9.1.1
The objectives of the cultural
heritage assessment were to identify if there are any sites of cultural
heritage, including historic buildings and structures, pre-war graves,
landscape features and archaeological sites, and to recommend appropriate
mitigation measures for those identified heritage features with significant
historical, archaeological and architectural values. The cultural heritage
assessment was based upon the findings from desktop study and field survey.
9.2
Relevant Legislation, Policies, Plans,
Standards and Criteria
9.2.1
The following legislation is
applicable to the assessment of cultural heritage resources in Hong Kong:
(a) Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499) and the
associated Technical Memorandum on the EIA Process (EIAO-TM);
(b) Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53);
(c) Marine Archaeological Investigation Guidelines; and
(d) Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG).
9.2.2
The EIAO-TM outlines the approaches
required in investigating and assessing the impacts on cultural heritage sites.
The following Sections of the EIAO-TM are applicable:
Annex 19: “There is no quantitative standard in
deciding the relative importance of these sites, but in general, sites of
unique archaeological, historical or architectural value will be considered as
highly significant. A baseline
study shall be conducted: (a) to compile a comprehensive inventory of places,
buildings, sites and structures of architectural, archaeological and historical
value within the proposed project area; and (b) to identify possible threats
of, and their physical extent, destruction in whole or in part of sites of
cultural heritage arising from the proposed project.”
9.2.3
The EIAO-TM also outlines the criteria
for assessment of impact on sites of cultural heritage as follows:
Annex 10: “The criteria for evaluating impact on
sites of cultural heritage includes:
(a) 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; (b) Adverse impacts on sites of cultural heritage shall be kept to
the absolute minimum.”
9.2.4
The EIAO-TM also outlines the approach
in regard to the preservation in totality, in part, and not at all cultural
resources:
Annex 19: “Preservation in totality will be a
beneficial impact and will enhance the cultural and socio-economical
environment if suitable measures to integrate the sites of cultural heritage
into the proposed project are carried out. If, due to site constraints and other factors, only
preservation in part is possible, this must be fully justified with alternative
proposals or layout designs, which confirm the impracticability of total
preservation.”
9.2.5
Annexes 10 and 19 of EIAO-TM are the
most relevant criteria for assessment of cultural heritage.
9.2.6
“This Ordinance provides for the
preservation of objects of historical, archaeological and palaeontological
interest…”
The Ordinance defines an antiquity as a relic (a movable object made
before 1800) and a place, building, site or structure erected, formed or built
by human agency before the year 1800.
The Ordinance alsostates, amongst other things, that the discovery of an antiquity
shall be reported to the Authority (Secretary for Home Affairs); that ownership
of all relics discovered after 1976 shall be vested in the Government; that the
Authority can declare a place, building, site or structure to be a monument,
historical building or archaeological or palaeontological site or structure
(and therefore introducing certain additional controls for these sites); and
that licences and permits can be granted for excavation and for other work.
Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) Guidelines
9.2.7
Guidelines for MAI which detail the
standard practice, procedures and methodology which must be undertaken in
determining the marine archaeological potential, presence of archaeological
artefacts and defining suitable mitigation measures are stated in the Appendix
G of the Study Brief for this Project.
Baseline review, geophysical survey and establishing archaeological
potential are considered the first stage of a MAI. Subject to the results of the first stage MAI, further
investigation may or may not be required.
9.2.8
Chapter 10 of the HKPSG provides
guidelines relating to the conservation of historic buildings, archaeological
sites and other antiquities. The
guidelines detail the methods for the conservation and preservation of
protected monuments, the method of identifying and recording antiquities,
particularly buildings that should be conserved and the recording and grading
of such buildings and archaeological sites. The process of monuments and the development control through
the planning process is also highlighted.
9.3
Baseline condition
Desktop
Study and Review
9.3.1
Desktop research was undertaken to
compile a comprehensive inventory of record cultural heritage resources within
the Project Area. The search
included the review of:
(a) Archive information held by the Antiquities and Monuments Office;
(b)
Publications on local historical,
architectural, anthropological archaeological and other cultural studies;
(c)
Literature documents held in public
libraries, tertiary institutions and other government departments such as old
maps and aerial photos held in the Lands Department; and
(d)
Admiralty Charts held in Hong Kong
Hydrographic Office and United Kingdom Hydrographic Office.
9.3.2
The Study Area is located off the south
west coast of Tai Lei island, about 120 metres to the west of Peng Chau, which
is just over 0.5 km to the east of Lantau Island and south of Discovery Bay,
Lantau Island.
Geology
9.3.3
Peng Chau and the islands between
Lantau Island and Hong Kong Island are “...mainly composed of granite intruded
by rhyolite dykes. The islands are
surrounded by steep cliffs and generally have rounded tops. In some cases the coastlines are
characterised by large boulders that have toppled off the steep sides of the
islands.” (Fyfe, et.al., 2000:37-38).
9.3.4
The offshore seabed formations around
Hong Kong consist mainly of Chek Lop Kok as the lowest formations and
considered to be Middle to Late Pleistocene in age and consisting of colluvium,
alluvium and lacustrine sediments (ibid: 6). On top of this formation are sediments related to the
Holocene period (from about 13,000 BP to the present day) and referred to as
the Hang Hau formation consisting of clayey silt sediments and some sand.
9.3.5
During the late Pleistocene period
(18,000BP) sea levels began to rise until about 6,000 years BP and which is
about the level of present day sea level.
The extent of the rise could be as great as perhaps 140 metres in parts
(ibid:40). Fyfe, et.al., (2000:39) stated that “The landscape of Hong Kong has the distinct appearance of a
recently drowned mountain range.”
9.3.6
More modern sediments are related to
the discharge from the Pearl River, having a seasonal discharge of about
370,000 million cubic metres each year (ibid:7). They consist of sand, mud and some gravel.
9.3.7
Archaeological evidence indicates
seafarers have used the waters of Hong Kong for around 6,000 years (Bard,
1988). The sediments of the Late
Holocene period and those associated with the Pearl River could offer great
potential to include well- preserved remains associated with the occupation and
use of the islands in Hong Kong waters.
In the Study Area marine deposits vary in thickness from 2 metres to
about 12 metres.
9.3.8
Information regarding the human
occupation and use of the Study Area and Tai Lei island in general, is
scarce. Tai Lei is a very small
rock fringed island, “…and has a rock to the South, opposite a beacon on Tai
Lei. In a West South West
direction from Tai Lei is Pillar Rock, which is unmarked and has a dangerous
rock which covers to its West” (Glibbery, 1994:86). It is likely human occupation and use was minimal, given its
limitations on shore as well as offshore.
The findings of the literature review, i.e. the lack of any information
in regard to the human use and occupation of the Study Area, verified this.
9.3.9
However, what was revealed in the
literature survey was that the general area around Tai Lei, Peng Chau and
Lantau Island was well used, particularly in regard to maritime activities,
which provides the potential for cultural heritage sites and objects to be
located in the Study Area.
9.3.10 Lantau Island is the largest island in the SAR and located in the
most western part of Hong Kong. It therefore provides shelter for the waters
between it and Hong Kong Island.
Being located at the outlet of the Pearl River “…rightly called the
artery of Southern China” (Lo, 1963:15-16) the area had “…established contacts
with the outer world by the Chin Dynasty (ibid:2). Archaeological material ”…dating
back to the Neolithic (2500-1500BC) and Bronze Age (1500-221 BC) [have been]
found on its shore” (Glibbery, 1994:75). An early maritime industry was the
pearl fishing industry and “…governmental control of this activity only began
in the time of the Five Dynasties…” (Lo, 1963:7). Lantau Island also became a prolific incense-producing
district, although “…nothing remains of it to recall the origin of the name
Hong Kong (i.e. Fragrant Port)” (ibid:9).
