This Section presents the cultural heritage impact assessment (CHIA) for
the proposed Project at Black Point Power
Station (BPPS). It summarises the baseline cultural heritage
conditions of the Project Site and its surrounding area. Potential impacts have
been evaluated and measures have been recommended to mitigate
potentially adverse impacts, where appropriate.
The additional gas-fired generation unit(s) and
associated facilities of the Project are proposed to be
installed within the site boundary of the BPPS. It should be noted
that if only one gas-fired generation unit is installed, no marine works will
be required and therefore no marine archaeological investigation (MAI) is
deemed required.
If a second gas-fired generation unit is
installed, it will involve minor marine dredging works close to the
existing cooling water system to enhance the cooling water system. In this case, an MAI is required in
accordance with Clause 3.4.12.2 of
the EIA Study Brief (No. ESB-286/2015) (hereafter referred to as “the Study Brief”). This section also presents the MAI of
construction works associated with the construction of the second gas-fired
generation unit.
The following legislation
and guidelines are applicable to the assessment of sites of cultural heritage,
marine archaeological and historic resources in Hong Kong:
·
Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (Cap 499 S16) and the associated Technical Memorandum on the EIA Process
(EIAO-TM);
·
Antiquities and Monuments
Ordinance (Cap 53)
(AM Ordinance);
·
Hong Kong Planning
Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG);
·
Requirements for Cultural
Heritage Impact Assessment of the Study Brief; and
·
Guidelines
for Marine Archaeological Investigation of the Study Brief.
According to the EIAO, Schedule 1 Interpretation,
“Sites of Cultural Heritage” are defined as:
“an
antiquity or monument, whether being a place, building, site or structure or a
relic, as defined in the AM Ordinance and any place, building, site, or
structure or a relic identified by the Antiquities and Monuments Office to be
of archaeological, historical or palaeontological significance.”
The technical scope of
CHIAs defined within Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM states that the criteria for
evaluating impacts to sites of cultural heritage should include the following:
·
The
general presumption in favour of the protection and conservation of all sites
of cultural heritage because they provide an essential, finite and
irreplaceable link between the past and the future and are points of reference
and identity for culture and tradition; and
·
Adverse
impacts on sites of cultural heritage shall be kept to
an absolute minimum.
The EIAO-TM outlines
the approaches required in investigating and assessing the impacts on marine
archaeological sites. The following
sections of the EIAO TM are applicable:
Annex
19: “There is no quantitative
standard in deciding the relative importance of these sites, but in general,
sites of unique archaeological, historical or architectural value will be
considered as highly significant. A
baseline study shall be conducted: (a) to compile a comprehensive inventory of
places, buildings, sites and structures of architectural, archaeological and
historical value within the proposed project area; and (b) to identify possible
threats of, and their physical extent, destruction in whole or in part of sites
of cultural heritage arising from the proposed project.”
The EIAO-TM also
outlines the approach in regard to the preservation in
totality; and in part to cultural resources:
Annex
19: “Preservation in totality will
be a beneficial impact and will enhance the cultural and socio-economical environment if suitable measures to integrate
the sites of cultural heritage into the proposed project are carried out. If, due to site constraints and other factors, only preservation in part
is possible, this must be fully justified with alternative proposals or layout
designs, which confirm the impracticability of total preservation.”
In addition to the EIAO, the heritage
resources of Hong Kong are protected by a range of legislative and planning
mechanisms. The AM Ordinance (Cap 53) provides statutory
protection of best examples of Hong Kong’s heritage. The AM
Ordinance also establishes the statutory procedures to be
followed in making such a declaration.
This
Ordinance provides for the preservation of objects of historical,
archaeological and palaeontological interest…”
The Ordinance defines an
antiquity as a relic (a movable object made before 1800) and a place, building,
site or structure erected, formed or built by human agency before the year
1800. The
Ordinance also states, amongst other things, that the discovery of an antiquity
shall be reported to the Antiquities Authority (Secretary for Development);
that ownership of all relics discovered after 1976 shall be vested in the
Government; that the Authority can declare a place, building, site or structure
to be a monument, historic building or archaeological or palaeontological site
or structure (and therefore introducing certain additional controls for these
sites); and that licences and permits can be granted for excavation and for
other work.
