case studies, the majority of archaeological sites (62%) are estimated not to be at immediate risk, and will probably remain at low risk over the next century. Nevertheless, 20% are predicted to be at risk over the next 1550 years, and will be exposed to increased coastal erosion as SLR and surge activity increases (Table 4). These include the most important sites within the study areaLAnse aux Meadows and Phillips Garden. Both are

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

367

Kieran Westley et al.

Figure 9. a) Estimates of archaeological site vulnerability for Bonavista Bay overlaid onto general coastal vulnerability map. b) Close-up of Beaches site showing discrepancy between recorded position and location of the actual eroding site. c) Photo of Beaches site showing actual position of site in relation to the waters edge and highlighting zone of active erosion (photo from McLean, 2008). (Color gure available online)

368

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3 2011

Impact Assessment of Sea-Level Change

Table 4. Summary of site vulnerability for each study area addressed as percentages (%) and site numbers (n), and the total breakdown for all study areas combined. Low vulnerability % Port au Choix LAnse aux Meadows Bonavista Bay All study areas 64 50 68 62 n 29 14 28 71 Moderate vulnerability % 16 25 15 18 n 7 7 6 20 High vulnerability % 20 25 17 20 n 9 7 7 23 Total n 45 28 41 114

adjacent to the modern coast and situated on low-lying topography. Though not in immediate danger, this analysis suggests that they may be threatened from 2050 onwards. However, this analysis has also highlighted the limitations of desk-based models, more specically their dependence on the quality of the underlying data. In this case, known uncertainties are associated with future projections of SLR, future estimates of coastal erosion rates, DEM resolution and the accuracy of archaeological site locations. All assessments have to contend with the fact that future projections of SLR are estimates based on greenhouse gas emission scenarios and modeled responses of the cryosphere and hydrosphere to climate change. These projections possess a degree of uncertainty, the speed of ice sheet melting being a prime example. Moreover, in areas undergoing isostatic or tectonic movements, SLR projections have to be appropriately adjusted to be regionally applicable. This adjustment is calculated by empirical or modeling methods, each of which likely contains further uncertainties. In our study we accept that there are still discrepancies between eld observations and the GIA model; however, it broadly replicates the overall pattern of change, and is the best available dataset. There are also uncertainties in retreat rates of unconsolidated shorelines; local erosion rates may be higher than the averages used here. For example, erosion rates of up to 0.7 m/month were observed between December 2003 and April 2004 at Sandbanks Provin-

cial Park, southern Newfoundland (Vasseur and Catto 2007). This is at least an order of magnitude higher than the mean rate of erosion calculated by the Newfoundland and Labrador Geological Survey and used in this study. The resolution of available DEMs varies considerably and thus alters the position of predicted future shorelines. For example, the most widely available dataset at the time of this analysisNASAs Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM)only has 90 m horizontal resolution outside the United States of America. For our case studies, we recognize that the available DEM only has 1 m and 20 m vertical and horizontal resolution respectively, whereas the surcial geology data ranges in horizontal scale from 1:50,000 to 1:250,000, approximately equivalent to 2030 m and 6090 m respectively. Consequently, although the interpolated future coastline appears reasonable on regional-scale maps, when viewed more closely it is clearly inaccurate for it partially plots seaward of the present coastline on occasions (Figure 10). In contrast, maps of storm surge impacts were reasonable at this large scale, as the magnitude of inundation was within the vertical and horizontal resolution of the topographic data. Finally, there are locational uncertainties within the archaeological site database (e.g., Figures 9B, 10B). First, site positions may be inaccurately recorded or poorly known. For example, 5 sites (2 each for Port aux Choix and LAnse aux Meadows, 1 for

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

369

Kieran Westley et al.

Figure 10. Examples of errors associated with the mapping of projected shoreline position as represented by contours of maximum SLR between 2025 and 2100. The projections rely on topographic interpolation of low resolution digital elevation data. a) Regional-scale view showing apparently consistent future shoreline positions. See Figure 8 for location map. b) Local-scale view showing examples where future shoreline projections are inaccurately plotted and archaeological sites are incorrectly located. (Color gure available online)

