8.1.1.1 This section presents the cultural heritage impact assessment for the project, identifying built heritage and archaeological resources, assessing potential direct and indirect impacts from the proposed works on these resources and recommending mitigation measures where required.
8.1.1.2 A description of the project can be found in Section 2 of this report including the drainage design elements, alignments and construction methodologies.
8.2 Environmental Legislation, Standards and Guidelines
8.2.1
Background
8.2.1.1 The legislation, standards, guidelines and criteria relevant to the consideration of Cultural Heritage impacts under this study include the following:
· Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance and Technical Memorandum;
· Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance;
·
· Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment; and
· Development Bureau Technical Circular (DEVB TC) (Works) No. 6/2009.
8.2.2
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance and Technical
Memorandum
8.2.2.1 The Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) was implemented on 1 April 1998. 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.
8.2.2.2 The general criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing impacts to Sites of Cultural Heritage are listed in Annexes 10 and 19 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM). 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.
8.2.3
Antiquities and Monuments Ordnance
8.2.3.1 The Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (the Ordinance) provides the statutory framework to provide for the preservation of objects of historical, archaeological and paleontological interest. The Ordinance contains the statutory procedures for the Declaration of Monuments. The proposed monument can be any place, building, site or structure, which is considered to be of public interest by reason of its historical, archaeological or paleontological significance.
8.2.3.2 Under Section 6 and subject to sub-section (4) of the Ordinance, the following acts are prohibited in relation to certain monuments, except under permit:
· To excavate, carry on building works, plant or fell trees or deposit earth or refuse on or in a proposed monument or monument;
· To demolish, remove, obstruct, deface or interfere with a proposed monument or monument.
8.2.3.3
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
8.2.3.4 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.
8.2.3.5 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.
8.2.4
8.2.4.1 Chapter 10 of the 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.
8.2.4.2 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 be listed in the explanatory notes of Statutory Town Plans and that it be stated that prior consultation with AMO is necessary for any redevelopment or rezoning proposals affecting the Monuments and their surrounding environments.
8.2.4.3
It is also noted that planning
intention for non-statutory town plans at the sub-regional level should be
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
8.2.5
Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
8.2.5.1 This document, as issued by the Antiquities and Monuments Office, outlines the specific technical requirement for conducting terrestrial archaeological and built heritage impact assessments and is based upon the requirements of the Technical Memorandum for Environmental Impact Assessment. It includes the parameters and scope for the Baseline Study, specifically desk-based research and field evaluation. There are also included guidelines encompassing reporting requirements and archive preparation and submission in the form of Guidelines for Archaeological Reports and Guidelines for the Handling of Archaeological Finds and Archives.
8.2.5.2 The prerequisite conditions for conducting impact assessment and mitigation measures are presented in detail, including the prediction and evaluation of impacts based upon five levels of significance (Beneficial, Acceptable, Acceptable with Mitigation Measures, Unacceptable and Undetermined). The guidelines also state that preservation in totality must be taken as the first priority and if this is not feasible due to site constraints or other factors, full justification must be provided.
8.2.5.3 Mitigation measures will be proposed in cases with identified impacts and shall have the aim of minimising the degree of adverse impact and also where applicable providing enhancement to a heritage site through means such as enhancement of the existing environment or improvement to accessibility of heritage sites. The responsibility for the implementation of any proposed mitigation measures must be clearly stated with details of when and where the measures will be implemented and by whom.
8.2.6
Development Bureau Technical Circular (Works) No. 6/2009:
Heritage Impact Assessment Mechanism for Capital Works Projects
8.2.6.1 The technical circular contains the procedures and requirements for assessing heritage impact arising from the implementation of new capital works projects. It is stated in the document that the works agent will provide a checklist to the AMO of any heritage sites (as defined in the TC) situated within or within the vicinity of the project boundary (usually to be defined as not more than 50 metres measured from the nearest point of the project boundary, including works areas).
8.2.6.2 The identification of the heritage sites should be undertaken at the earliest possible stage, preferably as part of the Technical Feasibility Statement. If the works boundary cannot be defined at this stage, the checklist should be provided as soon as the project boundary has been defined. Upon receipt of the above information from the works agent, the AMO will determine if the proposed project will affect the heritage value of any heritage site and decide the necessity of conducting an HIA based upon the submitted information.
8.2.6.3 If an HIA is required, the works agent shall submit a proposal for the scope of the HIA for AMO approval. Once the scope has been approved it will be the responsibility of the works agent to conduct the HIA.
