6.
CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
6.1.1
In
accordance with the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-187/2008, a Cultural Heritage
Impact Assessment (CHIA) is required for the Project.
6.1.2
This Chapter provides an assessment
of potential impacts of the Project on the cultural heritage resources within
the Study Area. The CHIA
included a Terrestrial Archaeological Investigation (TAI) and Marine
Archaeological Investigation (MAI).
6.1.3
The
objectives of the CHIA are to identify any negative impacts on archaeological
resources (terrestrial and marine) and to propose measures to mitigate these
impacts.
Project Background
6.1.4
The
Project is to construct and operate a new submarine water main across Adamasta
Channel from Lantau to Cheung Chau to replace the existing submarine water main,
which is serving as emergency back up, to improve the reliability of water
supply to Cheung Chau. The Project will comprise the followings:
(i)
Laying of submarine water main of approximately 1400 m
in length and 500 mm in diameter across Adamasta Channel;
(ii)
Construction of landfall and associated works within
(iii)
Construction of
landfall and associated works near Tai Kwai Wan, Cheung Chau.
6.2
Environmental Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria
6.2.1
The
following legislation and guidelines are applicable to the cultural heritage
assessment for the Project.
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
6.2.2
Legislation
relating to antiquities is set out in the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
(Cap. 53), which came into force on January 1st 1976. The Antiquities and
Monuments Ordinance provides statutory protection against the threat of
development on Declared Monuments, historical buildings and archaeological
sites to enable their preservation for posterity. The Ordinance contains the
statutory procedures for the Declaration of Monuments. The legislation applies
equally to sites on land and underwater.
The purpose of the Ordinance is to prescribe controls for the discovery
and protection of antiquities in
6.2.3
Human
artefacts, relics and built structures may be gazetted and protected as
monuments. The Antiquities Authority may, after consultation with the
Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) and with the Chief Executive’s approval,
declare any place, building, site or structure which the Antiquities Authority
considers to be of public interest by reason of its historical, archaeological
or palaentological significance.
6.2.4
The
discovery of an Antiquity, as defined in the Ordinance must be reported to the
Antiquities Authority (the Authority), or a designated person. The Ordinance
also provides that, the ownership of every relic discovered in
6.2.5
No
archaeological excavation may be carried out by any person, other than the
Authority and the designated person, without a licence issued by the Authority.
A licence will only be issued if the Authority is satisfied that the applicant
has sufficient scientific training or experience to enable him to carry out the
excavation and search satisfactorily, is able to conduct, or arrange for, a
proper scientific study of any antiquities discovered as a result of the
excavation and search and has sufficient staff and financial support.
6.2.6
Once
declared a site of public interest, no person may undertake acts which are
prohibited under the Ordinance, such as to demolish or carry on building or
other works, unless a permit is obtained from the Antiquities Authority.
6.2.7
The
Ordinance defines an antiquity as a relic (a moveable object made before 1800)
and a place, building, site or structure erected, formed or built by human
agency before the year 1800. Archaeological sites are classified into two
categories, as follows:
·
Declared Monument – those that are gazetted in
accordance with Cap. 53 by the Antiquities Authority and are to be protected
and conserved at all costs; and
·
Recorded Archaeological Sites – those which are considered to be
of significant value but which are not yet declared as monuments and should be
either protected, or if found not possible to protect these sites mitigation
measures should be proposed and implemented to preserve the archaeological
resources.
6.2.8
It
should also be noted that the discovery of an antiquity under any circumstances
must be reported to the authority, i.e. the Secretary for Development or
designated person. The authority may require that the antiquity or suspected
antiquity is identified to the authority and that any person who has discovered
an antiquity or suspected antiquity should take all reasonable measures to
protect it.
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
6.2.9
The
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499) provides additional
legislative protection to sites of cultural heritage, which are threatened by
development and the Environmental Protection Department is its authority. Its purpose is to avoid, minimise and control
the adverse impacts on the environment of designated projects, through the
application of the EIA process and the Environmental Permit (EP) system. The
EIAO stipulates that consideration must be given to issues associated with
cultural heritage and archaeology as part of the EIA process.
Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process
6.2.10
Annex
10 and Annex 19 of the Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (EIAO-TM) outline
the criteria for evaluating the impacts on sites of cultural heritage and
guidelines for impact assessment, respectively. It is stated in Annex 10 that
all adverse impacts to sites of cultural heritage should be kept to an absolute
minimum and that the general presumption of impact assessment should be in
favour of the protection and conservation of all sites of cultural heritage. Annex
19 provides the details of scope and methodology for undertaking CHIA,
including baseline study, impact assessment and mitigation measures.
6.2.11
The
Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG), Chapter 10 – Conservation
covers planning considerations relevant to general guidelines and measures for
conservation of historical buildings, archaeological sites and other
antiquities.
AMO’s Guidelines
6.2.12
The
Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) has issued “Guidelines for Cultural
Heritage Impact Assessment” and “Guidelines for Marine Archaeological
Investigation” which details the standard practice, procedures and methodology
which must be undertaken in determining the terrestrial / marine archaeological
potential, presence of archaeological artefacts and defining suitable
mitigation measures. These guidelines are appended in Appendix C and Appendix D
of the EIA Study Brief (see Appendix 1).
6.3
Terrestrial Archaeological Investigation (TAI)
Introduction
6.3.1
This
section presents the findings of the TAI.
Assessment Methodology
6.3.2
The
assessment of the terrestrial archaeological potential of the Study Area is as
follows.
Desktop Assessment
6.3.3
Desktop
assessment involves the following:
·
Review background
information of sites of cultural heritage within and in close proximity to the
Study Area (AMO files, Public Records Office, map libraries, university and
public libraries, published and unpublished government and non-government
documents, cartographic and pictorial documents, existing geotechnical
studies);
·
Review
Legislation (i.e. Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance, etc.);
·
Review areas
proposed for construction and operation activities and potential impacts
generated; and
·
Identification of
sensitive receivers (i.e. archaeological sites and areas of archaeological
potential).
Impact Assessment and Evaluation
6.3.4
Impact
assessment and evaluation involves the following:
·
Identification of
potential impacts, both direct and indirect, on sites of cultural heritage;
·
Assessment of
impacts according to the requirements of Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM; and
·
Evaluate impacts
using EIAO-TM.
6.3.5
The
scope for the investigation is set out in consultation with the Antiquities and
Monuments Office (AMO) prior to implementation. The scope and requirement of
the investigation is to be fully implemented by the project proponent. Any archaeological field investigation should
be conducted by qualified archaeologist engaged by the project proponent. The archaeologist should apply for Licence
under the provision of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53), which
will normally take at least two months time to process.
Mitigation Measures
6.3.6
Any
proposed works encroaching on sites of archaeological interest should be
avoided as far as possible. Any unavoidable impacts on these sites of
archaeological interest should be addressed with appropriate mitigation
measures, such as:
·
Preservation in
situ; or
·
Full-scale
excavation prior to construction works; or
·
Survey to
identify the scale and extent of the areas of interest; or
·
Archaeological
monitoring programme, whereby a qualified archaeologist monitors the excavation
works in areas of interest during the construction phase.
6.3.7
The
mitigation measures should be agreed with the AMO and implemented by the
project proponent.
Results of Desk-Based Study
Geological and
Topographic Background
Chi Ma Wan
6.3.8
The Study Area of the landfall at
Cheung Chau
6.3.9
The Study Area of the landfall at
Cheung Chau is situated to the south of Tai Kwai Wan in the north-western part
of Cheung Chau. The proposed land-based fresh
water main alignment runs through the existing WSD Temporary Works Compound on
a rocky low headland south of Tai Kwai Wan, and then continues running towards
the southern end of
Archaeological Background
Chi Ma Wan
6.3.10
There are several known
archaeological sites located on Chi Ma Wan Peninsula, such as Cheung Sha Wan
Archaeological Site, Tung Kok Archaeological Site, Tai Long Wan Archaeological
Site and Yi Long Archaeological Site. However,
these known archaeological sites are located some distance from the current
Study Area.
