This section presents the
results of the cultural heritage impact assessment (CHIA) for the proposed
construction and operation of an LNG Terminal at South Soko
Island (hereafter referred to as “Tai A Chau”) ([1]) and the associated electricity cable and watermain
landing point at Shek Pik. A literature review and field surveys have been conducted to establish baseline cultural heritage
conditions. The detailed findings of the
field surveys are presented in Annex 12. Potential impacts have been evaluated and
measures are recommended to mitigate potentially adverse impacts, where
appropriate.
The study area for terrestrial
archaeological investigation included areas within 100 m from the Project Site
boundary and works areas that were considered to potentially have adverse
impacts on known and unknown archaeological sites. The Study Area for the marine archaeological
investigation included the seabed that will be affected by the marine works on
the Project. These areas are shown in Figures
1.1 and 1.2 in Annex 12D.
12.2
Legislative
Requirements and Evaluation Criteria
The following legislation and guidelines
are applicable to the assessment of sites of cultural heritage in
·
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
(EIAO) (Cap. 499.S16);
·
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
(Cap. 499.S16). Technical Memorandum on the EIA Process (EIAO TM);
·
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap.
53)(AM Ordinance);
·
Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance
(Cap. 28);
·
·
Criteria for Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment; and
·
Guidelines for Marine Archaeological
Investigation (MAI).
12.2.1
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
According to the EIAO, Schedule 1 Interpretation, “Sites of Cultural
Heritage” are defined as:
“an
antiquity or monument, whether being a place, building, site or structure or a
relic, as defined in the AM Ordinance and any place, building, site, or structure
or a relic identified by the Antiquities and Monuments Office to be of
archaeological, historical or palaeontological
significance”.
12.2.2
Technical Memorandum on the EIA Process
The technical scope for evaluating
and assessing cultural heritage impacts is defined in Annexes 10, 18 and 19 of
the EIAO TM. The approach recommended by the guidelines
can be summarized as follows.
·
The general presumption in favour of the
protection and conservation of all sites of cultural heritage because they
provide an essential, finite and irreplaceable link between the past and the
future and are points of reference and identity for culture and tradition; and
·
Adverse impacts on sites of cultural
heritage shall be kept to an absolute minimum.
12.2.3
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
(Cap. 53)
The Antiquities
and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) (AM
Ordinance) provides statutory protection against the threat of development
on
In practice, the Antiquities and Monuments
Office (AMO) also identifies the Deemed Monuments ([2])
and then seeks to reach agreements with the owners of the monuments to provide
for specific measures that will ensure preservation. Deemed Monuments have the potential to be
upgraded to statutory Declared Monuments under the AM Ordinance.
A large range of potential sites of
cultural heritage, among which are historical buildings and structures and
archaeological sites, have been identified and recorded by AMO in addition to
those for which a declaration has been made under the AM Ordinance.
Historic buildings and structures are
recorded by AMO according to the grading system summarised in Table 12.1.
Table 12.1 The Grading of Historical Buildings
|
Grade |
Description |
|
I |
Buildings of outstanding merit; every effort should be made to preserve
if possible |
|
II |
Buildings of special merit; effort should be made to selectively
preserve |
|
III |
Buildings of some merit, but not yet qualified for consideration as
possible monuments. These are to be recorded
and used as a pool for future selection |
It
should be noted that the grading of historical buildings is intended for AMO’s internal reference only and has no statutory
standing. Although there are no statutory
provisions for the protection of recorded archaeological sites and historical
buildings and features (including Deemed, Graded and recorded), the Government
has established a set of administrative procedures([3])
for giving consideration to the protection of these resources.
Over the years, surveys have been
undertaken to identify archaeological sites in
Section
11 of the AM
Ordinance requires any person who discovers an antiquity, or supposed
antiquity, to report the discovery to the Antiquities Authority. By implication, construction projects need to
ensure that the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB)([4])
is formally notified of archaeological resources which are discovered during
the assessment or construction of a project.
12.2.4
Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance
(Cap. 28)
Under this Ordinance, it is required that a permit be obtained for any
excavation within government land prior to commencement of any excavation work
commencing.
12.2.5
Chapter
10, Conservation, of the HKPSG provides general guidelines and
measures for the conservation of historical buildings, archaeological sites and
other antiquities.
12.2.6
Criteria for Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment (CHIA)
The criteria as stated in EIA Study Brief No. ESB-126/2005,
details the CHIA which include a baseline study, field evaluation and impact
assessment.
12.2.7
Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI)
Guidelines
Guidelines for MAI outlined in Appendix D of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-126/2005 provide details on the standard
practices, procedures and methodology that must be utilised in determining the
marine archaeological potential, presence of archaeological artefacts and
establishing suitable mitigation measures.
The first step, a Stage 1 MAI, involves a baseline review, geophysical
survey and establishing archaeological potential. Subject to the results of the Stage 1 MAI, a
Stage 2 MAI investigation may or may not be required.
12.3.1
History of Tai A Chau (
In
spite of its relatively remote location, the history of human activities on Tai
A Chau culminated in heavy disturbance during the 20th
Century from village construction, the building of terraces for agriculture and
recently the construction and then demolition of a Detention Centre
complex. Construction of the Detention
Centre involved extensive modification of landforms on the central part of the
island due to levelling and filling to form a platform made of concrete. In addition, adjacent hill slopes were cut
and have since been eroded. This
activity took place in the centre of the island which is named the Tai A Chau archaeological site.
Despite the originally high archaeological potential of the island, it
is evident that the extensive disturbance to the island from the construction
and decommissioning of the Detention Centre has severely diminished the value
of archaeological deposits.
A review of the Xin’an County Gazetteer (新安縣志) ([5]),
the Report on Extension of The Colony of
Hong Kong ([6]) ,
marine charts and old maps such as The
Macau Roads of 1810, Die Chinsische Küste of 1834, the
Chart of the Canton River with the
Entrances & Islands of 1841 and the Map
of Sun-On District of 1868 ([7])
provided no records of settlement on Tai A Chau. The first record of settlements on the island
appear in the 1899 Chart Macau to Pedro
Blanco Covering Hong Kong Area.