8.3 Objectives of the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
8.3.1.1 A Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) must be undertaken in order to identify the impact that the proposed project construction and operation may have on any cultural heritage resources of the Study Area. The specific objectives of the CHIA include the following:
· to identify and highlight the known archaeological resources and historical buildings and structures;
· to identify and map the potential for archaeological remains in the works area;
· to identify any additional heritage resources in the Study Area;
· to identify any negative impacts on the sites of cultural heritage; and
· to propose measures to mitigate these impacts.
8.4.1
Background
8.4.1.1 The CHIA has been divided into the identification of terrestrial archaeological and terrestrial built heritage impacts and the assessment methodology for each of these tasks is highlighted below.
8.4.2
Terrestrial Archaeology
Baseline Study
8.4.2.1 As stated in the Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, the baseline study is used to compile a comprehensive inventory of all sites of archaeological interest within and in the environs of the project Study Area, which for this project will be all works areas and an area of 50 metres around the works boundary, as shown in Figure 8.6. The results would then presented in a report that provides both clear evidence that the required processes have been satisfactorily completed as well as a detailed inventory of all identified sites of archaeological interest, which includes a full description of their cultural significance.
8.4.2.2 The following tasks would be undertaken in order to gather the necessary information for the compilation of the baseline study:
Task 1: Desk-based Research
8.4.2.3 Firstly, desk-based research is carried out in order to identify any known or potential sites of archaeological interest within the project study area and to evaluate the cultural significance of these sites once identified. The following is a non-exhaustive list of resources that are consulted as part of the research programme: the Antiquities and Monuments Office published and unpublished papers and studies; publications on relevant historical, anthropological and other cultural studies; unpublished archival papers and records; collections and libraries of tertiary institutions; historical documents held in the Public Records Office, Lands Registry, District Lands Office, District Office and Museum of History; cartographic and pictorial documentation; and geotechnical information.
Task 2: Site Visit
8.4.2.4
In order to supplement the
information gathered in the desk-based study, a site visit is undertaken to
assess the current status of the Study Area and also to make note of existing
impacts.
Task 3: Archaeological Field Investigation
(if required)
8.4.2.5 If the results of the desk-based study and site visit indicate that there is insufficient data for purposes of identification of sites of archaeological interest, determination of cultural significance and assessment of impacts, an archaeological field investigation programme will be designed and submitted to the AMO for approval. Once approved, a qualified archaeologist must apply for a licence to undertake the archaeological excavation, which must be approved by the Antiquities Authority before issuance. The archaeological field investigation typically consists of some or all of the following steps:
8.4.2.6 Field Scan: If necessary, field walking is conducted to identify archaeological deposits on the surface. The scanning of the surface for archaeological material is conducted, under ideal circumstances, in a systematic manner and covers the entire study area. Particular attention is given to areas of land undisturbed in the recent past and to exposed areas such as riverbed cuts, erosion areas, terraces, etc. During the field scanning, concentrations of finds are recorded, bagged and plotted on 1:1000 scale mapping and are retained as part of the archive. Topography, surface conditions and existing impacts are noted during the field walking.
8.4.2.7 Auger Testing Programme: If necessary, auger survey will be carried within the study area in order to establish soil sequence, the presence/absence of cultural soils or deposits and their horizontal extent. The auger tool consists of a bucket, pole and handle and is vertically drilled by hand into the surface. When the bucket is filled with soil the auger is extracted and the soil emptied from the bucket. Soils are described and depth changes are measured inside the hole. The depth and type of any finds recovered are also recorded. The auger hole is abandoned when water table, the end of the auger or rock is reached or the auger bucket fails to hold the soil. The location of each auger hole test is marked on a 1:1000 scale map. The results of the auger tests provide one of the criteria used to position the test pit excavations.
8.4.2.8 Test Pit Excavation: If necessary, test pit excavations are carried out to verify the archaeological potential within a study area. The choice of location for test pit excavations will depend on various factors such as desk-based information, landforms, field scan and auger test results as well as issues relating to access.
8.4.2.9 Hand digging of test pits measuring between 1 by 1 and 2 by 2 metres is carried out in order to determine the presence/absence of archaeological deposits and their stratigraphy. The size may depend on close proximity to large trees, narrow terraces or other external factors. Hand excavation will continue until decomposing rock or sterile soils are reached and no potential for further cultural layers exists. A test pit will also be abandoned when the maximum safe working depth is reached or when, despite the use of appropriate and practical dewatering measures, the effects of ground water prevent further excavation. In cases where sterile deposits or the maximum safe excavation limit cannot be reached, the AMO should be consulted prior to backfilling.
8.4.2.10 During excavation contexts, finds and features are recorded, soils are described and relevant depths measured. Artefacts are collected, bagged and labelled by context. Sections are photographed and drawn and, if required, ground plans are also photographed and/or drawn. The position of each test pit, its top and bottom levels and associated TBM are recorded by a qualified land surveyor and plotted on 1:1000 scale mapping. On completion of all recording test pits are backfilled.