The bay inside of Lantau Island attracted “…trading vessels from Arabia,
Persia, India, IndoChina, and the East Indies…” (ibid:16), and local vessels
involved in the fishing and salt making industries. Pirates were prolific in the area, as well as settling on Lantau
Island, and forts and batteries were also built on the island to assist the
Imperial Navy in controlling pirates.
9.3.11 In regard to Peng Chau before it passed into British rule in 1899,
it had been a base for Tanka, Hoklo and to a lesser extent, Hakka and Cantonese
fishermen since about the beginning of the 19th century. “Peng Chau’s past is shrouded in
mystery” and “…little information on Peng Chau [is] available in the Hsin-an Hsien-chih or the Gazetter of Hsin-an, 1688 or 1819
edition” (Hayes, 1983:34). “With the establishment of the temple [for the
fishermen in c. 1798] Peng Chau’s place as a permanent base for fishermen was
probably assured, since this would have set the seal on its popularity’’
(ibid:35). The temple, “…located
on the western side of the island, has a stone tablet in front of it erected in
1835. The tablet records the
decision by the Viceroy, that Government officers were prohibited from taking
over fishing boats in order to chase pirates” (Glibbery, 1994: 87). A children’s popular storybook The Pirates of Peng Chau (MacKay, 1988)
has obviously some factual backing, and which is supported by Lo (1963: 34).
9.3.12 In addition to the fishing industry based around Peng Chau, the
other major industry for the island was the recovery of coral for the
lime-kilns “…by the end of the century [19th century]; it was, in
fact, the largest in the New Territories” (Hayes, 1983:38). “ Fishing, and the recovery of coral
for the lime-kilns, was such a large-scale enterprise in Peng Chau waters at
this time that, as two elders have put it to me on different occasions, you
could practically walk on boats as far as the adjacent shore of Lantau Island,
a distance of almost one mile” (ibid:36).
In between Peng Chau and Lantau Island is Tai Lei and the area under
investigation.
9.3.13 Two known archaeological sites on Peng Chau—one known as Peng Chau
(South) Archaeological Site, the other is Peng Chau Archaeological Site located
some 1,300 m and 700 m respectively from Tai Lei—testify to the human
occupation and use of the area around Peng Chau fromprehistoric period to historic period. Hard geometric pottery and
lime kiln had been identified (Figure 9-1).
Known Terrestrial Archaeological Sites and Historical Buildings and
Features
9.3.14 Apart from the two archaeological sites located to the
south/southeast of Tai Lei island outside the Project Area as described in
above section, no known sites of cultural heritage are identified within the
Project Area.
9.3.15 Little is known about the archaeological potential of the seabed
deposits in Hong Kong. This is
probably because there were no dedicated marine archaeological surveys until
the introduction of EIA Ordinance in
1998. Marine archaeology is
therefore a new area of study in Hong Kong with very little baseline data to
draw upon.
9.3.16 Shipwrecks are the primary archaeological site located underwater
(Muckelroy, 1978). Since they are
random and haphazard events it is difficult to predict their exact location as
little written references survive or were ever made. A review of the literature for the Peng Chau/Lantau Island
region found that many ships were active in this region. However, the area off Tai Lei that is
under review has a number of features that would make mariners avoid it in
general. It is relatively shallow;
close to a lee shore (when the winds are from the south); and has some
identified shipping hazards in the area.
Although this area in general—between Peng Chau and Lantau Island—is
calm and sheltered from most winds apart from the south west monsoons, it is
unlikely vessels would use the Study Area as an anchorage. The most likely
scenario for shipwrecks to be in the area, was if they were blown into it and
sunk through hitting the bottom or the hazards.
