EN 17652:2022

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-november-2022
Kulturna dediščina - Ocenjevanje in spremljanje stanja ohranjenosti arheoloških
najdišč na kraju samem
Cultural heritage - Assessment and monitoring of archaeological deposits for
preservation in situ
Erhaltung des kulturellen Erbes - Anforderungen an die Überwachung und Untersuchung
der Umgebung von Lagerstätten des Kulturerbes
Patrimoine culturel - Investigation et suivi de l'état de conservation des couches
archéologiques pour la préservation in situ
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: EN 17652:2022
ICS:
97.195 Umetniški in obrtniški izdelki. Items of art and handicrafts.
Kulturne dobrine in kulturna Cultural property and
dediščina heritage
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

EN 17652
EUROPEAN STANDARD
NORME EUROPÉENNE
September 2022
EUROPÄISCHE NORM
ICS 97.195
English Version
Cultural heritage - Assessment and monitoring of
archaeological deposits for preservation in situ
Patrimoine culturel - Investigation et suivi de l'état de Erhaltung des kulturellen Erbes - Anforderungen an
conservation des couches archéologiques pour la die Überwachung und Untersuchung der Umgebung
préservation in situ von Lagerstätten des Kulturerbes
This European Standard was approved by CEN on 24 July 2022.

CEN members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving this
European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration. Up-to-date lists and bibliographical references
concerning such national standards may be obtained on application to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre or to any CEN
member.
This European Standard exists in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other language made by
translation under the responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the CEN-CENELEC Management
Centre has the same status as the official versions.

CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and
United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION

EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2022 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. EN 17652:2022 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.

Contents Page
European foreword . 3
Introduction . 4
1 Scope . 5
2 Normative references . 5
3 Terms and definitions . 5
4 Objective and procedure . 7
5 Assessment . 8
5.1 General . 8
5.2 Desktop study . 10
5.3 Preliminary assessment . 10
5.4 Detailed assessment . 12
5.5 Conclusion and decision-making . 12
6 Monitoring . 14
6.1 General . 14
6.2 Design of a monitoring programme (“Plan”) . 16
6.3 Monitoring (“Do”) . 17
6.4 Review of data (“Check”) . 17
6.5 Completion of monitoring (“Adjust”) . 17
6.6 Continued monitoring (“Adjust”) . 18
6.7 Mitigation (“Adjust”) . 18
7 Reporting . 18
7.1 General . 18
7.2 Reporting of the desktop study . 18
7.3 Reporting of preliminary assessment . 19
7.4 Report of the detailed assessment . 19
7.5 Report of the programme of monitoring . 20
8 Quality assurance requirements . 20
Annex A (informative) Characterisation of the state of the preservation . 21
Annex B (informative) Characterisation of the environmental conditions – Archaeological
deposits . 25
Annex C (informative) Example of classifying site . 30
Bibliography . 33

European foreword
This document (EN 17652:2022) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 346 “Cultural
heritage”, the secretariat of which is held by UNI.
This European Standard shall be given the status of a national standard, either by publication of an
identical text or by endorsement, at the latest by March 2023, and conflicting national standards shall be
withdrawn at the latest by March 2023.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
Any feedback and questions on this document should be directed to the users’ national standards body.
A complete listing of these bodies can be found on the CEN website.
According to the CEN-CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organisations of the
following countries are bound to implement this European Standard: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of North
Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United
Kingdom.
Introduction
The principle that in situ preservation should be considered as the first option for the conservation of
terrestrial, wetland or underwater archaeological sites, before permitting or engaging in any activity
directed at these sites, is laid down in the Council of Europe [5] and UNESCO [24] conventions as well as
in two ICOMOS charters [8, 9].
This document is designed to assist authorities, archaeological and other consultants, owners,
developers, applicants and others responsible for sites of archaeological and historical significance to
ensure the best outcome for the preservation of discovered material and can also be helpful in ensuring
that relevant legislation and conditions are abided by. It sets out a decision-making framework for the in
situ preservation of archaeological deposits and identifies mechanisms for assessing and, where
appropriate, monitoring of these sites.
Archaeological deposits and the finds they contain have accumulated through human activity over
hundreds or thousands of years. They are found in urban and rural areas, in the intertidal zone and
underwater, and include evidence of past occupation as well as natural deposits representing past
environments. These archaeological deposits and sediments display large variations in their state of
preservation, environmental conditions, and vulnerability. If the deposits or the environment around
them are altered, their information potential can be reduced or destroyed. Accelerated degradation of
archaeological deposits, shrinkage and subsidence of the sediments can also have serious consequences
for existing buildings, roads and infrastructure built above them.
Where changes are proposed at an archaeological site, an assessment of the significance (the cultural and
other values assigned to the archaeological asset and its surroundings), and an evaluation of the state of
preservation and environmental conditions should be conducted to inform decision-making. The changes
could be developments in the terrestrial or underwater environments, land-use change or improved
conservation management. The objective of these assessments is to balance the long-term preservation
and protection of these non-renewable heritage assets with sustainable development.
Preservation assessment is an iterative process, with more detail required for the most complex sites,
such as those with waterlogged deposits or a broad range of archaeological materials present. Details of
the proposed development or land- and seabed-use change are also required before decisions can be
made as to whether such changes can be made in a way that also protects and preserves the
archaeological site. In some cases, the significance of the site might be low and the state of preservation
poor; at these sites, rapid assessment to conclude no further investigation work is needed, would be
sufficient. In some instances, for example at the most significant and complex sites, a monitoring
programme can be required to verify that conditions for long-term preservation are maintained. A key
part of designing a monitoring programme is defining the monitoring objectives, as well as monitoring
parameters and trigger levels. These will differ from site to site.
Monitoring can form an important element for the management of these more complex sites. This
document mainly provides information about monitoring the burial environment. Systematic, regular
monitoring of selected parameters using recognised methods supports the comparison of data and
results over time and between different sites. The use of traceable, reproducible methods and actions will
increase the quality and reliability of the data collected. This will ensure that any changes in the
archaeological deposits and sediments can be detected and reported to the relevant stakeholders so that
decisions about further action can be taken. Increased knowledge gained from these monitoring projects
will, over time, provide a better basis for future preservation strategies and decision-making.
1 Scope
This document describes assessments recommended for in situ preservation and monitoring of
archaeological sites. It sets out the main parameters used to assess the state of preservation of
archaeological materials and evaluate the environmental conditions of archaeological deposits and
provides a framework for monitoring sites. A decision-making framework is included to help readers
make appropriate knowledge-based choices.
The procedures described are appropriate for terrestrial, wetland or underwater archaeological sites.
They will not necessarily be relevant to all archaeological sites, and the level of assessment required and
the resources needed are expected to be balanced with and proportionate to the significance and
complexity of the site and the scale of any proposed changes.
The informative annexes relate primarily to terrestrial sites; for detailed technical guidance on
investigating and monitoring underwater sites, see sasmap.eu [19, 20].
NOTE Underwater sites include all underwater sites and those in the intertidal zone.
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardisation at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https://www.iso.org/obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at https://www.electropedia.org/
3.1
archaeological asset
archaeological item that has significance because of its contribution to society, knowledge and/or culture
Note 1 to entry: They are usually physical assets, but some countries also use the term in relation to intangible
social and spiritual heritage.
3.2
archaeological deposit
deposit accumulated through human activities
Note 1 to entry: Archaeological deposits are found in urban and rural areas, in the intertidal zone and
underwater, and include evidence of past occupation as well as natural deposits representing past environments.
The archaeological deposits and their content of ecofacts and artefacts reveal past activities at a site.
3.3
in situ preservation
conservation of an archaeological asset (3.1) in its original location
3.4
monitoring
collecting and assessing data pertaining to an archaeological asset (3.1) or site
Note 1 to entry: Within this document, monitoring applies to systematic data collection after decision-making.
[SOURCE: EN 15898:2019, 3.4.4, modified – “object, ensemble or collection and/or their environment
over time” has been changed to “archaeological asset or site” [1]]
3.5
significance
combination of all the values assigned to an archaeological asset (3.1) or site
[SOURCE: EN 15898:2019, 3.1.7 modified – “object, ensemble or collection” has been changed to
“archaeological asset or site” [1]]
3.6
mitigation
action taken to minimise or eliminate the risk of damage occurring to an archaeological asset (3.1) as a
result of planned or unplanned events
EXAMPLE 1 Planned events; development; land use change; improved conservation management.
EXAMPLE 2 Unplanned events; climate change; flooding; drought, Cultural Property Theft and damage resulting
from Heritage Crime; offshore industry i.e. bottom trawl fishing.
3.7
environment
surroundings of an archaeological asset (3.1), some aspects of which can affect its condition
Note 1 to entry: Such aspects could be of human, physical, chemical, biological, geological or climatic origin.
[SOURCE: EN 15898:2019, 3.3.2 modified – “object” is replaced by “archaeological asset” [1]]
3.8
state of preservation
current state of the archaeological deposits (3.2), and artefacts and ecofacts that they contain, which will
depend on both current and historical rates of degradation (3.12)
3.9
saturated deposit
deposit where all pore spaces are filled with water
3.10
unsaturated deposit
deposit where the pores contain both water and air
3.11
environmental condition
physical, chemical and biological conditions within and around the archaeological deposits (3.2), which
determine their current rate of degradation (3.12)
3.12
rate of degradation
speed at which an archaeological asset (3.1) degrades
3.13
vulnerability
characteristic of how an archaeological asset (3.1) or material tolerates exposure and its sensitivity to
environmental changes
EXAMPLE For instance waterlogged organic materials are usually more vulnerable to degradation under oxic
conditions than stone artefacts.
3.14
non-invasive survey
collection of information about an archaeological asset without physical impact
EXAMPLE For instance remote sensing.
4 Objective and procedure
The objective of the activities governed by this document is to provide cultural heritage managers and
other stakeholders with procedures to investigate whether it is possible to preserve an archaeological
asset (on land, wetland or underwater) in situ (see Clause 5). Figure 1 shows a flowchart of the process.
The document also provides procedures for designing a monitoring programme (Clause 6) and reporting
on the different steps of both the assessment and the monitoring programme (Clause 7). Information is
given on how to establish the assets’ current state of preservation (Annex A) and rate of degradation on
site (Annex B). An example of a system to classify of state of preservation, environmental conditions and
risks is provided in Annex C. The state of preservation of archaeological materials and environmental
conditions of deposits should be considered as a common element of any archaeological investigation.
The detail needed about the state of preservation and the environmental conditions will however depend
on the significance and complexity of the site and the scale of any proposed changes.

Figure 1 — Flowchart of the procedure of assessment and monitoring of archaeological sites
Where a change to a site is proposed and decisions about preservation in situ need to be made, it is
advisable for a project team to be established, and a project design and timetable produced that provides
clarity on roles, timescales and outputs. A project team should comprise a range of experts, for example
a project leader, main project group, relevant public/private stakeholders, expert groups and local
heritage professionals.
5 Assessment
5.1 General
To enable decisions to be taken about preservation in situ of archaeological sites, for example in response
to development plans, information should be gathered about the significance of the site, the state of
preservation and environmental conditions, the rate of degradation expected lifespan of the heritage
assets and the feasibility of alternative approaches. The level of information gathered should be
proportionate to the significance and complexity of the site and the scale of the change proposed.
The process of documenting the values assigned to archaeological assets on a site, their state of
preservation and environmental conditions is separated into the following phases: desktop study (5.2),
preliminary assessment (5.3), detailed assessment (5.4) and conclusions and decision-making (5.5). This
process can be iterative.
Figure 2 shows the usual stages of assessment that it would be advisable to follow when considering
preservation in situ as a result of a proposed development change. Similar steps would be followed in
relation to the management of archaeological sites subject to changes as a result of natural processes.
Figure 2 — Flowchart of assessment
5.2 Desktop study
Desktop study is a non-intrusive stage carried out to collect relevant information about the scale and
significance of the site, with reference to how it will respond to proposed changes. It is often the first
stage in the assessment and decision-making process, see Figure 2.
To give a general overview of the conditions at the site the desktop study should, where feasible, include
at least the following:
— the legal status of the site;
— a review of archives and archaeological sources of information from the area, as well as other
relevant data for example records held by State Hydrographic / Geological Survey agencies;
— a review of any relevant monitoring data for the site or others in the surrounding area;
— an assessment of the overall cultural heritage value of the site;
— a review of other relevant investigations, such as non-invasive survey, hydrogeological, physical
ground properties, geochemical conditions, hydrodynamics, etc.;
— Information about the direct and possible indirect impacts of any proposed development or other
current threats in relation to human factors, such as proximity to shipping channels, nearby dredging
activities, salvage, accessibility to divers and frequency of visiting divers, fishing, invasive species,
etc.;
— an initial assessment of the potential state of preservation, environmental conditions, rate of
degradation and expected lifespan of the heritage assets if any information exists and assessment of
any risks to long-term preservation;
— a site visit, site walkover, remotely operated vehicle (ROV) or diver survey.
The desktop study shall be summarised in a short report in accordance with 7.2 that includes
recommendations for next steps. In most cases the desktop study is part of a staged process. In some
instances, for example where the desktop study has identified assets which can be avoided by
development, or where it is clear that development would have too great an impact on the significance of
the site and it should not progress, or the expected lifespan of the heritage asset is too short, further
investigation might not be needed. This would be a decision agreed by relevant stakeholders and heritage
managers.
5.3 Preliminary assessment
If the desktop study concludes that there is a need for more information to inform decision-making, a
preliminary assessment should be carried out. The preliminary assessment should provide a simple rapid
assessment and give basic information for designing a more detailed assessment or monitoring
programme. Non-invasive methods should be used wherever possible. If the desktop study could not
draw on evidence from non-invasive surveys, the preliminary assessment should design a more detailed
assessment with non-invasive techniques to prevent irreversible impact on archaeological sites as much
as possible. All invasive works should be undertaken within the legislative system for the country in
which the site is located and designed to minimise their impact on archaeological materials and deposits.
In some cases, there can be physical, environmental or legal constraints that restrict opportunities for
site-based investigation. Relevant regional and national heritage bodies in each country will be well-
placed to advise on specific cases and identify which of the procedures outlined below and in 5.4 are
relevant. The types of information to be collected in the preliminary assessments stage may include:
— the cultural and historical context, including topographic, chronological and historical
interpretations for the specific site in question;
— a preliminary risk assessment – main risks to long-term preservation;
— a more detailed assessment of the current state of the archaeological assets and materials and their
environmental conditions, likely rate of degradation and expected lifespan of key archaeological
materials than is possible in a desktop study, see Annex A and B. This will form the baseline (zero
point) for future assessment;
— an assessment of other feasible approaches such as excavation or a “no action” outcome;
— a comparison with previous investigations and results, if possible, or with surveys and results from
other local sites;
— identification of any necessary measures to protect assets of archaeological or historical significance
prior to, during and after the investigation and monitoring;
— a general description of likely hydrogeological situation of the terrestrial archaeological deposits
based on previous investigations and literature sources, including groundwater levels or moisture
content of any unsaturated deposits, where known;
— details of site from non-invasive survey, i.e. magnetometry, ground penetrating radar, lidar,
bathymetry, seismic, side scan sonar, remotely operated vehicle or diver surveys;
— at underwater and tidal sites survey/prospection of the underwater environment/seabed, a general
description of likely sea- and lakebed environment proximity to contemporary sea- and lakebed
infrastructure and erosional activities;
— geochemical conditions, such as pH, temperature, oxygen concentration and redox conditions in both
soils and groundwater, if available;
— physical ground/seabed properties, such as descriptions of geology, soil and/or sediment type,
texture, organic content, porosity, moisture content and depth to bedrock for the specific monitoring
location in question (supplement to the detailed assessment);
— evidence for biodeterioration such as bacteria, micro fungi, wood decaying fungi, marine borers,
algae, lichens, and insects;
— the need for further assessment, including recommendations for the format of that assessment, i.e.
where non-intrusive survey might be required to reduce impact on archaeological assets;
— the possible need to protect field-deployed personnel against site contamination (i.e. dangerous
chemicals; asbestos; mould), and the need for any necessary health, environmental and safety
precautions.
The preliminary assessment can conclude that there is no requirement for further investigation because
sufficient information has been gathered, or for example, the area of archaeological significance can be
avoided by the development, the expected lifespan of the asset is too short or the harm to the significance
of heritage assets is too high. If the preliminary assessment concludes that there is a requirement for
further information because avoidance is not possible, other approaches are not feasible or the level of
information so far collected is insufficient for decision-making, a detailed assessment should be the next
phase. A short report on the preliminary assessment shall be produced according to 7.3.
5.4 Detailed assessment
If the preliminary assessment concludes that there is a requirement for further information, a detailed
assessment should take place. It is likely that the detailed assessment will involve excavation of
archaeological deposits to evaluate their state of preservation and environmental conditions, although
data can also be collected through a range of less-invasive methods such as coring (boreholes), digging
out old trenches or test pits. Further information from non-invasive methods such as magnetometry,
resistivity, radar or seismic surveys may also be used here. It is important that the location and size of
investigation trenches does not pose a risk to the future state of preservation of the site. Sampling
locations should be recorded, and samples taken of representative deposits. The detailed assessment may
include data collection from observation wells or in situ probes to measure variation in environmental
conditions.
The detailed assessment should result in the understanding of:
— the size and extent of both the area to be directly impacted and the wider associated archaeological
deposits;
— the significance of the archaeological assets;
— the stratigraphy of deposits;
— the current state of preservation of archaeological materials (detailed analysis and interpretation),
see Annex A;
— the environmental conditions and current degradation rates for key materials (see Annex B);
— the site’s local hydrogeological conditions and relationship to regional hydrogeological conditions
(terrestrial and wetland sites);
— where appropriate, wider hydrogeological conditions, such as groundwater chemistry, groundwater
level, groundwater pressure and groundwater flow within and around the site;
— a more detailed risk assessment – what are the threats now or in the future that can seriously affect
the preservation of the site, see Example C.4;
— where appropriate, additional survey and wider investigation of dynamics of the sea- and lakebed,
such as erosional activities to better understand any cyclical patterns of exposure and reburial.
A report shall be produced following the detailed assessment in accordance with 7.4. The information
within the report will be used to make decisions about the future of the site, see Figure 2 and 5.5.
5.5 Conclusion and decision-making
A decision about whether a site can be preserved in situ, for example in response to a proposed change,
is made based on information from the desktop study, preliminary or detailed assessment. The time
needed for the assessment and the level of information required should be proportionate to the
significance and complexity of the site and the scale of any proposed changes. For simple sites (aerobic
sites with a limited range of robust artefacts for example), assessment and decision-making can be a rapid
process. Conversely it can take months or years of assessment to collect sufficient information to guide
decision-making on the most complex sites (i.e. anaerobic sites with a wide range of organic materials
present where the impacts of the proposed development might be considerable).
In making this decision the following information needs to be considered:
— significance of site;
— state of preservation of key materials (Annex A);
— environmental conditions and degradation rates at site (Annex B), including:
— main factors contributing to the existing environmental conditions;
— possible triggers and impacts on environmental conditions as a result of any planned changes
(development; land-use change; management action);
— external factors that might affect the site and their expected variations;
— risk assessment (Annex C), including:
— probable consequence of any changes to environmental conditions on key materials (i.e.
deterioration) and the impact on significance;
— other (possible future) external and environmental factors which can affect conditions and their
probability (flood, landslide, etc.);
— urgency with which any mitigation measures need to be deployed.
The potential outcomes of this decision are:
a) The proposed change is not acceptable because the site is too significant, and the predicted changes
are too great. The proposed measure or development of the site is rejected until it can be redesigned
to be less damaging. Any new information gained about the site during the assessment should be
recorded and archived in line with relevant national guidance and legislation.
b) The proposed change is incompatible with in situ preservation and cannot be redesigned. If, as a
result of appropriate decision-making processes it is decided that the proposed change should still
occur, the site should be recorded and excavated in line with relevant national guidance and
legislation. Where change results from natural or uncontrollable processes, recording, managed
decline, or no further action might be the only options available to stakeholders and heritage
managers. Any new information gained about the site during the investigation should be recorded
and archived in line with relevant national guidance and legislation.
c) Proposed change is compatible with preservation in situ. Three options for this are:
— The previous assessments have provided sufficient information to show that it is possible to
preserve the site in situ, without the need for detailed monitoring.
— Despite previous assessments there is still some uncertainty about how preservation in situ will
work (for example the site is very complex) and a programme of monitoring is required, see
Clause 6.
— In some instances, a mix of options can be appropriate with partial recording and excavation in
some areas and preservation in situ in the rest of the site.
6 Monitoring
6.1 General
If the assessment concludes that a site can be preserved in situ and a programme of monitoring is
required, the next step is to design a monitoring programme. The programme shall have clear objectives
and explain why monitoring is required, for example to record future degradation rates and inform
actions to ensure they do not change over a fixed duration. The process of designing a monitoring
programme should involve close working between the owners/developers of the site, their
archaeological and monitoring specialists and the relevant regional or national heritage bodies. The
process described below is largely based on monitoring in relation to development changes in fairly
stable environments. When monitoring natural or long-term processes, particularly in dynamic
environments, considerations such as the duration of monitoring may be different to that set out below.
A monitoring programme should follow a project management “Plan-Do-Check-Adjust” cycle. This could
consist of the design of the monitoring programme (6.2 – Plan), monitoring (6.3 – Do) and after a fixed
and agreed time the monitoring data should be reviewed (6.4 – Check). Based on the review, the next
steps (Adjust) are completion of monitoring (6.5), continued monitoring (6.6), or mitigation action (6.7).
See Figure 3.
Figure 3 — Flowchart of monitoring
6.2 Design of a monitoring programme (“Plan”)
A monitoring programme should consist of:
— objectives of the programme;
— parameters for monitoring;
— trigger levels (threshold values);
— monitoring methods;
— an agreed timeframe;
— an agreed frequency and duration of monitoring;
— the location of monitoring points and information about how the location relates to the monitoring
objectives;
— agreed methods of installation (including how to avoid impact to archaeological assets from
installing monitoring equipment);
— how monitoring equipment fits with development plans and how to ensure it is accessible (and
protected from damage) during and after any development project;
— regular review including evaluation points;
— identified mitigation measures that might be taken if trigger levels are breached.
Defining the monitoring objectives, as well as monitoring parameters and trigger levels is a key part of
designing the monitoring programme and these will differ from site to site. The objectives that are
defined for monitoring a site impacted by urban development, will not be the same as ones used to
monitor a shipwreck on the seabed or a rural wetland site within farmland. For example, where an
archaeological site is buried beneath a new building in an otherwise stable burial environment, the
monitoring objective might be to ensure that any 'changes to the groundwater were within allowable
levels during the monitoring period and unlikely to change the degradation rate' during the construction
period and for a fixed duration after that (where any changes might have occurred as a result of
construction activity). If you are monitoring a site in a dynamic marine environment or a rural wetland
site, the parameters measured, the regularity of your review periods and the overall duration of your
monitoring might be quite different. For example, it might not be so appropriate to cease monitoring, if
the environment is subject to change and could be at risk again in the future.
A project team and their roles should be identified in the monitoring programme – this should list who is
responsible for collecting the data, who is responsible for checking the data and who is involved in making
decisions when data are reviewed. The monitoring programme should also include a communication plan
for reporting on data and where available, results should be sent to publicly available data archives.
When designing the monitoring programme relevant experts and information from the preliminary and
detailed assessments on site should be consulted, see Annex B.
Monitoring can also involve burying of modern material to investigate possible changes to environmental
conditions.