An
aerial photo taken above Tai A Chau
in 1963 indicates the existence of settlements and some active cultivated
terraces (see Figure 12.1). Interviews and discussions undertaken by AMO
in 1977 indicated that the Sheung Tsuen
and Ha Tsuen villages on Tai A Chau
were established during the early 20th century. The villagers were Hakka people who had
migrated from Yim Tin, north of Sha
Tau Kok ([8])
in
Peacock and Nixon recorded in their 1985
report ([10])
that there had once been a school run by a teacher from
In the late 1980s, a Detention Centre was
constructed at the Ha Tsuen area. Based on a review of aerial photographs kept
by the Lands Department, it is noted that in 1989 the Detention Centre had been
partially constructed (see Figure
12.3). By this time, the former Ha Tsuen village had been cleared, the southern and northern
slopes of the Detention Centre had been cut and both the western and eastern
bays had been reclaimed. The aerial
photograph also show a freshwater reservoir had been built on the hill to the
south of the Detention Centre. The
construction activities for the Detention Centre can be seen in the 1989 and
1990 ([11])
aerial photographs. The Detention
Centre, including associated facilities such as a vehicle access road and
helipad on the hill to the south, was completed in 1991 ([12]). In 1996 ([13]),
prior to the hand over of Hong Kong back to
12.3.2
History of Shek Pik
Shek Pik is one of six places on Lantau
that made their first appearance on a published Chinese map in the late 16th
century ([14]). According to oral history and stone tablets
found at Shek Pik, there
were four villages established in Shek Pik valley during the Ming Dynasty (A.D. 1368-1644). However early information is only available
for one of the villages, a walled village named Shek Pik Lo Wai. This village is known to have been
established by the late Ming Dynasty (the 17th century)([15]).
There are also records of a village named “Shek Pik Tsuen (石壁村)”
in the 1688 and 1819 editions of the Xin’an
County Gazetteer ([16]). This village is also recorded in the Report
on Extension of The Colony of Hong Kong dated 1898 ([17]). It is unclear whether the village name of “Shek Pik Tseun”
and “Shek Pik Lo Wai” referred to the same village or whether they are
different neighbouring villages.
Nevertheless, based on the review of the historic documents, it appears
that village settlement existed at Shek Pik since the Ming Dynasty.
Further support for the presence of inhabitants at Shek
Pik as early as the Ming Dynasty comes from the
abandoned temple at Shek Pik,
the Hung Shing Temple, which was built during the
Ming Dynasty ([18]).
In 1957, villages at Shek
Pik were demolished and cleared to allow construction
of the Shek Pik
reservoir. Villagers were resettled at
other places on
12.3.3
Terrestrial Cultural Heritage Resources
An inventory of terrestrial cultural
heritage resources at the two locations affected by the project has been
prepared from a desktop review supplemented by field surveys and comprises:
·
One
declared monument at Shek Pik
- Shek Pik Rock Carving;
·
Built
Heritage – Tai A Chau Tin Hau
Temple, 27 Graves (G001 to G027), one tablet (TA001) and 8 earth shrines on Tai
A Chau and Hung Shing
Temple at Shek Pik; and
·
Archaeological
Sites - Tai A Chau Archaeological Site and Shek Pik Tung Wan Archaeological
Site.
The locations of the sites are presented
in Figures 12.4 and
12.5, a
summary of the cultural heritage resources is presented below and detailed in Annexes 12-A and 12-B.
Declared
Monument - Shek Pik Rock
Carving
Most of the ancient rock carvings in
Built Heritage - Tai A
A
Built
Heritage –
A total of 27 graves (G001 to G027) and an
associated tablet (TA001) have been identified on Tai A
Chau (see Figure
12.4). They are summarised in Tables 12.2 and 12.3 and
presented in detail in Annex 12-B.
Table 12.2 Identified
|
Site Code |
Facing |
Construction |
Renovation |
Description |
|
|
|
Year |
Year |
|
|
G001 |
NW |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Burial of a Mr Chan |
|
G002 |
N |
Late 1980s to early 1990s |
N/A |
Burial of a Vietnamese person |
|
G003 |
NE |
Unknown |
1990 |
Burial of a Mr Ng |
|
G004 |
NE |
Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) |
1990 |
Burial of a couple of the Ng clan
along with their daughter-in-law |
|
G005 |
NE |
1901 |
1980 |
Burial of a couple of the Ng clan |
|
G006 |
NE |
1901 |
N/A |
Burial of a couple of the Ng clan |
|
G007 |
NE |
Unknown |
1990 |
Burial of three couples of the Yeung clan |
|
G008 |
NE |
Unknown |
1990 |
Burial of a couple of the Ng clan |
|
G009 |
NE |
Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) |
1990 |
Burial of two couples and a Mr Ng
probably of the same clan group |
|
G010 |
NE |
Unknown |
1990 |
Burial of a couple of the Yeung Clan |
|
G011 |
NE |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Possible grave or earth shrine |
|
G012 |
NE |
Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) |
Qing Dynasty & 1990 |
Burial of a Mr Yeung
and a Ng clan female elder |
|
G013 |
NE |
Unknown |
1980 |
Burial of a Mr Ng |
|
G014 |
NE |
Unknown |
1918, 1980 |
Burial of a Mr Ng |
|
G015 |
NE |
Unknown |
1926 |
Burial of the 4th
generation of Ng clan |
|
G016 |
NW |
1992 |
Nil |
Burial of a Mr Ng |
|
G017 |
N |
Qing
Dynasty (1644-1911) |
Nil |
Burial of a Mr Ng |
|
G018 |
N |
Unknown |
1980 |
Burial of a Mr Ng |
|
G019 |
S |
1808 |
Nil |
Burial of a Mrs Chau |
|
G020 |
SE |
Unknown |
Unknown |
No headstone available |
|
G021 |
N |
1991-1993 |
N/A |
Burial of a Vietnamese person |
|
G022 |
NE |
1993 |
N/A |
Burial of one or two Vietnamese
person |
|
G023 |
SW |
1992 |
N/A |
Burial of a Vietnamese person |
|
G024 |
W |
1992-1993 |
N/A |
Burial of a Vietnamese person |
|
G025 |
N |
Unknown |
1980 |
Burial of a Mr Kung |
|
G026 |
N |
Unknown |
1980 |
Burial of a Mr Ng |
|
G027 |
NE |
1992 |
N/A |
Burial of an unknown person |
As presented in Table 12.2, eight of them are pre-1950 graves (comprsing
G004, G005, G006, G009, G012, G015, G017 and G019), six of them are post-1950 graves
(comprising G002, G016 and G021 to G024), three of them lack information on
their construction or renovation dates (comprising G001, G011 and G020; and
nine of them were renovated in the 1980s or 1990s but the construction year was
unknown.
Most of the graves belong to two clan
groups, namely the Ng and Yeung clans. One major relocation work had been undertaken
in 1990 prior to the construction of the Detention Centre on the island. The history was recorded in a tablet at the
relocated site (see Table 12.3 and Figure
12.4
for location). Apart from these graves,
there are a total of five Vietnamese graves.
Table 12.2 Identified
Associated Tablet on Tai A Chau
|
Site Code |
Facing |
Construction |
Description |
|
|
|
Year |
|
|
TA001 |
NE |
1990 |
Tablet recording the History of the
graveyard (see Annex 12-B for
details) |
Built
Heritage – 8 Earth Shrines on Tai A Chau
Eight earth shrines are identified with
the Project Area of Tai A Chau
(see Figures 12.4
and Annex 12-B for details). They are concrete built shrines used by local
fishermen or the former inhabitants . It
is not known when the earth shrines were constructed but they are generally in
good condition and the coast earth shrines are still currently visited by local
seafarers.