Being the executive arm of
the Antiquities Authority, the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO), in
practice, also identifies Deemed Monuments ([1])
and then seeks to reach agreements with the owners of the monuments to provide
for specific measures that will ensure preservation. Deemed Monuments have the potential to be upgraded to statutory Declared Monuments under the AM Ordinance.
In addition to heritage
resources declared under the AM Ordinance, the AMO had carried out a
territory-wide survey of historic buildings between 1996 and 2000, during which
some 8,800 buildings were recorded. About 1,000 items with higher heritage
value were graded according to the definition
presented in Table 13.1.
Table 13.1 Definition of Grading of Historic
Buildings
|
Grade |
Description |
|
1 |
Buildings
of outstanding merit, which every effort should be made to preserve if
possible |
|
2 |
Buildings
of special merit; efforts should be made to selectively preserve |
|
3 |
Buildings
of some merit; preservation in some form would be desirable and alternative
means could be considered if preservation is not practicable |
It should
be noted that the grading of historic buildings is intended for AMO’s
internal reference only and has no statutory standing. Although there are no statutory
provisions for the protection of sites of archaeological interest and historic
buildings and features, the Government has established a set of administrative
procedures ([2])
for giving consideration to the protection of these
resources.
The
AMO also organises
and coordinates surveys and excavations of areas of archaeological significance and has established boundaries
for the identified sites and a set of administrative procedures for the
protection of the sites of archaeological interest. However, the present record of sites of
archaeological interest is known to be incomplete as
many areas have not yet been surveyed.
Therefore, procedures and mechanisms which enable the preservation and
formal notification of previously unknown archaeological resources that may be
revealed or discovered during project assessment or construction, must be
identified and implemented at an early stage of the planning of a project.
Section 11 of the AM Ordinance requires any person who discovers an antiquity, or
supposed antiquity, to report the discovery to the Antiquities Authority. By implication, construction projects
need to ensure that the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) ([3])
is formally notified of archaeological resources which are discovered during
the assessment or construction of a project.
The HKPSG, Chapter 10 (Conservation), provides
general guidelines and measures for the conservation of historic buildings,
sites of archaeological interest and other antiquities.
Appendix
H of the
Study Brief provides the requirements for CHIA (Marine Archaeological Investigation).
The guidelines stated in Appendix H-1 of the Study Brief provide details on the standard
practices, procedures and methodology utilised in determining the marine
archaeological baseline, establishing archaeological potential, evaluating the
potential impact and establishing suitable mitigation measures.
The CHIA follows the
criteria and guidelines in Annexes 10
and 19 of the EIAO-TM. It also
follows the Requirements for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Guidelines
for Marine Archaeological Investigation, as stated in Appendices H and H-1 of
the Study Brief, respectively.
Figure
13.1 shows the proposed land-based Project
Site area (also defined as the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Area) is
within the site boundary of the BPPS.
There is no declared monument protected under the AM Ordinance, graded/ proposed graded historic buildings, built
heritage or sites of archaeological interest located within 500m from the
proposed land-based Project Site area.
The BPPS site was formed by excavation of hill
and reclamation and therefore has no archaeological potential. The proposed works are mainly within the
BPPS which is a developed land formed by reclamation without
cultural heritage significance, potential impacts on built heritage and
terrestrial archaeological resources are not anticipated. Therefore, the proposed Project Site
area is of no terrestrial built heritage and archaeological potential. A terrestrial cultural heritage impact
assessment is thus not deemed necessary.
According
to Appendix H, Section 1 (i) of the Study
Brief, the Assessment Area for this MAI is
defined as the areas affected by the marine and dredging works of the
Project.
The marine works associated
with the construction of CCGT Unit No.2 will include seabed dredging for the
construction and operation of a new intake and a new outfall. For both the new intake and new outfall,
dredging is expected to be over an area of about 100m
x 100m adjacent to the BPPS seawall, to a depth of up to 5m below the existing
seabed level. The indicative
locations within which marine dredging may be undertaken are
presented in Figure
13.1.
A marine
archaeological review was conducted by qualified marine archaeologists, Dr Bill
Jeffery and Ms Peggy Wong, based on the best available information such as
review of available geotechnical survey data from previous geological research
held by Geotechnical Engineering Office, historical documents and dredging
history from relevant government departments, public library and libraries from
tertiary institutions, hydrographic data, charts and ‘wreck’ files held by
Hydrographic Office of Marine Department and United Kingdom Hydrographic Office
(UKHO), and previous marine archaeological investigations to identify known and
potential existence of sites or objects of cultural heritage within the
Assessment Area.
The synthesis and analysis
of the baseline conditions and the scope and nature of the proposed marine
works of CCGT Unit No.2 were used to establish if
there are any marine archaeological resources/sites within Assessment Area and
determine the need for further investigation.
Based on the findings and analysis
of the baseline conditions and result of the evaluation of the marine
archaeological potential, an impact assessment was conducted
to evaluate the potential impacts of the Project on marine archaeological
resources/sites, and recommend necessary marine archaeological actions or
mitigation measures.
Generally,
the submarine deposits in the Hong Kong region are subdivided
into two formations, Chek Lap Kok
Formations and the overlying Hang Hau Formations.
The Chek
Lap Kok Formations, the lowest part of the Quaternary
succession are considered to be Middle to Late
Pleistocene in age and consists of colluvium, alluvium and lacustrine sediments
(Fyfe et al (2000)). The marine sediments on top of this
formation are sediments related to the Holocene period (from about 13,000 BP to
the present day) and referred to as the Hang Hau Formations consisting of
clayey silt sediments and some sand.
The Sham Wat Formation,
found between Chek Lap Kok
Formations and Hang Hau Formations is considered to be the
Eemian deposit with uncertain age and consists of
soft to firm silty clays with yellowish mottling. This formation is presently not
widespread but only in subcrops beneath the Hang Hau
Formation ([4]).
More modern sediments are
related to the discharge from the Pearl River, (which would have an effect on
the Assessment Area located downstream from the mouth of the Pearl River)
having a seasonal discharge of about 370,000 million m3 each year ([5]). They consist of sand, mud and some
gravel.
Fyfe et al (2000) ([6])
further explains the rate of sedimentation:
“In
general, present day sedimentation rates in Hong Kong waters are low, though
they were undoubtedly greater earlier in the Holocene when sea level was rising
rapidly. … Without tidal flushing, the sediment entering Victoria Harbour from
the Pearl River, sewage solids and losses from dredging and reclamation might be expected to raise the seabed level by 40 mm per
year. However, comparison of
Hydrographic charts of Victoria Harbour from 1903 to 1980 revealed no
conclusive evidence of net sedimentation, implying that the seabed is a state
of dynamic equilibrium. Assuming
that sedimentation in Hong Kong waters began about 8,000 years ago, deposition
of the 10 to 20 m of marine mud must have occurred at an average sedimentation
rate of between 1.25 and 2.5 mm per year.
Available evidence indicates that the rate of Holocene sedimentation has
not been steady. Radiocarbon dating
suggests that the majority of sedimentation has taken place over the past 4,000
to 5,000 years.”
During the late Pleistocene
period (18,000 BP) sea levels began to rise until
about 6,000 BP and to levels similar to the present day. “The extent of the rise could be as
great as perhaps 140 m in parts”([7]).
The sediments of the Late
Holocene period, considered to be relatively homogenous very soft
to soft silty clay and with high moisture content, offer the greatest
potential to include well preserved remains associated with the occupation and use
of the islands in Hong Kong waters.
