80b8e5f1-7bab-415b-aa0e-f4590984b782 English series series 2026-03-17T14:28:54 MEDIN 3.1.2 geoscientificInformation oceans society Sedimentary structure SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary 2023-12-12 revision Seismic reflection SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary 2023-12-12 revision Seismic refraction SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary 2023-12-12 revision Marine archaeology SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary 2023-12-12 revision Side-scan sonar SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary 2023-12-12 revision Magnetics SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary 2023-12-12 revision Bathymetry and Elevation SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary 2023-12-12 revision Pre-Construction monitoring The Crown Estate Renewable Energy Development Phases 2012-05-15 revision Renewable Energy Lease area The Crown Estate Renewable Energy Development Areas 2012-05-15 revision Offshore Cable Corridor The Crown Estate Renewable Energy Development Areas 2012-05-15 revision Elevation GEMET - INSPIRE themes, version 1.0 2009-07-31 revision SeaDataNet sea areas 2012-11-07 revision North Sea SeaVoX Vertical Co-ordinate Coverages 2020-05-21 revision soil and sediment SeaVoX Vertical Co-ordinate Coverages 2020-05-21 revision water column 2014-07-01T00:00:00 2014-07-31T23:59:59 0.7787 1.4544 52.6255 53.284 TCE-315 Marine Data Exchange 2014, Wessex Archaeology, Dudgeon, Geophysical Assessment Geophysical Assessment 2021-12-03T10:44:48 publication English Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Royal Haskoning DHV on behalf of Dudgeon Offshore Wind Limited (DOW) to conduct an archaeological assessment of geophysical data obtained over the site of the Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm and its associated export cable route. An archaeological interpretation and assessment of sidescan sonar, magnetometer and multibeam bathymetry data was undertaken. For the purpose of reporting, the study area was separated into the Offshore Wind Farm and the export Cable Route. The Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm site is situated approximately 32km offshore of Cromer on the north Norfolk coast. The Offshore Wind Farm comprises 67 wind turbine locations and their associated Inter-array cables. A 500m corridor for the Inter-array Cables and a 50m radius buffer zone for each of the wind turbine locations were assessed. The export cable route will make landfall as Weybourne Hope, approximately 5km west of Sheringham; with a 500m corridor being assessed. There will be no limitations when published on the Marine Data Exchange otherRestrictions Data Must be used in accordance to the Marine Data Exchange's Terms of Use: https://www.marinedataexchange.co.uk/content/info/terms-of-use otherRestrictions The Crown Estate +44 020 7851 5000 enquiries@thecrownestate.co.uk custodian Euan McNeill Wessex Archaeology Director, Coastal & Marine 01722 326867 info@wessexarch.co.uk originator The Crown Estate +44 020 7851 5000 enquiries@thecrownestate.co.uk distributor Orsted Customer-questions@orsted.com owner asNeeded Documents https://www.marinedataexchange.co.uk/details/TCE-315/summary A link to the web service or dataset. https://www.marinedataexchange.co.uk A link to the general host site. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 of 23 November 2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services 2010-12-08T00:00:00 publication Conformity with the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 was either not relevant to this dataset or not a requirement of the Marine Data Exchange for the creation and submission of this dataset; therefore, conformity has not been assessed and cannot be declared False series The sidescan sonar data were processed by WA using Coda Geosurvey software. This allowed the data to be replayed with various gain settings in order to optimise the quality of the images. The data were initially scanned to give an understanding of the geological nature of the area and were then interpreted for any objects of possible anthropogenic origin. This involves creating a database of anomalies within Coda by tagging individual features of possible archaeological potential, recording their positions and dimensions, and acquiring an image of each anomaly for future reference. A mosaic of the sidescan sonar data is produced during the data processing to assess the quality of the sonar towfish positioning. This allows the position of anomalies to be checked between different survey lines and for the layback values to be further refined if necessary. The navigation information was contained within the data files themselves and errors on positioning are +/-5m. The magnetometer data were processed by WA using Geometrics MagPick software in order to identify any discrete magnetic contacts which could represent buried metallic debris or structures such as wrecks. The software enables both visualisation of individual lines of data and gridding of data to produce a magnetic anomaly map. Smoothed averages of the data were first calculated, and then subtracted from the raw data values in order to reduce the effect of natural variations in the magnetic field such as changes in geology or water depth. The 0.2m cell size of the multibeam bathymetry data was too small for the quality of the data with some data holes apparent and collection artefacts very apparent. WA gridded the provided data with a coarser resolution of 1m and made digital terrain maps using IVS Fledermaus software. These data were examined for evidence of anomalies identified in the sidescan data. The initial interpretation of the geophysical data sets is conducted independently of each other. This inevitably leads to the possibility of any one object being the cause of numerous anomalies in different datasets and apparently overstating the number of archaeological features in the area. To address this fact, the anomalies were grouped together. This allows one ID number to be assigned to a single object for which there may be, for example, a bathymetric anomaly and multiple sidescan sonar anomalies. Once all the geophysical anomalies have been grouped, a discrimination flag is added to the record in order to discriminate against those which are not thought to be of an archaeological concern. The sidescan, magnetic and bathymetry anomalies were grouped together where they correlate. UKHO records that fall within the target review areas were included and grouped where appropriate. This produced the final gazetteer of features. These features are numbered with a WA ID which takes the form of a 70,000 number series. Anomalies that were identified during the previous phases of work (WA, 2009a, and b) were included and grouped where appropriate and have retained their original 7000 numbers. Due to the better quality of the most recent datasets, those anomalies identified during both the current and previous phases of work have had their locations updated. It must be noted that the current data set is of a higher quality than those used during previous reports (WA, 2009a and b). The small 35m range of the sidescan sonar dataset allows for higher resolution and therefore identification of smaller anomalies that may not have been identified during the previous phase. The recent magnetometer dataset as been acquired at UXO standard and as such at a much higher specification compared to previous surveys and as such an increased number of anomalies have been identified during this assessment. ABP Marine Environmental Research +44 023 8071 1840 enquiries@abpmer.co.uk pointOfContact EPSG Geodetic Parameter Registry 2022-12-12 revision WGS 84 / UTM zone 31N