Built
Heritage –
An abandoned
Tai
A Chau Archaeological Site
A
group of Late Neolithic Age to Bronze Age pottery shards, including an almost
complete cup, a complete globular pot with an impressed pattern, a complete jar
and some soft net pattern pottery shards, were discovered by Mr W. Schofield
during a fieldwalking survey conducted between the 9th
and 12th December 1937 at the Ha Tsuen
isthmus on Tai A Chau ([20]).
Schofield, an archaeologist, compared these findings with his findings in Shek Pik Tung Wan on Lantau ([21])
and suggested that the identified artefacts on the western cliff of the Ha Tsuen isthmus are proto-historic period ”funeral
furniture”.
Twenty years later, the Hong Kong University
Archaeological Team, led by S.M. Bard and J. Whitely surveyed the island on 24th
November 1957. Prehistoric chalky ware items
were found on the hillside cliff face to the north end of the isthmus (facing
the beach) between Tung Wan and Sai Wan. These finds were recovered from approximately
four feet (approximately 1.2m) below the ground surface. In addition, three stone adzes were
discovered on the ground surface of the isthmus. It was noted that the stone tools had
presumably been washed down from the hills ([22]).
In
1977, AMO conducted a number of visits to the island and identified three areas
of archaeological interest, Spot A (the hill slope south of Pak Tso Wan), Spot B (the hill slope south of Sai Wan), and Spot C (the isthmus between Tung Wan and Sai Wan) (Figure 12.6).
Stone artefacts, pottery, many chips and
polishing stones were found in Spot A, leading to the interpretation by AMO
that the site may be a “working site”.
Due to its significance, Spot A was declared as “a proposed
archaeological site for the purposes of the AM
Ordinance” in the Hong Kong
Government Gazette, No.22 of June 1983 (see Figure 12.7) ([23]). A
stone adze and several other stone implements were found in Spot B. A stone adze and several prehistoric pottery
shards were identified in Spot C ([24]) (see Figure 12.6).
Mr
B.A.V. Peacock and Ms T.J.P. Nixon undertook a further detailed archaeological
survey in December 1983 at Spot B. Seven test pits were made at the slope of
Spot B and substantial polishing stone tool fragments, pottery shards and
archaeological features, such as charcoals for heating, were unearthed. In addition, a set of three completed quartz
rings laying horizontally at the same level were also discovered. This finding was interpreted as a pit for
human burial in the Late Neolithic to Bronze Ages. The survey recorded that the hill slopes of
Spots A and B had suffered high erosion and that substantial cutting into the
hill slope by the island’s inhabitants had revealed quantities of artefacts such as Late Neolithic to Bronze Age pottery of
coarse, chalky and hard geometric types and polished quartz discs, quartz
rings, stone adze fragments and whetstones ([25]).
Peacock and Nixon concluded that “an activity area or occupation site
must have continued from the lower slope to the higher level “
([26]) (see Figure 12.6).
In 1997-98, archaeologists from Mainland
Archaeological Survey Results on Tai A Chau
As Tai A Chau is
considered to have a high archaeological potential even though comprehensive
survey data is lacking. Therefore, archaeological
surveys were undertaken as part of this EIA to identify the presence of
archaeological deposits, their extent and chronology. The surveys were
conducted in August 2004 which included a field walking survey and a total of 20 auger holes
and 4 test pits, as shown in Figure 12.8.
The
survey identified a stable Late Neolithic to Late Bronze Age (ca. 4,400 to 2,250
years ago) cultural beneath the Detention Centre area, about
0.8 m below the existing ground level. A few
pottery shards with a “double-f” decoration pattern, stone tools (a cleaver-like tool and a
grinder stone), many pebbles, a pumice and a
small piece of Late Neolithic Age chalky ware shard without decoration were
discovered (for details of the archaeological findings, see Annex 12-C).
During September and October 2005, and
January 2006, two further archaeological surveys were undertaken on Tai A Chau to obtain field data within the Project Area. These surveys included field walking surveys,
35 auger holes and 57 test
pits (see Figure 12.9). For this exercise, the Tai A Chau Archaeological Site was sub-divided into 6 sites,
namely Sites A to E, and G (Site F being at Shek Pik).
Archaeological deposits were
identified in all six Tai A Chau sites (see Figure 12.10 for extent of archeological
deposits) from different periods, including the Late Middle Neolithic Age, the
Late Neolithic Age, the Bronze Age (Middle to Late Zhou Dynasty to Autumn and
Spring Period), the Tang, Song and Late Ming to Qing Dynasties. Artefacts, ecofacts and three archaeological features were found.
Artefacts included pottery and stone categories, pottery
artefacts comprising incised chalky pot or basin shards, corded and geometric coarse ware shards,
a raised square hard shard, celadon shards, blue-and-white porcelain shards and
a burial urn. Stone artefacts were of
two kinds, tools and ornaments. The
stone tools comprised a chopping tool, pebble pounders,
pebble hammers, stone flakes, whetstones, grinding stones, a stone
saddle-quern, scrapers, a flake-knife and broken blades. The stone ornaments consisted of stone quartz
rings, quartz discs and quartz cores. In
addition, a substantial number of ecofacts consisting
of shells, fish bones and animal bones and teeth were uncovered. The three archaeological features identified
include two features that reflect the production process for quartz rings (TP
B5 at Site B) and a feature containing a secondary burial pit with an urn (TP B1 at Site B).
Based on the fieldwork findings and an
evaluation of the natural landform, the character of the superficial deposits,
micro-landscape, natural erosion patterns, past land use and disturbance from
previous development, the horizontal extent of archaeological deposits were
established as shown in Figure
12.10.
Whilst
there were finds from the archaeological survey, it should be borne in mind
that previous human activities during the 20th Century, including
the development and decommissioning of the Detention Centre and cultivation, as
well as erosion, have caused extensive disturbance to the archaeological
deposits on the island. In particular,
Sites B, C and D are highly disturbed due to heavy modification of the natural
landforms at these sites associated with the Detention Centre and persistent
erosion.
Sites A & E on the island also show a
degree of disturbance due to past cultivation, vegetation growth and hillslope erosion from heavy rainfall. As a result of recent human activities and
erosion, the conservation value of the Tai A Chau
Archaeological Site has been greatly diminished.
A summary of findings from the six
archaeological deposit areas ([28]) is
presented in Table 12.3. For details of the archaeological survey
findings, see Annex 12-C.
