On the southeastern Atlantic Seaboard of the United States, 11,109 known terrestrial cultural heritage sites are at risk of damage or destruction due to forces related to sea-level rise (SLR) given an optimistic 1 m increase in global mean sea level (GMSL; Anderson et al. Reference Anderson, Bissett, Yerka, Wells, Kansa, Kansa, Myers, Carl DeMuth and White2017). These sites are damaged most severely by the persistent wave and tidal energies generating erosion that precedes permanent SLR. Additional damage comes from modern human activities such as dredging to expand ports and intracoastal waterways, increasing use of personal vessels, and the use of larger shipping containers. Sites are also negatively impacted by increases in salinity, ocean acidification, and migrating shorelines, given that ecological barriers such as marshes and mangroves that serve as the last line of defense for many of these irreplaceable sites are also negatively impacted. Additionally, portions of the United States' southeastern coastline are experiencing SLR at rates six times higher than the global average, adding urgency to the need to address this increasingly persistent threat (Valle-Levinson et al. Reference Valle-Levinson, Dutton and Martin2017:7878). The ways in which archaeologists in the United States and beyond have addressed the impacts of climate change to cultural heritage sites have been a patchwork of partial solutions driven largely by state budgets and, to a lesser extent, by federal support for specific weather events for which funding often comes years later. Furthermore, siloed cultural resource management practices operating within state borders have led to divergent and imperfect responses to climate change.
These climate-driven environmental changes are actively impacting, even erasing, the coastline's archaeological record. Yet, the vastness of the Atlantic coastline negates the ability of professional archaeologists to be the sole active monitors, documenting and salvaging at-risk, threatened, damaged, and destroyed resources. A different, more collaborative and scalable approach is needed.
North American Heritage at Risk
NAHAR Research Pipeline
North American Heritage at Risk (NAHAR) is a research pipeline and collaborative research network that grew out of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to feel connected to a community during lockdown. The purpose of the NAHAR research pipeline is to build a suite of transdisciplinary multimodal, multiscalar methodologies to identify at-risk known and unidentified cultural heritage sites, to gather input on their significance, and to complete the ever-more-important task of mitigation or data recovery. As cultural resources become increasingly subjected to localized impacts from global changes, there are simply not enough archaeologists trained to observe sites sloughing into the water from shorelines, identify previously unrecorded sites under threat, or document their observations in a collective, secure, yet accessible database. The original project proposal that brought the authors together sought to build on collaborative partnerships among the Florida Public Archaeology Network's (FPAN) Heritage Monitoring Scout (HMS Florida) program, the University of Georgia's Laboratory of Archaeology, and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources’ (SCDNR) Heritage Trust Program and to unify diverse methodologies these programs have implemented in response to climate change under the NAHAR pipeline.
The NAHAR pipeline has five stages. As designed by the authors, the first step in the pipeline is modeling the coastal threat to archaeological resources and creating an Archaeological Triage Assessment (ATA). An ATA combines SLR and Sea Levels Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) data and site location information as a tool to prioritize future action at archaeological sites. From those preliminary results, a project team can generate a list of archaeological sites that have the potential to be negatively impacted by SLR and related coastal processes. Modeling results can be ground truthed and refined through pedestrian survey. With that long list in hand, the second step is the archaeological “monitoring” of sites identified through the ATA. Monitoring is the act of repeat visits to archaeological sites. Although new sites may be identified during the process, the goal is to document repeat visits of existing sites to capture change over time. Project teams are strongly encouraged to call upon a volunteer network of professionals and citizen scientists at this stage, including site stewardship progams (Miller Reference Miller2023). Monitoring fulfills the need to verify site location, assess current conditions, and vet the list of sites in gravest need of mitigation. In the “meeting” stage, the project team must engage with sovereign tribal nations, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, State Historic Preservation Offices, local governments, municipalities, community organizations, schools, descendant communities, and all members of the public in general. This not only brings them along with the project but highly values their input on the cultural and social value of threatened sites. With the information gathered from the computer models, archaeological monitoring, and meetings, a project team can then “methodize” or rank the sites to be considered for more in-depth “mitigation.” At some heritage-at-risk sites, mitigation means large-scale excavation to gather data before they are lost to rapid erosion, such as summer excavations by SCDNR at Pockoy shell ring near Edisto, South Carolina (see Gaillard et al. Reference Gaillard, Luciano, Sundin, Weber and Smith2024). At other sites, it can mean removal of features for reconstruction in upland areas, such as the excavation and reconstruction of Meur Burnt Mound on Sanday, Orkney, Scotland (Dawson Reference Dawson2017; Scotland Coastal Archaeology and the Problem of Erosion [SCAPE] 2015). Creative mitigation includes a range of options, from development of lesson plans or interpretive panels to 3D digital models and carbon footprint offsets.