9.3.17 Empson (1992) provides information on the development of the charts
for the Hong Kong/New Territories area dating back to a Chinese strip map of
c.1425 that records Lantau Island as Tai Kai Shan. Being the largest of the islands in this region it is
understandable that this island be recorded, while the small islands of Peng
Chau and Tai Lei are not shown on a chart until the 1866 chart produced by
Volonteri and titled “Map of Sun On District”.
9.3.18 The review of a number of charts and data from the United Kingdom
and Hong Kong Hydrographic Offices was carried out to ascertain if there was
any documentation of shipwrecks in the Peng Chau area.
9.3.19 The United Kingdom Hyrdographic Charts 1918, 1919 and 3206 which are
different scaled charts of the area encompassing the Peng Chau and Tai Lei did not
record any shipwrecks to be located in the Study Area. These charts have used similar
historical data (surveys and charts) in their production but have incorporated
the latest survey data according to their publication dates.
9.3.20 No shipwrecks were recorded to be located near Peng Chau or Tai Lei,
according to the Hong Kong Hydrographic Office.
9.4
Geophysical Survey
9.4.1
A geophysical survey was undertake for
the Project and the objectives of the survey was to determine sub-seabed
lithology, to map features (anomalies), man-made objects on and beneath the
seabed within the MAI Study Area (see Figure 9-2). The survey was undertaken on 18 February 2003 by the
Institute of Geophysical and Geochemical Exploration (IGGE), Hong Kong
Office. The coverage of the MAI Study
Area had included all seabed area that may be potential impacted by the
construction work of the Project.
The geophysical survey was implemented from a vessel that employed 10
metre survey lanes and this ensured an adequate overlap of data being collected
from each survey lane. A qualified
marine archaeologist as approved by the Antiquities and Monuments Office was
engaged in the data review process.
9.4.2
The following equipment was used
during the geophysical survey:
(a) DELPH Seismic Reflection System;
(b) DF3200MK II Echo Sounder;
(c) Valeport VLR740 Automatic Tide Logger;
(d) eason TRACKER Navigation System;
(e) EPC-1086 Printer;
(f)
Bar Check Plate;
(g) Side Scan Sonar System: Edge Tech 560A;
(h) NT-300D DGPS Differential Signal Receiver; and
(i)
Survey Vessels.
9.4.3
The geophysical survey data obtained
by IGGE was processed by geophysicists and included an analysis of the side
scan sonar and seismic original records and annotation of anomalies on the
records. In addition, IGGE
compiled a comprehensive report comprising:
(a) location of the Study Area;
(b) documentation of the survey process;
(c) details of the accuracy of the position fixing, water depth and
tidal measurements;
(d) Interpreted side scan sonar profiles (and fixed by the navigation
system);
(e) seismic profiles and interpreted seismic profiles showing the depth
of the marine deposits (similarly fixed by the navigation system);
(f)
plans of the tracks used by the survey
vessel over the Study Area;
(g) contour plans of the seabed, marine deposits and Rock Head level.
9.4.4
The overlap and the accuracy employed in
the collection of the geophysical data ensured a comprehensive assessment of
the seabed and below seabed for any anomalies that could be of a cultural
heritage nature. All of raw data
was reviewed by a qualified marine archaeologist.
9.4.6
The seismic records were of a
sufficient quality to interpret the seabed, marine deposits, including the
deposit layers, and head rock. An interpretation
and review of these records showed that below the seabed no material could be
interpreted to be of a cultural heritage nature.
9.5.1
As no cultural heritage interest sites
are identified within the Project Area, no impact arising from the Peng Chau
STW Upgrade is identified.
9.6 conclusions
and recommendations
9.5.2
A baseline review was conducted on the
cultural heritage sites identification, with data supplement from geophysical
surveys at the proposed dredged area for outfall construction. There is no
cultural heritage sites of interest are identified and impacts arising from the
construction and operation of Peng Chau STW Upgrade is not expected.