13.1.1
Legislation, standards, guidelines and
criteria relevant to the consideration of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment under
this study include the following;
·
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap.53);
·
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)(Cap.499),
including Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process
(TM-EIAO) and Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment; and
·
Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG).
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
(Cap.53)
13.1.2
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.
13.1.3
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; and
·
To demolish, remove, obstruct, deface or interfere with a proposed
monument or monument.
13.1.4
The discovery of an Antiquity, as defined
in the Ordinance must be reported to the Antiquities Authority (the Authority),
or a designated person. The Ordinance also provides that, the ownership of
every relic discovered in Hong Kong after the commencement of this Ordinance
shall vest in the Government from the moment of discovery. The Authority on
behalf of the Government may disclaim ownership of the relic.
13.1.5
No archaeological excavation may be
carried out by any person, other than the Authority and the designated person,
without a licence issued by the Authority. A licence will only be issued if the Authority is satisfied
that the applicant has sufficient scientific training or experience to enable
him to carry out the excavation and search satisfactorily, is able to conduct,
or arrange for, a proper scientific study of any antiquities discovered as a
result of the excavation and search and has sufficient staff and financial
support.
13.1.6
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.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Ordinance (Cap.499)
13.1.7
The EIAO was implemented on 1 April 1998.
Its purpose is to avoid, minimise and control any adverse impact on the
environment arising from designated projects, through the application of the
EIA process and the Environmental Permit (EP) system. The relevant document
pertaining to cultural heritage under the legislation is the “Technical
Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process”.
13.1.8
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 TM-EIAO. 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.
Guidelines
for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
13.1.9
The Guidelines for Cultural Heritage
Impact Assessment document, as issued by the AMO, outlines the specific
technical requirement for conducting archaeological impact assessments and is
based upon the requirements of the TM-EIAO. It includes the parameters and
scope for the Baseline Study, specifically desk-based research and field
evaluation. Besides, it also includes guidelines encompassing reporting
requirements and archive preparation and submission in the form of Guidelines for
Archaeological Reports and Guidelines for Handling of Archaeological Finds and
Archives.
13.1.10
The prerequisite conditions for conducting
impact assessment and mitigation measures are presented in detail. The
guidelines also state that preservation in totality must be taken as the
priority and if this is not feasible due to site constraints or other factors,
full justification must be provided.
13.1.11
Mitigation measures will be proposed in
cases with identified impacts and shall have the aim of minimising
the degree of adverse impact and 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.
Hong
Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines
13.1.12
Chapter 10 of the HKPSG details the
planning principles for the conservation of natural landscape and habitats,
historical buildings and sites of archaeological interest. 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.
13.1.13
The guidelines also address the issue of
the preparation of plans for the conservation of historical buildings, sites of
archaeological interest and other antiquities. It is noted that the existing
Declared Monuments, proposed Monuments and sites of archaeological interest 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 sites of archaeological interest and buildings and
their surrounding environments.
13.1.14
It is also noted that planning intention
for non-statutory town plans at the sub-regional level should include the
protection of monuments, historical buildings, sites of archaeological interest
and other antiquities through the identification of such features on
sub-regional layout plans. The appendices list the legislation and
administrative controls for conservation, other conservation related measures
in Hong Kong, and government departments involved in conservation.
13.2.1
A Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
(CHIA) is undertaken to assess the potential archaeological impact imposed by
the captioned project in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment
Ordinance (Cap. 499.) and Technical Memorandum on the EIA Process, Annexes 10
and 19 (EIAO TM). The CHIA includes desk-based review of existing information
and possible recommendations for field investigation if needed. Appropriate mitigation measures should be
implemented by the project proponent according to the findings and
recommendations of the CHIA.
13.3.1
The Assessment Area for cultural heritage
is defined by a distance of 50m from the Project Site
(i.e. the Proposed Development Area (PDA) and associated infrastructure
works). The Archaeological Impact Assessment will include baseline review
including desk-based evaluation of existing information to assess potential for
archaeological deposits. Field investigation will be undertaken if appropriate.
Mitigation based on the preliminary design will be recommended if necessary.
13.3.2
A field evaluation of identified area of
archaeological potential (AREA 2, see section 13.5) cannot be conducted as this
stage as the area is currently in use by light industrial activities and
structures. The recommended field survey
scope within this report may have to be reviewed after the resumption of the
area and clearance of the structures and is subject to agreement with AMO. Mitigation may be required for this area
after the results of the field survey are known.
