¡ Construction of new runway approach lights and the proposed new Hong Kong International Airport Approach Area (HKIAAA) beacons for the new ‘third’ runway;

¡ Diversion of the 11 kV submarine cable from the west side of the existing airport island near South Perimeter Road to the navigable waters at north of existing airport island, 500 m away from Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park southern boundary where the proposed cable will be connected to the existing cable via a field joint; and

¡ Marine site investigation (SI) works within the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park for diversion of the submarine fuel pipelines.

Land-Based Activities

16.1.2.4 The land-based activities that may affect potential terrestrial archaeological resources and built heritage include:

¡ The daylighting point of the submarine fuel pipeline from airport island to the aviation fuel receiving facilities on Sha Chau using horizontal directional drilling method;

¡ Provision of temporary power supply to Sha Chau islands during the submarine 11 kV cable diversion; and

¡ Various modification and improvement works to existing infrastructure on airport island.

16.1.2.5 Other activities associated with the project that are not covered in the above are not anticipated to affect cultural heritage resources.

16.2 Cultural Heritage Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

16.2.1 General

16.2.1.1 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines relevant to the consideration of terrestrial and underwater cultural heritage impacts under this study include the following:

¡ Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance;

¡ Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance;

¡ Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines;

¡ Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process;

¡ Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation;

¡ Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment; and

¡ Development Bureau Technical Circular (Works) No. 06/2009: Heritage Impact Assessment Mechanism for Capital Works Projects.

16.2.2 Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance

16.2.2.1 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 January 1st 1976. The Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance provides statutory protection against the threat of development on Declared Monuments, historical buildings and sites of archaeological interest to enable their preservation for posterity.

16.2.2.2 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 Hong Kong. A summary of the key aspects of the legislation relevant to the current study is presented below:

16.2.2.3 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 paleontological significance.

16.2.2.4 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 Hong Kong after the commencement of this Ordinance shall vest in the Government from the moment of discovery.

16.2.2.5 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.

16.2.2.6 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.

16.2.2.7 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. Sites of Archaeological Interest 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;

Recorded Sites of Archaeological Interest – 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. 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.

16.2.3 The Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance

16.2.3.1 Since the introduction of the 1998 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance (Cap. 499, S16), the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) have 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 EIA process and the Environmental Permit (EP) system. The EIA Ordinance stipulates that consideration must be given to issues associated with sites of cultural heritage as part of the EIA process. Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIA Technical Memorandum (EIAO-TM) outline the criteria for evaluating the impacts on sites of cultural heritage and guidelines for impact assessment, respectively.

16.2.3.2 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.

16.2.4 Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines

16.2.4.1 Chapter 10 of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) details the planning principles for the conservation of natural landscape and habitats, historical buildings and archaeological sites. The document states that the retention of significant heritage features should be adopted through the creation of conservation zones within which uses should be restricted to ensure the sustainability of the heritage features. The guidelines state that the concept of conservation of heritage features, should not be restricted to individual structures, but should endeavour to embrace the setting of the feature or features in both urban and rural settings.

16.2.4.2 The guidelines also address the issue of the preparation of plans for the conservation of historical buildings, archaeological sites and other antiquities. It is noted that the existing Declared Monuments and Proposed Monuments and archaeological sites are listed in the explanatory notes of Statutory Town Plans and it is stated that prior consultation with the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) is necessary for any development, redevelopment and rezoning proposals affecting the Monuments and archaeological sites and their surrounding environments.

16.2.4.3 It is also noted that planning intention for non-statutory town plans at the sub-regional level should include the protection of monuments, historical buildings, archaeological sites and other antiquities through the identification of such features on sub-regional layout plans. The appendices list the legislation and administrative controls for conservation, other conservation related measures in Hong Kong, and Government departments involved in conservation.

16.2.5 Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process

16.2.5.1 The general criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing impacts to Sites of Cultural Heritage are listed in Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM. 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.

16.2.6 Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation

16.2.6.1 The AMO have issued Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation 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. This guideline is included in Appendix I-1 of the Study Brief for this project (ESB-250/2012).

16.2.7 Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment

16.2.7.1 This document, as issued by the AMO, outlines the specific technical requirement for conducting terrestrial archaeological and built heritage impact assessments and is based upon the requirements of the EIAO-TM. It includes the parameters and scope for the baseline study, specifically desk-based research and field evaluation, and impact assessment.

16.2.8 Development Bureau Technical Circular (Works) No. 06/2009: Heritage Impact Assessment Mechanism for Capital Works Projects

16.2.8.1 The Technical Circular provides the guidelines and procedures for assessing heritage impacts arising from the implementation of capital works projects. It is the responsibility of the works agent to confirm with the AMO whether there are any “Heritage Sites” within or in the vicinity of the project boundary. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) would be required if the AMO decides that the heritage value of any “heritage site” in the vicinity of the project would be affected. The works agent must then submit a Study Brief and agree with the AMO on the scope of the HIA. Once the HIA report has been completed it must be submitted to the AMO for approval.

16.2.8.2 The guidelines also state that it is essential that every effort be made to minimise adverse impacts on heritage sites. For projects where the public interest is at stake and where adverse impacts cannot be entirely mitigated against, the project proponent and works agent should engage stakeholders and consult them on the proposed works at the earliest opportunity. It is the responsibility of the works agent to prepare options for project design, corresponding cost and other implications for the public to consider. The public engagement strategy should also be tailored to meet the specific needs of each individual project. Finally, during the construction phase it is the responsibility of the works agent to ensure that the works and mitigation for heritage conservation are being carried out as stipulated in the HIA Report and approved by the AMO.

16.3 Assessment Methodology

16.3.1 Study Area

16.3.1.1 The MAI study area for the project covers the seabed areas that will be impacted during the construction and operation phases. This includes the proposed airport expansion footprint, the tentative alignment of the submarine 11 kV cable as well as the proposed new HKIAAA beacons to the north of the proposed airport expansion area. The MAI study area is shown in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/16-001. The alignment of the two submarine fuel pipelines to Sha Chau Island and the associated marine SI works within Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park are not covered in the MAI study area as marine SI works typically do not require MAI (given that they affect a very small area of seabed only), while the pipelines will be constructed using the HDD method, which involves drilling through the sub-sea bedrock before surfacing on the small island north of Sha Chau Island (known as Sheung Sha Chau Island). With this construction method, there will be no direct disturbance to Sha Chau Island. Potential indirect disturbance due to vibration would be expected to be insignificant given that the two drillholes will only be less than 1 m in diameter each and the drilling depth will be largely about 50 m below the seabed. Therefore, marine archaeological investigation is not required for the submarine fuel pipelines and the associated marine SI works.

16.3.1.2 The TCH study area for the project covers a radius of 500 m from the boundary of all land-based areas that will be impacted during the construction and operation phases. This includes the daylighting point of the submarine fuel pipelines on Sheung Sha Chau Island where the AFRF is located and the existing airport island.

16.3.1.3 The cultural heritage impact assessment has been divided into the identification of marine and terrestrial cultural heritage impacts. The methodology for each of these tasks is outlined below and in the subsequent sections:

16.3.2 Marine Archaeology

16.3.2.1 As specified in Appendix I of the EIA Study Brief, the requirements for MAI follow the Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation issued by the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO). The guidelines specify the following tasks:

1. Baseline Review;

2. Geophysical Survey;

3. Establishing Archaeological Potential; and

4. Underwater Inspection (Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) / Visual Diver Survey / Watching Brief).

