4.5. Provisional Programme

  1. A programme of future geophysical and geotechnical surveys is planned in connection with the Array. The anticipated timeframes for completed and planned survey works are outlined in Table 4.1   Open ▸ below.

 

Table 4.1:
Overview of Pre-Application and Pre-Development Offshore Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey for the Array

Table 4.1: Overview of Pre-Application and Pre-Development Offshore Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey for the Array

 

5. Pre-Construction Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys

5.1. Non-Archaeological Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys

  1. To maximise the benefit of any non-archaeological surveys, archaeological input from the RA will be sought at the planning stage. Any survey specifications will be informed by the Array survey programme so that archaeological considerations can be taken into account.
  2. Advice from the RA will include:
  • the available details of sites and/or anomalies identified in the volume 3, appendix 19.1;
  • the archaeological potential of areas where no existing sites and/or anomalies are yet known;
  • the type and level of ROV positioning, voice recording and video/still recording to be utilised; and
  • the type of sites and finds to be reported and recorded.
  1. However, where non-archaeological surveys do not provide clear results, additional archaeological ROV surveys may be required.
  2. Video and positional data not acquired by archaeological survey (for example, that collected within the Array by ROV obstruction or UXO surveys) should be subject to archaeological assessment. Typically, this is appropriate for sites subject to AEZs for which the avoidance of direct impacts is not possible. However, this measure is particularly relevant for UXO/boulder clearance and for areas where there are survey gaps.
  3. The Applicant will consider provisions for a suitably qualified archaeologist to be present either as an observer or participating diver to optimise archaeological results and therefore reduce the need for repeat surveys.

5.2. Archaeological Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys

  1. Archaeological ROV surveys can be employed to gather archaeological data concerning wreck sites for archaeological anomalies to safeguard the archaeological record.
  2. For sites subject to AEZs, for which the avoidance of direct impacts is not possible and non-archaeological surveys have not provided clear results, an archaeological ROV survey will be commissioned by the RA (or a suitably qualified Archaeological Contractor).
  3. Following the completion of the ROV survey all data, including any video footage, will be reviewed by the RA/Archaeological Contractor. This review will help to inform the potential for archaeological interest at relevant sites. Typically, this will involve the identification of vessel remains, rather than ‘chance find’ artefacts. A report will identify sites and/or geophysical anomalies of sufficient archaeological interest to warrant further investigation. It will also identify those sites that are no longer of archaeological interest and hence may be removed from the list of sites protected by AEZs.
  4. The archaeological results of any ROV survey will be compiled into a report by the RA/Archaeological Contractor. The report will include a statement of the likely requirements (if any) for further archaeological work.
  5. The report will be forwarded to the Applicant and the AC.

6. Archaeological Exclusion Zones

  1. Best practice favours the preservation in situ of archaeological remains, therefore the ideal preferred mitigation for archaeological remains is avoidance. For the Array, AEZs have been proposed that prohibit development-related activities within their extents, which vary depending upon the nature of the site. The final Array layout will take into account these preliminary zones, which may evolve or be removed (with the agreement of MD-LOT and HES) as the Array progresses, subject to layout designs and additional subsequent surveys that may be required.
  2. All AEZs agreed with the statutory historic body, through the WSI, will be marked on the Design Plan. If impacts cannot be avoided, measures to reduce, remedy or offset disturbance will be agreed.
  3. In view of their potential archaeological significance, AEZs (either in the form of individual AEZs or clusters) will be placed around the anomalies which have been identified within the Array: two anomalies classified as being of high archaeological potential and 14 anomalies classed as being of medium potential. One further high potential anomaly has been identified within the geophysical data, however this anomaly is located more than 100 m from the Array boundary, as such there is no pathway for direct impact to the receptor from the development and therefore no AEZ has been assigned. These anomalies have been recommended AEZs based on the size of the anomaly, the extents of any debris, the potential significance of the anomaly, the potential impact of the development and the seabed dynamics within the area. Additional details regarding the establishment of AEZs can be found in MSDS (2023).
  4. Dependant of the form of the anomaly, AEZs have either been recommended as a radius from the centre point of the anomaly or as a distance from the extents. Particularly in the case of shipwrecks, which tend to be longer in length than width, the use of a radius about the centre point provides unequal protection around the extents. This not only impacts the protection afforded but does not present proportional mitigation.
  5. The AEZs identified for the Array have been reviewed against desk-based and site-specific data, and as a result of this review AEZs have been identified of varying sizes according to the size and spread of the individual archaeological receptor.
  6. The proposed AEZs are listed in Table 6.1   Open ▸ and shown in Figure 6.1   Open ▸ . The list of AEZs is ‘live’ and will be held in the GIS project file maintained by the RA. Scope is allowed for their amendment in light of further evidence and with the involvement of consultees. At all stages of the Array lifecycle, the Applicant should supply the RA and all contractors with the agreed AEZ shapefile data.

 

Table 6.1:
Proposed Archaeological Exclusion Zones Within the Array

Table 6.1: Proposed Archaeological Exclusion Zones Within the Array

Figure 6.1:
Distribution of Proposed AEZs Within the Array (Proposed AEZs Not to Scale)

Figure 6.1: Distribution of Proposed AEZs Within the Array (Proposed AEZs Not to Scale)