Reporting and Submission of Archive
8.4.2.11 A report of the findings of the archaeological survey will be compiled following the requirements as outlined in the AMO’s Guidelines for the Archaeological Reports. The processing of recovered archaeological material and preparation of the project archive will follow the AMO’s Guidelines for Handling of Archaeological Finds and Archives.
Impact Assessment
8.4.2.12 The prediction and evaluation of both direct and indirect impacts must be undertaken to identify any potential adverse affects to all identified sites of archaeological interest within a project Study Area. A detailed description of the works and all available plans (with their relationship to the identified resources clearly shown) should be included, to illustrate the nature and degree of potential impacts. The impact assessment must adhere to the detailed requirements of Annexes 10 and 19 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process.
Mitigation Measures
8.4.2.13 As stated in the Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment “Preservation in totality must be taken as the first priority”. If such preservation is not feasible, as in the case where the need for a particular development can be shown to have benefits that outweigh the significance of the site of archaeological interest, a programme of mitigation measures must be designed and submitted to the AMO for approval. The mitigation measures must be clearly listed and the party responsible for implementation and timing of the measures must also be included. Examples of mitigation measures include; rescue excavation and archaeological watching brief.
Baseline Study
8.4.3.1 A desk-based study is undertaken to determine the presence of built heritage resources in the project Study Area, which is defined as 100 m, as shown in Figure 8.10. Information has been gathered from the following sources:
·
List of
· Published and unpublished papers and studies;
· Publications on relevant historical, anthropological and other cultural studies;
· Unpublished archival, papers, records; collections and libraries of tertiary institutions;
·
Historical documents which can
be found in Public Records Office, Lands Registry, District Lands Office,
District Office,
· Cartographic and pictorial documentation; and
· Previous Built Heritage Impact Assessment’s (BHIA) in the project study areas.
Built Heritage Field Survey
8.4.3.2
The results of any previous
surveys undertaken in the recent past will be used to identify resources in the
project study area. If any parts of the
study area are not surveyed in the recent past, a built heritage field survey
will be undertaken to identify all built heritage resources. The survey will follow the requirements of
the Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, including the scope of resources, methodology and
recording and report preparation processes.
Definition of Built Heritage Resources
8.4.3.3 As defined in the guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, the following resources will be included in this BHIA; All pre-1950 buildings and structures, selected post-1950 buildings and structures of high architectural and historical significance and interest and cultural landscapes including places associated with an historic event, activity or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values, such as sacred religious sites, battlefields, a setting for buildings or structures of architectural or archaeological importance, historic field patterns, clan graves, old tracks and fung shui woodlands and ponds.
Impact Assessment and Mitigation Measures
8.4.3.4 Prediction and Identification of both direct and indirect impacts that may affect the built heritage resources within the project Study Area will be undertaken with special attention paid to the built heritage resources identified in the project Study Brief. Preservation in-situ will always be the first priority for sites of Cultural Heritage. If preservation in totality is not possible, mitigation will be proposed to minimize the degree of adverse impact to the greatest possible extent. As well, any disturbance to sites of Cultural Heritage that may cause physical damage should be avoided wherever possible through alteration of design, construction method or protective measures as appropriate.
8.5 Archaeological Impact Assessment
8.5.1
Baseline Archaeological Review
Geological and Topographic Background
8.5.1.1
The study area at Ngong
Ping is located high on a plateau in the mountains on
8.5.1.2
While it is unusual to find archaeological sites in
Hong Kong at this height it is not deemed impossible, especially sites or
remains which may be related to trade routes or agricultural practices.
Archaeological Background of Ngong Ping
8.5.1.3
There a single
known archaeological resource within the vicinity of the proposed works, namely
Ngong Ping- Shek Pik Boulder Trackway.
8.5.1.4
The Trackway is one of
the typical boulder trackways which can be found in
various places in the territory and which were used by villagers to visit
markets or other villages. It runs from
nearby the Shek Pik reservoir to just south of Po Lin Monastery (Figure 8.1). Old
topographical maps, such as 1957 topographical map (Figure 8.2), show a
number of paths crisscross the mountains on Lantau,
but the Ngong Ping-Shek Pik Trackway
is the only one so far identified as build with boulders. It remains difficult to date such trackways without extensive excavation. The AMO commissioned a study on the trackways early 2011.
The report is pending.
Historical Background of Ngong Ping
8.5.1.5
There is no record of habitation at Ngong Ping
prior to the construction of the first buildings associated with the Po Lin
Monastery. The original founders stated the place
was over grown with
thorn bushes and access was difficult.