16.3.2.2 The aim of the MAI is to locate, identify and assess the significance of any underwater archaeological resources that may be impacted by the proposed land formation and associated engineering works. A qualified marine archaeologist was engaged to conduct the MAI. Details of the specific tasks for the MAI of this project are provided as follows.

Baseline Review

16.3.2.3 The baseline review covers the known sources of archive data as described in Clause I. (1) 1.2 of Appendix I-1 of the EIA Study Brief. In particular, the research is to establish if there are any records of shipwrecks occurring within the proposed MAI study area and its immediate vicinity, as evidence of shipwrecks will increase the likelihood of marine archaeological remains being present. The research included Hong Kong archives, reports held by the AMO, examination of old navigation charts, archaeological, historical and geological publications.

Geophysical Survey

16.3.2.4 A geophysical survey is the most effective method to assess the seabed and subsurface for archaeological material. Geophysical surveys typically involve side scan sonar, seismic profiler (boomer), multi-beam swath, echo sounder, and global positioning systems.

Side Scan Sonar

16.3.2.5 The side scan sonar is used to map objects on the seabed and scars or unusual seabed features (anomalies) which may be indicative of buried archaeological material. Under optimum survey conditions, it is possible to image objects with lateral dimensions of a few centimetres. With careful planning of the survey it is possible to achieve 200 % coverage of the seabed by overlapping the records from adjacent ship-tracks.

16.3.2.6 The side scan range was set at 50 m (total 100 m wide scanned image) during the survey and the survey traverses was run at 40 m line intervals to ensure more than 200 % coverage. Anomalies of apparent archaeological potential would be ‘boxed’ by at least two and preferably four lines along and across the principal axis of the anomaly. These lines were offset so that the anomaly does not lie immediately beneath the fish of the sonar, and were run at optimal frequency and range settings for imaging the anomaly.

Seismic Profiler

16.3.2.7 This system provides information about the structure of the seabed sediments to depths of several tens of metres or more. This enables investigation of buried features and establishment of the sub-marine stratigraphy. The data collected also facilitates assessment of the preservation potential of the sediments.

16.3.2.8 The boomer is capable of resolving all significant changes in impedance generating reflectors to within 0.5–1.0 m, to a depth of 15 m below the seabed. Sub-bottom survey was carried out using a source capable of resolving internal structures to the full depth of anticipated scheme impacts within Quaternary deposits. Line and cross-line spacing and orientations were sufficient to resolve the extent and characteristics of the principal Quaternary deposits. A single beam echo sounder was run in conjunction with the sub-bottom survey; the first reflector (seabed) was levelled with reference to a tide gauge.

Multi Beam Swath Survey

16.3.2.9 Multi beam survey is carried out using a system capable of achieving an effective cell / bin size better than 1 m. Use of a beam-forming system was adopted where possible. Where an anomaly of apparent archaeological potential is identified, an additional single slow pass was carried out at the highest possible ping rate. Single beam and multi beam data was made available as cleaned, de-spiked and tidally-corrected text (x,y,z) files for each line, in addition to any gridded / rendered surfaces.

Echo Sounder

16.3.2.10 The echo sounder is a core element in any hydrographic survey, its function being to provide a high-resolution trace of the seabed with accurate depth measurements. This data is essential for planning any subsequent diving survey.

Horizontal Location Control

16.3.2.11 Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) was deployed to ensure accurate location of targets. Each update (<2 seconds) of the positioning data together with the sounding data was logged by computer during the survey. Fix numbers with positioning was recorded separately at intervals of 5-10 seconds and was printed onto the seismic and side scan sonar records.

16.3.2.12 The results of the geophysical survey are presented as a Seabed Features chart at 1:1,000 scale giving seabed types and any anomalous features. A list of the co-ordinates of all anomalous features is provided in WGS 84 Latitude and Longitude co-ordinates and Hong Kong metric grid.

Establishing Archaeological Potential

16.3.2.13 Upon completion of the geophysical survey, the geophysical data sets were reviewed and analysed in detail and integrated with the results of the baseline review to identify and map features and anomalies with archaeological potential. Areas identified with archaeological potential would be subject to further investigation via underwater inspection.

Underwater Inspection

16.3.2.14 Where anomalies are identified in the geophysical survey data, visual inspection and assessment is conducted. This may involve visual diver survey or use of remote operated vehicle (ROV). The marine archaeologist shall apply for a Licence to Excavate and Search for Antiquities under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance before conducting the diving inspection. The methodology for the diver survey shall be agreed with AMO.

16.3.3 Terrestrial Cultural Heritage

16.3.3.1 For terrestrial cultural heritage, a literature review and desktop study were undertaken to identify any baseline terrestrial cultural heritage resources within the project area. Information reviewed included published papers, reports, and historical documents from the Antiquities and Monuments Office, public libraries and tertiary institutions. If the available information is inadequate for identifying and assessing the cultural heritage resources that may be impacted by the proposed project, field surveys would be conducted to supplement the data.

16.3.4 Impact Assessment and Mitigation Measures

16.3.4.1 Based on the findings of the MAI survey and the TCH review, the nature of the potential impact to identified cultural heritage resources has been assessed. Where applicable, preservation in totality has been taken as first priority. Where adverse impact to archaeological or built heritage resources cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation measures have been recommended.

16.4 Baseline Review

16.4.1 Information Sources

16.4.1.1 The baseline review included a study of information from the following sources:

¡ Past projects in the vicinity including approved EIAs from the Environmental Protection Department’s EIAO Registrar;

¡ Archive information from the UK Hydrographic Office (formerly the Royal Naval Hydrographic Department);

¡ Information from the Marine Department, Hydrographic Office;

¡ Relevant publications from the Geotechnical Engineering Office;

¡ Marine chart records held in the British Library and the National Maritime Museum Library in London;

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

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

16.4.1.2 The findings of the marine archaeological review, terrestrial archaeological review and built heritage review are described below.

16.4.2 Marine Archaeological Review

16.4.2.1 The North Lantau area covers one of the most historically significant (strategic) waterways in Hong Kong as it was the main route for ships travelling to the Pearl River Estuary and on to Canton. Both Tuen Mun and Tung Chung have exceptionally rich and well documented maritime histories including sea battles and intense pirate activities. The fort and battery are still in situ at Tung Chung. Therefore, in addition to the study of Chek Lap Kok, historical information about Tung Chung is included. The study area for the baseline review therefore covers a broader area than the study area to provide a comprehensive context.

Historical Background of Chek Lap Kok

16.4.2.2 The island of Chek Lap Kok first appears in late Ming historical documents under the name ‘Chek Lap Chau’. The name apparently derives from a fish formerly called ‘chek lap’ (now known as ‘lap yue’) that was abundant in the waters around the island. The first reference to the island in western sources is a brief mention (referred to as the island of ‘Shatlapko’) in a British naval reconnaissance report by Lt. H.W. Parrish in 1794. There is no mention of any inhabitants of the island or the type of land use (Schofield, 1983).

16.4.2.3 Meacham (1994) noted that “The history of Chek Lap Kok spans the entire period of human occupation in the Hong Kong area, from the earliest inhabitants of the painted pottery period around 4000 BC to the recent period.” As part of the rescue archaeological project carried out on Chek Lap Kok before the construction of the international airport, archaeological work was carried out on several sites on Chek Lap Kok, including a 8th-10th century site encompassing kilns and coins; burial sites of the Northern Sung period; a site containing pottery from the Middle and Late Neolithic period (4000-1500 BC); burial/ritual sites dated 3700-3400 BC; a number of Tang lime kilns (dated 750 and 1200 AD); and a site containing hard and soft geometric pattern pottery, axe moulds and cloth from the Bronze age.

