This section presents the results of the cultural
heritage impact assessment (CHIA) for the construction and operation of the
proposed submarine gas pipelines and Gas Receiving Stations (GRSs) at the Black Point Power Station (BPPS). It summarises information gathered from
a literature review and field surveys to establish the baseline cultural
heritage and archaeological conditions.
Potential impacts have been evaluated and measures have been recommended
to mitigate potentially adverse impacts, where appropriate.
In accordance with Clause 3.4.8.2 of the EIA
Study Brief, a Marine Archaeological Investigation was undertaken by a
qualified marine archaeologist. The
Study Area for this Marine Archaeological Investigation included the seabed
that is expected to be affected by the marine works of the Project, which is
broadly defined as within 500 m from either side of the centre line (CL) of the
pipeline alignment and the GRS reclamation (Figure 11.1).
11.2
Relevant
Legislation & Assessment Criteria
The following legislation and guidelines
are applicable to the assessment of sites of cultural heritage, marine
archaeological and historic resources in
·
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
(Cap 499 S16) and the
associated Technical Memorandum on the
EIA Process (EIAO TM);
·
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap
53);
·
Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance
(Cap 28);
·
·
Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment (CHIA); and
·
Guidelines for Marine Archaeological
Investigation (MAI).
11.2.1
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
(Cap 499)
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”.
Technical Me
The technical scope of cultural heritage impact
assessments is defined within Annex 10
of the EIAO TM that 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 criteria for
assessment of impact on sites of cultural heritage as follows:
Annex 10: “The criteria for evaluating impact on
sites of cultural heritage includes:
(a) The general presumption in favour of the protection and conservation
of all sites of cultural heritage because they provide an essential, finite and
irreplaceable link between the past and the future and are points of reference
and identity for
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.”
11.2.2
Antiquities and
In addition to the EIAO, the heritage resources of
“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 Authority
(Secretary for Home Affairs); 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, historical 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.
In practice, the Antiquities and Monuments Office
(AMO) 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.
A large range of potential sites of cultural
heritage, among which are historical buildings and structures and
archaeological sites, have been identified and recorded by AMO in addition to
those for which a declaration has been made under the AM Ordinance.
Historic buildings and structures are recorded by AMO
according to the grading system summarised in Table 11.1.
Table 11.1 The
Grading of Historical Buildings
|
Grade |
Description |
|
I |
Buildings of
outstanding merit, which every effort should be made to preserve if possible |
|
II |
Buildings of special
merit; efforts should be made to selectively preserve |
|
III |
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 historical
buildings is intended for AMO’s internal reference
only and has no statutory standing.
Although there are no statutory provisions for the protection of
recorded archaeological sites and historical buildings and features (including
deemed, graded and recorded), the Government has established a set of
administrative procedures ([2])
for giving consideration to
the protection of these resources.
Over the years, surveys have been undertaken to
identify archaeological sites in
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.
11.2.3
Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance
(Cap 28)
Under this Ordinance,
it is required that a permit be obtained for any excavation within government
land prior to commencement of any excavation work commencing.
11.2.4
The HKPSG, Chapter
10 (Conservation), provides general guidelines and measures for the
conservation of historical buildings, archaeological sites and other
antiquities.
11.2.5
Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment (CHIA)
The guidelines stated in Appendix D of the EIA Study
Brief No. ESB-208/2009 provide details on the criteria for the CHIA which
include a baseline study, field evaluation and impact assessment.
11.2.6
Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI)
Guidelines
The guidelines stated in Appendix E of the EIA Study
Brief No. ESB-208/2009 provide details on the standard practices,
procedures and methodology that must be utilised in determining the marine
archaeological potential, presence of archaeological artefacts and establishing
suitable mitigation measures. The
first step, a Stage 1 MAI, involves a baseline review, geophysical survey and
establishing archaeological potential.
Subject to the results of the Stage 1 MAI, a Stage 2 MAI investigation
may or may not be required.
11.3
Assessment
Methodology for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
The CHIA methodology follows the criteria and
guidelines in Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO TM and the Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
(CHIA) and Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI), as stated
in EIA Study Brief No. ESB-208/2009.
It should be noted that the land-based Project Area
of this Project is within the site boundary of the BPPS. There are no declared/ deemed monument,
graded/ recorded heritage resources, Built Heritage or Archaeological Sites
located within the proposed Project Area and works areas. No existing sites of cultural heritage
protected under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap 53) have
been identified within the proposed Project Area and works areas.
On the basis of the above, it is considered that the
Project Area is of negligible archaeological potential. A terrestrial
archaeological investigation is thus not deemed necessary.