8.5.1.6
There are references to cultivation of tea on the southern slopes of
8.5.1.7 The Po Lin or ‘precious lotus’ monastery was founded in 1906 by three monks. Original buildings associated with the monastery were simple retreats built between 1909 and the 1930s; they were later replaced by new buildings including the Po Lin Monastery which opened in 1970. Currently the monastery complex contains numerous religious buildings, residential units and associated shops and restaurants.
Existing Impacts
8.5.1.8
Ngong Ping has
had relatively few existing impacts. Most of the development in the past was associated with the Po Lin monastery and its associated activities. Buildings have been added over
the decades and the monks grow their own food in the surrounding areas. Old maps show agricultural
activities on the plateau surrounding the buildings as late as 1969 (Figure 8.4).
8.5.1.9
Tourism visitation to the
monastery was increased in 2002, however, when the MTRC Cable Car project was
approved by the Government. Six thousand square metres of shop space and an 18,600-square-metre piazza between the cable car terminal
and the Po Lin Monastery which opened in 2005
changed the surroundings of the monastery. The construction impacts associated have no
doubt adversely impacted any potential for archaeology. The project named Ngong Ping 360 is currently one of major tourism
attractions in
8.5.1.10 The sole area of archaeological interest, namely the trackway, is located on the edge of the monastery and is not part of the tourism and is situated well outside the proposed project area (Figure 8.5).
Previous Investigations
8.5.1.11 A review of previous EIA reports undertaken in the Ngong Ping area has been undertaken to determine if sites of archaeological interest were identified. The EIA reports and the conclusions of the review are as follows:
i) EIA Report for Tung Chung - Ngong Ping Cable Car Project (Register No.: AEIAR-074/2003). The Final EIA report was submitted in March 2003. No areas of archaeological interest were identified at Ngong Ping; and
ii) EIA Report for Ngong Ping Sewage Treatment Works and Sewerage (Register No.: AEIAR-065/2002). The report did not identify any archaeological resources or potential at Ngong Ping but focussed on and assessed the historical buildings of Po Lin Monastery.
8.5.2
Archaeological Field Visit
8.5.2.1 The desk-based review has been deemed sufficient to assess the potential impacts on archaeological resources by the proposed drainage works. During the project inception stage, DSD has confirmed that there are no heritage sites within 50m of the project site boundary as determined in accordance with DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2009 and that Antiquities and Monuments Office have agreed that a heritage impact assessment is not required. Hence, it is considered that there was no need for further field survey in the areas which will be impacted by the proposed works.
8.5.2.2 A field visit to the study area, however, was undertaken in early October 2011 to assess the conditions in the field and to review the setting of the identified areas of interest to the proposed works. Figure 8.6 shows the location of the plates (Plates 8.3a – 8.3f) and indicates the direction of the photographs taken. It was noted that the Ngong Ping trackway is located some 600 metres from the closest proposed works (Figure 8.5).
8.5.2.3 During the field visit, the area along the proposed drainage alignment and the proposed works areas were walked and stream beds and areas of erosion were examined (Plate 8.3c) but no archaeological materials or deposits were noted. The visit showed that the solid geology appears on or near the surface in many localities (Plate 8.3f). Also, the alignment will run along or within existing roads on the whole (Plates 8.3b-f).
8.5.3
Evaluation of Archaeological Potential
8.5.3.1 In general, the area at Ngong Ping is deemed to have low potential in terms of archaeology. Prehistorical sites are typically located in coastal areas and the early settlers preferred access to sea, arable lands and on the whole easier to access than Ngong Ping. It is clear, however, that trade or cultural exchange routes did traverse the plateau as early as 19th century. Agriculture was certainly taking place at these high altitudes as evidenced by the terracing and early maps.