16.4.2.4 The first detailed evidence of human occupation on the island from written sources is the land use survey carried out in 1904-5 by British Army Indian surveyors, as part of the general registration of land ownership in the New Territories. This record reveals an elaborate and complicated web of ownership and land use (Empsom, 1992).

16.4.2.5 In 1809, the nearby Tung Chung Bay area became a battlefield for pirates and the Qing navy. The book ‘History of the Pirates who infested the China Seas from 1807 to 1810’ (Neumann,1831) gives a very detailed record of that incident:

“ … In consequence of this determination all commanders and officers of the different vessels were ordered to meet on the seventeenth at Chek Lap Kok, to blockade the pirates in Ta Yu Shan, and to cut off all supplies of provisions that might be sent to them. To annoy them yet more, the officers were ordered to prepare the materials for the fire-vessels. These fire-vessels were filled with gunpowder, nitrate and other combustibles; after being filled, they were set on fire by a match from the stern, and were instantly all in a blaze. The Major of Heang Shan, Pang Noo, asked permission to bring soldiers with him, in order that they might go ashore and make an attack under the sound of martial music, during the time the mariners made their preparation. On the twentieth it began to blow very fresh from the north, and the commander ordered twenty fire-vessels to be sent off, when they took driven by the wind, an easterly direction; but the pirates’ entrenchments being protected by a mountain, the wind ceased, and they could not move father on in that direction; they turned about and set on fire two men of war. The pirates know our design were well prepared for it; they had bars with very long pincers, by which they took hold of the fire-vessels and kept them off, they that they could not come near. Our commander, however, would not leave the place; and being very eager to fight, he ordered that an attack should be made, and it is presumed that about three hundred pirates were killed. Pao (i.e. Cheung Pao Tsai) now began to be afraid, and asked the Spirit of the Three Po, or old Mothers to give a prognostic. The Puh, or lot for fighting was disastrous; the Puh, or lot to remain in the easterly entrenchment, was to be happy. The Puh, or lot for knowing if he might force the blockade or not on leaving his station tomorrow, was also happy, three times one after another.

There arose with the daylight on the twenty-second a light southerly breeze; all the squadrons began to move, and the pirates prepared themselves to joyfully leave their station. About noon, there was a strong southerly wind, and a very rough sea on. As soon as it became dark the pirates made sail, with a good deal of noise, and broke through the blockade, favoured by the southerly wind. About a hundred vessels were upset, when the pirates left Ta Yu Shan. But our commander being unaware that the pirates would leave their entrenchments, was not prepared to withstand them. The foreign vessels fired their guns and surrounded about ten leaky vessels, but could not hurt the pirates themselves; the pirates left the leaky vessels behind and ran away”

16.4.2.6 Whatever the truth of the details of the battle, there is no question that at the end of the nine day battle the pirates were not defeated. However Cheung Po Tsai eventually surrendered in 1810 to the Viceroy Bailing of the Qing government. At the time of surrender he had over 270 junks, 16,000 men, 5,000 women, 7,000 swords and 1,200 guns (Cortesão, A. 1944.). These figures clearly indicate the scale of the pirate activities in the region (Murray, 1987).

16.4.2.7 A remarkable 18 m long Qing Dynasty scroll painted on silk depicts the actions of the Viceroy Bailing (c.1748-1816) from his assumption to office in 1809 to the successful solution to the piracy problem in the summer of 1810. It is divided into 20 ‘episodes’ and includes the pirate battle at Tung Chung (see Figure 16.1). The scroll is on display at the new maritime museum at Pier 4, Central.

Figure 16.1: Section of the Qing scroll showing naval forces (HK Maritime Museum, 2006)

SCROLL

16.4.2.8 With the surrender of the pirates in 1810, the inhabitants of Chek Lap Kok were able to live in peace and continue their intensive farming and quarrying. The large amount of granite produced on the island favoured the development of granite quarrying. The products were used to build roads and houses in the developing city of Hong Kong.

16.4.2.9 Some fishermen made use of the coastal area for repairing their boats and for drying their fishing nets. Thus on the north coast of the island there was a Tin Hau temple built in 1823. The temple was built of granite with money donated by some quarry companies.

16.4.2.10 After World War II, the quarrying activity declined and many people moved to the city for better employment. By the 1950s, only about 200 people lived on the island.

The Tung Chung Walled City (東涌所城), also known as Tung Chung Fort (東涌炮台)

16.4.2.11 The disruption and danger posed by the pirates led to the building of the Tung Chung walled city, also known as the Tung Chung Fort (Lui, 1990). It was built on a piece of land between Sheung Ling Pei and Ha Ling Pei villages in the Tung Chung Valley. It was built in 1832 by Ho Chun Lung a captain from the Chin Shan Battalion of the Heung Shan Brigade.

16.4.2.12 The walled city backs up against the Tai Tung mountain. Its four rubble filled walls enclose an area of 225 ft by 265 ft and the more formidable front wall runs to about 15 ft thick. Along the main wall can be seen six old muzzle loading cannons each fixed to a cement base. There are two on the western side and four on the eastern side (see Figure 16.2 and Figure 16.3). They bear inscriptions but only four out of the six are still legible. They detail the casting of each cannon: for example the inscription on the second one from the east states that it was cast in the 8th moon of the 14th year of the Jiaqing reign (1809), serial number Qing 80, weighing 1,000 catties and was cast by the master of the Man Shing Furnace.

16.4.2.13 At this time the pirate Cheung Po Tsai had a very strong influence on Lantau Island. The governor-general of Kwangtung and Kwangsi, Viceroy Bailing, was responsible for suppressing Cheung and his colleagues. He organised the casting of cannons and had them mounted throughout the coastal regions so that the area become more strongly fortified against Cheung’s attacks. All the cannons that he cast bore serial numbers.

16.4.2.14 On the eastern side of the main gate one of the cannons was cast in the 1st moon of the 10th year of the Jiaqing reign (1805) and weighs 1,200 catties. It is highly likely that this cannon was also used for the defence of the region against piracy. The cannon lying next to the one above has been severely weathered and its inscription is illegible. Two further cannons are dated to 1841 and were probably used for defence against the British and the opium traders (Siu, 1982).

Figure 16.2: Cannons on the main wall of the Tung Chung walled city (photograph S. Heaver)

tungchungcannonssmall

Figure 16.3: Cannon from the walled city (photograph S. Heaver)

cannonatwalled-city

16.4.2.15 It is clear from the differing casting dates that the cannon were cast elsewhere and transported. Although they have been cast over a period of four decades they all shared the same purpose of defending the region against pirates and foreign invaders.

16.4.2.16 The Tung Chung Fort is a declared monument protected by the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap.53).

Shek She Fort (石獅山炮台), also known as Tung Chung Battery (東涌小炮台)

16.4.2.17 Further evidence for the severity of the pirate threat is demonstrated by the presence of Shek She Fort (see Figure 16.4), also known as Tung Chung Battery (Siu, 1979). Tung Chung is in a valley surrounded by hills on three sides and faces the sea to the north. The valley is well drained by streams and provides fertile land for farming. As the entrance to Tung Chung a low lying hill known as the Shek She Shan (the rocky lion mountain) is situated. The Shek She Fort is found on the mountain’s north slope.