NAHAR Collaborative Network
The pandemic created the time for Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina researchers to start a conversation and ultimately pull together a National Science Foundation (NSF) application, which resulted in the NAHAR research pipeline. The inadvertent impact, however, was the creation of a flourishing network of professionals eager to find each other and unify the language of climate heritage (Cochran et al. Reference Cochran, Miller, Wholey, Gougeon, Gaillard, Murray and Parker2023). Initially, NAHAR founders invited national and international heritage-at-risk experts who could provide guidance on the grant proposal. Although the initial NSF was ultimately not funded, the authors realized how much they learned together and that NAHAR helped with the stressors of the pandemic. It was also fun. The authors opened up the regularly scheduled Friday Zoom meetings to anyone engaged in climate heritage research, including but not limited to members of the Society for Historical Archaeology's Heritage at Risk Committee, the Society for American Archaeology's Climate Change Strategies and Response Committee, the European Archaeology Association's Climate Change Community, and the newly formed Southeastern Archaeological Conference's Heritage at Risk Committee. The NAHAR collaborative network transcended organization and agency boundaries, and it was open to all who could join at 9:00 a.m. eastern standard time.
NAHAR has grown into a cadence of biweekly meetings with presenters (Table 1) or network discussions on select pipeline steps, pressing topics such as Diversity Equity Including Belonging and Mattering, working together to provide K–12 educational materials, a NAHAR Facebook page with 438 followers, a NAHAR Spotify playlist, a MailChimp sign up to receive biweekly reminders, a collective Mendeley library, and a growing file of grant applications.
Table 1. List of NAHAR presenters in order of appearance.
People of Guana Project
The first project to use the NAHAR pipeline—and be submitted by NAHAR collaborative researchers—was the People of Guana project 2021–2023 (Figure 1). Funding was secured through the National Estuarine Research Reserve System's Science Collaborative (NERRS SC). The project studied how people have lived on and used the resources of the Guana Peninsula in northeast Florida for over 6,000 years (Figure 2). FPAN Northeast Regional Center, hosted by Flagler College, has benefited from a close relationship with the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (Reserve) for many years. FPAN has aided the Reserve and the state with education and outreach since 2006, offering workshops, public outreach events, and professional development opportunities. FPAN developed the Heritage Monitoring Scouts (HMS Florida) program in 2016 and began assisting Reserve staff to monitor and research archaeological resources on the Guana Peninsula (Miller and Murray Reference Miller and Jane Murray2018; Miller et al. Reference Miller, Ayers-Rigsby, LeFebvre, Walker, Murray, Kangas and Karim2024). The Reserve served as the program's first major partner in piloting training materials and working out standard procedures. The People of Guana project provided an opportunity for FPAN and the Reserve to formalize previously informal partnered events, such as HMS Florida trainings and intermittent monitoring, and to integrate archaeology further into ongoing research at the Reserve. The peninsula has never been systematically surveyed, and there exist only a few instances of limited survey (Murray et al. Reference Murray, Kemp and Miller2023:5–6). The Project Team reviewed historical and archaeological research to learn about past cultures and applied anthropological methods including surveys and focus groups to understand modern connections to the landscape. This work was undertaken under the conditions of coastal changes and impacts from the climate crisis to test a method of triage efforts for impacted sites. The project layered in understanding how climate change already has and will continue to impact historical resources with understanding community views on coastal heritage at risk.
Figure 1. The North American Heritage at Risk (NAHAR) research pipeline. Illustration by the authors and used with permission.
Figure 2. NAHAR pipeline components for the People of Guana project. Illustration by the authors and used with permission.