A Marine Archaeological Investigation was undertaken
by a qualified marine archaeologist, Dr Bill Jeffery. Findings of this Investigation are
presented in the following sections.
11.3.1
Baseline Study for Marine Archaeological
Resources
A baseline study was conducted with reference to the
methodologies and guidelines laid out in the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-208/2009 to compile a comprehensive
inventory of cultural heritage resources within the marine-based Project
Area. This has included a review of
available literature, nautical charts produced by the AMO, the Hydrographic Office of Marine Department, geotechnical survey
data, historical documents and United Kingdom Hydrographic
Office (UKHO) ‘Wreck’ files to determine the archaeological potential of the
waters of the proposed Project Area.
Findings of this desktop literature review are presented below.
Review of Historic Documents
The waters between Shekou (situated in Shenzhen) and Black Point were used as
a war junk anchorage from 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) whose 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 ([4]). The military division was serving the
same area until the Yuan Dynasty (AD1279-1368).
In the late 16th
century (Ming Dynasty), China was facing 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 established in 1565 and
commanded 53 war junks and 1,486 soldiers ([5]). The military force was increased to
1,659 soldiers in 1645.
During this period, the Portuguese
explorer, Jorge Alvares was permitted to land on
A review of a historical chart of the mouth of the
Pearl River dated 1658 ([8]), also indicated that the
waters between Black Point and
During the Ming to Qing Dynasties (AD1368 -1911),
Imperial Junks sailing from Guangdong to Southeast Asian countries were
required to anchor at a bay known as Chiwan (赤灣) on the Nantou
peninsula, located to the west of Shenzhen City (located some 9 km north of
Black Point). The Nantou area used to zone as the Nantou
Military Division. 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
within the
Based on this historical review, it is considered that
Black Point is located in the vicinity of a historically busy marine sea
route. The waters at Black Point,
A desktop review of other historical records and
admiralty charts has been undertaken to examine if any resources of marine
archaeological potential/ value are present within 500 m from either side of
the centre line (CL) of the pipeline alignment and the proposed
reclamation. A review of the Study on the Potential, Assessment,
Management and Preservation of Maritime Archaeological Sites in Hong Kong
undertaken in 1998 ([11])
identified a number of
shipwrecks recorded some kilometres from the proposed pipeline route, but no
shipwrecks were identified within 1 km of the proposed Project Area.
The United Kingdom Hydrographic
Office (UKHO) in
The review indicated that a total of two shipwrecks
were reported in the vicinity of the Study Area (Table 11.2, Figure 11.2, Annex 11A).
Table 11.2 UKHO
Wrecks in the vicinity of the Study Area
|
Wreck Number |
Geographical Coordinates |
UTM Grid Coordinates |
Status |
|
46602 |
22.413833 N 113.873333 E |
2481463 N 795808 E |
Live |
|
46685 |
22.429717 N 113.887783 E |
2483251 N 797263 E |
Lifted (ie Dead) |
One ‘live’ (either chartered or unchartered but
potentially still lying on the seabed) shipwreck might be present in the
vicinity of the proposed pipeline alignment (Figure 11.2). The UKHO records state that this wreck
was a 3130 ton Japanese freighter Shirogane Maru that was sunk during World War II. Its position was last verified by a
diver on 20 October 1987. Chart No.
HK1503 has an Obstruction marked (“Obstn”) at the
location of Wreck No. 46602 and is recorded as a Wreck on Chart 3026 (Dated
1990).
The Hong Kong Marine Department, Hydrographic
Office could not provide any additional information beyond what was provided by
the UKHO.
Although the UKHO shipwreck database suggest that the
‘live’ wreck (No. 46602) is located about 500 m south of the proposed Pipeline
1, results of comprehensive geophysical surveys conducted previously in the
area confirm that this wreck no longer exists ([12]).
One ‘dead’ UKHO shipwreck (No. 46685; lifted from the
seabed) and one Marine Department savaged wreck, which is a 10 m x 3 m x 2 m
Chinese engineering vessel mostly damaged and about 30 years old, have been
reported previously in this broad area (Figure 11.2). Shipwrecks/ Obstructions are continually
salvaged in
Other Published Information
Comprehensive geophysical surveys, using multi beam echo sounder, side scan sonar and sub-bottom boomer
profiling, have been conducted in the Black Point areas in 2005 as part of the
HKLNG EIA ([13])
to assess the archaeological
potential of the surveyed areas.