16.4.2.18 The fort was built in 1817 in order to strengthen defences on the northern coast of Lantau Island and to guard the Tuen Mun waterway. It had two cannon places, seven guard houses and an ammunition store. To its south at the entrance to Tung Chung was the Tung Chung Hau Shuen (with eight guard houses) built in the same year. It is strategically placed to have the optimum view across Tung Chung Bay to locate any water based attackers. The fort and the guard houses together had a garrison of 30 soldiers under the command of a patsung sent from the Tai Pang Battalion (Siu, 1978).

16.4.2.19 There is little documented evidence about the fort after 1877 and its existence seemingly was forgotten. In 1980 rubble walls were found on a knoll near the Tung Chung ferry pier 1 km north of the Fort. They are completely ruined but likely to form one to the two cannon places of the Shek She Fort. The Tung Chung Battery is a declared monument protected by the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap.53).

Figure 16.4: Shek She Fort (photograph S. Heaver)

fort

Maritime Archives

16.4.2.20 The UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) holds a database of surveyed shipwrecks in Hong Kong, including those not shown on Admiralty Charts. The database contained no records of shipwrecks within or close to the study area.

16.4.2.21 Historic charts of the study area include French Admiralty 1856 (Figure 16.5), 1878 (Figure 16.6), and British Admiralty Chart 1899 (Figure 16.7).

Figure 16.5: 1856 French Chart Canal Nord du Lantau (National Maritime Museum London)

Figure 16.6: British Admiralty Chart 1878 (Original kept at United Kingdom Hydrographic Office)

1888

Figure 16.7: British Admiralty Chart 1889 (Original kept at United Kingdom Hydrographic Office)

1853ch

Marine Archaeological Artefacts

16.4.2.22 During the dredging of the seabed between Chek Lap Kok and Tung Chung for the new airport in 1993, part of a cannon and a cannon ball were discovered and reported to the Provisional Airport Authority (see Figure 16.8). An inscription on the cannon reveals that it was manufactured around 1808 in China (Meacham, 1994). There is no way of knowing its exact origin but it is the only evidence that has been found for the 1809 battle between the Qing Navy and the Pirates. The cannon was located buried within the marine mud and assumed to be originated from a ship but it is also possible that it was a land cannon that accidentally became submerged.

Figure 16.8: Cannon dredged from the seabed during the airport construction (Meacham, 1994)

tungchungcannin

16.4.2.23 A geophysical survey was conducted as part of the MAI for the New Contaminated Mud Marine Disposal Facility at Airport East / East Sha Chau Area project (AEIAR-089/2005), which partially overlaps the MAI study area for this project; however, no evidence for marine archaeological resources was identified. The MAI study area for other projects in the vicinity was also reviewed, but none of these overlap with the MAI study area for this project.

16.4.3 Terrestrial Archaeological Review

16.4.3.1 Terrestrial archaeology within the TCH study area is well documented due to the large number of past and current development projects in the area, which includes the studies completed as part of the construction of the original HKIA and more recent studies that were completed as part of the Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge – Hong Kong Link Road project. Information from these studies and other literature sources as well as the latest information from the AMO has been reviewed.

16.4.3.2 The AMO maintains an up-to-date list of all designated sites of archaeological interest in Hong Kong. A review of the AMO’s List of Sites of Archaeological Interest in Hong Kong (last updated in November 2012) has identified six sites of archaeological interest which wholly or partially lies within the 500 m study area boundary. Of these six sites, there are two sites that are located within the project boundary. The Ha Law Wan site of archaeological interest is located within the project boundary on the southern part of Chek Lap Kok Island on Scenic Hill. The Sha Chau site of archaeological interest lies directly above the drilling activities for the submarine aviation fuel pipelines from the airport island to the AFRF north of Sha Chau Island, and is the site where the temporary power supply to Sha Chau will be provided. The remaining four sites of archaeological interest lie partly within the study area, but are outside the project boundary. The locations of all six sites of archaeological interest within the study area are shown in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/16-002. These six sites of archaeological interest are briefly described below.

Ha Law Wan Site of Archaeological Interest

16.4.3.3 The Ha Law Wan site was recorded in an archaeological survey conducted as part of the salvage excavations on Chek Lap Kok in 1990 (prior to construction of the existing airport island), which identified seven sites of archaeological interest in total. Results from this survey found middle Neolithic pottery, Bronze Age burials and Tang period lime kilns; however six of the sites have since been removed following the excavation and recording. The site of archaeological interest still remaining is at Ha Law Wan. The site consists of a complex of Yuan period kilns, which is currently preserved and set aside as a visitor area by the Airport Authority on the northern lower slope of Scenic Hill.

Sha Chau Site of Archaeological Interest

16.4.3.4 The Sha Chau site of archaeological interest, covering the larger Sha Chau Island (but excluding the Sheung Sha Chau Island), was identified with considerable quantity of prehistoric and historical artefacts discovered covering the Neolithic Period and the Bronze Age, as well as the Sui, Tang and Five Dynasties, the Song and Yuan Dynasties, and the Ming and Qing Dynasties. This includes many significant Late Neolithic artefacts and relics.

Fu Tei Wan Kiln Site of Archaeological Interest

16.4.3.5 The Fu Tei Wan Kiln site was originally located on Chek Lap Kok Island but has been removed during construction of the airport. Artefacts associated with the Sui, Tang and Five Dynasties were recorded. Prior to construction of the airport, a lime kiln (dated from Tang dynasty) was relocated to the site of the Tung Chung Battery and is placed in an outdoor display.

San Tau Site of Archaeological Interest

16.4.3.6 This site covers an alluvial plain as well as lower hillside slopes. As part of the Northern Lantau Archaeological Survey in 1991, an abundance of artefacts covering the Neolithic Period, Qin, Han and Six Dynasties, Sui, Tang and Five Dynasties, Song and Yuan Dynasties were uncovered.

Sha Lo Wan Site of Archaeological Interest

16.4.3.7 This site covers a large, formerly estuarine area and slopes including the village of Sha Lo Wan Tsuen. The Northern Lantau Archaeological Survey in 1991 unearthed abundant artefacts including Tang period kiln debris and Song period pottery, as well as other artefacts dated to the Neolithic Period and Bronze Age.

Sha Lo Wan (West) Site of Archaeological Interest

16.4.3.8 This site of archaeological interest was first recorded by Healey and Shellshear in the 1920s and is understood to be formerly a Late Neolithic promontory site with an abundance of artefacts. Several prehistoric pottery shards were collected by the First Territory-wide Survey in 1983. Sub-surface investigation as part of the Northern Lantau Archaeological Survey in 1991 confirmed the archaeological significance of the site. Rescue excavation was conducted in 1993 prior to removal of the headland for airport works. The remaining headland has traces of Tang and Neolithic period artefacts.

16.4.3.9 Aside from the aforementioned sites of archaeological interest, no other sites of archaeological potential are anticipated within the project area, given that the existing airport island is founded on reclaimed land and the remnants of the original Chek Lap Kok Island was extensively surveyed and excavated prior to construction of the airport. Potential impacts on unknown archaeological deposits within the project area are thus considered to be unlikely.

16.4.3.10 At Sheung Sha Chau Island (where the works area for the submarine aviation fuel pipelines are located), the literature review did not identify any record of previous archaeological findings on this island, despite the relatively abundant records of archaeological findings at the nearby Sha Chau Island. Construction activities on this island will comprise drilling of the pipelines through the bedrock, where the pipelines will surface on dry land near the existing AFRF and the fuel pipes will be laid along the existing emergency walkway connecting to the existing fuel pipelines at the AFRF (details shown in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/16-003). Given that the proposed fuel pipelines will be drilled through the granite outcrop and the daylighting point will be above the high tide mark, the archaeological potential of the works area on Sheung Sha Chau is considered to be low, and no further assessment is considered necessary.