Bonavista Bay) out of the total subset used are explicitly recorded as having not exact locations. Second, large sites are poorly represented by a single point coordinate because their outermost boundaries may be situated several meters to tens of meters away from the chosen datum point. This is exemplied by the Beaches site for which the vulnerability prediction does not match the current situation, a result of the fact that its position, as given in the site database, is 50 m inland of the shoreline. In reality, the seaward edge of this large site is situated directly on an eroding triangular spit of land, which is predicted (on the basis of topography) to have high vulnerability (Figures 9B and C). Third, archaeological material may not be evenly distributed across large sites. Consequently, there may be variations in vulnerability within an individual sites boundaries while predictions of vulnerability based solely on the location of an eroding shoreline may be different to a prediction that accounts for the locations of clusters of archaeological material. For example, the material closest to the shore may consist of relatively sparse assemblages with the densest concentrations of archaeological

deposits situated several meters to tens of meters inland and therefore not at immediate risk. Accounting for these locational issues would require updated and veried positions on site positions and, where possible, data on site boundaries and the distribution of archaeological material. We therefore accept that the predictions of our desk-based coastal vulnerability model contain a degree of uncertainty, particularly with respect to the Stage III predictions, but they are the best available based on the extant data. Given these limitations, the effectiveness of desk-based models for heritage management should be viewed from a scalar perspective, specically the rst-pass, secondpass, and site-specic assessment levels described by Sharples (2006), and any resulting recommendations tailored accordingly. First-pass assessments such as Shaw et al. (1998), while useful for identifying the fundamental controls on vulnerability for a certain region (e.g., a predominance of unconsolidated versus steep cliffed coastlines), are generally too broad for heritage management purposes in that the sites and landscapes under consideration occupy much smaller spatial scales. Some prioritization of

370

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3 2011

Impact Assessment of Sea-Level Change

resources could be initiated on the basis of such assessments, mainly involving additional research to provide sufcient detail for effective management. For example, areas classied as high vulnerability could be targeted by eld-based surveys, while secondpass assessments of areas classied as low to moderately vulnerable could be used to detect smaller zones that are at greater risk from coastal changes. A strategy for such a second-pass exercise is illustrated by Stages I and II of this study. The results of these could be used to prioritize eld-based surveys in localized areas estimated to be of high vulnerability. These surveys would serve two purposes: to provide additional data on known archaeological sites within high vulnerability areas (e.g., local rates of coastal retreat, identication of eroding deposits); and to target high vulnerability areas where previously unknown archaeological material is at risk from, and could be revealed by, erosion. These could take the form of coastal walkover surveys which would aim to identify and record exposed stratigraphy and cultural features in eroding sections and locate artefacts reworked onto the beach/intertidal zone. In high vulnerability areas without known sites, eldwork could be timed to follow storms so as to take advantage of maximum erosion and exposure of archaeological material. This type of targeted approach may be well-suited to areas with low population densities where archaeological discoveries stemming from development are unlikely and where incidences of coastal erosion are less likely to be noticed by causal observers. For example, based on the results of this study, a survey of the LAnse aux Meadows area would focus to the west of Noddy Bay to provide supporting data on the sites clustered around LAnse aux Meadows, and to identify previously unknown sites along the highly vulnerable but potentially archaeologically rich shores of Sacred Bay. This type of eld testing will form an important component of future work to verify the accuracy of the predictions presented in this paper and to identify previously unknown sites. Future work could also improve the model used here by including ad-

ditional datasets such as regional-scale wave climates, bathymetry, aerial photographs, and coastal landforms when these become available. Stage III in this analysis, was an attempt to produce a site-specic assessment. The types of recommendation stemming from this level of prediction could include monitoring of specic sites or site clusters predicted to be at high to moderate risk, or rescue excavation in advance of site erosion. This would be facilitated for sites such as Philips Garden and LAnse aux Meadows by virtue of their location within designated National Historic Sites (so designated because of the importance of the sites and associated cultural landscapes) and as such, fall under national protection guidelines (Parks Canada 2007a, 2007b). Alternatively, survey and monitoring could be driven by local communities as in the Scottish Shorewatch program. This type of approach would be most applicable to sites outside national stewardship where local heritage societies play an active role in documenting and managing sites. There is a strong incentive in that many such communities derive economic benet from these sites, particularly in terms of tourism revenue. Nonetheless, while the Stage III assessment was able to make predictions for individual sites, it made use of the same datasets as the second-pass Stage II assessment and arguably pushed them beyond the limit of their capabilities. This is best exemplied by unrealistic interpolated future shorelines and the failure to accurately model the observed erosion at the Beaches site (see Figures 9 and 10). Improving Stage III assessments to a level where they can provide accurate predictions for individual sites would require the model to use higher resolution elevation data supplemented with local bathymetry and wave climate, locally derived erosion rates and accurate mapping of archaeological site boundaries. Importantly, the techniques used in this assessment are still applicable to such improved data. For example, contour maps and simulated ooding will still be the most effective means of analysing high (sub-meter) resolution DEMs created by LIDAR or GPS surveys. An additional consideration would

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

371

Kieran Westley et al.