At its core, the project aimed to understand the connection between people—past and present—and the ecosystem services of the Guana Peninsula. The Project Team hoped this knowledge would be used to manage and interpret the resources for the community. Guiding research questions for the study included the following: How has resource use changed through time, and how did cultures adapt to these changes? How could the landscape change even more given climate change impacts? These questions could be answered during the “modeling” and “monitoring” stages of the NAHAR pipeline. For more in depth questions for sovereign nations, end users, and descendants, the following would be addressed through survey and focus groups: What resources do people value most at the Reserve, and how do they access and use them? How have these resources formed the bigger narrative of coastal heritage of the area? What efforts would the community like to see to preserve their coastal heritage? Guided by data collected during the “meeting” stage, next steps taken in “methodizing” would build from the prior three stages.
The project began in October 2021. During the first year, efforts focused on developing the archaeological triage assessment, designing the stakeholder survey, and monitoring while surveying archaeological sites. The second year shifted focus to launching the stakeholder survey, conducting follow-up interviews, hosting community workshops and focus groups, and developing a research design 1A-32 permit required by Florida Division of Historical Resources to conduct archaeological research in compliance with state law. An ArcGIS StoryMap and tour using the My Audio Tour platform were developed by the lab and field techs as the team waited for the permit to be signed. The Project Team proposed that the third year would focus on finalizing the archaeological field and lab work and connecting with the contemporary fishing population at the Reserve; however, the project concluded after the second year because no ground-disturbing activities were allowed or permitted by state and federal agencies. The Project Team met with end users and stakeholders—such as the volunteers of the Reserve, Gullah/Geechee people descended from Africans brought to the United States in bondage to work on the plantation at the Reserve, and members of the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor—throughout the entire project to discuss the design and implementation of surveys and archaeological research, facilitation of focus groups and workshops, and creation of project outputs and outcomes.
Modeling
The project produced four modeling subprojects as step one of the NAHAR pipeline: (1) review and digitization of historical documents and maps, (2) digital elevation map corrections (if necessary), (3) SLAMM production, and (4) application of an Archaeological Triage Assessment (ATA) to determine which known cultural heritage sites are most at risk and in need of survey or mitigation pending results from SLAMM. The combination of these applications illustrated land-use changes over time as well as the impacts of nearby urban and tourist destinations. This work was conducted by Lindsey Cochran at Eastern Tennessee State University and ground truthed with the Project Team (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Results of the modeling for the People of Guana project. Archaeological Triage Assessment by the authors and used with permission.
Monitoring
The Project Team used the HMS Florida program to work with citizen scientists to collect data on threats and impacts at archaeological sites on the peninsula (see HMS Florida Assessment Instructions). HMS Florida is a program developed by FPAN in 2016 to provide a means for collecting information about heritage at risk across the state (Miller and Murray Reference Miller and Jane Murray2018). Site monitoring data—such as forms to verify site location, assess/report site conditions, note artifacts observed on the surface, and make recommendations for future visits—were submitted to the HMS Florida Monitoring Database along with site conditions and photographs. Other monitoring methods applied to the People of Guana project included shoreline mapping, photogrammetry, and terrestrial laser scanning. In order to gain a better understanding of the peninsula's coastline, the Project Team used an Arrow Gold GNSS receiver with Real Time Kinetics (RTK) corrections rated for up to subcentimeter accuracy and the ArcGIS Field Maps app on iPhones to document the erosional edge on all sides of the peninsula for 2021, 2022, and 2023. The Project Team attempted to capture the place where intact archaeological deposits could still be found, often an upland erosional edge where present. In areas with gentler slopes, the upland shoreline was determined by soils and types of vegetation present, such as marsh grasses. Photogrammetry efforts included collecting images of diagnostic artifacts and significant features to help document these resources. All these activities require a 1A-32 permit, which was submitted and signed by the Florida State Archaeologist.
Results of the fieldwork components of the project are detailed in a Florida Department of State 1A-46 technical report (Murray et al. Reference Murray, Kemp and Miller2023) submitted to the Florida Division of Historical Resources, and they will be uploaded to the Florida Master Site File (FMSF). The 1A-46 report is a requirement from the first permit for monitoring activities approved during the first year of the grant and includes a detailed description of project activities through June 2, 2023. The report and all data are available on the People of Guana Open Science Framework page.
A total of 38 site assessments, using the HMS Florida methods first developed at the Reserve, were completed during the project. Several of the sites monitored required site form updates to be submitted to the FMSF to fulfill obligations required by the 1A-32 permit. Five new sites were identified during the course of the project, and new site forms were submitted to the FMSF as required by project objectives and permit obligations. To supplement the monitoring data, core team members mapped the erosional edge of archaeological sites on the shoreline in 2021, 2022, and 2023 to document change over time. Digital documentation efforts included photogrammetry of observed artifacts in the field (n = 60), terrestrial laser-scanning analysis of four selected shoreline areas, and cloud-to-cloud comparisons of models from three sites to identify changes over time.
Meeting
To get a better understanding of the current visitors and stakeholders of the Reserve, the Project Team used applied anthropological methods that included surveys, follow-up interviews, and focus groups in the form of Community Conversations about Heritage (CCHAR) workshops (Figure 4). Ben Marwick of the University of Washington supervised the development of the stakeholder survey that was reviewed by the Sovereign Nation of the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the University of Washington's Institutional Review Board, which both approved the survey. The survey was distributed online through email, listservs, and social media, as well as a QR-code printed card and PowerPoint slide that were included in all public presentations. The full survey report includes detailed information on the specific survey questions developed in collaboration with end users; questions on general demographics, visitation habits, resource use, and cultural and historical connections; concerns about climate change impacts; and research and management aspirations. Participants had the option of participating in a follow-up interview to elaborate on their responses. The Project Team gathered the survey data, and Dr. Marwick and his graduate students compiled, coded, and analyzed the data at the University of Washington (Marwick et al. Reference Marwick, Campbell-Smith and Shrikanth2023).
Figure 4. Community partners come together for a coastal walk and Community Conversation about Heritage at Risk (CCHAR). Photograph courtesy of the authors and used with permission.
During the project, two CCHAR focus groups were conducted at the Reserve, which included site tours and a facilitated conversation captured in transcripts to measure community thinking on climate change conditions at the Reserve. The Project Team met once a month for a total of 16 project partner meetings from October 2021 to May 2023, with the core team and stakeholders defined in the project proposal. Some ideas generated by the Project Team included participating in Estuaries Week, inviting out researchers and community members, monitoring using a new protocol after controlled burns at the Reserve, and organizing implementation steps for the field school that ultimately did not take place.
Methodizing
The Project Team used data from the modeling, monitoring, and meeting components to guide conversations with end users and other key stakeholders on site prioritization and mitigation efforts. Considerations for prioritization included site impacts and threat level, research potential, visitor interest, social value, and general feasibility of mitigation strategies (Figure 5). Creative strategies included continued monitoring, more in-depth documentation, and shoreline stabilization/erosion control.
Figure 5. North American Heritage at Risk (NAHAR) Triage and Mitigation Evaluation Matrix. Credit: Meg Gaillard, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), 2020.
Mitigating
The NAHAR Triage and Mitigation Evaluation Matrix (Figure 5) provides guidance on next steps under question 4: “Are the mechanisms in place or able to be acquired in order to conduct an excavation at the site as well as to conduct laboratory work?” If not, the matrix pivots away from ground-disturbing activities and toward final documentation of the site in situ. Such was the case with the People of Guana project that ended in 2023, and the Project Team monitored the sites a final time in June of that year. Draft deliverables of the Story Map and Audio Tour are available on the project's OSF page and await approval by Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The approved People of Guana Artifact Card is available at the same site. These products can be considered forms of alternative mitigation given that excavation was not deemed appropriate for this project (Figure 2). NOAA allowed outreach to Gullah/Geechee members outside of the project area—in fact, two counties away. Activities outside of the project area could also be considered action (mitigation) as part of this project.
It should be noted that in triage, mitigation in the form of excavation is not the only recommended course of action:
The options for mitigation strategies will vary widely depending on the site, and considerations should include site environment, impacts and threats, cost and resources required, and even how long a strategy may help protect a site. Strategies can include continued monitoring of the resources, protecting the sites with such methods as armoring the shoreline or installing living shorelines or full data recovery through excavations [Cochran et al. Reference Cochran, Miller, Wholey, Gougeon, Gaillard, Murray and Parker2023:9].
Lessons Learned
Unsurprisingly, the modeling and monitoring data generated from the coastal sites on the Guana Peninsula are already experiencing coastal change exacerbated by the climate crisis (Murray et al. Reference Murray, Kemp and Miller2023). The SLAMM and ATA models created during this project predict increasing erosion of all coastal sites on the peninsula and further inundation by 2025 (Cochran et al. Reference Cochran, Thompson, Anderson, Hladick and Herbert2024). The project's monitoring data supports the results of the modeling in that most sites are already in fair/declining or poor/unstable condition. Efforts to measure shoreline erosion through mapping and 3D documentation have provided quantifiable measurements of this loss. Community engagement shows an awareness of and concern about these impacts.
The methods deployed during the People of Guana project represent a suite of ways to document at risk and impacted sites (Murray et al. Reference Murray, Miller and Kemp2024). Although the project fell short of excavation efforts to recover more in-depth archaeological data from the most impacted sites, the project still helped show that the research pipeline is a useful tool. Modeling helped the team understand and predict how the landscape could change. Monitoring helped to ground truth these models and learn more about the sites themselves as well as the threats they are facing. Technology such as 3D documentation and shoreline mapping help to collect the quantifiable measurements of this change. Meeting with project end users and stakeholders helped to guide the research design to best fit the needs of all involved, and stakeholder surveys and CCHAR workshops provided a way for the wider community to voice their concerns.
The People of Guana project was the first pilot for the NAHAR pipeline. The five steps proved to be a useful framework to ensure a broad approach that considered multiple lines of evidence and a wide range of community input to help guide strategies at vulnerable archaeological sites. The project was able to contextualize these impacts and changes into contemporary concerns of the climate crisis. The management required for a successful NAHAR project depends on the scale of the project. As written, the pipeline is intentionally broad for other researchers to consider the modeling, monitoring, meeting, methodizing, and mitigation approach. Should the pipeline be adopted by state, federal, or sovereign nations to adopt, that is certainly possible but beyond the scope of this project. If a letter were to be added, it would probably be R for “reconciliation”—the time it takes to square what was observed in the field with required state forms and assessment reports. Currently, reconciliation of data steps falls under the umbrella of monitoring. The scope of “meeting” should also be clarified to be an important step throughout the project, but the emphasis in this article is related to offering stakeholders preliminary findings from the modeling and monitoring to make informed decisions in the “methodizing” step.
Recommendations to other project teams considering using the NAHAR pipeline fall into three categories. First, do a deep dive into the previous surveys to thoroughly understand what methods were used in a proposed project area. It was not clear to the Project Team that no Phase I or systematic shovel testing had ever been conducted on the Guana Peninsula. Archaeologists recorded sites previously on the Guana Peninsula based site boundaries from pedestrian surveys where they observed exposed material in erosional shorelines or on the surface. During monitoring, the Project Team noticed a pattern that all site boundaries needed adjusting and updated FMSF forms. The Project Team and project partners recognized that a Phase I survey with systematic shovel-test intervals was needed before Phase II and Phase III research designs could be submitted.
Second, always strive to improve on collaboration and consultation with Sovereign Nations who are rights holders for the project area. Near the end of 2023, the Southeastern Archaeological Conference held a forum in Chattanooga on their new burial goods image policy, during which Beau Carroll, Lead Archaeologist of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, stated that archaeologists too often confuse consultation with collaboration. The Project Team acknowledges that they confused consultation and collaboration activities and that they did not fully understand colonial practices embedded in the research design, particularly for proposed ground-disturbing activities. The authors will continue listen and learn in an effort to decolonize their practice and their collaborative approach to Sovereign Nations as rights holders.
The Project Team sustained good relationships with Gullah/Geechee descendants as identified stakeholders. Gullah/Geechee Nation Representative Glenda Simmons-Jenkins—also a Gullah/Geechee descendant—was an integral part of the Project Team (Figure 6). She attended project team meetings, advised on how to engage with Gullah/Geechee communities in north Florida, and brought her environmental and social justice experience to the project (Miller et al. Reference Miller, Simmons-Jenkins, Murray, Kemp, Sansom, Lee, Cochran and Gaillard2022; Simmons-Jenkins et al. Reference Simmons-Jenkins, Miller and Murray2022). A few of the benefits for the Gullah/Geechee Nation for participating in the project included demystification of archaeological processes, elevating grant opportunities for Gullah/Geechee communities, and an ongoing joint research project on Gullah/Geechee burial sites in northeast Florida.