Table 12.3 Summary
Findings of Archaeological Deposit Areas within Tai A Chau
Survey Area
|
Site |
Area Coverage (m2) |
Summary of Findings |
Chronology |
|
Site
A |
900 |
384
pieces of plain and incised chalky and corded shards, pebble pounders and a broken stone adze edge |
Late
Phase of Middle Neolithic Age (3,600B.C.-2,900B.C.) |
|
Site
B |
800 |
95
pieces of corded shards, 2 broken quartz rings, 11 quartz discs, quartz ring
manufacturing wastes, 1 stone saddle-quern, whetstones, grinding stone, a
burial urn and 3 archaeological features ( a burial pit, a cobble structure
and a cluster of quartz discs) |
Late
Neolithic Age (2,400B.C.-1,500B.C.) & Late Ming to Middle Qing
Dynasties (the 17th to
18th century) |
|
Site C |
1,600 |
1 double-f design pottery shards,
chalky shards and pebble tools. |
Late
Neolithic and Bronze Ages (2,400B.C.-800B.C.) |
|
Site D |
100 |
96 pieces of corded and geometric
design shards, stone flakes, flake-knife, broken blade, lime kiln remains and
celadon bowl shards. |
Late
Neolithic Age, Tang to Song Dynasties (A.D.618-1279) |
|
Site E1 |
80 |
143
pieces of hard geometric design and corded shards, stone flakes, a stone
scarper, 1883 pieces of ecofacts (1,803 pieces of
shell, 79 pieces of fish bone or
animal bones and a tooth) |
Late Neolithic to Bronze Age
(4,000B.C.-800B.C.) |
|
Site E2 |
250 |
3 pieces of celadon bowl shards and
blue-and white porcelain bowl shards |
Song
and late Qing Dynasties (A.D.960-1279, the late 19th to the early
20th centuries) |
|
Site E3 |
120 |
A piece of coarse shard |
Late Neolithic Age |
|
Site G |
600 |
61pieces
of geometric design and corded shards, a Song Dynasty celadon bowl shard and
a stone chopping tool. |
Bronze Age, Song Dynasty |
Shek Pik Tung Wan Archaeological Site
The Shek Pik Tung Wan Archaeological Site (see Figure
12.5) was
first excavated by an amateur archaeologist Mr Walter Schofield and a
professional archaeologist (Prof. J.G. Anderson) in March 1937. The excavated area was at a raised sand dune
next to a stream running towards Shek Pik Tung Wan. They
discovered several prehistoric burials and two cultural layers in the sand
dune, dating back to the early to late Bronze Age (2,250-4,400 years ago) ([29]).
In 1938, Mr. Chan Kung-chieh,
a retired civil servant from Northern China excavated another site in Shek Pik, Sha
Gan Buey, adjacent to the
existing
In early 1960s an Archaeological Team from
the
In 1979, the Hong Kong Archaeological
Society dug a few test pits at Shek Pik Tung Wan. Later
in 1988 and 1989, the Hong Kong Archaeological Society and the
The Hong Kong Archaeological Society found
coarse ware shards, chalky geometric pattern ware shards and incised pattern
ware shards, pebble tools and stone flakes, dating back to the late Neolithic
Age to early Bronze Ages ([31])
.
According to the artefacts and soil stratigraphy, the team from the Chinese University of Hong
Kong identified five cultural layers in Shek Pik Tung Wan, dating back to the Tang Dynasty, Warring
States Period, Bronze Age, Middle and Late Neolithic Age, refitting flakes
found in a cobble layer that could be dated back to between 3,785 B.C. and
3,200 B.C. and 4,130 B.C. to 3,640 B.C. ([32]) .
Shek Pik Tung Wan was also investigated as part of the first
territory-wide archaeological survey, conducted between 1983 and 1985. It was found that the upper layer of the stratigraphy comprised a layer of rubbish at least 1 m
thick, which had been dumped at the site during the previous decade.
In the late 1990s, a second territory-wide
archaeological survey was conducted; however, no finds were identified at Shek Pik Tung Wan ([33]).
Archaeological Survey Results at Shek Pik
In October 2005, as part of this EIA
study, an archaeological survey was undertaken at Shek
Pik. A total
of 19 auger holes and 7 test
pits were conducted covering the
areas within 100 metres from either side of the proposed watermain
and power cable alignment (Site F).
Special attention is paid to areas at Shek Pik Tung Wan Archaeological Site and Shek
Pik Rock Carving (
This survey established that
archaeological potential exists at the raised beach area and the foothill area
within the Shek Pik Tung
Wan Archaeological Site. Artefacts identified included lime kiln remains dated to the Tang Dynasty (A.D.
618-907) and coarse ware shards and stone flakes dated to the Late Neolithic
Age. However,
no archaeological potential was revealed from the survey at the area adjacent
to the
12.3.4
Marine Archaeological Resources
A review of historical documents and
literature indicated that the general region was originally occupied and used
by Chinese settlers, and subsequently many other foreign traders for many
years. The islands of the region contain
archaeological evidence of occupation from about 4,000 years ago, including
evidence of use of the sea, and material from the seabed, during that
time. The outlying islands of Southern
China became important trading centres for vessels from
The
water channel between Tai A Chau and the
A review of the Study on the Potential, Assessment,
Management and Preservation of Maritime Archaeological Sites in
A review of the database of known
shipwrecks from the United Kingdom Hydrographic
Office (UKHO) in Taunton found two ‘live’ (either chartered or unchartered but potentially still lying on the seabed)
shipwrecks within 1 km of the centre line (CL) of the pipeline route and the
associated facilities (see Figure
12.12). No. 46602 located about 57 m east of the CL
of the proposed pipeline at 2481409m N,
795912m E and No. 62931 located about 928 m east of the CL and at
2462177m N, 792754mE (UTM, WGS84).
The
UKHO records state that Wreck No. 46602 was a 3130 ton Japanese freighter Shirogane Maru that was
sunk during World War II. Its position
was last verified by a diver on 20th October 1987. Wreck number 62931 is referred to as an
‘obstruction’, its position is accurately known but no other details recorded –
it is potentially not even a shipwreck.
The identity of wreck number 46537 is also unknown apart from its length
being 14m.
Chart No. HK1503 has an Obstruction marked
(“Obstn”) at the location of Wreck No. 46602 and
which is recorded as a Wreck on Chart 3026 (Dated 1990). One of the other UKHO Wrecks (No. 62931) also
appears on this chart.
The Hong Kong Marine Department could not
provide any additional information beyond what was provided by the UKHO. The geophysical survey (which was very
comprehensive, as outline below) failed to locate either wrecks Nos 46602 or 62931 and this would indicate that they have
been salvaged/lifted.
Geophysical Survey Data Review
Geophysical
surveys were undertaken by CAPCO’s geophysical
contractor EGS (Asia) Limited (EGS), covering the proposed LNG
marine facilities associated with
The geophysical survey using
multi beam, side scan sonar and sub-bottom profiling showed that the surveyed
area has been impacted by anchoring, trawling and the dumping of materials. Seismic
records found the underlying sediments on the route close to Lantau have been worked and reworked, caused by scouring
and deposition from the strong currents. Fourteen sites were identified as
wrecks, possible wrecks or sites of archaeological potential on the seabed as
shown in Figure 12.13 and Table 12.4.