16.4.4 Built Heritage Review

16.4.4.1 As with terrestrial archaeology, built heritage within the TCH study area is also well documented due to the large number of past and current development projects in the area. Information on historical buildings and structures documented from past studies as well as the latest information from the AMO has been reviewed.

16.4.4.2 The AMO maintains an up-to-date list of all built heritage in Hong Kong. Based on a review of the AMO’s List of the Historic Buildings in Building Assessment (last updated in 17 December 2012), there are no built heritage features located within the boundary of the project. The locations of built heritage features in the study area are shown in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/16-002 and Table 16.1 below.

Table 16.1: Summary of Built Heritage located within the TCH Study Area

Built Heritage	Distance to Project Boundary	Distance to Nearest Works Area*	Description
Tung Chung Battery (東涌小炮台)	390 m	570 m	Tung Chung Battery is an early 19th century fort located at the foot of the ‘Rocky Lion Hill’ on the eastern side of Tung Chung Bay. It is also known as the Shek She Fort (石獅山炮台). It is a declared monument.
Tin Hau Temple (天后廟)	345 m	545 m	The Tin Hau Temple at Sha Chau (Nil Grade) was first built by fishermen during the Qing dynasty, but was destroyed in a fire in the 1970s. It was rebuilt in 1998.

* This refers to areas within the project boundary where actual construction activities are proposed.

16.4.4.3 Plans (in 1:1000 scale) showing the built heritage are provided in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/16-002a and Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/16-0002b.

16.4.4.4 At Sheung Sha Chau Island, the baseline review did not identify any built heritage features on this island. A site walkover survey was attempted on May 2013 but due to dense vegetation and rugged terrain, many parts of the island was not accessible and no signs of previous or existing paths were found. Within the areas which could be accessed, no built heritage features (structures, graves, cultural landscapes or any other sites of historical significance) were identified on Sheung Sha Chau Island. Based on this initial review, the potential for any built heritage to be located on Sheung Sha Chau Island is considered to be unlikely and no further assessment is considered necessary.

16.5 Evaluation and Assessment of Cultural Heritage Impacts

16.5.1 Marine Archaeological Investigation

16.5.1.1 The findings of the baseline review have identified a need for undertaking further investigation of the marine archaeological potential of the project area. A geophysical survey was conducted to obtain further information.

Geophysical Survey

16.5.1.2 The geophysical survey was completed in December 2012, covering the entire MAI study area as shown in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/16-001. Fugro Geotechnics Ltd was the main investigation contractor and EGS (Asia) Ltd were the sub-contractor for the survey. The equipment mobilised for the geophysical survey is shown in Table 16.2.

Table 16.2: List of Equipment Used

TYPE	MANUFACTURER	PURPOSE
Seismic profiler	Low voltage boomer	To profile the sub-seabed geological succession
Side Scan Sonar	Edgetec in USA	To map seabed features such as shipwrecks, rock outcrops, sediment types and dumped materials.
Dual Frequency Echo Sounder (200kcs and 30kcs)	Knudsen in Canada	To map the water column thickness along the vessel track: these thicknesses are converted into depths below Principal Datum (PD) using corrections from the three recording tide gauges
Swath (multi-beam) echo sounding system	R2Sonic	To map the complete sea bed, along and between survey lines
Tide Gauge	Valeport in the UK	To record the water surface level which is moved up and down by the tide
Marine magnetometer	Seaspy	To record variations in the earth’s magnetic field; the location of metal objects such as cannon can be recorded using this instrument.
Positioning system	C-nav Globally corrected Global Positioning System (GPS)	To position the survey vessel to +/- 0.5 m updated every 0.5 seconds
On board software	EGS navigation software EGS seismic acquisition system EGS magnetometer display system Edgetec side scan operating system

16.5.1.3 The MAI survey area was systematically surveyed along set vessel tracks. The tracks of the survey vessels within the MAI study area are shown on the track plots in Appendix 16.1. Hydrophone track plots within the MAI study area are shown in Appendix 16.2. Seismic, side scan sonar and echo sounding data were collected in digital form.

Geophysical Survey Results

16.5.1.4 The geophysical survey data obtained were processed using C-Nav interpretation and processing software and interpretation of the seismic data which were then digitised and used for plotting and contouring. The results are presented in a series of summary drawings which provided a very accurate three-dimensional representation of the seabed.

Bathymetric Data

16.5.1.5 The water depth across the study area is at its shallowest adjacent to the airport at 2.2 m and the deepest water (excluding the dredged areas for the active CMPs and the existing submarine aviation fuel pipelines) is at the east of the study area which is up to 12 m. The detailed results within the MAI study area are presented in Appendix 16.3. The charts also show the disturbed seabed in the vicinity of the contaminated mud pits (CMPs).

Seismic Data

16.5.1.6 The results of the seismic profiler within the MAI study area are presented in Appendix 16.4, which show the base of the Holocene sediments, also called the Marine Deposits. These sediments are assigned to the Hang Hau Formation. The formation consists of relatively homogenous very soft to soft, greenish grey silty clay (Fyfe et al., 1997) and has high moisture content. Therefore, the Hang Hau Formation sediments potentially provide an excellent substrate for the preservation of archaeological material. Additionally, the soft nature of the sediments would make it possible for archaeological material to be buried within the formation, where it would have greater protection than if it were exposed on the seabed.

16.5.1.7 Across the study area the depth of the Holocene sediments has a minimum of 19 m and maximum of 36 m. There is a buried channel approximately 500 m wide running east-west across the study area.

16.5.1.8 The seismic data were used to establish the full geological succession including the top of rock in any state of decomposition. The marine archaeological assessment is only concerned with the data for the levels of the base of the Holocene as this is the only horizon in which archaeological remains could be located.

16.5.1.9 No seismic data were obtained in the areas of the contaminated mud pits as the sand capping completely blocks the seismic penetration. No seismic contacts were identified in the data.

Side Scan Sonar Data

16.5.1.10 The summary charts of the side scan sonar survey within the MAI study area are presented in Appendix 16.5. The charts show the location of the following features:

¡ Sonar Contacts;

¡ Detailed distribution of surficial sediment types;

¡ Location of dumped material;

¡ Existing airport boundary;

¡ Contaminated mud pits;

¡ The existing fuel pipeline, pipeline trench and power cables;

¡ Previous and proposed boreholes; and

¡ Artificial Features.

16.5.1.11 A total of 41 side scan sonar contacts were located. The marine archaeologist has reviewed the data and 22 contacts were deemed to have archaeological potential (shown in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/16-004). The selection process involved removing sonar contacts that were associated with modern features such as mooring buoys, naturally occurring rocks, and modern debris. The data showing each of the 22 unidentified sonar contacts which were deemed to have archaeological potential are presented in Appendix 16.6. It should be noted that six of these sonar contacts are located near the edge of the CMPs, and while the CMPs are considered to have no archaeological potential, it was considered prudent to obtain further information on these sonar contacts located on the edge of the CMP boundaries before reaching a conclusion on their archaeological potential.

Magnetometer Survey

16.5.1.12 A magnetometer survey was mobilised to obtain additional information about the 22 sonar contacts. Due to permit and site constraints, the survey was completed in three separate phases between the 1 and 14 March 2013.