6.3 Monitoring (“Do”)
Monitoring may be performed by remote sensing, regular measurement or by permanently installed
loggers, and at terrestrial sites also by analysis of water samples from environmental observation wells.
Continuous measurements should be taken at fixed, marked measurement stations, using standardised
methods. This implies that the monitoring should use one or more of the following methods:
— continuous measurements and/or extraction and analysis of water samples from environmental
observation wells;
— monitoring of biodeteriogens on inorganic and organic material;
— continuous monitoring of physical-chemical parameters in the soil using measurement probes
installed at selected locations;
— appropriate high resolution remote sensing methods, physical inspection or remotely operated
vehicle survey of an archaeological site, seabed or wetland environment.
Regular surveying of fixed stations located on buildings, the surface of the terrain or seabed can be used
to identify any ground movement or seabed erosional activities.
6.4 Review of data (“Check”)
After a fixed period defined in the monitoring programme, a review of the monitoring data shall be
carried out. The review should address whether:
— the objectives of the monitoring programme have been met and there are no further questions, in
which case the monitoring can be ended (6.5); or
— it is uncertain if the objectives of the monitoring programme have been met (or if monitoring a
dynamic environment), and continued monitoring (6.6) is likely to be required; or
— the objectives of the monitoring programme have not been met and further action should be taken
according to mitigation options (6.7) outlined in the monitoring programme.
This review process can be iterative and be repeated a number of times.
If significant changes in the monitoring data are discovered that require immediate action, the relevant
heritage management authorities should be informed immediately.
6.5 Completion of monitoring (“Adjust”)
Where the objectives of the monitoring have been met (for example any changes to the groundwater were
within allowable levels during the monitoring period and unlikely to change the degradation rate, or
there is net accumulation of sediment and the site becomes buried in the seabed and is unlikely to be
revealed again) then the monitoring programme should stop and a final report should be produced (see
7.5 on final report). Although the detailed programme of monitoring might cease, regular inspection and
other forms of assessment can be appropriate to ensure that factors influencing long-term preservation
do not change (for example to identify if there is a change from pasture to arable, or if there is increased
seabed erosion). This on-going monitoring is not covered in this document.
6.6 Continued monitoring (“Adjust”)
Where it is not yet clear that the objectives of the monitoring programme have been met, for example,
certain data have fallen outside of threshold values, an additional or revised programme of monitoring
and review should be designed and undertaken to reduce uncertainty. If after a period of further
monitoring it is still not clear whether the monitoring objectives have been met, then remedial action to
optimise environmental conditions (such as changing the site hydrology, or tidal dynamics), followed by
further monitoring and review might be needed. Where, after additional monitoring or remedial action,
the monitoring objectives have still not been met, then further mitigation actions will be needed (6.7).
6.7 Mitigation (“Adjust”)
If the objectives of the monitoring programme have not been met and preservation in situ is not possible,
then mitigation identified in the monitoring programme should be undertaken. This mitigation might
include the recording and excavation of the site, when possible. When site conditions are deteriorating
through natural processes, it might not be possible to prevent this change and a recognition will be
needed that the site will not be preserved in the long-term.
7 Reporting
7.1 General
Results from assessments and monitoring shall be reported and the report and data deposited in an
appropriate publicly accessible archive, where available and subject to commercial confidentiality. The
report shall document and present the necessary information required, including recommendations for
decision-making. The wording used in the report shall provide decision makers with an adequate
overview and a reliable basis for their decisions. Information should be clearly distinguishable from
description, interpretation and hypothesis. The report shall, if further action is recommended, form the
basis for the design of further assessments or programmes of monitoring. In addition, results shall be
reported from supplementary monitoring and control measurements that are carried out in subsequent
periods.
7.2 Reporting of the desktop study
The report from the desktop study should contain:
— the legal status of the site;
— the overall cultural heritage significance of the site;
— a review of archives and archaeological sources of information from the area;
— a review of other relevant investigations, such as hydrogeological, physical ground properties,
geochemical conditions, etc.; and
— an assessment of the existing state of preservation, environmental conditions and any information
from initial risk assessment.
7.3 Reporting of preliminary assessment
The report from the prelimina
...