This Section presents the
cultural heritage impact assessment (CHIA) associated with the construction of the proposed Project. In accordance with Clause 3.4.12.2 of the EIA
Study Brief, a Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) was undertaken
by a qualified marine archaeologist and the findings of the MAI are presented
herein.
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) 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; and
·
Guidelines for Marine
Archaeological Investigation (MAI) of the EIA 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 CHIA
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 sites of
cultural heritage. 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 culture and tradition; (b) Adverse impacts on sites of
cultural heritage shall be kept to the absolute minimum.”
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 AM 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 AM 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,
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 other works in
relation to antiquities.
Section
11 of the AM Ordinance requires any person who
discovers an antiquity, or supposed antiquity, to report the discovery to the
Antiquities Authority.
The HKPSG, Chapter 10 (Conservation), provides
general guidelines and measures for the conservation of historical buildings,
sites of archaeological interest and other antiquities.
The guidelines stated in Appendix I-1 of the EIA 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 CHIA –
Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) and Guidelines for MAI, as stated in Appendices I and I-1 of
the Study Brief, respectively.
It should be noted that the
land-based sites of this Project are within the site boundary of the BPPS and
LPS. Desktop review including
review of previously approved EIA reports listed in Section 12.4.1 below
identified no declared monument protected under the AM Ordinance, graded/ recorded heritage resources, built heritage
or sites of archaeological interest located within 500m from the proposed
land-based sites and works areas.
The BPPS and LPS sites are on reclaimed land without cultural heritage
significance. On the basis of the
above, it is considered that the Project sites are of no terrestrial built
heritage and archaeological potential.
A terrestrial cultural heritage impact assessment is thus not deemed
necessary. Potential impacts on
built heritage and terrestrial archaeological resources are not anticipated.
Findings of the MAI for the
marine-based sites of this Project are presented in the following sections.
According
to Section 3.4.12.2 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 construction and
dredging works include:
·
LNG
Terminal site: no capital dredging is expected to be required at the LNG
Terminal site (about 600m x 600m in size, including navigation approach and
manoeuvring/ turning area for the FSRU Vessel and LNGCs) where a Jetty (approximate
dimension of 500m in length and 50m in width) will be constructed. The Jetty
will be a piled structure.
Maintenance dredging may be required to be carried out about once
every five years (subject to actual site conditions) to ensure continued access
and manoeuvrability by the FSRU Vessel and LNGCs.
·
BPPS
Pipeline: a combination of dredged (by closed grab dredger and trailing suction
hopper dredger) and non-dredged (jetting) methods will be employed for
trenching for the BPPS Pipeline.
·
LPS
Pipeline: a combination of dredged (by closed grab dredger) and non-dredged
(jetting) methods will be employed for trenching for the LPS Pipeline. An Alternative Shore Approach Route to
LPS is being considered which, if required, will employ closed grab dredging.
The
Assessment Area therefore covers an area of about 600m x 600m at the site for
the LNG Terminal and areas within 500m wide corridors centred on the indicative
routes of the two proposed subsea gas pipelines (BPPS Pipeline and LPS
Pipeline) (i.e. 250m either side of the pipeline centreline) so that the areas potentially
affected by marine construction works could be fully covered. The Assessment Area of the MAI of this
Project is illustrated in Figure 12.1.
A marine archaeological
review was conducted by a qualified marine archaeologist, Dr Bill Jeffery,
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) ([1]),
and previous marine archaeological investigations conducted (see Figure 12.2)
to identify known and potential existence of sites or objects of cultural
heritage within the Assessment Area.
Based on the preliminary
marine archaeological review, information gaps are identified between the
existing data and the Assessment Area (see Figure 12.3 which
identifies the areas with information gaps where geophysical survey was
conducted). Geophysical survey was
conducted over the areas with information gaps to identify any potential
existence of sites or objects of cultural heritage, whether the identified
issues can be mitigated and whether there is a need for more detailed
investigation. The
survey areas were defined to ensure sufficient
coverage of information gaps; some overlapping with previously conducted MAIs
occurs in certain areas for ease of survey planning and arrangement. These areas were identified as 500m wide
segments A, B, C, D and E (from the LNG Terminal to the GRS at the BPPS), and
23km total in length; and a 500m wide segment F (from the LNG Terminal to the
GRS at the LPS) of approximately 18km in length.