This is in contrast to the surface of the seabed, which is often found to have been disturbed by fishing and other
shipping related activities. These
remains could include shipwrecks.
The
water between Shekou (situated in Shenzhen) and Black
Point was in use as a war junk anchorage since the 8th century. In the 8th century (Tang
Dynasty), Black Point was within the military division area of Tunmen Bing Zhen (屯門兵鎮) where 2,000 soldiers were under
the command of one Defence Commissioner. The headquarters of this division was
situated in the present Nantou (南頭) walled city of Shenzhen and its
military division area also covered the HKSAR, as well as the Huizhou (惠州)
and Chaozhou (潮州) areas ([8]). The military division was serving the
same area until the Yuan Dynasty (A.D.1279-1368).
In the late 16th century (Ming Dynasty), China was facing
more frequent disturbance from coastal invaders and more forts and beacon towers
were set up to protect the key locations from Japanese pirates. The Nantou Military Division (南頭寨)
was set up in 1565. It commanded 53
war junks and 1,486 soldiers ([9])
. The military force was increased
to 1,659 soldiers in 1645.
During
this period, the Portuguese explorer, Jorge Alvares
was permitted to land on Lintin Island (Neilingding 內伶仃) in 1513 ([10]),
he then built a fort and erected a stone column with a carving of the
Portuguese national symbol. The
Chinese navy attacked and demolished the Portuguese fort in 1518 ([11]). In 1522, it was also
recorded that a sea battle between the Chinese navy and Portuguese ships
was fought in the water between Lantau Island and Tuen
Mun. The
Chinese navy won the battle.
A
review of a historical chart of the mouth of the Pearl River dated 1658 ([12]),
also indicated that the waters between Black Point and Lintin
Island were part of the main voyaging route from the East to the West of the
river.
During
the Ming to Qing Dynasties (A.D.1368 -1911), Imperial Junks sailing from
Guangdong to Southeast Asian countries were required to anchor at a bay known
as Chiwan (赤灣) of Nantou peninsula, located to
the west of Shenzhen City (located some 9km north of Black Point). A Tin Hau Temple was established in this
Bay, probably in 1410 according to an inscription of the Temple where sailors
worshipped Tin Hau for sea travelling safety ([13]). During the early Qing dynasty in the
1660s, although the Nantou Military Division was replaced by Xin’an Camp (新安營), it was still situated in the
Nantou Walled City ([14]). Two stone forts were also built near the
Tin Hau Temple during the Qing Dynasty and the remains of the forts can still
be found.
Based
on the historical development review, it is considered that Black Point is
located in the vicinity of a busy marine sea
route. The waters at Black Point,
Deep Bay and Neilingding Island were the main
voyaging channel between Guangdong and the Southern China Sea and Southeast
Asian countries as well as East and West for centuries. On this basis, the waters at Black Point
are considered in general to have marine
archaeological potential.
A review of the Study on the Potential,
Assessment, Management and Preservation of Maritime Archaeological Sites in
Hong Kong undertaken in 1998 ([15])
identified two
shipwrecks/obstructions over 2.7 km to the northwest of the Assessment Area as
listed in Table 13.2 but no shipwreck
was identified within the Assessment Area.
The UKHO in Taunton
maintains a database of known obstructions/ shipwrecks in Hong Kong. A total of two
obstructions/shipwrecks were found to be over 2.7 km from the Assessment Area
(see Table 13.2, Figure
13.2 and Annex 13A).
The Hong Kong Hydrographic
Office could not provide any additional information beyond what was provided by the UKHO.