Table 12.4 List of the 14
Sonar Contacts
|
Contact number |
Latitude Longitude |
Easting Northing |
KP RPL offset |
Dimensions (m) |
Description |
|
SC014 |
22° 24.389' N 113°
52.407' E |
795836.0E 2480649.0N |
34.039 198m E |
6m x
1.3m x 0.3m |
Possible
Wreck |
|
SC020 |
22° 24.360' N 113°
52.354' E |
795745.0E 2480594.0N |
33.977 96m E |
13m x
5m x 0.25m |
Possible
Wreck |
|
SC027 |
22° 21.253' N 113°
52.268' E |
795708.0E 2474854.0N |
28.227 33m E |
39m x
6.5m x 2m |
Wreck |
|
SC028 |
22° 20.235' N 113°
52.237' E |
795691.0E 2472974.0N |
26.338 5m W |
8m x 2m
x 0.2m |
Possible
Wreck |
|
SC043 |
22° 12.320' N 113°
49.589' E |
791415.0E 2458273.0N |
10.491 176m W |
6m x 2m
x 0.5m |
Possible
Wreck |
|
SC044 |
22° 12.304' N 113°
49.628' E |
791482.0E 2458244.0N |
10.437 126m W |
6m x 2m
x 0.5m |
Site of archaeological potential |
|
SC053 |
22° 10.885' N 113°
50.471' E |
792981.0E 2455651.0N |
7.384 743m SW |
3m long |
Linear
debris |
|
SC055 |
22° 10.742' N 113°
51.264' E |
794350.0E 2455413.0N |
6.013 107m SW |
14m
long |
Linear
debris |
|
SC067 |
22° 10.546' N 113°
51.276' E |
794377.0E 2455052.0N |
5.874 373m SW |
12m x
3m x 0.5m |
Site of archaeological potential |
|
SC072 |
22° 10.074' N 113°
53.422' E |
798084.0E 2454250.0N |
2.103 277m N |
8m x 3m
x nmh |
Site of archaeological potential |
|
SC086 |
22° 24.388' N 113°
54.072' E |
798693.9E 2480702.4N |
39.148 1572m
SW |
10.77m
x 3.31m x 2.03m |
Possible
wreck |
|
SC090 |
22° 9.876' N 113°
54.338' E |
799667.0E 2453914.0N |
0.440 19m N |
5m x 2m
x 0.2m |
Site of archaeological potential |
|
SC091 |
22° 9.923' N 113°
54.411' E |
799791.0E 2454003.0N |
0.309 118m N |
18m x
4m x 0.9m |
Possible
Wreck |
|
SC092 |
22° 9.991' N 113°
54.488' E |
799921.0E 2454132.0N |
0.168 236m N |
9m x 2m
x 0.5m |
Wreck |
Based
on the side scan sonar results, two of the sonar contacts were identified as
shipwrecks, e.g. SC027 and SC092 (see Figure
12.14). While others, such as SC014, SC020,
SC028, SC043, SC086 and SC091 were identified as possible shipwrecks, linear
debris or sites of archaeological potential (see Figures 12.14 and 12.15).
A magnetic survey
was conducted to ascertain how much ferrous material remained on the
anomalies. While pre-1800 ships would
have carried ferrous equipment and used ferrous material in their construction,
post-1800 ships contained a significantly larger amount of ferrous material. For example, the larger ships of the size of
SC027, could potentially be a modern ferrous barge like the ones that are used
today in and around
Magnetic
Survey
EGS performed a magnetic survey for the 14 Sonar Contacts as shown in Table 12.4. A review of the survey data concluded and /or
confirmed that SCs 027, 028, 043, 086, 091, and 092
were possible wreck or wreck (see Table
12.5 and Figure 12.16). For the remaining sites
(SC014, SC020, SC044, SC053, SC055, SC67, SC072 and SC090), magnetic survey
results indicated that they would not be vessels or of marine archaeological
potential.
Table 12.5 List
of the Six Sites of Marine Archaeological Potential
|
Contact
number |
Latitude Longitude |
Easting Northing |
KP RPL
offset |
Dimensions
(m) |
Description |
|
SC027 |
22°
21.253' N 113° 52.268' E |
795708.0E 2474854.0N |
28.227 33m E |
39m x 6.5m x 2m |
Wreck |
|
SC028 |
22°
20.235' N 113° 52.237' E |
795691.0E 2472974.0N |
26.338 5m W |
8m x 2m x 0.2m |
Possible Wreck |
|
SC043 |
22°
12.320' N 113° 49.589' E |
791415.0E 2458273.0N |
10.491 176m W |
6m x 2m x 0.5m |
Possible Wreck |
|
SC086 |
22°
24.388' N 113° 54.072' E |
798693.9E 2480702.4N |
39.148 1572m SW |
10.77m x 3.31m x 2.03m |
Possible wreck |
|
SC091 |
22°
9.923' N 113° 54.411' E |
799791.0E 2454003.0N |
0.309 118m N |
18m x 4m x 0.9m |
Possible Wreck |
|
SC092 |
22°
9.991' N 113° 54.488' E |
799921.0E 2454132.0N |
0.168 236m N |
9m x 2m x 0.5m |
Wreck |
Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) Survey
However, as the nature, age
and integrity of the wrecks could not be ascertained from the previous surveys,
a ROV survey covering the six potential (wrecks) sites as presented in Table 12.5 was undertaken on 15 February
2006 by EGS under the marine archaeologist’s supervision. The findings are summarized in Table 12.6 and detailed in Annex 12-D.
Table 12.6 ROV
Survey Findings
|
Contact
number |
Latitude Longitude |
Easting Northing |
KP RPL
offset |
Dimensions
(m) |
Survey
Findings |
|
SC027 |
22°
21.253' N 113° 52.268' E |
795708.0E 2474854.0N |
28.227 33m E |
39m x 6.5m x 2m |
Nature of the feature cannot be
ascertained due to poor visibility (0 cm) caused by very muddy water condition. |
|
SC028 |
22°
20.235' N 113° 52.237' E |
795691.0E 2472974.0N |
26.338 5m W |
8m x 2m x 0.2m |
Nature of the feature cannot be ascertained
due to poor visibility (0 cm) caused by very muddy water condition. |
|
SC043 |
22°
12.320' N 113° 49.589' E |
791415.0E 2458273.0N |
10.491 176m W |
6m x 2m x 0.5m |
Nature of the feature cannot be ascertained
due to poor visibility (0 cm) caused by very muddy water condition. |
|
SC086 |
22°
24.388' N 113° 54.072' E |
798693.9E 2480702.4N |
39.148 1572m SW |
10.77m x 3.31m x 2.03m |
Nature of the feature cannot be ascertained
due to poor visibility (0 cm) caused by very muddy water condition. |
|
SC091 |
22°
9.923' N 113° 54.411' E |
799791.0E 2454003.0N |
0.309 118m N |
18m x 4m x 0.9m |
Modern shipwreck with a large number of
coils of rope/rigging |
|
SC092 |
22°
9.991' N 113° 54.488' E |
799921.0E 2454132.0N |
0.168 236m N |
9m x 2m x 0.5m |
Nature of the feature cannot be
ascertained due to poor visibility (20-30cm). |
Further Detailed Side Scan Sonar and Multi Beam
Sonar Survey
As
the ROV survey was not conclusive in ascertaining the age of possible
shipwrecks, a more detailed multi beam survey were undertaken for the sonar
contacts as presented in Table 12.6. The surveys were undertaken by EGS on the 6th
and 7th April 2006.