The geophysical survey which
comprised a high resolution boomer, side scan sonar and echo sounder, and high
resolution multi-beam sonar was conducted between June and July 2017 by EGS
(Asia) Limited (EGS). The main survey traverses were 25m
apart, with cross traverses every 100m. The geophysical survey allowed for a
comprehensive investigation of the seabed and below the seabed in order to
locate and define any sites of marine archaeological potential.
The following equipment in Table
12.1 was employed during the
geophysical survey.
Table 12.1 Geophysical
Survey Equipment
|
Type |
Equipment |
|
Positioning |
C-Nav
2050 Globally corrected GPS (GcGPS) system |
|
C-Nav
3050 Globally corrected GPS (GcGPS) system |
|
|
Multibeam
Echo Sounding System (MBES) |
R2Sonic Sonic 2024 multi-beam echo sounder |
|
TSS
Orion integrated motion sensor and gyrocompass |
|
|
Norbit
iWBMS |
|
|
TSS
Saturn integrated motion sensor and gyrocompass |
|
|
Single
Beam Echo Sounding System
(SBES) |
Knudsen
320M dual frequency single beam echo sounder |
|
TSS 320B heave compensator |
|
|
TSS
Saturn integrated motion sensor and gyrocompass |
|
|
Side
Scan Sonar (SSS) |
Klein 3000 dual frequency side
scan sonar system |
|
Klein 2000 dual frequency side
scan sonar system |
|
|
Sub-Bottom
Profiler (SBP) |
EGS low voltage boomer (C-Boom) |
|
EGS
C-Phone hydrophone streamer |
|
|
Tide
Gauge |
Tide
data provided by the Hong Kong Observatory real time tide services |
|
Survey
Software |
C-View
Nav computerised navigation suite |
|
QPS
QINSy survey and office modules |
|
|
Teledyne
CARIS HIPS 9.1 |
|
|
C-View
Seabed Data Management Package |
The data received from the
survey were analyzed in detail to:
a.
Define
the areas of the greatest archaeological potential;
b.
Assess
the depth and nature of the seabed sediments for defining which areas consist
of suitable material to bury and preserve archaeological material;
c.
Examine
the boomer and side scan sonar records for mapping anomalies on the seabed
which may be archaeological material; and
d.
Examine
the multi-beam sonar data for assessing the archaeological potential of the
sonar contacts.
A magnetometer survey would
be implemented to assist in the interpretation of sub-bottom anomalies, if
detected, as well as to discern if the seabed anomalies contain any ferrous
material and assist in their interpretation.
The synthesis and analysis of
the baseline review and the geophysical survey and the scope and nature of the
proposed marine works of the Project were used to establish if there are any
marine archaeological resources/sites within the Assessment Area and determine
the need for further investigation.
Should any areas of
archaeological interest be identified that may be affected by the Project, they
may be inspected by ROV or divers to record all seabed features of
archaeological interest.
Owing to the heavy marine
traffic in Hong Kong, the ROV/visual diver survey may not be feasible to
achieve for the targeted area of archaeological interest. If that is the case, an archaeological
watching brief as part of the construction work of the Project would be
established as the most appropriate way to monitor the marine construction
activities in areas of identified high potential, to obtain physical
archaeological information.
If Remote Operated Vehicle
(ROV)/Visual Diver Survey/Watching Brief were required, a proposal to define
the investigation strategy, scope, methodology, resources and programme would
be established and agreed with AMO.
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 marine 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 ([2]). 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
([3]).
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 ([4]). They consist of sand, mud and some
gravel.
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”([5]).
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 may potentially include
shipwrecks.
There is lack of precise historical document in relation to the
maritime activities associated with the Assessment Area. The water
between Shekou (situated in Shenzhen) and Black Point was in use as a war junk
anchorage used 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 ([6]). The military division was serving the
same area until the Yuan Dynasty (A.D.1279-1368).
Literature review indicated
that the Lantao Passage or Lantau Channel (channel south of Fan Lau Kok of
Lantau Island) was a famous route for vessels visiting Canton during the
northeast monsoon season since the 15th century ([7]).
In
the late 16th century (Ming Dynasty), China was facing frequent disturbance
from coastal invaders and more forts and beacon towers were set to protect the
key locations from Japanese pirates.
The Nantou Military Division (南頭寨) was set up in 1565([8]).
During
this period in 1513, the Portuguese explorer, Jorge Alvares was the first
European landed on China on an island called Tamão by the Portuguese and
the Portuguese started settling on the island. However, the precise location of Tamão
is still debatable among historians and researchers. Possible locations are Tuen Mun, Lantau
Island or Lintin Island. In 1521,
there was a sea battle between the Chinese navy and Portuguese ships at the
water off Tamão island and the Chinese navy won the battle.([9])
Historical chart of the mouth of the Pearl River dated
1658 also indicated that the waters off Black Point was part of the main
voyaging route from the West to the East ([10])
.
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 traveling safety ([11]). 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 ([12]). 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.
A fort (Fan Lau Fort) was
built on the southwest headland of Lantau island at Fan Lau Kok overlooking a
sea passage leading into the Pearl River Estuary. The fort can be dated to 1729 and it was
believed that the fort was once occupied by pirates. However, after the surrender of pirates
to Qing government in 1810, the fort would have been retaken by government
troops. It was probably abandoned around 1898 after the lease of the New
Territories to Britain ([13]).
In the 16th century, Lamma
Island was known as Pok Liu Chou (博寮洲) in Chinese ([14]). It is considered that the name
originated from “Pok Liu Chou (舶寮洲)” which literally means “harbour for the
foreigners”. In the mid-17th
century, Lamma Island was
recorded on Western and Chinese charts and known at this time as
“Nanya (南丫)”. The Chinese character “Nan 南”
(means “south”) refers to the island’s location (southern part of Hong Kong /
Guangdong) and the character “Ya (丫)” refers to the “丫” shape of the island. Lamma Island appears to have
been designated as a stopover place for the foreign
merchants before proceeding to Guangzhou (廣州), an international port at that
time, during Tang and Song Dynasty (i.e. 7th to 13th century) ([15]).
In
the 1860s the first Chinese navy garrison on Lamma Island was established at
Yung Shue Wan where ten soldiers were stationed ([16]).
Based
on the historical development review, it is considered that Black Point and
Lamma Island are located in the vicinity of a busy marine sea route. The waters at the area 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 the
Assessment Area are considered in general to have marine archaeological
potential.
A review of Charts of the
Assessment Area was conducted.
British Admiralty (BA) Chart 2562, from surveys implemented between 1857
and 1955, shows the location of the Shirogane
Maru wreck, (UKHO no. 46602) but no other wreck; BA Chart 342, from surveys
of 1900-1959 also shows only the Shirogane
Maru wreck; and French Chart De La
Riviere De Canton, from surveys of 1844-1866, shows no shipwrecks within
the Assessment Area.
The United Kingdom
Hydrographic Office (UKHO) in Taunton maintains a database of known
obstructions ([17])/shipwrecks
in Hong Kong. A total of two
obstructions/shipwrecks were found within the Assessment Area (see Table 12.2, Figure 12.2
and Annex 12A).
Table 12.2
UKHO Known
Obstructions/shipwrecks Identified in the Vicinity of the Assessment Area
|
UKHO Number |
Latitude |
Longitude |
Distance to centre line of
the BPPS Pipeline |
Type of Obstruction |
Description |
|
46602 |
22°
24.803 N |
113°
52.455 E |
67m |
Shipwreck
|
Japanese merchant vessel Shirogane Maru |
|
68096 |
22°
17.210 N |
113°
51.479 E |
169m
|
Unknown |
|
UKHO
46602 (Shirogane Maru) was noted in
the EIA study for the Black Point Gas Supply Project: (EIA Report Register No. AEIAR-150/2010),
but the geophysical survey could find no trace of the remains. UKHO have also amended their
classification of this wreck as Dead ([18]),
therefore it no longer exists.
UKHO
No. 68096 (which is referred to as an obstruction, see Annex 12A)
could not be identified during the Marine Department’s survey of October 2012,
nor could it be identified in the geophysical survey for this Project.