Table 13.2 UKHO Known Obstructions/shipwrecks Identified in
the Vicinity of the Assessment Area
|
UKHO Number |
Latitude |
Longitude |
Approximate Distance from
Assessment Area |
Type of Obstruction |
Description |
|
46602 |
22°
24.803 N |
113°
52.455 E |
3,150
m |
Shipwreck
Shirogani Maru |
It
was a 3,130 ton (97 m in length) Japanese merchant vessel sunk by United
States of America submarine Amberjack
in September 1942. It was last seen by divers in 1987,
and in 2005 it was classified as DEAD—‘considered not to exist anymore’,
therefore presumed as salvaged between 1987 and 2005. |
|
46685 |
22°
25.783 N |
113°
53.267 E |
2,750
m |
Unknown |
It
was considered in 1997 as a wreck, then noted as LIFTED (salvaged) in 1998,
and in 2003 was amended to DEAD |
A
review of Charts of Black Point was carried out. British Admiralty (BA) Chart 2562, from
surveys implemented between 1857 and 1955, shows the location of the Shirogani Maru, but no
other wreck; BA Chart 342, from surveys of 1900-1959 also shows only the Shirogani Maru; and
French Chart De La Riviere
De Canton, from surveys of 1844-1866, shows no shipwrecks within the
Assessment Area.
During the construction of the BPPS in 1993-1994 an area of seabed was dredged 100 m out from the
present seawall of the power station (Figure
13.3). Any objects of cultural heritage value located on
the seabed would have been destroyed during this
process, and given it was before the EIA legislation, there was no requirement
to investigate the area before being impacted. Two
MAIs were conducted in the Black Point area, including the MAIs for the
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Receiving Terminal and Associated Facilities EIA
Study ([16]) conducted in 2005-2006 and
the Black Point Gas Supply Project EIA Study ([17]) conducted in 2009. Geophysical surveys were conducted as
part of these MAIs (please refer to Figure 13.3
showing geophysical survey coverage as
part of the MAIs conducted in 2005 and 2009) but both MAI results identified no
sites or objects of cultural heritage were identified in those areas as shown
in Figure 13.3. Most of this MAI Assessment Area is in
an area that has been both impacted by dredging and
intensively studied.
Although review of the
historical documents and literature indicates that Black Point is in the
vicinity of a busy shipping route, review of the 19th to 20th
century charts, previous MAIs and wreck database identified no evidence of any
archaeological sites / shipwrecks sites in the Assessment Area. The proposed marine works of the Project
are also considered small in scale and localised at the seawall of the BPPS
(please refer to Section 3 for
details), and in an area that has been disturbed due to the past construction
and operation of the BPPS activities.
Therefore, further detailed investigation, e.g. by means of geophysical
survey, is considered not necessary.
The proposed marine works areas of CCGT Unit No.2 are
concluded to have no archaeological potential.
The additional CCGT units and associated
facilities are proposed to be installed within the
site boundary of the BPPS. As there are
no declared monument protected under the AM Ordinance, graded/proposed graded historic buildings, built
heritage or sites of archaeological interest located within the Project Site
area, no terrestrial cultural heritage impacts are expected to occur during the
construction and operation of the proposed Project.
As no marine works will be required for CCGT
Unit No.1, no
marine archaeological impact is expected to occur
during the construction and operation of CCGT Unit No.1.
Findings of the MAI for
CCGT Unit No.2 conclude that there is no marine archaeological potential within
the Assessment Area. No marine
archaeological impact is expected to occur during the
construction and operation of the marine works of CCGT Unit No.2.
At
present, there are no planned projects within the
Assessment Area
that could have cumulative cultural heritage impacts with the proposed Project.
As no impacts to
terrestrial and marine cultural heritage resources are expected, no mitigation
measure is required.
The
proposed land-based Project Site area is within the site boundary of the
BPPS. There is no declared monument
protected under the AM Ordinance,
graded/ proposed graded historic buildings, built heritage or sites of
archaeological interest located within the proposed land-based Project Site
area. The BPPS site was formed by excavation of hill and reclamation and
therefore has no archaeological potential.
It is considered that the proposed Project Site
area is of no terrestrial built heritage and archaeological potential. The proposed Project will have no unacceptable impact on terrestrial built heritage and
archaeological resources. No
mitigation measures are considered necessary. No cumulative impact or residual impact
on terrestrial built heritage and archaeological resources is expected.