8.5.3.2 The archaeological potential of the each section of the Project works area is detailed in Table 8.1 below.
Table
8.1 Summary of Archaeological Potential of
the Study Area
|
Study
Area Portion |
Proposed
Works (1) |
Archaeological
Potential |
Assessment
of Potential |
Scope |
|
Eastern Part (Figure 8.7) |
Construction of new underground stormwater
drainage pipe of about 450m in length on the northern side of Po Lin
Monastery (Works Sections 1-3, Figures 2.9b-2.9d) |
The entire alignment runs very closely on
or near the road which will have impacted superficial deposits. Open cuts visible show either natural
stratigraphy or artificial fill. |
Due to the combination of rocky area, lack of archaeological material
and deposit and some disturbance of construction, this section are deemed to
have very low archaeological potential. |
No further works required. |
|
Central Part (Figure 8.8) |
Construction of new underground stormwater
box culvert of about 230m in length at the north western side of Po Lin
Monastery near Lin Ping Drive (Works Sections 4 and 5,
Figures 2.9e
- 2.9f ) |
The drainage alignment closely follows a smallish stream and is
located on debris flow deposits. A
number of rocks can be seen on the surface. Some minor impacts due to paths and construction of buildings in the general vicinity. |
Due to the surface rocks and the visible natural stratigraphy and lack
of archaeological material or deposits in the stream bed and erosion patches,
the section is deemed to have very low archaeological potential. |
No further works required. |
|
Western Part (Figure 8.9) |
Construction of new underground stormwater
drainage pipe of about 220m in length at northern side of Ngong
Ping 360 terminal and columbarium (Works Section 6, Figure 2.9g) |
The area is relatively flat with numerous Rhyolite lava and tuffs
rocks on the surface. Some adverse
impacts have occurred due to the construction of the road and the Ngong Ping 360 terminus. |
Due to the rocky surface the archaeological potential of this area is
deemed very low. |
No further works required. |
Note
(1): The proposed works include all
works areas as detailed in Table 2.13 which are integrated with
the alignment
8.5.4
Impact Assessment
8.5.4.1
As the proposed works are located in areas of very low to no archaeological interest, no archaeological
impacts are predicted and no mitigation measures are required during either the
construction or operational phases.
8.5.4.2 It is recommended, however, that if archaeological remains are encountered during groundworks, the project proponent must arrange a temporary suspension of works in the affected area and notify AMO immediately after the discovery and any further action should be agreed with AMO prior to continuation of the works. Sufficient resources, as well as time for conducting necessary archaeological works should be provided by the project proponent if so required.
8.6 Built Heritage Impact Assessment
8.6.1
Baseline Built Heritage Review
Historical Background of Ngong Ping
8.6.1.1
The project Study Area is
situated at Ngong Ping, which contains the Po Lin monastery.
The monastery was founded in 1906 by three Buddhist monks of the Ch’an School, Da Yue, Dun Xiu and Yue Ming, who travelled
from
8.6.1.2
The monastery is also the site
of the Tian Tan Buddha Statue, the world’s largest
sitting Buddha Statue built outdoors. The bronze statue was planned and
constructed over a 12 year period and was completed in 1989. The Big Buddha
Statue has become a well known landmark in Hong Kong and in 2000 was also
designated in fourth place of the “ten engineering wonders in
8.6.1.3
There is no record of
habitation at Ngong Ping prior to the
construction of the first buildings associated with the Po Lin Monastery. Ngong Ping is not a traditional settled village and grew
with the development of the monastery. There are references to cultivation of
tea on the southern slopes of
8.6.1.4
There were no
Results of Previous Studies
8.6.1.5 A review of previous EIA reports undertaken in the Ngong Ping area has been undertaken to determine if cultural heritage resources were identified. The EIA reports and the conclusions of the review are as follows:
i) Outlying Islands Sewerage Stage 1 Phase 1 Ngong Ping Sewage Treatment Works and Sewerage Investigation, Design and Construction – Environmental Impact Assessment Report (Final) Volume I (August 2002). The study area for this project included Ngong Ping and the Po Lin Monastery. A built heritage survey was conducted for the project and 23 Built Heritage items were identified in the vicinity of the current project Study Area.
ii)
MTR Corporation Ltd. Tung Chung Cable Car Project – Environmental
Impact Assessment (Final) March 2003. A CHIA, including BHIA was
conducted for the project and the report was finalised in 2003. A full built
heritage survey was not conducted, but site visits to the Ngong
Ping area, identified numerous religious and residential structures associated
with the Po Lin Monastery, as well as an historical grave. The grave (NP27), as shown in Figure 8.11, is located
near the proposed underground drainage pipe to be installed by trenchless method
at the northern side of the Ngong Ping 360 terminal
and columbarium.
8.6.1.6 Appendices G2 and G3 present the location plan of the previously studied built heritage resources under the above two EIA studies, respectively. The previous identification codes of formerly identified built heritage resources within the current Study Area and the corresponding identification codes used in this EIA Report are included in the built heritage catalogue (Appendix G1).
8.6.2
Built Heritage Survey
8.6.2.1 A survey of the Study Area was conducted on February 4th 2012. All accessible areas were surveyed but it is noted that areas that were not accessible, all have information available from the previous survey report of 2002. A total of 24 heritage items were identified, including religious buildings and structures, residential buildings and one grave. The detailed recording of these structures can be found in the Built Heritage Catalogue in Appendix G1 and 1:1000 scale maps highlighting the locations of the resources and their relationship to the proposed works are presented in Figures 8.11-8.16. Figure 8.10 gives an overall view of all the recorded built heritages in the Study Area.
8.6.3
Construction Phase Impact Assessment
8.6.3.1 The proposed works will consist of the construction of two sections of underground drainage pipe and one section of box culvert. The majority of the works will take place on existing footpaths and the general layout plans are shown in Figures 2.9a-2.9g Details of the proposed works are provided below.
8.6.3.2 Based on the preliminary works description provided by the Engineer, the main works required under the proposed works is open excavation at Works Sections 2, 3, 4 and 6 and the depth of excavation is expected to be shallow and would be about 6m- 7m. H-steel sheet can be anticipated to ensure trench stability prior to and during the formation of new box culverts or laying of the drains. In Works Sections 1 and 5, pipe jacking using small diameter (2-3m) tunnel boring machine is expected. The pipe-jacking equipment is operated by hydraulics and the jacking pipes are buried approximately 4m below ground. The proposed underground pipe jacking works are unlikely to cause any significant vibration impact to the built heritage resources. However, the pipe jacking launching and receiving pits will be excavated and these sites have been highlighted as excavation areas and impacts assessed accordingly. Also, only a limited number of powered mechanical equipment (PME) (mainly handheld breaker, mini backhoe, handheld vibratory hammer/poker, compactor, excavator, dump truck/lorry, etc.) will be used. Therefore, by the nature of the proposed works, off-site impacts to historical buildings/structures, if any, would be mainly due to vibrations associated with the excavation works.
8.6.3.3 Given the small scale of the proposed works and the fact that only a limited number of PMEs will be used, the extent of potential impacts arising from the proposed works is expected to be highly localised. It is therefore, considered that assessing the built heritage resources within 100 m from the proposed works area would provide sufficient protection for built heritage resources.
8.6.3.4 In addition, any resources that are situated in close proximity to the proposed works, defined as less than 5 metres, may also be damaged through contact with machinery and construction activities if appropriate protective measures are not implemented properly. The identified impacts to built heritage resources within the 100 metre project Study Area are presented in Table 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 for Works Sections 1-3, 4-5 and 6 respectively.
Table
8.2 Impact Assessment for Built Heritage
Resources (Works Sections 1, 2 and 3)
|
Recorded
Resource |
Figure
/ BC No. (1) |
Construc- tion Method |
Distance
to Works Boundary(2) |
Distance
to Excavation (3) |
Impact
Assessment |
|
|
8.16 / NP-01 |
C&C pipe laying |
87 m |
89 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
(Entrance Gate) |
8.16 / NP-02 |
C&C pipe laying |
94 m |
109 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
(Amithaba Residence) |
8.15 / NP-03 |
C&C pipe laying |
33 m |
48 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
(Fat Ho’s
Pagoda) |
8.16 / NP-04 |
C&C pipe laying |
99 m |
114 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
No. 29 Ngong (Village House) |
8.15 / NP-06 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
86 m |
103 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
No. 28 Ngong Ping (Village House) |
8.15 / NP-07 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
35 m |
53 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
Near No. 28 Ngong Ping (Village House) |
8.15 / NP-08 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
26 m |
43 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
Near No. 28 Ngong Ping (Village House) |
8.15 / NP-09 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
23 m |
40 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
No. 34 Ngong (Village House) |
8.15 / NP-10 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
8 m |
21 m |
The building is
in close proximity to the proposed excavation area and may be damaged by
ground borne vibration. |
|
No. 35 Ngong (Village House) |
8.15 / NP-11 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
5 m |
29 m |
The building is
in close proximity to the proposed excavation area and may be damaged by
ground borne vibration. |
|
No. 40 Ngong (Village House) |
8.13 / NP-12 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
25 m |
35 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
No. 33 Ngong (Village House) |
8.15 / NP-13 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
72 m |
85 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
To the Southwest
of Nos. 31, 32 and 33 Ngong Ping (Village House) |
8.15 / NP-14 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
27 m |
62 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
To the Southwest
of Nos. 31, 32 and 33 Ngong Ping (Religious Hall) |
8.15 / NP-15 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
16 m |
62 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
To the southeast
of No. 50 Ngong Ping (Village House) |
8.13 / NP-17 |
C&C pipe laying |
52 m |
66 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
No. 50 Ngong (Village House) |
8.13 / NP-18 |
C&C pipe laying |
66 m |
80 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
No. 39 Ngong (Village House) |
8.13 / NP-19 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
0 m |
8 m |
The building is
within the proposed works area and may be damaged by contact from machinery
and equipment during the construction works. The building is
in close proximity to the proposed excavation area and may be damaged by
ground borne vibration. |
|
No. 13 Ngong (Village House) |
8.15 / NP-20 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
0 m |
54 m |
The building is
within the proposed works area and may be damaged by contact from machinery
and equipment during the construction works Based on the distance (54 m) to the nearest excavation works (3),
no impacts from ground borne vibration is expected to arise from the
construction works. Vibration along
the alignment from the pipe-jacking works is not predicted. |
|
No. 12 Ngong (Village House) |
8.15/ NP-21 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
2 m |
49 m |
The building is in
close proximity to the proposed works area (2 m) and may be damaged by
contact from machinery and equipment during the construction works. Based on the distance (49 m) to the nearest excavation works(3), no impacts from ground
borne vibration are expected to arise from the construction works. Vibration
along the alignment from the pipe-jacking works is not predicted. |
|
No. 20 Ngong (Village House) |
8.15 / NP-23 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
14 m |
64 m |
Based on the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
|
Shrine |
8.13 / NP-25 |
C&C pipe laying |
87 m |
100 m |
Based upon the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
Notes:
1. BC No.
= Built Catalogue Reference Number in Appendix G1.
Note that numbers NP-05, NP-16, NP-22 and NP-24 are not used.
2. Distance
to Works Boundary is the minimum distance between the resource and the works
boundary.
3 Distance
to Excavation Area is the minimum distance between the resource and the
excavation trench (C&C pipe laying) or the launching
or receiving pits (pipe jacking).
Table
8.3 Impact Assessment for Built Heritage
Resources (Works Sections 4 and 5)
|
Recorded Resource |
Figure / BC No. (1) |
Construc-tion
Method |
Distance to Works Boundary (2) |
Distance to Excavation (3) |
Impact Assessment |
|
Arch |
8.14 / NP-28 |
C&C box culvert |
39 m |
49 m |
Based upon the
distance no impact is expected to arise from the construction works. |
Notes:
1. BC No.
= Built Catalogue Reference Number in Appendix G1.
2. Distance
to Works Boundary is the minimum distance between the resource and the works
boundary.
3 Distance
to Excavation Area is the minimum distance between the resource and the
excavation trench (C&C pipe laying) or the launching
or receiving pits (pipe jacking).
Table 8.4 Identification of Impacts to Built Heritage Resources (Works
Section 6)
|
Recorded Resource |
Figure / BC No. (1) |
Construc- tion Method |
Distance to Works Boundary (2) |
Distance to Excavation (3) |
Impact Assessment |
|
Shrine |
8.12 / NP-26 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
4 m |
46 m |
The shrine is in
close proximity to the proposed works area (4 m) and may be damaged by
contact from machinery and equipment during the construction works. Based on the distance to the nearest excavation works (46 m) (3),
no impacts from ground borne vibration is expected to arise from the
construction works. Vibration along the alignment from the pipe-jacking works
is not predicted. |
|
Historical Grave |
8.11 / NP-27 |
Trenchless pipe jacking |
16 m |
92 m |
Based upon the distance no impact is expected to arise from the
construction works. |
Notes:
1. BC No.
= Built Catalogue Reference Number in Appendix G1.
2. Distance
to Works Boundary is the minimum distance between the resource and the works
boundary.
3. Distance
to Excavation Area is the minimum distance between the resource and the
excavation trench (C&C pipe laying) or the launching
or receiving pits (pipe jacking).
8.6.3.5 Based upon the above, six built heritage resources (NP-10, NP-11, NP-19, NP-20, NP-21 and NP-26) have been identified as having the potential to be affected by the proposed works. As such, mitigation measures would be required to ameliorate any impacts.
8.6.4
Operational Phase Assessment
8.6.4.1 The operation of the drainage system is not expected to cause any significant adverse impacts to built heritage resources. It should, also, be noted that the purpose of the drainage improvement project is to reduce the risk of flooding and as such its operation will provide beneficial impacts to the local community as well as protection to buildings and structures (including those with cultural heritage value) from water damage as a result of flooding incidents.
8.6.4.2 The underground pipe installations will not have any adverse visual impact during the operational phase of the project. The introduction of the box culvert will present a new visible element at ground level which could have the potential to visually impact any heritage resources in close proximity to it. However, as detailed in Table 8.3, only one has been identified in Works Section 4 and 5, the entry arch to the Po Lin Monastery located 39m from the nearest work boundary. As such, no adverse visual impacts are predicted to arise during the operational phase.
8.6.5
Mitigation Measures for Built Heritage Resources
8.6.5.1 No adverse impacts are predicted during the operation of the drainage system and, therefore, no mitigation measures will be required.