13.3.3
The Built Heritage Impact Assessment will
similarly include a baseline review based on existing information and
supplemented by a built heritage survey, if necessary. Mitigation will be recommended where
necessary.
13.4
Baseline
Review
13.4.1
The Project includes site formation works; slope cutting and earth filling
works as well as geotechnical works/structures; decontamination works; roadworks; waterworks
including service reservoirs; sewerage
infrastructure
works including Sewage Pumping Station (SPS); drainage
infrastructural works; landscaping works;
Public Transport Interchanges (PTI); and other
infrastructural works including utilities and road junction improvement works. For the purpose of the heritage study the Project
Site is sub-divided into sub-areas as shown below.
Table 13.1 - Summary of Sub-divided Project Site
|
Area
|
Description
|
Figure
|
|
AREA
1
|
Green - housing development site
|
13.1
|
|
AREA
2
|
Dark blue - housing and school development site
|
13.1
|
|
AREA
3
|
Pink - housing and school development site
|
13.1
|
|
AREA
4
|
Light blue - housing development site, public
transport interchange and waterworks infrastructure
|
13.1
|
|
AREA
5
|
New
and realigned roads, including cycle track and public transport interchange
|
13.1
|
|
AREA
6
|
Proposed gravity sewer/ SPS
|
13.2
|
|
AREA
7
|
Proposed twin rising mains
|
13.2
|
|
AREA
8
|
Proposed salt and freshwater mains and road
upgrading works
|
13.3
|
|
AREA
9
|
Traffic improvement works near Lam Tei Interchange
|
13.2
|
13.4.2
Few pre-1950 clan graves and urns were
identified (CEDD 2013; CEDD/B&V September 2017) which are neither on the
list of 1,444 historic buildings nor list of new items for grading
assessment. The identified graves and
urns are not graded or New Items.
I.
Geological and
Topographical Background
13.4.3
The geological background of Area 1 development area situated
between 7.4 and 11.2mPD, consists of mainly of Pleistocene debris flow deposit
and some terraced alluvium and Holocene alluvial deposits at elevation. The southern edge of housing and school
development of Area 2 covers
Holocene alluvial, but the main deposit consists of Pleistocene terraced
alluvium and debris flow deposit. The area is situated between 7.5 and 11.8mPD.
13.4.4
The housing and school development of Area 3 has elevation between 10.5 and 12.2mPD and covers a mix of
Pleistocene debris flow, terraced alluvium and Holocene alluvium. The housing development and waterworks infrastructure of Area 4 is situated
at elevation between 15 and 26mPD and covers Holocene alluvium and Pleistocene
debris flow deposits in the south and Pleistocene debris flow and terraced
alluvium and andesite with tuff and tuffite in the
centre.
13.4.5
Area 5 includes proposed new and realigned roads, including
cycle track and public transport interchange. The proposed works, along the western part of
the alignment, cover andesite with tuff and tuffite and
Pleistocene debris flow lower foothills at
elevations between 19 to 36mPD.
The middle of Area 5 alignment is mainly situated on Holocene
alluvial deposits (around 19mPD) after
which the eastern part of the alignment continues on Pleistocene
terraced alluvium and debris flow deposits at
elevation from 17 to 7mPD. The
public transport interchange will be situated on Holocene alluvium.
13.4.6
Area 6 covers the proposed
gravity sewer and pumping station works which covers
the soil deposits below Hong Po Road as mentioned above and includes
a northern
shoot off on Pleistocene terraced alluvium and debris flow. The proposed gravity sewers are situated at
elevation from 12.2 to 15mPD in the west to 8.9 and 6.6mPD to the east. The sewage pumping station is proposed on
Holocene alluvium and Pleistocene terraced alluvium around 7mPD.
13.4.7
The proposed twin rising mains of Area 7 is situated along the edge of a filled area on mainly
Pleistocene terraced alluvium and debris flow deposit and a small area of tuff
and tuffites before veering of west on Holocene
alluvial deposits. It is located on
elevation between 7.5mPD in south/west and 6.4mPD in the
north.
13.4.8
Area 8 is situated
along Ming Kum Road between Tsun Wen Road in the north and Shek Pai Tau Road in the south and the
road upgrading works connect to AREA 5.
Both are largely situated on Pleistocene debris flow deposits between
elevations of 19mPD in the north and around 15mPD in the south.
13.4.9
Finally, Area 9 covers
the traffic improvements at Lam Tei Interchange. The
area is heavily built up and sits on Holocene alluvium at elevation between 5.2
and 5.6mPD.
II.
Historical Background
13.4.10
Archaeological findings revealed that human activities were
present in Tuen Mun from at least the Late Neolithic
period. Prehistoric sites such as Yung Long, Lung Kwu
Tan, Lung Kwu Sheung Tan, Lung Kwu
Chau, Sha Chau, Shek Kok Tsui, Tsang Tsui and So Kwun Wat
are mainly located along the coast of Tuen Mun (AMO
website).
13.4.11
During Qin-Han periods, Tuen Mun was
mainly under the administration of Panyu County (TMDB
2007:8). Just like most Han findings in Hong Kong, only a limited amount of Han
findings was recorded in Lung Kwu Sheung Tan and So
Kwun Wat in Tuen Mun area (AMO files).
13.4.12
The first historical mention of Tuen Mun
dates to 732CE in Tang dynasty, in Tang Hui Yao (唐會要), it
describes the setting up of a military base in Tuen
Mun with the station of 2000 soldiers to safeguard the entrance of the estuary
(Wang 2012: Chapter 73). Again, in another historical document XinTang Shu (新唐書), it
describes how Tuen Mun held a strategic location in
the maritime trade route between Guangzhou and South East Asia or as far as the
Persian Gulf (Ouyang and Song 2006: Chapter 43, Lo 1959: 21-22). Tuen Mun maintained such a prominent position in the
maritime trade until Song and Ming dynasties. Despite the historical records of
a vibrant Tang dynasty Tuen Mun, archaeological
evidence so far only revealed a small number of Tang ceramics and some typical
coastal kilns at Lung Kwu Tan and Siu Lam, which
linked to salt-lime production (AMO website).
13.4.13
Archaeological evidence indicates that Tuen
Mun was widely settled in Song dynasty (details referring to Section 2.3).
According to clan genealogical records, however, it was not until Ming dynasty
that villages were formally established in Tuen Mun.
To clan was the first recorded clan to settle in Tuen
Mun. They established Tuen Mun Tsuen during Ming
dynasty (AMO website). Tsz Tin Tsuen was also established during Ming dynasty
by the Liu clan (AAB 2013). It is believed that ancestors of Tang clan, Liu
clan, Hau clan and Man clan of the New Territories
first arrived in Tuen Mun by sea and lived there for
some time before finally settling down in other parts of the New Territories
(Lau and Lau 2012:19).
13.4.14
Tuen Mun
remained an important naval base during the Ming dynasty. It was associated
with the Portuguese occupation at Tuen Mun Bay and
the subsequent battle with the Portuguese (Lau and Lau 2012:21).
13.4.15
Most of the pre-1898 indigenous villages in Tuen
Mun were established after the repeal of the Coastal Evacuation Edict in 1669.
III.
Built Heritage
Resources
13.4.16
The Assessment Area is now covered by the Tuen Mun District
administrative region. Tuen Mun has become more
important starting from the Tang Dynasty, which has been designated as a Zhen
with garrison of 2,000 strong of soldiers.
The earliest record of local villages within the Assessment Area is the Xin’an Gazetteer 1688 edition. Tuen Mun was
governed under the Xin’an County Administrative
Divisions in 1688. A Xiang -Dou -Tu -Cun (鄉 - 都 – 啚 - 村) system was used to subdivide
the region for taxation purposes. The Assessment
Area was within the Sixth Dou of the Gui cheng xiang in the County (Ng
1983).
13.4.17
The Xiang - Dou - Tu system was not used in the 1819 edition of
the Xin’an County Administrative Divisions when the Guanfu (官富) Assistant
Magistrate was in charge. Review of the
1819 edition however, identified no villages recorded. By the middle of the 19th century and from then
onwards, four villages are marked on the Map of San-On-District (1866) (新安縣全圖), including
Po-tong-hai (寶塘下), Siu-hang
(小坑), Tang-sz-wai (田仔圍) and Sz-tin (祖田).
13.4.18
There are no Proposed or Declared Monuments, Graded or Proposed to
be Graded Historic Buildings, Government Historic Sites or New Items proposed
for grading by Antiquity Advisory Board (AAB) within the Assessment Area. Built
heritage surveys were undertaken as part of previous investigations in the Assessment
Area. The surveys cover most of the current
Assessment Area and it was determined that enough existing information exists
to assess built heritage as part of this project.
IV.
Archaeological
Background
13.4.19
Three Sites of Archaeological Interest partially fall within the Assessment
Area, namely Siu Hang Tsuen, San Hing Tsuen and Kei Lun Wai Sites of Archaeological
Interest. (see Figure 13.4a-b for their locations). Description
of previous investigations within the Assessment Area follows:
V.
Previous Archaeological
Investigations
Second Territory-wide Survey (Tuen
Mun-Tsuen Wan Area) (AMO 1998)
13.4.20
In 1998, a series of archaeological testing in the form of field
scan, auger hole tests and test pit excavations were carried out in Northern Tuen Mun (Figure 13.4a) which cover large areas relevant to the current Assessment Area.
13.4.21
The findings led to the identification of a new site of
archaeological interest, San Hing Tsuen Site of Archaeological Interest
(SAI) with cultural layers dated to Song and Ming dynasties . The area of
findings (T1 and T3;
located in the east of the San Hing Tsuen SAI) was extended to six 5 by 5m
trenches and an abundant amount of Song and Ming dynasty ceramics, tiles, as
well as features such as a ditch and pits were recorded (AMO 1998a). A tile making tool recovered from a ditch
dated to the Song dynasty suggest a possible local tile industry in vicinity.
The cultural features and layers were recorded within the top metre of the excavation. The
findings are located outside of the Project Site boundary but within the Assessment
Area.
13.4.22
Testing also occurred within Siu Hang
Tsuen SAI, mainly within and near Siu Hang Tsuen village but also within and near
the proposed new road area. Near the
village, both a Song and Ming settlement layer with features and finds including
green, yellow glazed, and B&W porcelain sherds, and a large amount of tile
fragments (including cloth patterned tiles within the Song dynasty layer) were
excavated within the upper 1 to 1.2m.
13.4.23
Testing was conducted in two further areas
relevant to the Assessment Area: Tsz Tin Tsuen and Po Tong Ha. The auger testing (to northwest of Siu Hang
Tsuen SAI) and single TP1 (in northwest of Siu Hang Tsuen SAI) near Po Tong Ha
and TP 1 of Siu Hang Tsuen (in west of Siu Hang Tsuen SAI) are within or near
the proposed new road alignment (AREA 5). Within the Siu Hang Tsuen TP1 some
Song dynasty pottery sherds were excavated while few Ming/Qing dynasty pottery
fragments were recovered from Po Tong Ha TP and auger testing. The findings are
relevant for both within the Project Site boundary and Assessment Area.
13.4.24
One test pit
excavation (T2) and five
auger tests (A6
to A10) were conducted in Tsz
Tin Tsuen located in the centre of Kei Lun Wai SAI and near the
proposed twin rising mains of AREA 7. The results indicate relative high-water
level and some finds dated to Ming/Qing dynasties. The findings are located at
the edge of the Assessment Area and are indicative only.
Rescue
excavation at small house development located within San Hing Tsuen SAI (AMO
1998b)
13.4.25
An archaeological survey-cum-rescue excavation was conducted by
Sun Yat-Sen University following the Second Territory-wide Survey for the
construction of a small village house within the then newly recognized San Hing
Tsuen Site of Archaeological Interest. Tiles and porcelain sherds dated from
Song to Ming Dynasties were recovered.
Archaeological investigation for drainage work at
Tsung Shan and Siu Hang Tsuen (HKIA 2000)
13.4.26
The archaeological investigation for the proposed drainage
channels at Chung Shan and Siu Hang Tsuen in Tuen Mun
included four test pits and no less than 33 auger holes. (Figure 13.4a-b). Finds were recovered from the surface, auger and test pit excavations. Finds included blue and white Ming to Qing
dynasty porcelains and tile and celadon fragments dated to Song/Yuan dynasties
mainly in the Siu Hang Tsuen area.
Within test pit 2 located in Siu Hang Tsuen, rich cultural remains were
identified. Structural remains consisting of floor levels, two postholes,
possible pise walls and artefacts, flat and curved
tiles, potentially dating to the Southern Song dynasty but not later than Yuan
dynasty were excavated.
DD130 Lot 452C3
& 193D Small House Archaeological Investigation, 2003 (AMO 2003)
13.4.27
An archaeological field survey including field scan, forty auger
hole tests and two test pit excavations were conducted in San Hing Tsuen area (Figure 13.4a-b). Archaeological
materials dated to Ming and Qing dynasties were recovered from one of the test
pit excavations and four of the 40 auger hole tests. Song dynasties artefacts
were also collected on the surface in the San Hing Tsuen area.
