Atlantis Online
March 29, 2024, 07:43:06 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: FARMING FROM 6,000 YEARS AGO
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156622&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156618&contentPK=18789712&folderPk=87030
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Raising Blackbeard's "Queen Anne's Revenge"

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Raising Blackbeard's "Queen Anne's Revenge"  (Read 4536 times)
0 Members and 62 Guests are viewing this topic.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2009, 08:46:50 pm »









                                                  PRESERVATION OPTIONS






This management plan provides options for the protection, preservation, and development of the Queen Anne's Revenge site. The development of those options was based on the DCR's current understanding of the site after two years of study, as well as a review of archaeological investigations and protective measures for other shipwreck sites throughout the world. Two projects that were particularly useful were the recent investigations of the Emanuel Point shipwreck, sunk in 1559 inside Pensacola Bay, Florida, and La Belle, lost in 1686 off the coast of Texas. The recently developed management plan compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the USS Monitor, another significant shipwreck lying off the North Carolina coast, was also extremely useful.

The advantages, disadvantages, necessary activities, and cost estimates accompany a discussion of each preservation option for Queen Anne's Revenge. Included in the appendixes are detailed proposals concerning archaeological recovery, the conservation facility, and the staff needed to support a full-scale recovery of site 31CR314.






Nonintervention



This option is provided should funding and resources be unavailable to enable research on and protection of Queen Anne's Revenge to be conducted through the current surveillance and monitoring arrangement. The DCR would continue to oversee the shipwreck site as it does all submerged archaeological sites in state waters, primarily responding on a reactionary and/or public-request basis. This option could allow private or university research teams an opportunity to conduct limited studies on the shipwreck as part of the underwater permitting system.






Advantages



1. No additional commitments are necessary.

Disadvantages

1. The exposed portions of Queen Anne's Revenge will continue to be susceptible to natural deterioration, including catastrophic affects from storms and continued biological and chemical degradation.

2. Without proper surveillance and periodic site monitoring, an accelerated loss of cultural material and archaeological information is expected through illegal human activities (i.e., anchoring, fishing, looting).

3. Fund-raising efforts, educational opportunities, and benefits from tourism would be dramatically reduced; public perception would be that the state does not consider Queen Anne's Revenge an important cultural resource.






Action Required:

None. The department would include management of the shipwreck under its current underwater permitting system.



Estimated cost:

None. This option requires no additional funding.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy