The cultural impact assessment has been conducted in
accordance with Condition 3.4.10 of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-198/2008.
This section presents the findings of the assessment of potential
impacts on the cultural heritage resources, and is structured as follows:
Section 9.1: Provides discussions on study scope and
legislation framework for the assessment;
Section 9.2: Describes the assessment methodology adopted for
this EIA;
Section 9.3: Presents the findings of the archaeological
baseline;
Section 9.4: Evaluates the archaeological potential;
Section 9.5: Proposes potential mitigation measures to ensure
the environmental performance of the dredging works;
The cultural
heritage impact has been undertaken
in accordance with the requirements of Annexes 10 and 19 of the
EIAO-TM and Study Brief. A
Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) was completed to locate and assess
the significance of any underwater cultural heritage which may be present on
the seabed in the areas
that will be impacted by the dredging works. The assessment found that the dredging area of
the Project is of low archaeological potential, details of which are further
elaborated in the following subsections. Appropriate mitigation measures have
been recommended to avoid potential adverse impacts.
The aim of the project is to deepen the seabed of Kwai Tsing
Container Basin (KTCB) and portions of Northern Fairway and Western Fairway to
ensure adequate depth of water for the new larger generation of container
ships. To achieve the enhanced navigation depth, CEDD intends to dredge the
seabed concerned to –17.5mCD from the existing average of about –16.0mCD. Based
on the latest bathymetric survey and
engineering design, it is estimated that around 4.4 Mm3 of
sediment will be dredged.
The aim of the
Marine Archaeological
Investigation (MAI) was to locate and assess the significance of any underwater
cultural heritage which may be present on the seabed in the areas that will be impacted by the dredging
works.
The MAI covers the Study
Areas shown in Figures
9.1 and 9.2, which provide 100% coverage of
all dredging locations. The locations of the Tsing Yi and Kwai Chung Submarine Sewage Outfalls in relation to the Study Area are shown in
Figure 2.1a.
9.1.2
Legislative Framework for Marine Archaeological
Investigations in
The following
legislation are applicable to the assessment of archaeological and historic
resources in
1.
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
2.
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
3.
Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact
Assessment Process
4.
Guidelines for Marine Archaeological
Investigation
9.1.3
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
Legislation relating to antiquities is set out in the Antiquities
and Monuments Ordinance (Chapter 53 of the Laws of Hong Kong), which came into
force on 1 January 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 have not
been declared but recorded by the AMO under administrative protection.
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.
9.1.4
The Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
Since the introduction of the 1998 Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499, S16), the Antiquities and Monuments
Office (AMO) has the power to
request a MAI for developments affecting the seabed. Its purpose is to avoid,
minimise and control the adverse impact on the environment of designated
projects, through the application of the Environmental Impact Assessment (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.
Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIA Technical Memoranda (EIAO-TM) outline the
criteria for evaluating the impacts on sites of cultural heritage and
guidelines for impact assessment, respectively.
The EIAO-TM identifies a general presumption in favour of the
protection and conservation of all sites of cultural heritage and requires impacts
upon sites of cultural heritage to be ‘kept to a minimum’. There is no
quantitative standard for determining the relative importance of sites of
cultural heritage, but in general sites of unique, archaeological, historical
or architectural value should be considered as highly significant.
9.1.5
Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact
Assessment Process
The general criteria and guidelines for evaluating and
assessing impacts to Sites of Cultural Heritage are listed in Annexes 10 and 19
of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process
(EIAO-TM), shown in Appendix 9.1.
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 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, including
baseline study, impact assessment and mitigation measures.
9.1.6
Guidelines for Marine Archaeological
Investigation
The AMO has
issued “Guidelines for Marine
Archaeological Investigation (MAI)”
which sets out 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. The full document is included as Appendix 9.2.
In accordance with Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) Guidelines,
the MAI comprised the following tasks:
¡ Task
1: Marine Archaeological Review of
previous studies relevant to this project;
¡ Task
2: Baseline Review to assess the
archaeological potential of the Study
Area from a desk-top based review of existing literature;
¡ Task
3: Geophysical Survey data analysis
to obtain detailed information on
the seabed and sub-surface sediments;
¡ Task
4: Establish archaeological potential
and assess the location and significance of any seabed features requiring
further investigation and evaluation;
¡ Task
5: Assess the impact of the dredging
on archaeological resources, if present, and recommend a mitigation strategy,
if necessary.
9.2.1
Marine Archaeological Review
An extensive search was
conducted to locate all previous studies relevant to the MAI.
9.2.2
Baseline Review
The aim of the Baseline Review is to compile
the most significant information to establish the archaeological potential of
the seabed within the Study Area. Although not an exercise
to retrieve exhaustive chronological history of
the area, this
review enables those incidents and information relevant
to the current study to be
obtained.
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, including
review of the following document:
¡ 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
¡ Marine
charts records held in British Library and the National Maritime Museum Library
in
9.2.3
Archive Search
All archives holding
information on shipwrecks in Hong Kong and
9.2.4
Geophysical Survey
The survey was
planned to optimise the acquisition of data for the MAI and site
investigation. Figure
9.3 shows the location of survey areas
A and B which were designed to provide 100% coverage of the Study
Area. Appendix
9.6
Chart Figures 1.1 – 1.3 show the exact survey coverage for Area A and Chart Figures 1.4 – 1.6 show the
coverage for Area B. Table 9.1 below lists
the techniques used.
Table
9.1: Geophysical Survey Techniques Used
|
Multibeam
swath survey (Swath) |
To
measure sea bed levels in detail and locate any objects at the seabed. |
|
Marine
seismic profiling survey (Seismic) |
To identify
the geological succession over the survey areas and locate the existing
utilities within survey areas A2 and B2. |
|
Marine
side scan sonar survey (SSS) |
To
identify any features and objects at or above the sea bed, such as rock
outcrops, dumped materials and archaeological resources. |
The survey was
carried out between of 5th to 16th November 2009 by EGS (
The technical
details of the survey relevant to the archaeological assessment are set out in Appendix
9.4.
9.1.1
Marine Archaeological Review
There have been no previous MAI Studies in the vicinity of
the current study. Two previous EIA studies with some reference to the current study are
listed below:
August 1991. SouthEast Tsing Yi Port Development. Planning
and Engineering Feasibility Study for Container Terminal No. 09. Final Report.
May 1996. Agreement No CE89/95. Supplementary Environmental
Impact Assessment for Dredging of the
Neither of these studies contain any information relevant to the
current investigation.
9.1.2
Baseline Review
Archaeological evidence indicates that the waters of
On the
Practically nothing is known about the archaeological
potential of the seabed deposits in
Formation of archaeological underwater sites is mainly due to
shipwrecks (Muckelroy, 1978). Since
these are random and haphazard events it is difficult to predict their exact
locations if no written references had
survived. The aim of this review is to examine the
evidence for maritime activity within the Study Area to
predict the potential for shipwrecks.
9.1.3
Historical
Background of Tsuen Wan Sub-district
The Study Area falls within the
area previously known as the
No conclusive
evidence has been found for occupation of the Tsuen Wan District before the
coastal evacuation in 1662, although there is an oral tradition of such
settlement on Tsing Yi. A Ming Dynasty
tomb, dating from 1637, was found there in 1978, during clearance for
development. The Tang lineage of Kam Tin
has an ancestral tomb in Tsuen Wan dating from the middle of the Song Dynasty
(Johnson, 2000). Historian James Hayes has been a particularly
committed researcher on Tuen Mun and Kwai Tsing. He had administrative
responsibilities for Tsuen Wan as District Officer and then Town Manager from
1975 to 1982 and as Regional Secretary for the
In 1898, when the
British influence commenced, few villages numbered over 300 occupants. Most residents
would have been peasant farmers who owned a few houses and some land mainly
given over to rice cultivation. There
was also a small permanent boat population moored in
By the late 19th
century the Tsuen Wan sub-district was well populated and comprised three
separate rural communities as well as a coastal market village at
All through the
second half of the 19th century the villagers continued to sell
produce to
Pineapples were
another favoured import into
Tsuen Wan was home
to a number of other well established rural industries operated by both local
people and outsiders. Some of this business was reliant on the abundant water
in the several mountain streams which emptied into
Other rural
industries located in Tsuen Wan itself included the processing of bean curd
into its several forms, soy and preserved fruits, brick works, boat building
and lime making. These various
businesses would certainly have added to the activity and swelled the stream of people taking goods on and
off cargo junks and sampans in the bays around Tsuen Wan.
Apart from a market town, in the 20th century,
factories moved in gradually due to its proximity to urban Kowloon. With the construction of
Castle Peak Road,
motor vehicles could reach the town in addition to on foot and by boat. Between 1949 and 1958 more than
a million people fled from Mainland
9.1.4
Piracy
in the region
Another name for Tsuen Wan was Tsak Wan, pirate bay, indicating the
former presence of pirates. In fact, the area around Rambler Channel
was known as Sam Pak Tsin literally
meaning three hundred coins. There was a legend that pirates would collect
three hundred coins from people passing through the area (Hayes, 1993).
Local seaways were
often dangerous. The crew of a ship and
their passengers often risked their property and sometimes their lives when
they journeyed through the region. At
times the situation was particularly bad. Even though in the 1860s the Governor
Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell had taken resolute administrative and legal
action to curb pirates and their support network, piracy continued to be a
menace in right up to the end of the century.
Tsuen Wan was a
favoured spot for off-loading pirated goods and for either disposing of them
locally or taking them elsewhere quickly.
It was an excellent location on account of the footpaths leading over
the hills to Tai Po, from which boats could quickly take stolen goods to the
mainland. Borrowing the words of a
frustrated British naval officer after an unsuccessful piratical attack on
another new town, it is all too likely
that Tsuen Wan is ‘merely a market
town for pirates’. (Hayes, 1993).
In 1856, Tsing Yi
was the location of a small naval action against a number of pirate junks
flying the rebel flag of the Taipings. The captain of the H.M.S. Sampson states in his dispatch:
“In
proceeding through the Mandarin channel going west, some junks were observed at
anchor inside the island. Close in the N.E. corner. My pilot not being acquainted with the
channel, I got a fisherman’s boat to go up with one of the crew I had on board,
to see if he could recognize any of his property. He shortly returned on board, saying his boat
was there, and that the other boats were pirates. I immediately stood in under easy steam, when
the pirates seeing my intention, made sail, and ran through the channel towards
Wanchowchow (Stonecutters). I fired a few shots at them, but they soon got
under the cover of the land. Then
sending my boats after them, and running round outside the island, I had the
satisfaction of driving them on shore, and destroying five, as well as liberating two market-boats
and several passengers who had been in confinement many days. Three captured
men are sworn to by one of the owners of the boats, and I have sent them in
irons to
These
piratical boats had all the rebel flag flying and fired upon our boats, without
however doing any damage.’ (Schofield,
1977).
The intensity of
maritime activity in this area is indicated by the presence of the
Chinese Maritime Customs station on Ma Wan. They were only established at the
principal maritime gateways to
At Yu His Park near Ma Wan Rural
Office, two stone tablets still remain, one with the inscription “
The Ma Wan Customs Station was only closed after the cession
of the
9.1.5
Queen Elizabeth I
The Study Area is close to the wreck site of
the famous Cunard ocean liner Queen Elizabeth. When the 84,000-ton Queen Elizabeth
was launched in 1938, she was the largest passenger ship ever built. But before
becoming known as one of the world's most luxurious ocean liners, she was used
to transport British troops in World War II. She sailed all around the world, deploying
troops and returning with German prisoners. By the end of the war the ship had
carried over 750,000 troops and travelled some 500,000 miles.
With its
release from government duty finalized, the Queen Elizabeth finally set
out on its maiden passenger voyage to
The Queen Elizabeth made its last Atlantic Crossing in 1968
and was later purchased by Hong Kong based shipping magnate CY Tung and sailed
to Hong Kong from the
An enquiry in July 1972 confirmed that it had been the work
of an arsonist but the culprit was never found. In December 1973 it was decided
to scrap the hull. The buried remains of
this vessel now form part of the reclaimed shoreline on the South–East coast of
9.1.5.1
Aerial Photographic Evidence
The six aerial photographs presented as Figures
9.8 to 9.13 demonstrate the
extraordinary rate of reclamation and development which has taken place within
the Study Area.
The earliest available aerial photograph dating from 1924 (Figures
9.8) shows Tsuen Wan as little more than a large fishing village on
Castle Peak Road and Kwai Chung appears as a tiny settlement above Gin
Drinker’s Bay. The photograph was taken
by the Pegasus mission of the Fleet
Air Arm mission.
In earlier times Kwai Chung was called Kwai Chung Tsz. Kwai
Chung was a stream
(Chung) that emptied into Gin Drinkers
Bay. The whole bay was reclaimed for land and the stream is no
longer visible.
The same view taken 30 years later in 1954 (Figures
9.9) by the Royal Air Force shows the beginning of development with the
emergence of the Tsuen Wan factory complex and Route Twisk.
By 1964 (Figures
9.10) enormous changes have
started as can be seen in the photograph by Huntings Air Photography. The
coastline has changed and Gin Drinker’s Bay has become reclamation with a prime
source of fill being refuse from
Tsing Chau or
By 1975 (Figures
9.11) the area has
transformed and
The shoreline of the channel has changed rapidly owing to the development
of Tsuen Wan New Town and the Kwai Chung Container Port. Three islands
(Nga Ying Chau, Pillar Island
and Mong Chau have all been joined to land by reclamation. Tsing Yi Island has extended
drastically by reclamation along almost all its natural shore and the
annexation of Nga Ying Chau and Chau Tsai.
Three major bays or harbours, Tsing Yi Tong,
Mun Tsai Tong
and Tsing Yi Bay
in the northeast, have been completely reclaimed for new towns.
The aerial photograph from 1989 (Figures
9.12) shows the final stages of the major reclamation as Tsuen Wan
transformed into a high rise residential area. Figures
9.13 shows the Study Area in 2008, when it had a
population of over a million and is continuing to grow.
9.1.6
Archive Search
The UK
Hydrographic Office (UKHO) holds a database of surveyed shipwrecks in
Hong Kong
Marine Department were also contacted and confirmed that there were no known
wrecks, except the Queen Elizabeth 1 in the vicinity of the Study Area.
The UKHO also holds a huge archive
of historic charts. These charts are
particularly useful as they may show wrecks which have been subsequently buried
or broken up. They also show the original shore lines prior to any reclamation.
Copies of the relevant charts are included as follows: 1764 (Figure
9.14), 1841 (Figure
9.15), 1864 (Figure
9.16) and 1888 (Figure
9.17).
Detailed records relating to previous dredging in the Study Area were
provided by Port Works Department. A
summary is presented in Section 9.4
below.
9.1.7
Geophysical
Survey
The detailed results of the geophysical survey are presented
in Appendices 9.4,
9.5 and 9.6
and a summary is presented below.
9.1.7.1
Bathymetry
The seabed in the areas surveyed is generally flat with
depths varying from -14mCD (close to the shore) to -18mCD. As shown on the Appendix
9-6 Chart Figures 7.1 – 7.6 the survey areas were predominately covered
with soft and fine sediments. Deep depressions, most likely related to previous
dredging activity, are apparent on the northern portion of survey Area B. Over
area A and in the northern part of area B, the seabed appeared to be highly
irregular and disturbed. Scattered debris and seabed scars were commonly found
from the side scan data. It is likely that these features are related to
earlier dredging and dumping activities. Some rock
outcrops/boulders/construction related materials were recorded at the northern
end of area A. Rubble mounds and materials related to the existing Tsing Yi and
Kwai Chung submarine outfalls are apparent along their alignment.
9.1.7.2
Side Scan Sonar Data
A total of 74 sonar contacts were identified from the side
scan sonar data. Their location can be
seen in Appendix
9-6 Chart Figures 7.1 to 7.6.
Analysis of the data enabled 54 of the sonar contacts to be disregarded
as having archaeological potential. This
was due to their identification as objects such as mooring buoys, concrete
slabs and other modern debris. Figure
9.18 shows clearly an example of this kind of debris where a concrete
block and rubble fill associated with the outfalls are clearly visible. The
distribution of the sonar contacts as shown on Appendix
9-6 Chart Figures 7.1 to 7.6 clearly indicates their association with
the existing utilities.
Table
9.2 below contains the details of the remaining 20 sonar contacts.
These are unidentified objects that cannot be explained either through their
location or appearance. The location of these unidentified sonar contacts are
shown in Figure
9.19. Modern debris and dumped material usually has a very distinctive
appearance which facilitates its classification.
Table 9.2: Locations of Unidentified Sonar Contacts
|
Contact number |
Easting |
Northing |
Dimensions (m) |
Description |
|
SC002 |
829851.7824 |
822891.2648 |
3.6x3x1.2 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC007 |
830246.6592 |
822885.7087 |
2.1x2.7x0.7 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC008 |
829978.5186 |
822352.2194 |
2.6x2.2x0.8 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC009 |
830031.0358 |
822409.1255 |
1.5x1.7x0.5 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC010 |
830168.6223 |
822435.5497 |
2.1x0.7x1.1 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC016 |
830104.2261 |
822267.2808 |
2.5x2.2x0.6 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC018 |
830151.7932 |
822209.8664 |
1.6x0.9x0.4 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC020 |
830266.3448 |
822145.6995 |
2.2x1.9x0.6 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC021 |
830662.3767 |
822057.4482 |
1.9x2x0.6 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC022 |
830391.3804 |
821785.5769 |
1.1x1.2x0.4 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC024 |
830734.2832 |
821617.7639 |
3x3x0.8 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC027 |
830677.7176 |
820957.9651 |
2.3x1x0.7 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC029 |
830750.9245 |
820951.9157 |
1.8x0.8x0.5 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC030 |
830086.7864 |
820754.0668 |
2.1x1.8x0.8 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC046 |
828833.3707 |
820257.8647 |
2.8x2.8x0.4 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC047 |
829095.4212 |
820247.5591 |
7.1x0.6x0.8 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC049 |
829242.3622 |
819987.2695 |
2.3x2.1xnmh |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC058 |
828551.9395 |
819949.3631 |
2x1.7x0.5 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC059 |
828741.8895 |
819900.4086 |
2.2x2.9x0.6 |
Unidentified Object |
|
SC068 |
828412.51 |
819412.0553 |
2.3x2.5x0.4 |
Unidentified Object |
The data showing each
of the above sonar contacts is presented in Appendix
9.5.
9.1.7.3
Seismic
Profiler
The seismic profiler data established the seabed stratigraphy
across the Study Area. Appendix
9-6 Chart Figures 3.1 to 3.6 illustrate the general levels at the base
of the Marine Deposits. Incised channels formed on the surface of alluvium are
apparent in survey area A.
Isopachs of marine deposits are presented on Appendix
9-6 Chart Figures 6.1 to 6.6. For area A, the thickness of marine
deposits is very thin in the north where the bedrock level is shallow. The
layer gets thicker approaching to the South of Tsing Yi with maximum thickness
of almost
For area B, the Marine Deposit layer is also thin in the
north and gets thicker to the south (up to
A total of 36 seismic contacts was identified in the seismic profiler data.
Table 9.3: Seismic Data contacts
|
Contact number |
Easting |
Northing |
Approx. Depth below seabed (m) |
Description |
|
SEI01 |
E 829768.1751 |
N 822928.3076 |
0 (exposed) |
Tsing Yi submarine outfall |
|
SEI02 |
E 829788.8834 |
N 822937.0964 |
0 (exposed) |
Tsing Yi submarine outfall |
|
SEI03 |
E 829801.9114 |
N 822941.5408 |
0 (exposed) |
Tsing Yi submarine outfall |
|
SEI04 |
E 829817.8960 |
N 822945.4079 |
0 (exposed) |
Tsing Yi submarine outfall |
|
SEI05 |
E 829862.5199 |
N 822959.7914 |
0 (exposed) |
Tsing Yi submarine outfall |
|
SEI06 |
E 829897.8212 |
N 822988.7109 |
0 (exposed) |
Kwai Chung submarine outfall |
|
SEI07 |
E 829903.6369 |
N 822827.4860 |
1.2 |
Material related to submarine outfall |
|
SEI08 |
E 829902.6060 |
N 822815.9125 |
1.2 |
Kwai Chung submarine outfall |
|
SEI09 |
E 829907.6319 |
N 822718.1562 |
1 |
Kwai Chung submarine outfall |
|
SEI10 |
E 829915.0827 |
N 822649.7007 |
1.2 |
Material related to submarine outfall |
|
SEI11 |
E 828636.4015 |
N 814526.9950 |
4 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI12 |
E 828682.5900 |
N 814529.4600 |
3 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI13 |
E 828717.7800 |
N 814535.1950 |
3.5 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI14 |
E 828760.5700 |
N 814538.7600 |
3.2 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI15 |
E 828771.7166 |
N 814538.6048 |
2.3 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI16 |
E 828796.2597 |
N 814544.4969 |
2 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI17 |
E 828818.2250 |
N 814543.5636 |
2.5 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI18 |
E 828841.4496 |
N 814548.0828 |
3.5 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI19 |
E 828876.1209 |
N 814549.5770 |
3 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI20 |
E 828875.4244 |
N 814575.0530 |
2.8 |
Unknown |
|
SEI21 |
E 828904.0650 |
N 814548.4250 |
3 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI22 |
E 828922.7542 |
N 814550.6592 |
2.6 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI23 |
E 828957.2550 |
N 814552.9500 |
1.8 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI24 |
E 828988.8695 |
N 814555.5908 |
2.1 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI25 |
E 828999.4998 |
N 814604.3532 |
3.2 |
Unknown |
|
SEI26 |
E 829001.8531 |
N 814559.7791 |
1.8 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI27 |
E 829035.7700 |
N 814556.1000 |
2.1 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI28 |
E 829081.7400 |
N 814563.4700 |
4 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI29 |
E 829116.0650 |
N 814562.7750 |
2.1 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI30 |
E 829160.7686 |
N 814569.0724 |
1.8 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI31 |
E 829194.4243 |
N 814571.9948 |
1.8 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI32 |
E 829241.5764 |
N 814566.4102 |
2.1 |
Pipeline WSD |
|
SEI33 |
E 828887.3894 |
N 814401.6587 |
1.2 |
Cable HKT |
|
SEI34 |
E 829044.6083 |
N 814407.6747 |
1.5 |
Cable HKT |
|
SEI35 |
E 829051.8019 |
N 814407.0839 |
1.3 |
Cable HKT |
|
SEI36 |
E 829250.1938 |
N 814411.8536 |
2 |
Cable HKT |
Whenever there is a large contrast of acoustic impedances
between pipeline/cable and its surrounding materials, an outstanding hyperbola
is formed at the position of the utilities. This can be seen clearly in Figures
9.20 and 9.21.
This phenomenon enabled classification
of 34 of the contacts as directly associated with the modern utilities. It was not possible to classify two in this
way. However SE120 is at 2.8m and SE125 is at 3.5m beneath the seabed so
neither will be impacted by the dredging.
Seismic data is not
available for 100% of the Study Area. This is due to masking and the extent is
shown on Appendix
9-6 Chart Figures 6.1 – 6.3. It only occurs in Study Area A. It is therefore possible that buried
objects could be present which were not detected during the survey.
The
dredging will not disturb any sediments lower than the Marine Deposit so only
the drawings showing this and no deeper are included in Appendix
9-6.
Historical evidence
indicates that the waters within the Study Area have been the focus of intense
maritime activity. The main shipping route to
However, the land and
islands adjacent to the Study Area have been the focus of some of the most
intensive development in
The most significant
impact on the seabed across the Study Area is the extent of previous
dredging. This started in 1990 with
maintenance dredging. The location and depth of the maintenance dredging is
shown in Figure
9.22. When construction of
Container Terminal 9 commenced in 1998, a further 24 million m3 of sediment was
removed. After construction of Container
Terminal 9 a lesser amount of dredging was required due to faster water flow
within the basin area as shown in Figure
9.23. A summary of all dredging
and the location of the twenty sonar contacts is shown in Figure
9.24. It can be seen that all of
the Study Area has been impacted by previous dredging. Dredging has taken place
at the location of each of the 20 unidentified sonar contacts. The dredging
would have had a negative impact on the seabed and would have served to destroy
or redistribute archaeological remains, if present. The result of the previous dredging is that
the seabed has very low archaeological potential. It is very likely that the 20
sonar contacts arrived on the seabed after the previous dredging and are
therefore probably of modern origin.
Existing utilities in
the form of 2 submarine outfalls, 1 pipeline and 2 cables exist within the survey
areas A2 and B2. Their locations can be seen on Appendix
9-6 Chart Figures 7.1 to 7.6. It is assumed that at each of
these locations any archaeological material, if present, would have been
destroyed during construction and installation. Figure
9.18 shows the seabed disturbance associated with the Tsing Yi
Submarine Sewage Outfall and the
Kwai Chung Submarine Sewage Outfall.
None of the
unidentified sonar contacts are within area B which therefore has no
archaeological potential and no further action is required in this area.
Area A has low
archaeological potential but there are 20 unidentified sonar contacts. The archaeological potential of the sonar
contacts is very low due to the extent of previous dredging across the whole
area.
It is recommended
that a monitoring brief shall be
conducted during the dredging. It shall
only be required during dredging at the locations of the 20 unidentified sonar
contacts and masked areas and does not need to cover all of the dredging
activities. Dredging staff should be briefed about the possibility of locating
archaeological objects and a marine archaeologist shall
be available to monitor the dredged spoil and provide advice. If material indicative of archaeological
remains is retrieved, the AMO should be contacted as soon as possible.
Bard, S. 1988. In Search of the
Past: A Guide to the Antiquities of
Galbraith, R.
1988. Destiny’s Daughter. The Tragedy of RMS Queen Elizabeth. Mainstream Publishing.
Hayes, J.W. 1983. The Rural Communities of
Hayes. J.W. 1993. Tsuen Wan. Growth of a ‘New Town’ and Its
People.
Johnson, E. 2000.
Recording a Rich Heritage: Research on
Hong Kong’s “
Leisure and Cultural
Services Department,
Meacham, W. 2009. The Archaeology of
Peacock, B.A.V. & Nixon, T.J.P. 1988.The
Sayer, G. R. 1980. Hong Kong 1841-1862. Birth, Adolescence and Coming
of Age. University
Press,
Endacott, G. B.1964. Government
and People in
Schofield, W. 1977.
Memories of District Office South, New Territories of
Wordie, J. 2007. Streets. Exploring