Archaeological
investigation for construction site no.2, Area 54, Tuen
Mun (AMO 2010)
13.4.28
AMO conducted archaeological field survey in Construction Site No.
2 (area between Tsz Tin Tsuen and Kei Lun Wai in Tuen
Mun Area 54) ahead of construction phase.
A total of fifty-four test pits (Figure 13.4a-b) were excavated and pottery sherds, tile pieces and porcelain
sherds dating from late Qing to modern period and Ming to Qing dynasty finds
were recovered from alluvial deposits agricultural layers. Within the 148sq metre
of investigation no stable and significant archaeological deposit was noted
according to the authors.
Archaeological
investigation, pumping station and sewerage channel, area 54, Tuen Mun (AMO 2011)
13.4.29
Seven test pits and six auger holes were conducted in fields
southeast of Siu Hang Tsuen in Tuen Mun Area 54 (Figure 13.4a-b). A number of pottery fragments mainly dated to Qing Dynasty were
excavated from disturbed and alluvial layer.
No stable and significant archaeological deposits were
discovered within the 24sq metres investigated
according to the authors.
Contract
No.8/WSD/10 Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water Mains Stage 4 Phase 1,
Mains in Tuen Mun, Yuen Long North District and Tai
Po. Archaeological Watching Brief Report (ERM 2014)
13.4.30
During the construction of sewers in western San Hing Tsuen area,
an archaeological watching brief was carried out for three of the sewer
alignments. No findings were discovered in any of the monitoring work (ERM
2014) (Figure 13.4a-b).
Agreement No. LW03/2014 Formation, Roads and Drains in
Area 54, Tuen Mun – Phase 1 and 2 Archaeological
Survey and Land Contamination Assessment for Site 1&1A, Site 3/4 (East) and
Site 4A (West) and Associated Infrastructural Works (AECOM 2017a)
13.4.31
As part of the archaeological field survey, a total of twenty-nine
test pits were excavated (Figure 13.4a-b). A few pottery sherds and
tile fragments were recovered dated to Qing and Ming/Qing dynasty respectively.
The significance of the findings was determined to be none. In order to
safeguard the 2000 findings however, the report recommended a protection zone
in an area around the remains during the construction phase. It also recommended an archaeological
watching brief to be conducted in the wider area (See AECOM 2018 below).
Archaeological Impact Assessment for Proposed
Residential Development in “Residential (Group E)” Zone at Various Lots in D.D.
130 and Adjoining Government Land, Lam Tei, Tuen Mun (AECOM 2017b)
13.4.32
The archaeological impact assessment concerns an archaeological
field survey which including six test pit excavations (Figure 13.4a-b) within San Hing Tsuen SAI. The results concluded artificial fill
deposits overlay natural sterile soils with the agricultural soils having been
removed. A single porcelain sherd dated
to early 20th century was recovered.
The test pits were located on a combination of Holocene and Pleistocene
terraced alluvium borders Pleistocene debris flow at elevations between 11.1
and 7.7mPD.
Agreement CE 38/2011 (CE) Formation, Roads and Drains
in Area 54, Tuen Mun – Phases 1 and 2 Review of
Traffic, Environmental, Drainage and Sewerage Impact Assessment – Investigation
(CEDD 2013)
13.4.33
The study identified three Sites of Archaeological Interest and areas of
archaeological interest. Field surveys were deemed necessary within Siu Hang
Tsuen and Kei Lun Wai SAIs and undisturbed and agricultural area (high and
medium potential areas respectively) to be conducted after resumption of lands.
Agreement No. CE60/2013 (CE) Engineering Study for
Site Formation and Infrastructural Works at Hong Po Road- Feasibility Study-
Final Working Paper No.1- Baseline Review (CEDD/B&V September 2017)
13.4.34
This paper is a baseline review for a feasibility study which
covers Hong Po Road of the current Assessment Area and which includes a section
on heritage. The desk-based review for heritage identified three sites of
archaeological interest and some areas of archaeological interest at HPR site,
SHR
site and SHR site extension. The areas of interest cover San Hing Tsuen SAI
and agricultural land within SHR Phase I area (current
AREA 3).