After EGS
completed the side scan sonar and multi beam surveys, the data was incorporated
with the magnetic survey data in context with the earlier survey works to
provide images/models for analysis carried out by the marine archaeologist. The results are summarised in Table 12.7 and detailed survey images
are presented in Annex 12-D.
Table 12.7 Detailed Side Scan Sonar and Multi Beam Sonar
Survey Results
|
Contact
number |
Latitude Longitude |
Easting Northing |
Survey
Findings |
|
SC027 |
22° 21.253'
N 113° 52.268' E |
795708.0E 2474854.0N |
Further
survey failed to identify the site. This was not a result of poor navigation
as grid coordinates within a few metres of the 2005 location were reproduced
in the outcomes of this further survey. It is believed that the shipwreck has
either been intentionally removed or unintentionally moved (by
storms/currents) as is verified by examining the side scan sonar image; the
multi beam sonar image and C-view bathymetric data. A disturbed area of seabed, where the
shipwreck was laying can be seen (see Figures 4.37 to 4.40 in Annex 12-D). |
|
SC028 |
22°
20.235' N 113° 52.237' E |
795691.0E 2472974.0N |
No side
scan image could be obtained suggesting that the site may have been
removed/moved. This was verified through
the multi beam sonar survey which only showed a depression in the seabed (see
Figures
4.41 to 4.43
in Annex 12-D). |
|
SC043 |
22°
12.320' N 113° 49.589' E |
791415.0E 2458273.0N |
A relatively
small physical size anomaly, the comparative large amount of ferrous material
and the possible sampan shape and collapsed nature is indicative of a small
motorised wooden sampan (see Figures 4.44 to 4.47 in Annex 12-D). |
|
SC086 |
22°
24.388' N 113° 54.072' E |
798693.9E 2480702.4N |
The
vessel and its location has all the appearances of a ‘recent’ motorised
wooden sampan. (see Figures 4.48 to 4.52 in Annex 12-D). Located close to the rocks at Black
Point and effected by the swells breaking over it, and the continual sea
traffic, the vessel could not be expected to maintain its integrity for very
long (perhaps months or just a year or so).
The vessel shows damage to its hull which is considered to have been
caused from its continual movement and/or sinking. A vessel of pre-1800 age would not be in
this condition in this location. The Marine Department salvaged a similar
looking sampan on the 22 March 2006 (see Figure 4.54) which they reported was about 30 years
old. SC086 is probably of a similar vintage. |
|
SC091 |
22°
9.923' N 113° 54.411' E |
799791.0E 2454003.0N |
The
shape and nature of this vessel is indicative of a modern working
vessel. It appears to contain an
engine (as shown by the propeller) and the size of the magnetic anomaly is
also indicative of this. The
rope/rigging that was seen during the ROV survey is indicative of a vessel
only a few years old, rather than something that is pre 1800 (see Figures 4.55 to 4.58 in Annex 12-D). |
|
SC092 |
22°
9.991' N 113° 54.488' E |
799921.0E 2454132.0N |
The
vessel appears in April 2006 to be in much the same condition as in the 2005
side scan sonar survey. It is similar in
size and shape (although narrower, from one set of measurements) to the
sampan at Black Point (SC086) and in slightly worse condition. The nature of
the remains is suggestive of a more motorised sampan and not something that
is pre 1800 (see Figures
4.59 to 4.63
in Annex 12-D). |
The
results indicated that SC028, SC043, SC086 and SC092 are considered to be
motorised sampans and SC091 is considered to be a motorised work boat. Although SC028 cannot be located from the
detailed side scan sonar survey and multi beam survey, in the context of the AM Ordinance (Cap. 53), these five sites
are not an antiquity or relic and are of no archaeological value.
As SC027 and SC028 were not identified
from the April 2006 survey, if the two wrecks are still surviving within the
proposed gas pipeline route, potential impact on these two contacts due to the
installation of the gas pipeline would be a concern. Marine Department was consulted to check if
any vessels had been removed recently adjacent to SC027 and SC28. It is confirmed that apart from the vessel
recovered in March 2006, no other vessels were recovered by the Marine
Department. Therefore, it is considered
necessary to undertake further survey to confirm if SC027 and SC028 presence
within the proposed pipeline route. A
further survey of a more extensive area surrounding the original locations of
SC027 and SC028 and within the pipeline route was undertaken in June 2006,
using the same multi beam sonar and side scan sonar equipment and processes as
in the April surveys.
The survey confirmed depressions found in
the original location of SC027 and SC028, but found no feature containing
elevations indicative of a shipwreck sitting proud of the seabed. It is therefore concluded that these contacts
have been intentionally or unintentionally moved out of the area, and the
pipeline poses no threat to them. As a
result of the additional surveys, these six sites were determined to not be an
antiquity or relic and have no archaeological value in the context of the AM Ordinance (Cap. 53)
12.4
Assessment
Methodology for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
The CHIA methodology follows the criteria
and guidelines in Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO TM and the criteria for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
(CHIA) and Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI), as stated
in EIA Study Brief No. ESB-126/2005.
12.4.1
Baseline Study for Terminal Site
A comprehensive inventory of cultural
heritage resources within the project area was compiled and includes:
·
All
declared monuments or graded historical buildings listed by AMO;
·
All
sites of archaeological interest (including marine archaeological sites);
·
All
pre-1950 buildings and structures;
·
Selected
post-1950 buildings and structures of high architectural and historical
significance and interest; and
·
Landscape
features including sites of historical events or providing a significant
historical record or a setting for buildings or monuments of architectural or
archaeological importance, historic field patterns, tracks and fish ponds and
cultural elements such as fung shui woodlands and clan graves.
Information sources included the AMO, Hydrographic Office of the Marine Department, the Royal
Naval Hydrographic Department in the
12.4.2
Field Surveys
Historical
Buildings and Features Survey
The Project Area (defined as the area
within and up to 100 m from the terminal site boundary) was field scanned to
identify all historical buildings and structures. Photographic records of each building or
structure, (exterior and interior, where possible) as well as the surroundings
were collected (see Annexes 12-A and 12-B).
Architectural and historical appraisals of identified sites were also
developed. A
Terrestrial
Archaeological Survey
Prior to fieldwork commencement, a desktop
review was undertaken through the review of old maps, aerial photographs, topography,
geological background and previous archaeological survey findings was
undertaken to establish the fieldwork scope for agreement with the AMO.
