Geophysical surveys assess archaeological significance in marine aggregate areas, suggesting minimal impact from dredging.
Geophysical and hydrographic survey data were collected during 2022 as part of the regional monitoring surveys for several marine aggregate extraction areas on behalf of the South Coast Dredging Association (SCDA). Data were collected within pre-defined boundaries covering a minimum of the dredging footprint and a pre-approved buffer. The data were assessed by a qualified and experienced maritime archaeologist to identify any features of potential archaeological significance and undertake a comparison with previously identified features, including within the archaeological baseline assessment undertaken prior to the commencement of dredging. The archaeological assessment of the data from Area 127 is being undertaken to fulfil marine licence monitoring conditions. Conclusions Exclusion zones Following the review of the 2022 dataset, no exclusion zones have been recommended within the extents of the licence area for Area 127. One previously recommended 50.0 m from extents AEZ (MS17_0005) is recommended for removal as it is c. 1.2 km outside of and to the north of the current Area 127 licence boundary. Impacts from dredging activities Contacts of high potential re-identified during the period of dredging activity suggest minimal impact to known archaeological sites within Area 127. One contact of medium potential (MS22_0006) is identified c. 1,845.0 m outside the licence area and is outside the 2022 survey boundary but is afforded coverage in the SSS dataset. The contact is identified beyond the range of any recommend mitigation in the licence area. Therefore, no mitigation is required to address the potential impact of dredging operations. No additional sites of high or medium potential have been identified in the geophysical and hydrographic data that may have been exposed as a result of dredging operations, suggesting the potential impact of dredging to the historic environment within Area 127 is minimal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mateusz Polakowski (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: