9. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment

9.1 Introduction

In accordance with the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-171/2007, cultural heritage impact arising from marines works of the Project was assessed. Furthermore, a qualified marine archaeologist was engaged to conduct a marine archaeological review according to section 3.4.7.2 of the EIA Study Brief.

This section presents the findings on the nature and scale of potential cultural heritage impacts on seabed cultural heritage resources associated with the construction of the submarine gas pipelines in accordance with the requirements of the Study Brief and Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM and Section 3.4.7 of the EIA Study Brief. Measures required to mitigate identified impacts are recommended, where appropriate.

9.2 Environmental Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria

The legislation and guidelines applicable to the cultural heritage assessment in this EIA Study include:

¡ Technical Memorandum on the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance), Annex 10 and 19 (EIAO-TM);

¡ Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53);

¡ Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG); and

¡ Marine Archaeological Investigation Guidelines.

9.2.1 Technical Memorandum on the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance), Annex 10 and 19

The EIAO-TM outlines the approaches required in investigating and criteria for assessing the impacts on cultural heritage sites. The following Sections are applicable:

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."

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."

The Memorandum also outlines the approach in regard to the preservation in totality, in part, and not at all of 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."

9.2.2 Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap.53)

Historical buildings and ancient structures may receive legal protection in Hong Kong under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance. In this case, the Antiquities Authority may, after consulting the Antiquities Advisory Board and with the approval of the Chief Executive and the publication of the notice in government gazette, legally declare a place to be protected. Once it is protected under the Ordinance, any restoration, repair, maintenance or any other related works to the monument requires a permit under Section 6 of the Ordinance.

For archaeological sites, all relics dated prior to 1800 AD belong to the Hong Kong Government. Archaeological sites are generally classified into two categories, as follows:

¡ Declared Monuments - those that have been gazetted in accordance with Cap. 53 by the Antiquities Authority; and

¡ Recorded Archaeological Sites – those which have not been declared but recorded by the AMO under administrative protection.

The Legislation also sets out the procedures for the issuing of Licences to Excavate and Search for Antiquities, the effect of which is to forbid all such activities being undertaken without such a licence. It also provides for the penalties exacted for infringement of the Ordinance, including fines and imprisonment.

Although there are no statutory provisions for the protection of Graded Buildings in Hong Kong, the Government has administrative procedures which state that consideration must be given to protect them. However, at present, the record is incomplete as many areas have yet to be surveyed in detail.

Section 11 of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance requires any person who discovers an antiquity, or supposed antiquity, to report the discovery to the Antiquities Authority. Nevertheless it is prudent to ensure that procedures and mechanisms which ensure the preservation or formal notification of previously unknown archaeological resources that may be revealed or discovered during a project assessment or during construction are identified at an early stage in project planning.

9.2.3 Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines

The HKPSG, Chapter 10 – Conservation covers planning considerations relevant to general guidelines and measures for conservation of historical buildings, archaeological sites and other antiquities.

9.2.4 Marine Archaeological Investigation Guidelines

The AMO have issued Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation (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.

9.3 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Methodology

9.3.1 Baseline Review

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 London;

¡ Publications on local historical, architectural, anthropological, archaeological and other cultural studies;

¡ Unpublished papers, records, archival and historical documents held in local libraries and other government departments; and

¡ A review was made of 6 previous MAI studies which have been carried out in the vicinity of the present study area.

9.3.2 Geophysical Survey

The Geophysical Survey was undertaken to define the areas of greatest archaeological potential, assess the depth and nature of the seabed sediments to define which areas consist of suitable material to bury and preserve archaeological material and to map anomalies on the seabed which may be of archaeological potential.

EGS (Asia) undertook the survey in May and November 2008, which covered a 200m corridor (100m either side of the proposed centre) along the length of the proposed route of the submarine gas pipelines.

The equipment deployed in the survey include side scan sonar, seismic profiler and swath bathymetry. This survey allowed for a comprehensive investigation of the seabed and sub-seabed sediments.

9.3.3 Establishing Archaeological Potential

The data examined during the Baseline Review and Geophysical Survey were analysed to provide an indication of the likely character and extent of archaeological resources within the Study Area. The results are presented in the Marine Archaeological Investigation Report in Appendix H1 and summarised in Section 9.4.

9.4 Baseline Conditions

The comprehensive Baseline Review did not find specific evidence of any submerged cultural heritage sites including shipwrecks. The detailed findings are presented in Appendix H1. However, previous Marine Archaeological Studies undertaken adjacent to and in the vicinity of the proposed submarine gas pipelines have established high archaeological potential based on recorded historical activity. It is the only place in Hong Kong where historical relics have been retrieved from the seabed. In 1957, a Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) cannon was discovered during dredging for the former Kai Tak airport.

EGS (Asia) Ltd undertook a Geophysical Survey in May and November 2008 which covered a 200m corridor to identify all forms of submerged marine archaeological deposits and objects. The survey revealed the presence of 13 sonar contacts on the seabed of which 3 are within 50m of the proposed submarine gas pipelines route.

In January 2009 an underwater inspection of the 3 sonar contacts within 50m and an additional 2 within 50-60m was completed. Each one of them was located on the seabed and identified as modern debris. There was no indication of underwater cultural heritage.

9.5 Identification of Cultural Heritage Impact

Submerged cultural heritage was not located in the areas with 100% geophysical survey coverage. In these areas there will be no cultural heritage impact arising from marine works of the Project.

Assessment could not be made of the areas where there is gas masking, and therefore no survey data to make the assessment.

9.6 Assessment of Cultural Heritage Impact

In the areas with 100% geophysical survey coverage no indication of submerged cultural heritage was identified. As such, no cultural heritage impact is anticipated.

Assessment could not be made of the areas where there is gas masking, and therefore no survey data to make the assessment.

9.7 Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impact

Submerged cultural heritage were not identified within the areas with 100% geophysical survey coverage, therefore no mitigation measures or further action are considered necessary for these areas.

Assessment could not be made of the areas where there is gas masking, and therefore no survey data to make the assessment.

9.8 Evaluation of Residual Cultural Heritage Impact

Submerged cultural heritage were not identified in the areas with full geophysical survey coverage. Therefore, no unacceptable residual cultural heritage impact is anticipated at these locations.

Assessment could not be made of the areas where there is gas masking, and therefore no survey data to make the assessment.

9.9 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

It is recommended that a monitoring brief detailed in Appendix H2 shall be conducted during dredging at the locations where there is no geophysical survey due to ‘gas masking’ This can be carried out at the same time as the monitoring of barge loading mentioned in Section 4.6.6.

9.10 Summary

The methodology followed the Guidelines issued by the AMO.

The Baseline Review and original geophysical survey were completed in July 2008. The results of the geophysical survey data indicated the presence of thirteen sonar contacts within the total study area. Six of these contacts were within 50m of the centreline of the proposed alignment and would therefore be directly impacted by it.

However, it was subsequently decided that 200-300m of the alignment will be changed at the To Kwa Wan side. In order to ensure 100% seabed coverage, additional geophysical survey was carried out in November 2008. The additional survey did not locate any additional sonar contacts.

When the geophysical survey data from both phases was plotted against the revised alignment it was found that only 3 sonar contacts were within 50m of the alignment. The other sonar contacts will not be impacted by the excavation of the trench for the submarine gas pipelines.

In January 2009 a diver inspection of the 3 sonar contacts was carried out. Each contact was successfully located and inspected. Each of them was quickly identified as modern debris and a mooring block. An additional inspection was made of 2 further sonar contacts which were between 50m and 60m of the proposed centreline of the alignment as a precautionary measure. Both were found to be part of a mound of dumped building materials. It is therefore concluded that none of the sonar contacts were underwater cultural heritage resources. There will therefore be no negative impact from the construction of the gas mains at these locations.

However, some sections of the geophysical survey were affected by ‘gas masking’ which prevented 100% seabed coverage. It is therefore recommended that a monitoring brief is conducted in these areas.