Figure 6. Gullah/Geechee Nation Florida Representative Glenda Simmons-Jenkins. Photograph courtesy of the authors and used with permission.
Finally, the authors recommend joining NAHAR or creating a similar network of peers focused on the pursuit of heritage at risk through collaborative and transdisciplinary practices, such as the NAHAR pipeline. The scale of climate change necessitates that humans work together across borders, cultural differences, and specializations to address the crisis at hand. A transdisciplinary approach is the only way forward (Miller and Wright Reference Miller and Wright2023). If readers are not familiar with climate heritage issues, the archive of NAHAR talks is available on the website. Special thematic issues such as this one, the recent thematic issue edited by Sarah Miller and Jeneva Wright (Reference Miller and Wright2023), and Public Archaeology and Climate Change (Dawson et al. Reference Dawson, Nimura, López-Romero and Daire2017) can introduce archaeologists to a variety of projects and partnerships already working on this effort. Site Stewardship programs—such as HMS Florida, Maine Midden Minders, and Scotland's Coastal Heritage At Risk Project (Dawson et al. Reference Dawson, Hambly, Kelley, Lees and Miller2020)—can be implemented by other archaeologists to engage communities to monitor archaeological sites at risk, and they are already available in many states in the United States (Kelly Reference Kelly2007; Miller Reference Miller, Orser, Funari, Lawrence, Symonds and Zarankin2020; Miller and Wright Reference Miller and Wright2023; Miller et al. Reference Miller, Ayers-Rigsby, LeFebvre, Walker, Murray, Kangas and Karim2024; Rubinson Reference Rubinson2014; Rubinson and Miller Reference Rubinson, Miller, Reetz and Sperling2024).
Conclusions
This article—and indeed the whole issue—is, in the words of Jeneva Wright (Reference Wright2016), “an invitation” to archaeologists to get involved with climate heritage practices (if they are not already) and join NAHAR. Few East Coast states have State Historic Preservation Office–endorsed statewide plans that prioritize sites that are at risk from impending erosion and inundation. State research plans should prioritize sites that are facing environmental threats. If archaeologists are working on federal- or state-mandated projects, they should include adaptation strategies for mitigation (see Rockman et al. Reference Rockman, Morgan, Ziaja, Hambrecht and Meadow2016). Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966), the guiding statue for compliance archaeology in the United States, does not currently mandate that climate change be included as an adverse impact (Dawson et al. Reference Dawson, Hambly, Lees and Miller2021; Lees Reference Lees2023). If archaeologists are not required to consider climate change as an adverse impact, the authors argue that they are ethically bound to try (Society for American Archaeology 2022). More NAHAR pipeline case studies are currently underway in Florida, such as Nicole Grinnan's NERRS SC Apalachicola project (2023–2024) and Sarah Miller's St. Johns River Survey and Resiliency Project, which is slated for funding by Florida Department of State Special Category grant (2024–2026). The authors hope that the NAHAR pipeline provides a template for collaborative research that others can follow globally and—if initiated—shareable data consistent with other practitioners.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the land managers and staff of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve, the Seminole Tribe of Florida's Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Florida Division of Historical Resources and Bureau of Archaeological Research, Florida Public Archaeology Network, and the North American Heritage at Risk community. We recognize the retirement of 2005–2023 Executive Director William B. Lees, who had a large impact on public archaeology at large, and thank him for his service. Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research under the Division of Historical Resources issued a 1A-32 permit from 2021 to 2023 for the People of Guana project. A 1A-46 report was submitted and approved in fulfillment of Permit No. 2122.033.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Science Collaborative grant program, jointly administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Michigan's Water Center, under Grant PTE Federal Award NA19N0S4190058 / Subaward SUBK00016537.
Data Availability Statement
Data from HMS Florida and the People of Guana project are available at https://osf.io/hf8j5/, with site locations redacted. North American Heritage at Risk data are available at https://nahar.hcommons.org/, including an archive of bimonthly presentations, a partner list, and a Mendeley digital library.
Competing Interests
The authors declare none.
Open access