A three stage archaeological survey was
then undertaken to evaluate the presence of archaeological deposits within the
surveyed area. As archaeological remains
were identified, their nature and horizontal and vertical extent was
determined.
The survey area was divided into six
areas, namely Sites A, B, C, D, E and G, covering the proposed site area that
involves potential soil disturbance.
Field walking, test pitting and augering were
undertaken in each area. Based on field
inspections of natural landscape characters that favour ancient inhabitation
(such as orientation, inclination of slope, water sources, superficial deposits
and micro-landscape, past land use, natural erosion, previous development
disturbance and previous archaeological investigations and fieldwalking
results) test pits and auger holes were allocated to areas evaluated to have
archaeological potential.
Relevant licences and permits were
obtained from DLO/Islands and AMO. The
fieldwork was undertaken in August 2004, between 5 September and 28 October
2005 and between 9 January and 17 January 2006.
Fieldwalking and a total of 55 auger holes and
61 test pits were conducted within the Project Area. The detailed findings are presented in Annex 12-C and summarised in Section 12.3.3.
Marine
Archaeological Investigation
Following a baseline review including
review of literature and old maps, consultation with UK Hydrographic
Office and Hong Kong Hydrographic Office on their
database of shipwrecks, comprehensive geophysical surveys comprising the use of
side scan sonar system, multi-beam system, magnetometer system, sub-bottom
profiler system and Remote Operated Video (ROV) system were undertaken. Alternative options of the proposed gas
pipeline have been reviewed and identified the preferred option as presented in
the EIA for the subsequent impact assessment.
Table 12.8 summarises the
systems adopted and survey period undertaken for the Geophysical Survey for the
preferred gas pipeline alignment. The survey data obtained by EGS were reviewed and interpreted by the
marine archaeologist to identify features of possible archaeological
potential. The
detailed methodology and
findings are presented in Annex 12-D and summarised in Section 12.3.4.
Table 12.8 Geophysical Survey Conducted for MAI
|
Stages |
Survey
System Adopted |
Survey
Period |
Remarks([37]) |
|
1 |
Side
Scan Sonar System, multi-beam system, sub-bottom profiler
system |
May to
July and August to September 2005 |
Covers
the submarine project area |
|
2 |
Magnetometer
system |
1-4
September 2005 |
For 14
Sonar Contacts only |
|
3 |
Remote
Operated Video |
15
February 2006 |
For 6
Sonar Contacts only |
|
4 |
Side
Scan Sonar System, multi-beam system |
6-7
April 2006 |
For 6
Sonar Contacts only |
|
5 |
Side Scan Sonar System,
multi-beam
system, sub-bottom profiler system |
April to May 2006 |
Additional area of the proposed submarine
gas pipeline |
|
6 |
Side Scan Sonar System,
multi-beam
system |
2 June 2006 |
For 2 Sonar Contacts |
12.5
Potential Sources of Impact
12.5.1
Construction Phase
The
construction phase of a development may have direct or indirect impacts to
sites of potential sites of cultural heritage.
Such impacts may arise from the following activities:
·
Direct
loss of historical buildings or structures due to temporary or permanent landtake for development;
·
Indirect
impact on access for future archaeological surveys due to temporary or
permanent landtake for development where the
archaeological deposits are preserved in
situ within the development site but in instances where no soil excavation
work is required in the archaeologically sensitive area;
·
Temporary
or permanent change of the cultural landscape around standing heritage that
indirectly reduces the associated cultural landscape value;
·
Construction
vibration impacts on standing heritage;
·
Temporary
or permanent disturbance to access to standing heritage due to adjacent
construction activity;
·
Direct
loss of potential marine archaeological deposits due to seabed construction
works, such as dredging and piling; and
·
Direct
loss of archaeological deposits due to soil excavation in the archaeological
deposit area.
12.5.2
Operation Phase
The
operation phase of a development may have direct or indirect impacts to sites
of potential sites of cultural heritage from the following activities:
·
Indirect
impact on access for future archaeological surveys; and
·
Permanent
access disturbance to standing heritage.
12.6.1
Tai A Chau (
The landtake for the LNG terminal will cause
direct impacts to:
·
the Tai A Chau Tin Hau Temple;
·
21 graves (G001 to G014, G016 to G022) and one associated tablet
(TA001);
·
7 earth shrines (S001 to S005 and S007 and S008);
·
Part of the Tai A Chau archaeological site (comprising
archaeological deposits area at Sites A to D) to some degree; and
·
Three discrete archaeological deposits areas at Site E (outside the Tai
A Chau Archaeological Site).
As no development is proposed within the archaeological deposits area at
Site G within the Tai A Chau Archaeological Site, no
impact is expected. Potential impacts on
archaeological resources are further are detailed in Table 12.7.
Table
12.7 Potential Impacts on Identified
Archaeological Deposits
|
Site |
Potential Impact Identified |
|
Site A |
Potential direct impact due to the
construction of a temporary access road to a temporary magazine storage; and Potential
soil nailing work required for slope stabilisation works. |
|
Site B |
Potential
direct impact due to site formation for LNG facilities. |
|
Site C |
Potential
direct impact due to site formation for LNG facilities. |
|
Site D |
Potential
direct impact due to site formation for construction of maintenance workshop
and control room. |
|
Site E
(outside Tai A Chau Archaeological Site, with 3
discrete areas) |
Potential direct impact due to the
construction of access path to the proposed LNG jetty; and Potential
soil nailing work required for slope stabilisation. |
|
Site G |
No
direct impact is expected as no construction works are identified at the
site. |
The MAI identified six Sonar Contacts comprising SC027, SC028,
SC043, SC086, SC091 and SC092) to have archaeological potential within the
Study Area. However, detailed side scan
sonar surveys and multi beam surveys with the support of magnetic survey
findings revealed that SC028, SC043, SC086 and SC092 are motorised sampans and
SC091 is considered to be a motorised work boat. As such, in the context of the AM Ordinance (Cap. 53), these sites are
not antiquities or relics and are of no archaeological value, and thus impacts
to them are considered acceptable. SC028 and SC027 were established as having
been intentionally or unintentionally moved out of the area (in the case of
SC028, this occurred after the magnetic survey referred to above) and thus the
project will not impact them.
12.6.2
Shek
Pik
The
A power cable is proposed along the vehicle access road in front of the
abandoned
Impact to the Shek Pik
Tung Wan Archaeological Site is not expected as the proposed power cable will be
routed via the current pier area, and the freshwater supply pipeline will be
located some 100 m from the site.
12.6.3
Cumulative Impact
At
present there are no planned projects on
12.7
Mitigation Measures
12.7.1
Tai a Chau (
As the Tai A Chau Tin Hau
Temple had been reconstructed or renovated with modern construction materials, its
architectural value is considered to be low.
The temple is of historical value since it is the only surviving
historical building on the
As the seven identified earth shrines are simple in structures with
little architectural value, they are considered to have low cultural heritage
value. Relocation of the earth shrines
to another location on the
A total of 21 graves will need to be relocated. This comprises 19 graves (G001 to G014, G016,
G019 to G022) and one associated tablets (TA001) are located within the fence
line of the Project. Although two
graves, G0017 and G0018, fall outside the fence line of the Project, soil
nailing work is required for the area for slope stablisation. Thus, these two graves need to be relocated. Graves G002, G016, G021 and G022 are post
-1950 burials that are considered to have little architectural value, and from
a cultural heritage perspective, impact to these four sites is considered
acceptable. With regard to G003 to G005,
G007 to G010, G012 to G014, and G0018, although they date from the Qing Dynasty
(1644 - 1911) or an unknown year, they were renovated or relocated in the 1980s
or the 1990s. Previous relocation or
renovation of these graves has reduced their architectural value. Thus, impacts to these graves as well as the
associated graveyard tablet (TA001) are considered acceptable. G001, G011 and G020 is of little
architectural value due to their simple structure, impact to them is considered
acceptable. G006, G015, G017 and G019,
are dated pre-1950 and of some heritage value.
Cartographic and photographic records will be undertaken prior to
removal of these four graves following AMO’s
requirements. Consultation on the
relocation sites with the graves descendants is being undertaken.
Regarding impact to part of the the Tai A Chau Archaeological Site, comprehensive assessment of
different layouts and design options has been undertaken to inter alia, reduce environmental impacts
where practicable. However, under the
scenario being taken forward in this EIA (described in Part 2 – Section 3) impacts to the archaeological deposits at Sites
B to E are unavoidable. Preservation in situ of the archaeological deposit within the footprint of the
development area is also considered not feasible as underground utilities need
to be installed. It should be noted that
the identified archaeological deposits at Site C have been disturbed by natural
erosion and Site C has been heavily disturbed by previous construction and
decommissioning works for the Detention Centre.
Rescue
excavations at the impacted archaeological deposits (i.e., B, C, D and E) are
therefore proposed to preserve the archaeological deposits by record prior to
the start of construction works.
If
potential impact to Site A due to construction work that involves soil
disturbance, such as temporary access road construction and soil nailing work
are found to be unavoidable during the detailed design stage, rescue excavation
at the impacted areas will be carried out to preserve the archaeological
deposits by record prior to the start of construction works.
The area coverage of the archaeological
deposits is presented in Table 12.3
and illustrated in Figure 12.10. It is possible that some archaeological
deposits may survive outside the boundary.
Thus, a buffer zone of 10 m from the archaeological deposit areas will
be established. The extent of the buffer
zone is subject to change if significant archaeological findings are unearthed
in the course of the rescue excavation.
Archaeological watching brief will be undertaken by a licensed
archaeologist during works within the buffer zones. The qualified archaeologist
and any personnel of the project should inform AMO of the discovery of any
antiquities or supposed antiquities in the course of excavation. The relevant provision of the AM Ordinance should also be observed and
complied.
A separate Archaeological
Action Plan (AAP) following the Criteria
for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment as stated in the Study Brief No. ESB-126/2006 will be
prepared detailing the archaeological actions required to mitigate impacted
archaeological deposits as described in above.
The plan will include the following:
a) a detailed
plan for rescue excavation for Sites B to E and impacted area of Site A;
b) a detailed
plan for archaeological watching brief (monitoring) at the buffer areas for
Sites A to E; and
c) a
contingency plan to address possible arrangement when significant
archaeological findings are unearthed for items (a) and (b).
Sufficient
funding, time and personnel will be allowed to implement the plan prior to
construction work commencement. The AAP
will be submitted and agreed with AMO by the project proponent prior to licence
application by a qualified archaeologist.
No
mitigation is considered necessary for Site G as it will not be impacted. No impacts to marine archaeological resources
have been identified and hence no specific mitigation measures are necessary.
12.7.2
Shek
Pik
As no impacts to the
A literature review supplemented by field surveys have identified the
following terrestrial cultural heritage resources in the study area:
· at Shek
Pik:
-
the Shek Pik Rock
Carving Declared Monument;
- an abandoned
- the Shek
Pik Tung Wan Archaeological Site.
· at Tai a Chau
(
-
a
- 21 graves and an associated
tablet;
- seven earth shrines; and
- Part of the Tai A Chau Archaeological Site with six distinct archaeological
deposit areas.
The terrestrial cultural heritage resources at Shek
Pik will not be affected by the project.
Potential direct impacts on archaeological deposits at Sites A to E
within the Tai A Chau Archaeological Site are
considered unavoidable. Preservation in situ of the archaeological deposit (Sites B to E) within the
footprint of the development area is also considered not feasible, as
underground utilities need to be installed.
It should be noted that the prior development of the Detention Centre
and its subsequent demolition have already impacted Site C. Nevertheless, detailed design of soil nailing
and soil excavation work will be reviewed to minimise the impact extent of Site
A, and an Archaeological Action Plan will be prepared and agreed with AMO by
the project proponent prior to licence application by a qualified
archaeologist detailing the archaeological actions required to mitigate
impacted archaeological deposits. The
actions include rescue excavation, archaeological watching brief and
contingency action plan to ensure that no impacted surviving
archaeological deposits are missed. The qualified archaeologist
and any personnel of the project should inform AMO of the discovery of any
antiquities or supposed antiquities in the course of excavation. The relevant
provision of AM Ordinance should also
be observed and complied.
Landtake for the development will
impact Tai A Chau Tin Hau
Temple, 21 of the identified graves (G001 to G014, G016 to G022) and the
associated tablet (TA001) and the seven earth shrines (S001 to S005 and S007
and S008). Relocation of these items to
other locations, including the preparation of appropriate photographic and
cartographic records to meet the AMO’s requirements,
will be undertaken to mitigate the impacts.
An archaeological survey will be undertaken to confirm if there is any
archaeological impact to the suitable relocation site for the Tai A Chau Tin Hau Temple. If archaeological deposits are identified,
appropriate measures will be implemented prior to relocation work
commence.
Six potential shipwrecks were identified within the Study Area, four of
which (i.e., SC043, SC086, SC091 and SC092) are motorized sampan or work boat
and are considered of no archaeological value.
Two (i.e., SC027 and SC028) have been confirmed to no longer exist
within the proposed pipeline route.
Thus, no impacts to marine archaeological resources are expected.
An implementation schedule including the affected sites of cultural
heritage, impacts identified, recommended mitigation measures as well as the
implementation agent and period are presented in the EM&A Manual.
With the implementation of
the mitigation measures as detailed in Section
12.7, no residual impact is expected.
According to the AM Ordinance,
all the excavated artifacts belong to the HKSAR government. All excavated artifacts and field records
will be handed over to AMO for storage.
As an opportunity for providing additional benefits to the community,
display of the identified discovery for education purpose could be considered
but subject to the discussion between AMO and the project proponent (see Part 4 Section 6 of this EIA
report).