16.5.1.13 The magnetometer survey was completed by a commercially licensed vessel using the equipment listed in Table 16.3 below:

Table 16.3: Equipment for Magnetometer Survey

EQUIPMENT
C-Nav GcGPS
The EGS computerised navigation package v.1.3 and PC
Knudsen echo sounder
SeaSpy marine magnetometer

16.5.1.14 The survey vessel was located by C-Nav GPS. The system was checked for accuracy by placing the GPS antenna at a control point at which the recorded co-ordinates were compared with the known co-ordinates. In this case, the control point was an EGS control station located in the Tuen Mun Typhoon shelter. An accuracy of +/- 1 m was ensured by carrying out the above quality control check before the surveys commenced.

16.5.1.15 During the surveys, the magnetometer was towed astern of the survey vessel at a layback of about 20 m. The magnetometer was kept at 2-3 m above the seabed to ensure sensitivity. The data was displayed on PC during the survey to monitor data quality.

16.5.1.16 A 5-line transect following a 200 m length x 5 m spacing pattern was used to survey each sonar contact. As some of the contacts were very close together, they were covered by a single transect. The survey pattern is shown in Appendix 16.7.

16.5.1.17 A magnetic contact appears as a spike in the data as shown in the Figure 16.9 below which is MC008.

Figure 16.9: Example of identified magnetic contact

16.5.1.18 The results of the magnetometer survey are presented as a series of summary charts in Appendix 16.7. Each chart shows the location of the sonar contact and associated magnetic contacts. A total of 180 magnetic contacts were located.

Interpretation of the Magnetic Survey Data

16.5.1.19 A magnetometer is an instrument used to measure the intensity of a magnetic field. Their application in geophysical prospection is founded on the principle that they can measure and record deviations in the Earth’s ambient magnetic field brought about by the presence of ferromagnetic material. The practical application of magnetometers in marine archaeology is mainly limited to the detection of ferrous objects. Iron has been used in the construction and fitting of vessels for several millennia. Marine archaeological remains may include ferrous objects such as anchors, cannons, ordnance and ships fittings. In this project, this is particularly important as a cannon was retrieved in 1993 during the airport construction.

16.5.1.20 Research has been carried out into the specific magnetic properties of archaeological materials (Bevan, 1999). The intensity of the magnetic moment will vary depending on the size, composition, shape of the object, distance and angle between the object and the magnetometer. The interpretation of magnetic data is therefore complex and does not provide absolute precision. It is also important to note that a magnetic contact creates a magnetic field over an area rather than a point. A positioning accuracy of +/- 5 m is therefore appropriate for this survey.

16.5.1.21 Anomaly size is not a definitive factor when ascribing meaning to what has been recorded. A gun at 10 m may give a 5 nT anomaly but so also would a 10,000 ton ship 1,500 m away. Magnetic anomalies can also be caused by a buried object close to the sonar contact rather than the sonar contact itself. It is also possible that an object with high ferrous content, large in size or close to the sea surface may cause anomalies on a number of adjacent survey lines instead of only one (Camidge, 2010).

16.5.1.22 The magnetometer survey located a total of 180 magnetic contacts. This is exceptionally high in comparison to other recent surveys in Hong Kong. It is deduced that this is a result of previous seabed disturbance from the CMPs and airport construction. The spatial correlation between the magnetometer contacts and the sonar contacts was examined to indicate the possible presence of a debris field. Magnetic contacts located within a 25 m radius of sonar contacts provide a much stronger indicator of the possible presence of archaeological material than isolated sonar or magnetometer contacts alone. Shipwreck sites are often characterised by a field of debris, some of which will be buried and some of which will be metallic. This clustering of buried and surface contacts provides a rational selection criterion and a means of prioritising any subsequent survey efforts effectively. Table 16.4 summarises the locations of the magnetic contacts relative to sonar contacts and the CMPs.

Table 16.4: Summary of Magnetic Contact Locations

Sonar Contact (SC) ID	Nos. Magnetic Contacts
	Total No. (based on closest proximity)	Within 25m radius of nearest SC		Outside 25m radius of nearest SC
	Total No. (based on closest proximity)	Within CMP area	Outside CMP area	Within CMP area	Outside CMP area
SC011	4	0	0	0	4
SC013	13	0	9	0	4
SC014	1	0	1	0	0
SC015	0	0	0	0	0
SC016	0	0	0	0	0
SC017	7	0	3	0	4
SC018*	2	0	0	2	0
SC019*	7	6	0	1	0
SC020	9	0	3	0	6
SC021	15	0	4	0	11
SC022*	24	9	0	11	4
SC023	14	0	10	0	4
SC024*	3	2	0	0	1
SC025*	8	2	0	6	0
SC026	10	0	5	0	5
SC027*	15	2	0	8	5
SC028	3	0	0	0	3
SC029	7	0	7	0	0
SC037	12	0	8	0	4
SC038	7	0	4	0	3
SC039	9	0	0	0	9
SC040	10	0	3	0	7
Total	180	21	57	28	74

*Denotes Sonar Contacts which are located near the boundary of the CMPs

16.5.2 Marine Archaeological Potential

Contaminated Mud Pit Areas

16.5.2.1 The CMPs are created by extracting the original mud and sand using dredging and then filling with the contaminated sediments. A sand cap is then placed over the pit to seal the contaminated sediment. Table 16.5 below presents the depth and thickness of the mud at each mud pit. The original dredging of the pits is to the top of the alluvial sediments and removal of all the softer Marine Deposits. It is clear that the scale of dredging with a minimum of 17.4 m and maximum of 36.5 m required at each mud pit location would have totally destroyed the marine archaeological remains, if any, at each of the mud pit locations. There would also have been significant seabed disturbance around the actual pit during the construction, filling and subsequent capping process.

16.5.2.2 The 2005 EIA (ERM, 2005) details that CMP I to III were used to dispose of dredged contaminated mud from December 1992 to November 1997. CMP IVa started operating in 1997 and was full by 2000. The remaining CMP IV pits are located outside the third runway project boundary. Table 16.5 summarises the properties of the existing CMPs.

Table 16.5: Depth and Properties of the Existing CMPs

Location	Average Seabed Level (mPD)	Average Base of Mud (mPD)	Deepest Base of Mud (mPD)	Average Mud Thickness (m)	Maximum Mud Thickness (m)
Pit I	-5.4	-24.4	-27.5	18.7	22.0
Pit IIA	-6.0	-20.9	-26.1	15.6	20.0
Pit IIB	-6.0	-23.8	-26.0	17.7	20.0
Pit IIC	-6.6	-21.8	-25.3	15.6	18.0
Pit IID	-7.7	-26.6	-27.5	19.0	19.7
Pit IIIA	-6.6	-21.1	-23.7	14.5	17.0
Pit IIIB	-6.2	-21.9	-23.2	16.1	17.0
Pit IIIC	-5.2	-16.5	-18.2	11.5	13.2
Pit IIID	-5.6	-17.6	-25.9	12.3	20.00
Pit IVA	-6.8	-36.5	-36.6	29.4	29.7
CPRC	-5.8	-17.8	-17.6	11.7	2.00

16.5.2.3 The seabed at all of these areas is considered to have zero archaeological potential due to the very extensive previous seabed disturbance; therefore, there is no concern regarding the potential impact on marine archaeology. The CMPs cover a total of approx. 4,122,000 m² within the MAI study area boundary (out of the total MAI study area of approx. 14,820,000 m²), which is equivalent to approx. 28 %.