Previous
Marine Archaeological Investigations in the Assessment Area
The Project’s marine and
dredging works, including the pipeline routes, is located in areas of other
developments where MAI desktop reviews or MAIs have already been carried
out. The results from these
previous studies were reviewed and they identified no marine archaeological
interest in those areas as shown in Figure 12.2. Most of this MAI Assessment Area is in
an area that has been both impacted by dredging and intensively studied. These key references include:
·
Cable
Landing Work in Tong Fuk Lantau for APCN 2 Fibre Optic Submarine Cable System
(Application No: DIR-036/2000), EGS (Asia) Limited (2000) (referred to as APCN
Cable MAI Desktop Review in Figure 12.2);
·
New
T&T Hong Kong Limited Domestic Cable Route (Application No: DIR-045/2000),
ERM (2000) (referred to as New T&T Cable MAI Desktop Review in Figure 12.2);
·
Telecommunication
Installation at Lot 591SA in DD328, Tong Fuk, South Lantau Coast and the
Associated Cable Landing Work in Tong Fuk, South Lantau for the North Asia
Cable (NAC) Fibre Optic Submarine Cable System (Application No: DIR-031/2000),
ERM (2000) (referred to as “NAC Cable MAI Desktop Review” in Figure 12.2);
·
FLAG
North Asian Loop (Application No: DIR-052/2001),
ERM (2001) (referred to as FLAG Cable MAI Desktop Review in Figure 12.2);
·
Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) Receiving Terminal and Associated Facilities: EIA Study (EIA
Report Register No. AEIAR-106/2007), ERM (2006) (referred to as “LNG Receiving
Terminal MAI” in Figure
12.2);
·
Asia-America
Gateway (AAG) Cable Network, South Lantau (Application No: DIR-160/2007),
Atkins (2007) (referred to as “AAG Cable MAI” in Figure 12.2);
·
Hong
Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (EIA Report
Register No. AEIAR-145/2009), Arup (2009) (referred to as “Zhuhai Bridge MAI”
in Figure 12.2);
·
Black
Point Gas Supply Project: EIA Study (EIA Report Register No. AEIAR-150/2010),
ERM (2010) (referred to as “Black Point Gas Supply MAI” in Figure 12.2);
·
Development
of a 100MW Offshore Wind Farm in Hong Kong: EIA Study (EIA Report Register No.
AEIAR-152/2010), ERM (2010) (referred to as “Wind Farm MAI” in Figure 12.2);
·
Additional
Gas-fired Generation Units Project: EIA Study (EIA Report Register No. AEIAR-197/2016),
ERM (2016) (referred to as “CCGT MAI” in Figure 12.2);
and
·
Expansion
of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (EIA Report
Register No.AEIAR-185/2014), Mott MacDonald (2014) (referred to as “HKIA MAI”
in Figure 12.2).
Summary of Marine
Archaeological Potential
While
the Assessment Area has marine archaeological potential from historical sources,
no shipwrecks of marine archaeological potential could be identified from the
Charts, the Wreck Databases, or Previous MAIs.
The
geophysical survey data obtained by EGS were processed by their in- house
geophysicists and reviewed by ERM’s qualified marine archaeologist, Dr Bill
Jeffery.
The
side scan sonar survey was used to produce a seabed map which provided details
on the nature of the seabed, how it has been impacted by maritime activities
such as fishing, trawling and anchoring, and the location of any seabed
features (see Figures
12.4-12.9). This
data was reviewed by the marine archaeologist, in addition to the sub-bottom
data.
The
nature of the seabed varies considerably given the Assessment Area covers a
large part of HKSAR waters and includes clayey silt, soft silty mud, loose
gravelly silt, rocky areas and with seabed ripples close to the rocky shores
(see image (a) in Figure
12.10). The seabed also
shows signs of having been impacted by fishing, trawling and some dumped
materials (see image (b) in Figure 12.10 and
image (a) in Figure
12.11).
Compared to other parts of
HKSAR, the seabed in the Assessment Area (Segments A, B, D, E and F) is
relatively featureless and does not contain many debris, dumped materials and
rocky outcrops, on and below the seabed (see image (b) in Figure 12.11
and image (a) in Figure
12.12), although Segment C (being close to Lantau) contains a much
rockier seabed with many scattered boulders (see image (b) in Figure 12.12).
Sonar
Contacts
The seabed to be impacted by
the Project is about 15m either side of the centre line of the BPPS and LPS
Pipeline routes. A number of sonar
contacts were identified within the Assessment Area. They are listed in Table 12.3 with a prefix indicating in
which Segment they are located (A, (B has no sonar contacts), C, D, E and F), together
with their coordinates and the distance away from the centre line of the BPPS
and LPS Pipeline routes.
Table 12.3 Sonar Contacts in the Assessment Area
|
Contact No. |
Easting |
Northing |
Dimensions (m) |
Distance from Centre Line of the Pipeline
Route (m) |
Type |
|
BPPS Pipeline |
|||||
|
A-SC001 |
798234.8 |
2482363.2 |
5.5x3x1.1 |
74 |
Debris |
|
A-SC002 |
798462.1 |
2482351.1 |
7x3x0.8 |
84 |
Debris |
|
A-SC003 |
798084.8 |
2482201.4 |
2x1.2x0.7 |
221 |
Debris |
|
C-SC001 |
793113.4 |
2456514.2 |
3.5x2.5xnmh |
207 |
Dump Material |
|
C-SC002 |
792481.6 |
2457070.1 |
3x2x0.5 |
111 |
Debris |
|
D-SC001 |
797333.8 |
2452938.7 |
16x0.5xnmh |
123 |
Linear Debris |
|
D-SC002 |
797354.3 |
2453076.9 |
23x0.5xnmh |
0 |
Linear Debris |
|
D-SC003 |
797113.8 |
2453022.5 |
2x<0.4x<0.4 |
188 |
Debris |
|
D-SC004 |
796800.2 |
2453210.8 |
2x1x0.5 |
225 |
Debris |
|
D-SC005 |
796179.0 |
2454170.4 |
1x0.4x<0.4 |
171 |
Debris |
|
D-SC006 |
796129.7 |
2454292.6 |
1x0.8x0.5 |
239 |
Debris |
|
D-SC007 |
796000.0 |
2454390.3 |
1.2x0.6x<0.4 |
239 |
Debris |
|
D-SC008 |
794984.2 |
2454806.8 |
2x0.8x0.4 |
36 |
Debris |
|
E-SC001 |
803713.5 |
2452416.3 |
1.7x0.6x0.5 |
52 |
Debris |
|
E-SC002 |
803199.1 |
2452146.0 |
1.3x1.1x0.4 |
180 |
Debris |
|
E-SC003 |
802970.4 |
2452506.4 |
2.3x1.0x0.9 |
227 |
Debris |
|
E-SC004 |
802763.6 |
2452451.1 |
1.7x1.2x0.5 |
227 |
Debris |
|
E-SC005 |
802545.0 |
2452283.7 |
1.4x1.3x0.4 |
122 |
Debris |
|
E-SC006 |
801733.2 |
2451819.9 |
2.8x1.5x0.4 |
116 |
Debris |
|
E-SC007 |
801537.2 |
2452115.7 |
1.2x0.7x0.4 |
220 |
Debris |
|
E-SC008 |
800869.9 |
2451496.0 |
4.2x3.5x1.4 |
213 |
Wreck |
|
E-SC009 |
800375.2 |
2451759.7 |
2.8x1.6x0.4 |
107 |
Debris |
|
E-SC010 |
800187.1 |
2451758.4 |
1.7x1.5x0.4 |
107 |
Debris |
|
LPS Pipeline |
|||||
|
F-SC001 |
818624.0 |
2457848.1 |
2.0x1.7x0.7 |
20 |
Debris |
|
F-SC002 |
819526.9 |
2458878.2 |
2.4x1.8x0.6 |
64 |
Dump material |
Note: nmh= no measurable height
Sonar contact (E-SC008) was
interpreted as a wreck, and is discussed below. All other sonar contacts have been
interpreted as debris or dump materials and are not archaeological materials.
Three sonar contacts
(D-SC002, D-SC008 and F-SC001) interpreted as debris are located within close
proximity to the centre line of the BPPS and LPS Pipeline routes:
·
D-SC002
is on the centre line of the BPPS Pipeline route and is a linear object 23m in
length. It is in proximity with another linear object and dumped materials and
it has been interpreted as debris, possible cable or rope (see Figure 12.7 and Figure 12.13). It is not archaeological material.
·
D-SC008
is 36 m off the centre line of the BPPS Pipeline route and is outside of the impact
area (15m either side of the pipeline route centreline). It is a small disconnected object and
has been interpreted as debris given its proximity with dumped materials (see Figure 12.7 and
Figure 12.14).
It is not archaeological material.