Cheung Chau
6.3.11
Tai Kwai Wan Archaeological Site
(AM77-0038) is located in the immediate north of the Cheung Chau Study Area (Figure
6.3.3). The site was first
identified by Schofield in 1937 with the discovery of five historical lime
kilns, Song and possibly Tang materials at the sand bar (Schofield 1978). The first archaeological excavation, in the
form of two test pits, was carried out in the southern end of the raised beach
in 1968 by J.W. Hayes. Coarse pottery
sherds, soft red pottery sherds, a stone adze and fragments of a polishing
stone were found in these two test pits (AMO 1995). Another excavation was conducted in 1974 by
W. Meacham when two test pits were placed in the centre of the site, revealing
cultural deposits to 1.1 m depth.
Further excavation was carried out in the centre of the site, with eight
test pits placed across the sand bar, when part of it was schedule for
development. Archaeological materials of at least five different periods were
identified in the 1974 and 1978 excavations: Middle Neolithic at 0.8-1.1 m
depth (chalky plain and incised pottery); Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age
at 0.2-0.3 m depth (pottery sherds); Tang Dynasty (green glazed pottery sherds
and kiln debris); and Qing Dynasty (burials and associated remains) (AMO 1995,
Meacham 1978). A two-phase rescue
excavation was conducted in 1978 and 1979 by Dr. Bard prior to a road
construction project. A total of five
test pits were excavated, revealing a Late Neolithic cultural layer at 0.2-0.4
m in all the test pits. Tang kiln debris
and Qing burials were also identified (AMO 1995). One test pit was also excavated in 1987 by
J.R. Crawford to ensure the proper recording of the kiln before its destruction
by erosion. Surviving in situ parts of the kiln included: kiln
floors, brick wall of the kiln, fireclay wall of the kiln, fireclay ‘backings’
to the kiln wall, the smoothed and unsmoothed plaster surfaces, and the
fire-grate supports (Crawford 1987). An archaeological investigation comprising
field walking and three test pits was conducted in 1995 prior to the
commencement of a large scale development project at the back of the sand
bar. No archaeological materials,
features or cultural layers were identified in the investigation (AMO
1995). The site was further investigated
in 1997 during the Territory-wide Survey.
No cultural remains were identified in field scan. The report suggested that the original
archaeological remains were severely disturbed (
Existing Impacts
Chi Ma Wan
6.3.12
There are no utility provisions in
the current proposed works areas. The proposed
alignment is located between two existing pipelines along the rocky foreshore.
Cheung Chau
6.3.13
The existing impacts in the proposed
works areas include a major road (Cheung Kwai Road) and utility provisions: WSD
Temporary Works Compound, WSD water mains (along Cheung Kwai Road); CLP Power
underground cables (along Cheung Kwai Road); DSD underground drainage pipes –
storm / sewer / combined (along Cheung Kwai Road); and PCCW underground cables
(along Cheung Kwai Road).
Assessment of Terrestrial Archaeological Potential
6.3.14
The terrestrial archaeological
potential of the works area for the Project is listed below in Table 6.1.
Assessment of Terrestrial
Archaeological Potential of the Project
|
Proposed
works |
Archaeological
potential |
Assessment
of potential |
Scope |
|
Chi Ma Wan |
|||
|
Land-based fresh
water main at Chi Ma Wan |
No archaeological potential |
The proposed alignment is located in rocky
areas (Figure 6.3.4 – 2007
aerial photograph; Plate 1). |
No further action |
|
Proposed
reception site at Chi Ma Wan |
No archaeological potential |
The proposed reception site is located in
rocky areas (Figure 6.3.4 –
2007 aerial photograph; Plate 1). |
No further action |
|
Cheung Chau |
|||
|
Land-based fresh water
main near Tai Kwai Wan |
No archaeological potential |
Part of the alignment is located along the
rocky foreshore within the WSD Temporary Works Compound (Plates 2-4), which sits on a low
headland to the south of the raised sand bar. As seen in Figure 6.3.6 (1980 topographical
map overlaying the current alignment map), the proposed landing area for the
pipeline is situated on reclaimed land.