16.5.2.4 As shown in Table 16.4, for the six sonar contacts identified near the edge of the CMPs, a total of 21 magnetic contacts within 25 m radius were found; however, all magnetic contacts were located within the boundary of the CMPs. These magnetic contacts may be associated with ‘impurities’ in the materials disposed in the CMPs (e.g. modern debris) rather than due to the transport of objects into the CMP area (e.g. due to seabed currents or accidental transport by fish trawling activities) after they were capped. Given the zero archaeological potential of the CMPs, the archaeological potential of these magnetic contacts located within the CMP boundaries is also considered to be low; therefore, it is not proposed to undertake further investigation on these 21 magnetic contacts.

Non CMP Areas

16.5.2.5 The remaining 72.2 % of the MAI study area has high archaeological potential based on the historical records. However this is reduced due to the indirect seabed disturbance associated with the CMPs. As shown in Table 16.4, a total of 57 magnetic contacts located within 25 m radius of the sonar contacts were identified. The major engineering works for the land formation and subsequent construction of the airport, fuel pipes and power cables have created additional cumulative negative impact on the seabed. It is highly unlikely that there are any intact shipwrecks within the study area.

16.5.2.6 However, the possibility remains that there could be a Low Integrity Shipwrecks (LIS) (OCS Study MMS 2 February, 2004). This category includes ships broken up at sea, rough weather, and on shoals or other obstructions. The surviving archaeological record may consist of little more than fragments of the vessel structure and a scatter of material associated with operation of the vessel or cargo. LIS shipwrecks may not produce any acoustic image and the images can consist of little more than a scatter of bottom surface material. The magnetic signatures associated with LIS sites are ordinarily scatters or clusters of anomalies that reflect the fragmented nature of structural remains and the distribution of fastenings, tackle, ordnance, cargo, and other materials.

16.5.2.7 The high number of magnetic contacts located during the magnetometer survey is consistent with the classification of LIS shipwrecks. This is further confirmed by the retrieval of a cannon during the dredging for the airport. It is therefore concluded that it is possible that the side scan sonar and magnetic contacts are indicative of scattered shipwreck remains. Clearly, the significance of the potential impact on features of potential archaeological interest is dependent on the actual nature of the identified anomalies. However, it is not possible to determine the actual nature of the anomalies and, therefore, their archaeological potential on the basis of geophysical data alone.

16.5.2.8 Definitive classification of the objects can only be achieved with visual diver inspection. This would ‘ground prove’ the findings of the geophysical survey and provide an accurate assessment of their archaeological value.

Magnetic Contacts with Archaeological Potential

16.5.2.9 There is no exact formula for assessing archaeological potential. As discussed in Section 16.5.1.20 – 16.5.1.21, there are a complex set of variables that determine the size and type of magnetic signature that is recorded by the magnetometer. In this case, as the focus for the survey was the 22 sonar contacts previously located, the location of each magnetic contact within 25 m range was plotted in relation to each of the sonar contacts. As shown in Table 16.4, a total of 78 magnetic contacts were identified within the 25 m radius, of which there are 57 magnetic contacts located outside the CMP boundaries. Based on the rationale described in Section 16.5.1.22, further investigation was conducted on the 57 magnetic contacts and the associated 11 sonar contacts. The result table and charts of the 57 magnetic contacts are presented in Appendix 16.8. For the remaining 21 magnetic contacts, as explained in Section 16.5.2.4, these are located within the CMP area and are thus not proposed for further investigation.

16.5.3 Further Investigation

Visual Diver Survey

16.5.3.1 An application for Licence to Excavate and Search for Antiquities under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance was made for conducting visual diver survey of the 57 magnetic contacts and the associated 11 sonar contacts. The application was submitted on 28 March 2013 and the Licence was issued by the Antiquities Authority on 28 June 2013.

16.5.3.2 The diver survey was completed in two separate phases. The first phase (for dive targets located outside the Hong Kong International Airport Approach Area (HKIAAA)) commenced on 5 July 2013 and diving took place every day until 14 July 2013. The second phase (for dive targets located within the HKIAAA) was undertaken on 3 August 2013, after the HKIAAA entry permit from the Marine Department was issued.

16.5.3.3 A team of four divers plus Sarah Heaver as the licensed marine archaeologist completed the survey. A Global Positioning System (GPS) was used to control the location of the dive support boat. The boat was positioned above each target and a shot weight was placed on the seabed marked by a buoy on the surface (see Photo 16.1 and Photo 16.2). The drop position was checked against the target position using the GPS. The boat was then anchored to ensure the diver’s easy access to the seabed marker and also provide surface cover for the divers at all times.

Photo 16.1: Launching the sinker

Photo 16.2: Marker buoy for the diver

sinker2

buoyfinal

Photo 16.3: Control Centre for Communication with the diver

Photo 16.4: Surface supplied air helmet

bruce

16.5.3.4 The diver was equipped with a hand held video camera and stills camera to record the unknown objects and associated seabed features. The video had a remote TV monitor in the boat’s wheelhouse, which displayed the video footage in real time (Photo 16.3). This facilitated managing the diver from the surface via the through water communications. Surface supplied air was used at all times (Photo 16.4).

16.5.3.5 All diving operations followed the Code of Practice – Safety and Health at Work for Industrial Diving (1998), as published by the Occupational Safety and Health Branch of the Hong Kong Labour Department. All diving operations also followed the requirements of the UK Health and Safety Executive Diving at Work Regulations (1997) and the Commercial diving projects inland/inshore: Diving at Work Regulations (1997), Approved Code of Practice.

16.5.3.6 On completion of the diver survey, the results were documented with supporting video captures and photographs.

Dive Survey Findings

16.5.3.7 Across the whole study area the seabed was soft silty mud. This created a very difficult working environment for the divers as the through water visibility was very restricted and at times zero. Strong tidal currents affect the study area, which at times hindered the progress of the diver survey. The poor water quality associated with the prevailing high suspended solids also resulted in very low quality photographs, irrespective of weather conditions, though the water quality was further degraded after the impact of Typhoon Jebi which passed near the study area.

16.5.3.8 From the underwater video footage and samples retrieved, each one of the sonar and magnetic contacts were quickly and easily identified by the marine archaeologist as modern debris, probably associated with original construction of the airport in the 1990s. This modern debris included metal bars, wires, poles, pipes, concrete blocks and various other construction wastes. A table presenting the detailed results of each of the sonar and magnetic contacts is presented in Appendix 16.9.

16.5.3.9 Every sonar and magnetic contact was located during the diver survey and identified as modern debris. No marine archaeological remains were positively identified during the seabed survey. Based on these findings, no further action or mitigation is required.

16.5.4 Terrestrial Archaeology

16.5.4.1 The baseline terrestrial archaeology review has identified two sites (the Ha Law Wan site of archaeological interest and the Sha Chau site of archaeological interest) which are located within the project boundary on the existing airport island / Sha Chau Island. Aside from these two sites, no other sites of archaeological interest or sites of archaeological potential are anticipated within the project area.

16.5.4.2 Within the existing airport island, road improvement activities are proposed at the southern cargo roads to the northwest of Scenic Hill. This includes some minor re-alignment works for existing roads as well as construction of new elevated roads along the existing Chun Wan Road and Chun Yue Road, and associated utility diversions. The nearest construction activity is at the existing roads immediately adjacent to the boundary of the Ha Law Wan site as shown in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/16-005. Based on the initial scheme design for the road works, there will be no encroachment into the boundary of the site of archaeological interest during construction or operation phase. Indirect impacts due to bored piling activities for construction of the elevated roads are expected to be insignificant given the very localised nature of the piling works and there will be a buffer distance of approx. 25 m between the viaduct piers and the boundary of the site of archaeological interest. Based on this assessment, no impact to this site of archaeological interest is anticipated during construction phase.