The surveyed areas covered part of the Study Area, i.e. the area to the
south of the proposed Pipeline 1, including the entire site for the proposed
reclamation (Figure 11.4). Three Sonar Contacts, identified as
possible wrecks, located within 1 –
Table 11.3 List
of the Three Sonar Contacts Identified in the Vicinity of the Study Area in the
2005 Geophysical Survey
|
Contact Number |
Latitude Longitude |
Easting Northing |
Dimensions (m) |
Description |
|
SC014 |
22°
24.389’ N 113°
52.407’ E |
795836.0
E 2480649.0
N |
6m
x 1.3m x 0.3m |
Possible
Wreck |
|
SC020 |
22°
24.360’ N 113°
52.354’ E |
795745.0
E 2480594.0
N |
13m
x 5m x 0.25m |
Possible
Wreck |
|
SC086 |
22°
24.388’ N 113°
54.072’ E |
798693.9
E 2480702.4
N |
10.77m
x 3.31m x 2.03m |
Possible
Wreck |
A magnetic survey was subsequently conducted for the
Sonar Contacts to ascertain how much ferrous material ([14])
remained on the
anomalies. Results of the magnetic
survey indicated that whilst SC014 and SC020 would not be vessels or of marine
archaeological potential, SC086 was considered as a Magnetic Anomaly and as a
site of marine archaeological potential.
A more detailed side scan sonar and multi beam sonar
survey was undertaken for the Sonar Contact SC086 in April 2006 to ascertain
the nature of this anomaly. SC086
was interpreted as a ‘recent’ motorised wooden
sampan. It is located about 1 km south of the CL of the
proposed Pipeline 1 (see Figure 11.2). In the context of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap 53), SC086 is not considered an antiquity or relic and is of no
archaeological value.
Therefore, all three sonar contacts have been proven to be of no
archaeological values in the context of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap 53) ([15]).
11.3.2
Field Surveys for Marine Archaeological
Resources
Following a baseline review including review of
literature and old maps, consultation with UK Hydrographic
Office and Hong Kong Hydrographic Office on their
database of shipwrecks, geophysical surveys were undertaken by CAPCO’s geophysical contractor EGS (
The objective of the survey was to define the areas/
sites of greatest archaeological potential, assess the depth and nature of the
seabed sediments and map any seabed and sub-bottom anomalies which may have
archaeological material. The survey
data obtained by EGS were reviewed and interpreted by a qualified marine
archaeologist to identify features of possible archaeological potential. The detailed methodology and findings
are described below.
The geophysical survey using multi beam echo sounder, side scan sonar and sub-bottom boomer
profiling covered a 400 m wide corridor, centred on the proposed gas pipeline
alignment with a route length of 5 km, giving a total of 278 km of survey data
(Figures 11.3 and 11.4). Side Scan Sonar and Boomer data was
collected from 20 m tracks along the length of the survey route. These tracks provided a comprehensive
coverage of the area. Cross
traverses every 100 m were also implemented. A similar thorough Side Scan Sonar and
Boomer survey was implemented at all the other impacted areas off Black Point
using similar distances between tracks and cross tracks. The vessel track plot of the surveys is
presented in Figure 11.4. These surveys allowed for a
comprehensive investigation of the seabed, and below the seabed.
The equipment used included:
·
DGPS positioning and navigation, provided by the C-NAV GcGPS 2000 system, and C-View NAV Navigation software;
·
Knudsen 320m echo sounder used to collect depth soundings;
·
Reson 8125 multi-beam echo sounder
·
DF 1000 side scan sonar system (employing a dual frequency system with
nominal operating frequencies of 100 kHz and 500 kHz) and digital tow fish,
used to map seabed features;
·
C-Boom low voltage
boomer system, used to provide profiles of seabed sediments;
·
C-View logging
systems
The geophysical survey data obtained by EGS were
processed by in house geophysicists and reviewed by the marine
archaeologist. Results of the
geophysical survey showed that the seabed in the vicinity of the Project Site
as composed of a mixture of silty sand and silty clay. The
surveyed area has been impacted by anchoring, trawling and the dumping of
materials and a few debris, navigation holes and buoys are present within this
area (Figure 11.5a).
Anchoring and trawling will reduce the archaeological potential of the
seabed in these areas as will the dumping of materials, although this activity
can also enhance the archaeological potential by providing a protective
covering over sites (it can also interfere/damage sites through this
activity). It makes it very
difficult, potentially impossible to assess the archaeological potential of
these parts of the seabed.
In addition, the survey located 14 Sonar Contacts
comprising debris, buoys, navigation poles and linear depression features (Figures 11.5b, 11.6, 11.6a
and 11.6b).
Further review of these Sonar Contacts by geophysicists and marine
archaeologists discounted them as wrecks, possible wrecks or sites of
archaeological potential based on a combination of factors, which included the
interpretation and a comparison of the geophysical signatures with those
signatures that were clearly wrecks (and possibly wrecks), debris and dumped
materials. Wrecks as seen in the
side scan sonar images have identifiable relief (as seen in the shadows they
develop on the side scan sonar images) and features that could be considered
not-natural, such as straight lines delineating its boundaries. In comparison debris could show relief
but it is characterised by natural, rounded features and boundaries. Dumped materials and some debris were
characterised by areas of a darker/black section of the seabed on the side scan
sonar images consisting of coarser materials/sediments with little or no
relief. The assessment also
included the context of the Sonar Contact with its surrounding seabed
environment, where identifiable dumped materials/debris was found to be in the
very near vicinity. The raw data
for all the Sonar Contacts was reviewed by the marine archaeologist using the
above criteria.
In some sections of the survey area, a small number
of ‘masked zones’ were recorded.
This applies to some of the seismic data, where gas masking affected the
interpretation of the sediments/formations but only below the Hang Hau Formations (the zone which most likely to contain
archaeological deposits). A review
of the boomer data failed to identify any sub-bottom anomalies. It is important to note that the side
scan sonar data were not masked, so there were no gaps in the geophysical
surveys from an archaeological perspective.
The geophysical survey, therefore, did not locate any
shipwrecks or other material of an archaeological nature, and no sites of
potential archaeological potential/ values, e.g. possible wrecks or pre-1800
age shipwrecks, have been identified.
The surveyed area contained minimal evidence of any sub-bottom anomalies
and none which were interpreted as archaeological material.
The location of the UKHO wreck #46602 was thoroughly
investigated but no trace of the 3,130 ton Japanese freighter Shirogane Maru could be
seen (Figure 11.7).
It is reasonable to assume that this wreck must have been removed, since
it could not have deteriorated to an extent where it is not evident.
It is thus concluded that no marine sites of cultural
heritage/archaeological value are present in waters surrounding Black Point and
within the proposed Project Area.
11.3.3
Establishing Marine Archaeological
Potential
The review of historical documents, literature and
geophysical data from the 2005 and 2009 surveys indicates that the Study Area
covering the proposed pipeline corridor and the reclamation site has little
potential to contain archaeological material, with the exception that evidence
from the UKHO found the Study Area could contain a shipwreck. The geophysical surveys in 2005 and 2009, however, found no evidence
of the UKHO shipwreck #46602, other shipwrecks or other archaeological material
either on the seabed of below it.
The proposed pipeline corridor and the reclamation
site are, therefore, considered to be of little marine archaeological
potential. As such, further marine
archaeological investigation, i.e. magnetic survey, remote operated vehicle
(ROV), visual diver survey or Watching Brief, is not considered necessary.
11.4
Potential Sources
of Impact
11.4.1
Construction Phase
The construction phase of a development may have
direct or indirect impacts to sites of potential sites of cultural
heritage. Such impacts may arise
from the following activities:
·
Direct
loss of potential marine archaeological deposits due to seabed construction
works, such as dredging, jetting and reclamation.
11.4.2
Operation Phase
The operation phase of a development may have direct
or indirect impacts to sites of potential sites of cultural heritage from the
following activities:
·
Indirect
impact on access for future archaeological surveys; and
·
Permanent
access disturbance to standing heritage if the standing heritage are conserved
within the developed area.
As there are no declared/ deemed monument, graded/
recorded heritage resources, Built Heritage or Archaeological Sites located
within the Project Area and no sites of cultural heritage protected under the AM Ordinance have been identified,
construction and operational impacts to sites of cultural heritage are not
expected.
Findings of the Marine Archaeological Investigation
concluded that no marine sites of cultural heritage/ archaeological value are
present in waters surrounding Black Point and along the proposed pipeline
corridor. As such, no impacts to
marine archaeological resources are expected.
No impacts on potential cultural heritage and
archaeological resources are expected to occur during the operation of the
submarine pipelines and GRSs.
At present there are no planned projects on Black
Point that could have cumulative cultural heritage impacts with the proposed
Project.
As no impacts to cultural heritage and archaeological
resources are expected, no mitigation measure is required.
A literature review supplemented by field survey has
concluded that no cultural heritage and archaeological resources of
archaeological potential have been identified within the proposed Project Area
and works areas. The proposed Project
is thus not expected to impose any archaeological impact and no mitigation
measures are considered necessary.
No cumulative impact or residual impact is expected.