·
F-SC001
is 20m off the centre line of the LPS Pipeline route (see Figure 12.15). It is not considered as archaeological
material given it is a small disconnected object similar to many other
scattered objects located in this part of Segment F (see Figure 12.9b),
and interpreted as debris.
Two
of the sonar contacts (C-SC001 and F-SC002) interpreted as dump materials. C-SC001 is located far away outside the
impact area (over 200m from the BPPS pipeline centreline); F-SC002 is 64m from
the centreline of the LPS Pipeline route and is away from the impact area (15m
either side of the pipeline route centreline). As both of them are outside the impact
area of the Project, the construction of the pipelines is not anticipated to
impact these dump materials.
Only
one sonar contact (E-SC008) was interpreted as a wreck and is potential
archaeological material (see Figure 12.8 and Figure 12.16). It appears to show superstructure in the
centre of the object, and has been interpreted as a commercial wooden fishing
vessel. It is over 200m from the
centreline of the BPPS Pipeline route and is outside the impact area of the
Project.
The review of the
historical documents and literature indicates that the region in the vicinity
of the MAI Assessment Area has been occupied (although not continuously) since
the Neolithic period and has seen some maritime activity from local and
international traders.
Although review of the
historical documents and literature indicates that the Assessment Area 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 area has
received some impact from anchoring and trawling and dumping of materials
although much of the seabed is relatively clean of dumped materials and debris
enabling clearer identification and interpretation of archaeological or
cultural material.
The findings from
the desktop research identified one wreck and one obstruction from the UKHO
database indicated to be located within the MAI Assessment Area. However, these two sites could not be
identified in a number of geophysical surveys, nor could the Marine Department
identify them. The UKHO has
re-categorised the shipwreck as Dead (no longer exists). The geophysical survey
located 25 sonar contacts, of which only one was interpreted by the qualified
marine archaeologist as potential archaeological material (wreck), but given it
is over 200 m from the centreline of the BPPS Pipeline route, will not be
impacted by the Project.
Given the nature of
the sonar contacts to be impacted by the Project were small debris, and their
comprehensive assessment from the side scan sonar and multi-beam sonar data
confirmed the material was of no archaeological interest, the magnetic survey
was not deemed necessary. The
Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV)/Visual Diver Survey/Watching Brief was also not
deemed necessary.
The marine and dredging
related construction and operation of the Project may have direct or indirect
impacts to 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 and jetting.
·
Indirect
impact on access for future archaeological surveys; and
·
Permanent
access disturbance to marine archaeological deposits if they are conserved
within the Project area.
Findings of the MAI concluded
that there is one potential archaeological material (a wreck) in the Assessment
Area but it is over 200m from the centreline of the BPPS Pipeline route
and is outside of the impact area (15m either side of the pipeline route
centreline) and thus will not be impacted by the Project. Therefore, no marine archaeological
impact is expected to occur during the construction and operation of the
Project.
As no impacts to marine
archaeological resources are expected, no mitigation measure is required.
At present, there are no
planned projects (see Annex 3A) within the
Assessment Area
that could have cumulative cultural heritage impacts with the proposed Project.
A comprehensive marine archaeological
investigation identified one potential archaeological material (a wreck) within
the Assessment Area but it is over 200m from the centreline of the BPPS Pipeline route
and is outside of the impact area (15m either side of the pipeline route centreline)
and thus will not be impacted by the Project. Therefore, no impact on any marine
archaeological resources is expected due to the construction and operation of
the Project. No mitigation measures
are considered necessary. No
cumulative impact or adverse residual impacts on marine archaeological
resources are expected.
([2])
Fyfe, J.A., R. Shaw and et
al. 2002. The Quaternary Geology of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Civil Engineering
Department.
([3])
Fyfe, J.A., R. Shaw and et
al. 2002. The Quaternary Geology of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Civil Engineering
Department.
([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]) Siu, K.K 1997 Forts and
Batteries: Coastal Defence in Guangdong During Ming to Qing Dynasties, Hong
Kong, Urban Council.
([7])
EIA Report for
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Receiving Terminal And Associated Facilities, Annex
12D. Information available from:
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1252006/html/eiareport/Part2/Section12/Sec2_12AnnexD.htm
([9])
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2372016/html/0308057_S13_CHIA_Rev%203.htm;
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tunmen.
([10])
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2372016/html/0308057_S13_CHIA_Rev%203.htm
([11]) 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。