16.5.4.3 During operation phase, both the re-aligned roads and the new elevated roads are expected to be compatible with the visual context of the existing airport landscape at HKIA, and there will be no reduction of the existing urban park landscape at the site of archaeological interest, or the existing hillside landscape on Scenic Hill. Operation of the road improvements are thus not expected to result in any significant visual / amenity impacts to the site of archaeological interest.

16.5.4.4 The Sha Chau site of archaeological interest lies above the drilling activities for the submarine aviation fuel pipelines. This submarine pipelines will be constructed using the horizontal directional drilling (HDD) method, which involves drilling through the sub-sea bedrock before surfacing on Sheung Sha Chau Island (where the AFRF is located). With this construction method, there will be no direct disturbance to the site of archaeological interest on Sha Chau Island. Potential indirect disturbance due to vibration is expected to be insignificant given that each drillhole will be less than 1 m in diameter and the drilling depth will be largely about 50 m below the seabed. Thus no impact is anticipated due to the construction and operation of the submarine aviation fuel pipelines.

16.5.4.5 During construction of the submarine 11 kV cable diversion, temporary power supply will need to be provided to the existing facilities at the islands within the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park. The power supply to Sha Chau is critical to the operation of HKIA since there is a CAD radar station, a Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) station, and the AFRF located at Sha Chau. Any disruption to the operation of these facilities at Sha Chau would thus have negative consequences on aviation control and emergency fuel supply operations at HKIA.

16.5.4.6 The proposed arrangement for the temporary power supply involves installation of a temporary generator unit and fuel tank on the existing concrete jetty at Sha Chau Island (see Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/16-006). The generator will be housed in a shipping container type housing and the fuel tank will be installed adjacent to the generator unit, within a storage bund. An 11 kV power cable will be connected from the generator unit to the existing CLP transformer / switchroom at the CAD station on Sha Chau Island. The 11 kV cable will be installed within a covered concrete trough placed along the concrete jetty and existing concrete footpath running up to the CAD station. All installation works and equipment associated with this temporary power supply provision would be of a temporary nature (for a few months only) and mounted only on existing concrete jetty structure and pavements. No excavation works will be permitted on Sha Chau Island.

16.5.4.7 Based on this arrangement, the potential impact to the Sha Chau site of archaeological interest during construction phase would be insignificant, and there would be no impact during operation phase.

16.5.5 Built Heritage

16.5.5.1 There will be no direct impact to any built heritage during construction and operation phase, as no built heritage resources are located within the project boundary.

16.5.5.2 At the airport island site, indirect impacts due to vibration, noise or visual disturbance are unlikely given that the nearest built heritage is located at least 500 m away from the nearest works area for the project, and is separated by a large body / channel of water which acts as a physical barrier between the built heritage sites and the project boundary. Given the large separation distance and the physical barrier, indirect impacts to these built heritage sites are not anticipated as a result of project activities.

16.5.5.3 At the Sha Chau site, the Tin Hau Temple is located approx. 400 m away from where the temporary power supply will be located, and its direct line of sight to the project activities is shielded by the island’s terrain. Similarly, the works area for project activities at Sheung Sha Chau Island for the daylighting of the submarine aviation fuel pipeline is located more than 500 m away and is separated by a large body / channel of water which acts as a physical barrier between the built heritage site and the project boundary. Based on these considerations, no vibration, noise or visual disturbance to this built heritage feature is anticipated as a result of project activities.

16.6 Mitigation Measures

16.6.1 Marine Archaeology

16.6.1.1 The marine archaeological investigation established that no resources of marine archaeological value are located with the MAI study area and hence no marine archaeological impacts are expected. No mitigation measures are required.

16.6.2 Terrestrial Archaeology

16.6.2.1 The findings from the terrestrial archaeological assessment showed that no sites of archaeological interest or potential archaeological deposits will be impacted by the project. Hence no mitigation measures are required.

16.6.3 Built Heritage

16.6.3.1 The findings from the built heritage assessment showed that no built heritage will be impacted by the project. Hence no mitigation measures are required.

16.7 Residual Impacts

16.7.1 Marine Archaeology

16.7.1.1 There will be no residual impacts to underwater cultural heritage resources within the study area due to the project.

16.7.2 Terrestrial Archaeology

16.7.2.1 There will be no residual impacts on terrestrial sites of archaeological interest or built heritage during construction and operation phase.

16.7.3 Built Heritage

16.7.3.1 There will be no residual impacts on terrestrial sites of archaeological interest or built heritage during construction and operation phase.

16.8 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

16.8.1.1 No environmental monitoring and audit is required for marine archaeology or terrestrial cultural heritage.

16.9 References

1. AMO (2012) List of the Historic Buildings in Building Assessment (as of 17 December 2012)

2. AMO (2012) List of Sites of Archaeological Interest in Hong Kong (as at November 2012)

3. Camidge, K., Holt, P., Johns, C., Randall, L., & Schmidt, A. 2009. Developing Magnetometer Techniques to Identify Submerged Archaeological Sites. Theoretical Study Report No: 2010R012. Historic Environment, Environment, Planning & Economy Cornwall Council

4. Cortesão, A. 1944. The Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires and the Book of Francisco Rodrigues. London. Hakluyt Society.

5. EGS (Asia) Limited, 2013. Hong Kong International Airport. Airport Authority Contract P548. Marine Site Investigations. Hydrographic, Marine Geophysical and Oceanographic Surveys. Preliminary Report. HK Job Number HK229012.

6. Empson, H. 1992. Mapping Hong Kong. Hong Kong. The Government Printer.

7. ERM, 2005. AEIR -089/2005. New Contaminated Mud Pit Facility at Airport East/ East Sha Chau Area. EIA.

8. Fyfe, J.A. & Shaw, R. 1997. The Offshore Geology of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Geological Survey Memoir. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong.

9. Lui Yuen-chung, A. 1990. Forts and Pirates - a History of Hong Kong. Hong Kong History Society.

10. Meacham, W. 1994. Archaeological Investigations on Chek Lap Kok Island. Journal Monograph IV. Hong Kong Archaeological Society.

11. Murray, D.H. 1987. Pirates of the South China Coast 1790-1810. Stanford University Press.

12. Neumann, K. F. 1831, History of the Pirates who Infested the China Seas from 1807-1810 by Yung-lun Yüan. Printed for the Oriental Translation Fund.

13. OCS Study MMS 2004-005. February 2004. Archaeological Damage from Offshore Dredging: Recommendations for Pre-Operational Surveys and Mitigation during dredging to avoid adverse impacts. Prepared for: U.S. department of the interior minerals management service. Under Contract Number No. 01-02-CT-85139

14. Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd (2009) HZMB – HKBCF & HKLR: Environmental Impact Assessment Report, July 2009

15. Schofield, W. 1983. The Islands around Hong Kong. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong. Volume 23.

16. Siu, A.K.1978. Distribution of Forts and Guard Stations on Lantau Island during the late Ch'ing period. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong. Volume 23.

17. Siu, A.K. 1979. A study on the Ch’ing forts on Lantau Island (from Chinese Sources). Vol. 19.

18. Siu, A.K. 1982. More About Tung Chung Fort. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong. Volume 23.