Although the southern part of the proposed pipeline is situated on the
original low headland (Figure 6.3.7
– 1963 aerial photograph), the entire headland was levelled and filled in
early 1980s (see Figure 6.3.8
for the 1985 aerial photograph). Based on old maps and aerial photos, the
original landscape of the low headland has been extensively modified in the
past few decades, which may have had an adverse impact upon its
archaeological potential. Although the northern part of the alignment
along Cheung Kwai Road is located in close proximity to Tai Kwai Wan
Archaeological Site, based on previous findings, geological map and aerial
photograph (Figure 6.3.5 –
1945 aerial photograph), the identified archaeological remains /cultural
layers (i.e. Tai Kwai Wan Archaeological Site) are situated in the raised
sand bar, whilst the current alignment is located on beach deposits. In addition, there is disturbance from
previous utility ground works along this major road. |
No further action |
|
Proposed
launching site at Tai Kwai Wan |
No archaeological potential |
Part of the launching site is located along
the rocky foreshore within the WSD Temporary Works Compound (Plates 2-4), which sits on a low
headland to the south of the raised sand bar. As seen in Figure 6.3.6 (1980 topographical
map overlaying the current alignment map), the proposed launching site is
situated on reclaimed land. Although
the southern part of the proposed launching site is situated on the original
low headland (Figure 6.3.7 –
1963 aerial photograph), the entire headland was levelled and filled in early
1980s (see Figure 6.3.8 for
the 1985 aerial photograph). Based on old maps and aerial photos, the
original landscape of the low headland has been extensively modified in the
past few decades, which may have had an adverse impact upon its
archaeological potential. |
No further action |
Summary of Terrestrial Archaeological Investigation
Chi Ma Wan
6.3.15
The Study Area at Chi Ma Wan is
evaluated as having no archaeological potential, and therefore, no field survey
or mitigation measure is recommended.
Cheung Chau
6.3.16
The proposed alignment located at the
low headland to the south of the raised sandbar would have formed part of the
contemporary coastal landscape potentially in use at the same time as the
sandbar. Given the thin soil cover over
bedrock, artificial fill, and the presence of existing temporary structures and
utilities in this area, it is evaluated as having no archaeological potential,
and therefore, no field survey or mitigation measure is recommended.
6.4
Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI)
Introduction
6.4.1
This
section presents the findings of the MAI.
Methodology
6.4.2
The
MAI follows the methodology set out in Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief
(ESB-187/2008), and Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM. A qualified marine
archaeologist from SDA Marine Ltd. was engaged to carry out the MAI.
6.4.3
In
accordance with AMO Guidelines, the MAI
consisted of:
·
Task
1 – Baseline Review;
·
Task
2 – Geophysical Survey;
·
Task
3 – Establishing Archaeological Potential; and
·
Task
4 – Remote Operated Vehicle / Visual Diver Survey / Watching Brief (if sites or
objects of cultural heritage are found).
Baseline Review
6.4.4
A
Baseline Review was undertaken to compile a comprehensive inventory of cultural
heritage resources of the Study Area. The Review established the historical
profile and potential for cultural heritage sites and included:
·
Marine
charts records held in British Library and National Maritime Museum Library in
·
Publications
on local historical, architectural, anthropological, archaeological and other
cultural studies; and
·
Unpublished
papers, records, archival and historical documents held in local libraries and
other government departments.
Archive Search
6.4.5
All
archives holding information on shipwrecks in
Geophysical Survey
6.4.6
The geophysical survey was carried
out by EGS (
6.4.7
The Study Area and survey corridor
for the marine geophysical survey covered a 120 m corridor (60 m either side of
the proposed centreline) along the length of the proposed submarine water main
route.
6.4.8
The details of the geophysical survey
are presented in the MAI Report (Appendix 6).
Establishing Archaeological Potential
6.4.9
The
data examined during the Baseline Review and Geophysical Survey were analysed
to provide an indication of the likely character and extent of marine
archaeological resources within the Study Area.
Results
6.4.10
The
results of the Baseline Review and Geophysical Survey are presented in the MAI
Report in Appendix 6 and summarized
below.
Results of Baseline Review
6.4.11
The
Baseline Review established an abundance of historical references to pirate and
maritime activity around Cheung Chau indicating high archaeological potential
for shipwrecks in the vicinity of the new water main.
6.4.12
The
details of the Baseline Review findings can be found in Appendix 6.
Results of Geophysical Survey
6.4.13
The data from the echo sounder is
used to compile the charts giving seabed depths across the Study Area. The most
obvious features on the sounding plan are the rock outcrops located on the
Lantau side. The main rock outcrop is more than 2 m high. Apart from that the
seabed is fairly featureless. The seabed varies between 0 mPD and -8 mPD within
the survey area.
6.4.14
The interpretation of the seismic
reflection data results indicated that there is a layer of marine deposit
(called the Hang Hau Formation) across the whole area. The maximum thickness of
the marine deposits over the survey area is 10 – 11 m approaching the centre of
the channel. It gets thinner towards the rock outcrop area at the north and
close to the shore areas.
6.4.15
The side scan sonar results provide
the basis of detailed seabed features mapping across the Study Area. The data was excellent quality and enabled
reliable classification of features as can be seen with the identification of
concrete blocks over the existing water pipe.
With the exception of the rock outcrop on the Lantau coast side the
seabed comprises soft muddy sediments.
Any objects with archaeological potential would stand out and be easily
identified in this environment.
6.4.16
There is evidence of seabed
disturbance along the routes of the existing three submarine cables. However, the seabed evidence is clearly the
result of seabed excavation rather than indicating archaeological resources.
There is also clear evidence for extensive fishing trawling activity which
would have had a negative impact on archaeological remains, if present.
6.4.17
As shown on Figures 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 the survey area is
mainly covered with soft sediments. While rock outcrops were observed at the
north and close to the shore areas, boulders and concrete slabs related to the
existing pipelines and cables were found scattered over the area. Side scan
sonar data also showed that the seabed was extensively disturbed. During the geophysical survey,
trawlers were seen working in the Adamasta Channel. Their action would further
serve to damage or redistribute archaeological resources on the seabed.
6.4.18
The details of the Geophysical Survey
findings can be found in Appendix 6.
Establishing Archaeological Potential
6.4.19
The
Baseline Review established an abundance of historical references to pirate and
maritime activity around Cheung Chau indicating high archaeological potential
for shipwrecks in the vicinity of the proposed submarine water main.
6.4.20
A
comprehensive geophysical survey comprising of side sonar scan, seismic
profiler and multi beam bathymetry was carried out. The results did not
identify any features on the seabed with archaeological potential. The data
revealed that the seabed across the Adamasta Channel is extensively disturbed
probably due to the construction of the numerous utilities which cross the
channel. There is also evidence of
dumped materials. During the geophysical survey, trawlers were seen working in
the Adamasta Channel. Their action would further serve to damage or
redistribute archaeological resources on the seabed.
6.4.21
As
there are no marine archaeological remains within the Study Area, construction
of the submarine water main will not have an impact on marine archaeological
resources. There is no need for any further investigation or mitigation
measures.
Summary of Marine Archaeological Investigation
6.4.22
As
there are no marine archaeological resources identified within the Study Area,
there will be no negative impact from the construction of the proposed
submarine water main across Adamasta Channel. There is no need for any further
investigation or mitigation measures.
6.5.1
No
cultural heritage resources are identified within the Study Area, therefore no
residual impacts are expected.
6.6
Environmental Monitoring and Audit
6.6.1
No
cultural heritage resources are identified within the Study Area, therefore no
environmental monitoring and audit programme are recommended.
6.7.1
The findings of the Terrestrial Archaeological
Investigation and Marine Archaeological Investigation indicate that the Study Area
of the proposed submarine water main has no archaeological potential, and no
impacts on archaeological deposits are expected. There is no need for any
further investigation or mitigation measures.
AMO
File: AM77-0038
AMO
1995. Excavation report of Tai Kwai Wan archaeological excavation. (unpublished report).
Crawford,
J. R. 1987. ‘A report on the excavation
of a kiln site at Tai Kwai Wan, Cheung Chau’, Journal of the HKAS, 12 (1986-88), p.29-44. Hong Kong:
Hong
Kong Geotechnical Engineering Office, Aerial Photograph Library, CEDD, HKSAR
Government (Y00287, Sheet No. 14, 1945; Orthophotos of Chi Ma Wan)
Meacham,
W. 1978. ‘Tai Kwai Wan’, Journal of the HKAS, 7 (1976-78),
p.33-5. Hong Kong:
Schofield,
W. 1978. ‘Tai Kwai Wan’, Journal of the HKAS, 7 (1976-78),
p.136. Hong Kong:
廣東省文物考古研究所:<<香港南丫島、長洲、大鴉洲島、小鴉洲島及石鼓洲島考古調查報告>>, 1997年。