8.6.5.2
However, six built heritage
resources have been identified as being located in close proximity to the
proposed works areas, namely NP-10, NP-11, NP-19, NP-20, NP-21 and NP-26, as
detailed in Appendix G1 and shown in Figures 8.12, 8.13 and 8.15. The structures may be damaged by ground
borne vibration and/or contact with machinery and equipment. The recommended mitigation measures for each resource are as
follows:
i)
For heritage resources in close
proximity to proposed works and that may be affected by ground borne vibration (
NP-10, NP-11 and NP-19), a condition survey must be carried out by a qualified
building surveyor or engineer one month in advance of works commencing near the
buildings that may be affected. The Condition Survey Report should contain
descriptions of the structure, identification of fragile elements, an appraisal
of the condition and working methods for any proposed monitoring (including
frequency of monitoring) and precautionary measures that are recommended. The
Contractor must implement the approved monitoring and precautionary
measures.
ii)
A
buffer zone of a minimum of 5 metres in size (or if due to site/engineering
constraints, as large as possible buffer zone should be provided) should be
marked out for the following resources which are close to either a works area
or excavation area, namely NP-19, NP-20, NP-21 and NP-26. This should be
achieved by temporary fencing and placed around the structures 2 weeks prior to
the construction works commencing; and
iii)
Vibration
monitoring should be undertaken for the duration of the construction works based
upon the recommendations of the approved Condition Survey Report, which will
also define the frequency of monitoring required. The maximum acceptable level
of vibration will be set at 15 mm/s. Based
upon the findings of the condition survey, this limit may be revised for
sensitive structures. The location of
monitoring points should be situated on the structure closest to the
construction works, unless the maximum level is set lower than the standard 15
mm/s, in which case monitoring points should be located on each affected
structure. Installation of monitoring points must not damage the historic
building fabric. The location of monitoring points (and access to the property
for purposes of measurement) must be agreed with the property owner prior to
installation.
8.6.5.3 Given that recommended measures comprise tried and tested techniques, the level of uncertainty of their effective implementation would be small. Notwithstanding, the EM&A programme will be implemented to ensure all mitigation measures are effective.
8.8.1.1
The residual
impacts refer to the net impacts after mitigation, taking into account the
background environmental
conditions and the impacts from existing, committed and planned projects. Residual impacts associated with these works
have been assessed but no quantification of residual impacts is required. The predicted residual impacts to heritage resources are considered as
short term occurring during excavation works close to the properties only. Impacts would, therefore be localised and not
of international and regional importance and would not affect the welfare of
the local community.
8.8.1.2
Adverse
residual terrestrial archaeological are not expected whilst adverse residual terrestrial built
heritage impacts will not be anticipated after the implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures.
8.9
Environmental
Monitoring and Audit Requirements
8.9.1.1
In terms of terrestrial archaeology, no areas of
archaeological potential have been identified and no impacts are predicted. However,
as a precautionary measure, it is recommended that if any antiquity or supposed
antiquity is discovered during the course of the excavation works undertaken by
the contractor, the discovery shall be reported to the AMO immediately and
all necessary measures taken to preserve it.
8.9.1.2
In
terms of built heritage, mitigation measures are required at six identified
village houses as detailed in Section 8.6.5 above. The implementation of these mitigation
measures will need to be audited as part of the EM&A programme
during the pre-construction and construction stages to ensure that they are
appropriately implemented. Further
details of the specific EM&A requirements are detailed
in Section
10 of this report and in the EM&A Manual under separate cover.
8.10.1.1
The archaeology assessment did not identify any areas
of archaeological potential and no impacts are
predicted. However, any antiquity or
supposed antiquity discovered during the course of the excavation works will be
reported to the AMO immediately.
8.10.1.2 The Built Heritage Impact Assessment has identified six built heritage resources that will require mitigation (NP-10, NP-11, NP-19, NP-20, NP-21 and NP-26). Mitigation in the form of a condition survey will be required for NP-10, NP-11 and NP-19 and the condition survey will recommend if vibration monitoring is required. A buffer zone will be recommended for NP-19, NP20, NP-21 and NP-26. The construction and operation of the drainage improvement works will not cause any insurmountable adverse impacts if the above mitigation measures are implemented properly and no cumulative impacts will occur as a result of this project.
1.
AMO files.
2.
Hase, P.H., J.W. Hayes and
K.C. Lu 1986. Traditional Tea Growing in the New Territories. In RAS, vol.24: 264 – 281.
3.
Langford,
R.L. et al 1995. Geology of Lantau District.
4.
Lim, Patricia, 1997. Discovering
5.
Peacock B.A.V. and T. J. P. Nixon 1985-6. Summary data sheet of Ngong Ping-Shek Pik Trackway, site no. 13/19.
Report of the
6.
Po
Lin Monastery official website: http://www.plm.org.hk/eng/home.php
7.
Spry, N. 1986-8. Trackways. Journal of
8.
MTRC 2003. Tung Chung Cable Car Project Environmental Impact
Assessment (Final). MTRC Corporation Ltd. (EIAO Register No.:
AEIAR-074/2003).
9.
DSD 2003. Agreement No. CE
29/2001. Outlying