be to include detail on the types of archaeological site. This relates to the fact that the vulnerability of a given site depends on its composition as well as its position. For example, prehistoric sites consisting of loose material buried within unconsolidated sediments will be less resilient compared to more substantial historic structures, such as buildings, piers and shing stages. In conclusion, based on the present evidence, a changing global climate seems an inevitable component of the coming century. The impacts of this will be far-reaching, not least for coastal areas which are likely to be subject to increases in sea level, storm intensity and, as a result, erosion. Thus far, we have only taken the rst step towards addressing the impact of these potentially destructive processes on the integrity of coastal archaeological sites. Nonetheless, it is an important one. Of all the options available, the one least likely or feasible from an archaeological perspective alone is the mass construction of coastal defenses or rescue excavations along extensive swaths of coastline. More likely will be the requirement to choose between which sites to protect or excavate and which to abandon. Therefore knowing where risk is highest and understanding the effectiveness and limitations of the methods used to estimate it will contribute to better decisionmaking and help prioritize particularly vulnerable or important sites and cultural landscapes.

REFERENCES
Alley, R., P. Clark, P. Huybrechts, and I. Joughin. 2005. Ice-sheet and sea-level changes. Science 319:456460. Bell, R., M. Studinger, C. Shuman, M. Fahnestock, and I. Joughin. 2007. Large subglacial lakes in East Antarctica at the onset of fast-owing ice streams. Nature 445:904907. Bell, T., and M. A. P. Renouf. 2003. Prehistoric cultures, reconstructed coasts: Maritime Archaic Indian site distribution in Newfoundland. World Archaeology 35(3):350370. Blankholm, H. 2009. Long-term research and cultural resource management strategies in light of climate change and human impact. Arctic Anthropology 46(12):1724. Burgess, K., H. Jay, and A. Hosking. 2004. Futurecoast: Predicting the future coastal evolution of England and Wales. Journal of Coastal Conservation 10:6571. Carrasco, A., O. Ferreira, A. Matias, and J. A. Dias. 2007. Historic monuments threatened by coastal hazards at Boca do Rio, Algarve, Portugal. Coastal Management 35(2):163179. Cassar, M. 2005. Climate Change and the Historic Environment. London: UCL Centre for Sustainable Heritage. Catto, N. 2006. Impacts of Climate Change and Variation on the Natural Areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. Report prepared for the Newfoundland and Labrador Ministry of Environment and Conservation. Catto, N., D. Scruton, and N. Ollerhead. 2003. The Coastline of Eastern Newfoundland. Report prepared for the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Church, J., N. White, T. Aarup, W. Wilson, P. Woodworth, C. Domingues, J. Hunter, and K. Lambeck. 2008. Understanding global sea levels: Past, present and future. Sustainability Science 3:922. Daly, J., D. Belknap, J. Kelley, and T. Bell. 2007. Late Holocene sea-level change around Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 44:14531465. Dawson, T. 2007. Coastal erosion & archaeology in Scotland: Working with local communities. Paper presented at Adapting Archaeology: Foresight for Climate Change in the UK conference, London. Available at http://www.britarch.ac.uk/conservation/ climate/adapting (accessed May 2010). Edwards, R. and A. OSullivan. 2007. A Vulnerability Assessment of Irelands Coastal Archaeological Heritage. Report prepared for the Heritage Council of Ireland.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by a Memorial University Faculty of Arts Postdoctoral Fellowship. We would also like to thank Stephen Hull at the Provincial Archaeology Ofce of Newfoundland and Labrador for making available the database of archaeological sites and David Liverman, Martin Batterson, Larry Nolan, and Dave Taylor at the Newfoundland and Labrador Geological Survey for their advice and access to geological data. We also thank two anonymous reviews for their insightful comments that improved the manuscript.

372

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3 2011

Impact Assessment of Sea-Level Change

Eid, B., E. Dunlap, M. Henschel, and J. Trask. 1991. Wind and Wave Climate Atlas. Volume I: The East Coast of Canada. Report prepared for Transport Canada. English Heritage. 2007. A brief for English Heritage Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment Surveys (v. 10). Unpublished brief available at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ publications/rczas-brief/ (accessed June 2010). English Heritage. 2008. Climate Change and the Historic Environment. London: English Heritage. Erlandson, J. M. 2008. Racing a rising tide: Global warming, rising seas and the erosion of human history. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 3(2):167169. FitzGerald, D., M. Fenster, B. Argow, and I. Buynevich. 2008. Coastal impacts due to sealevel rise. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 36:601647. Fitzpatrick, S. M., M. Kappers, and Q. Kaye. 2006. Coastal erosion and site destruction on Carriacou, West Indies. Journal of Field Archaeology 31(3):251261. Flatman, J. 2009. A climate of fear: Recent British policy and management of coastal heritage. Public Archaeology 8(1):319. Gornitz, V., R. Daniels, T. White, and K. Birdwell. 1993. The development of a coastal risk assessment database: vulnerability to sea-level rise in the US southeast. Journal of Coastal Research SI12;327338. Hammar-Klose, E., and E. Thieler. 2001. Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: A Preliminary Database for the U.S. Atlantic, Pacic, and Gulf of Mexico Coasts. Report prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds68/ (accessed May 2010). Ingstad, A., and H. Ingstad. 1986. The Norse Discovery of America. Oslo: The Norwegian University Press. Jones, B., K. Hinkel, C. Arp, and W. Eisner. 2008. Modern erosion rates and loss of coastal features and sites, Beaufort Sea coastline, Alaska. Arctic 61:361372. McLean, L. 2006. Burnside Heritage Foundation Inc. 2005 Archaeology. Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador, Provincial Archaeology Ofce Review 4:5153. McLean, L. 2007. Burnside Heritage Foundation Inc. Archaeology 2006. Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador, Provincial Archaeology Ofce Review 5:540. McLean, L. 2008. Burnside Heritage Foundation Inc. Summary of 2007 archaeological

season. Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador, Provincial Ofce Review 6:6468. Meehl, G., T. Stocker, W. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A. Gaye, J. Gregory, A. Kitoh et al. 2007. Global climate projections. In Climate Change 2007. The Physical Science Basis (S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, M. Marquis, K. Avery, M. Tignor, H. Le Roy Miller, and Z. Chen, eds.): 747846. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meier, M., M. Dyurgerov, U. Rick, S. ONeel, W. Pfeffer, R. Anderson, S. Anderson, and A. Glazovsky. 2007. Glaciers dominate eustatic sea-level rise in the 21st Century. Science 317:10641067. Moore, H., and G. Wilson. 1997. Report on a Coastal Zone Assessment Survey of Orkney: Burray, Flotta, Graemsay, Hoy, South Ronaldsay. Report prepared for the Orkney Archaeological Trust. Mote, P., A. Petersen, S. Reeder, H. Shipman, and L. Binder. 2008. Sea Level Rise in the Coastal Waters of Washington State. Report prepared by the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group and the Washington Department of Ecology. Murphy, P., D. Thackray, and E. Wilson. 2009. Coastal heritage and climate change in England: Assessing threats and priorities. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 11(1):915. National Trust. 2005. Shifting Shores. Living with a Changing Coastline. London: National Trust. Natural Resources Canada. 2009. The Atlas of Canada. Sea Islands. Available at http://atlas. nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/learningresources/ facts/islands.html (accessed September 2009). Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency. 2008. PopulationCensus Divisions and St. Johns CMA (19962007). Available at www. stats.gov.nl.ca/Statistics/Population/Default. aspx (accessed September 2009). Parks Canada. 2007a. Port au Choix. National Historic Site of Canada Management Plan. Available at http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/ bib-lib/index.aspx (accessed August 2009). Parks Canada. 2007b. State of Protected Areas Report. Available at http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/ docs/bib-lib/index.aspx (accessed August 2009). Pastore, R. 1986 The spatial distribution of Late Palaeo-Eskimo Sites on the island of Newfoundland. In Palaeo-Eskimo Cultures in Newfoundland, Labrador, and Ungava. Reports in Archaeology 1:125134. St. Johns: Memorial University of Newfoundland. Pastore, R. 1992. Shanawdithits People. St. Johns: Atlantic Archaeology Ltd.

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

373

Kieran Westley et al.

Pope, P. 1997. The Many Landfalls of John Cabot. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Pope, P. 2004. Fish into Wine: The Newfoundland Plantation in the Seventeenth Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science 315:368370. Renouf, M. A. P. 1999. Prehistory of Newfoundland hunter-gatherers: Extinctions or adaptations? World Archaeology 3(3):403 420. Sharples, C. 2006. Indicative Mapping of Tasmanian Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise: Explanatory Report. Report prepared for the Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmania. Shaw, J., and R. Courtney. 2004. A Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 4634.

Shaw, J., R. Taylor, D. Forbes, M.-H. Ruz, and S. Solomon. 1998. Sensitivity of the Coasts of Canada to Sea-Level Rise. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 505. Tarasov, L., and W. R. Peltier. 2005. Arctic freshwater forcing of the Younger Dryas cold reversal. Nature 435:662665. Vasseur, L., and N. Catto. 2007. Atlantic Canada. In From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007 (D. S. Lemmen, F. J. Warren, J. Lacroix and E. Bush, eds.):119170. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Wallace, B. L. 2006. Westward Vikings: The Saga of Lanse aux Meadows. St. Johns: Newfoundland Historic Sites Association. Webster, T., D. Forbes, S. Dickie, and R. Shreenan. 2004. Using topographic LIDAR to map ood risk from storm-surge events for Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 30(1): 6476.

374

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3 2011

Copyright of Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.