No
marine works will be required for CCGT Unit No.1 and therefore no marine archaeological
impact is expected to occur during its construction
and operation. A comprehensive
marine archaeological review identified no marine archaeological interest
within the Assessment Area for CCGT Unit No.2 and the proposed marine works is
considered small in scale and localised at the seawall of the BPPS (please
refer to Section 3 for details),
which are likely disturbed area due to the past construction and operation of
the BPPS activities. Therefore,
further detailed investigation, e.g. by means of geophysical survey, is
considered not necessary. The
Assessment Area is concluded to have no marine
archaeological potential.
Therefore, no impact on marine archaeological resources is expected due to the construction and operation of CCGT
Unit No.2. No mitigation measures are considered necessary. No cumulative impact or residual impact
on marine archaeological resources is expected.
([1])
Deemed Monument – a building
that has been identified by AMO as historically significant. The owner of the building has entered an
agreement with AMO to allow restoration work to take place and reasonable
access for the public. This
designation provides no legal protection over the building under the AM Ordinance.
([2])
Administrative procedures are adopted by AMO with the intention to protect sites of
archaeological and historical interests that are not protected under the
provisions of AM Ordinance. For example, heritage protection
measures are included as conditions in developing graded built heritage is referred to as administrative procedures.
([3])
The Antiquities and Monuments
Office provides secretarial and executive support to the AAB. The AAB is a statutory body consisting
of expertise in relevant fields to advise on any matters relating to antiquities
and monuments.
([4])
Fyfe, J.A., R. Shaw and et
al. 2002. The
Quaternary Geology of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Civil Engineering Department.
([5])
Fyfe, J.A., R. Shaw and et
al. 2002. The
Quaternary Geology of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Civil Engineering Department.
([6])
Fyfe, J.A., R. Shaw and et
al. 2002. The
Quaternary Geology of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Civil Engineering Department.
([7])
Fyfe, J.A., R. Shaw and et
al. 2002. The
Quaternary Geology of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Civil Engineering Department.
([8]) Siu, K.K 1997 Forts and Batteries: Coastal Defence in
Guangdong During Ming to Qing Dynasties, Hong Kong, Urban Counil.
([10]) Brage,
J.M. 1965 China Landfall 1513, Jorge Alvares Voyage to China,
Macau, Imprensa Nacional.
([11])
Cortesão, A
1944, The Suma Oriental of Tome Pires
and the Book of Francisco Rodrigues. London, Hakluyt Society. 龍思泰 (Anders Ljungstedt) 1832,
1997 《早期澳門史》，北京，東方出版社。
([12])
Nessel , Johan
1658 Tngqvin, in 格斯•冉福立 (Kees Zenlvliet) 江樹生 譯 1997 《十七世紀荷蘭人繪製的台灣老地圖》，台北，漢聲出版社。
([13]) 王應華 1660年代，2000〈赤灣天妃廟記〉，《明清兩朝深圳檔案文獻演繹》，廣州，花城出版社；蔡學元 1814，2000 〈重修赤灣天后廟記〉，《明清兩朝深圳檔案文獻演繹》，廣州，花城出版社。
([15])
Ali, Sarah 1998 Study on the Potential, Assessment,
Management and Preservation of Maritime Archaeological Sites in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Lord Wilson Heritage Trust
([16])
ERM-Hong Kong, Limited.
(ERM), 2006, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Receiving Terminal and Associated
Facilities Environmental Impact Assessment Study Report, Hong Kong: Castle Peak
Power Co., Limited. (Register No: AEIAR106/2007) [information
on line]; available from
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1252006/html/index.htm;
internet.
([17])
ERM-Hong Kong, Limited. (ERM),
2009, Black Point Gas Supply Project Environmental Impact Assessment Study
Report, Hong Kong: Castle Peak Power Co., Limited. (Register No: AEIAR150/2010)
[information on line]; available from
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1782009/index.html;
internet.