Agreement No. CE56/2013 (CE) Engineering Study Review
for Site Formation and Infrastructure Works at San Hing Road, Tuen Mun- Investigation- Preliminary Environmental Review (CEDD/B&V August 2017)
13.4.35
The findings of Preliminary Environmental Review include only
known heritage sites. Since no recognized built heritage sites fall in or
within 50m of the Assessment Area the focus of the PER was on
archaeology and in particular on the following three Sites of Archaeological
Interest, Siu Hang Tsuen, Kei Lung Wai and San Hing Tsuen. Further potential was identified at the
agricultural fields within SHR Phase 1 Area (current
AREA 3).
13.4.36
Two further archaeological watching briefs have been
conducted. (1) One concerns an archaeological watching brief conducted by AMO
in 2016 at Lot Nos. 190 S.F. 190S.H, 190S.I. 190S.M. 190S.N, 190S.O, 190S.P and
190S.G ss.3 in D.D. 130, and (2) another archaeological watching
brief commissioned by CEDD in 2017 (AECOM 2018).
1)
Within San Hing Tsuen SAI, at Lot Nos. 190 S.F.
190S.H, 190S.I. 190S.M. 190S.N, 190S.O, 190S.P and 190S.G ss.3 in D.D. 130 by
AMO in 2016
An archaeological watching brief was conducted but no cultural
remains were identified.
2)
Contract No. CV/2015/03 Site Formation Works Near Tong
Hang Road and Tsz Tin Road in Area 54, Tuen Mun.
Final Archaeological Watching Brief Report. (AECOM 2018)
13.4.37
An Archaeological Watching Brief was conducted in 2016/2017 within
Siu Hang Tsuen SAI in proximity of test pit excavations (T1 & T2) of 2000
survey (HKIA 2000) (Figure 13.4a-b). The objective of the AWB was to ensure that
the archaeological remains identified at T1 and T2 in the 2000 survey were
protected in situ and any further archaeological remains in the wider area were
recorded and salvaged.
13.4.38
In proximity of the previous housing remains of TP1 and TP2, a
possible associated wall fragment was recorded and protected. Furthermore, a stone well and associated
concrete shrine were recorded and protected during the AWB. The wider area
yielded some archaeological materials they were interpreted as a secondary deposits
and of ‘low archaeological significance’.
13.5
Archaeological Impact
Assessment (Evaluation of Potential Archaeological Impacts)
13.5.1
The archaeological impact assessment is based on the review of
existing data, including numerous previous investigations and existing
conditions at the works areas. The potential impacts at
this stage are broad and consist of housing or school development, new roads
and associated utility works. The impacts arising of site formation and any
excavation should however, be considered direct, irreversible adverse impacts
on archaeology. The below table summarizes the findings and provides an
evaluation of archaeological potential and level of predicted impact.
Table 13.2 - Summary of the Findings and Evaluation of Archaeological Potential
|
Area
|
Proposed works
|
Evaluation
|
|
AREA 1
(Figure 13.1)
|
Housing
development site and associated works
|
The proposed development is located outside but located adjacent to
San Hing Tsuen SAI on mainly Pleistocene debris flow deposits. There has not
been previous archaeological testing in the area, but the topography is similar to the 2016 tested area to the north west (AECOM
2017b) which suggests low archaeological potential due to removed
agricultural soils.
Potential impacts are considered acceptable.
|
|
AREA 2
(Figure 13.1)
|
Housing
development and school site and associated works
|
The proposed developments fall largely within the San Hing Tsuen
SAI. The main archaeological deposit and features recorded during
archaeological investigation in 1998 were outside of the PDA but within the Assessment
Area. Further archaeological work conducted in 2003, 2012/13 and 2016
indicate mixed potential for archaeological deposits and features within the
SAI.
The proposed development within the northern part is situated on
similar Pleistocene debris flow and topography (around 12mPD) as the area of
significant findings. Since the area
is currently occupied by light industry ware houses, storage areas and
concrete covering, it remains largely archaeologically untested with
exception of five auger tests A12, A13, A14, A34 and A35
conducted in 2003 (AMO 2003) which indicate that the area within this area is largely
undisturbed. One auger test within the PDA (A12) and one close to the edge of
the PDA (A11) includes Ming/Qing dynasty tile fragments and glazed pot
sherds. The topography, geology, proximity of significant findings at 35m and
undisturbed nature of area are arguments for need to test archaeological
potential.
The southwestern part of the development which includes the two
development blocks are within an area determined by previous testing to
consist of artificial fill overlaying sterile soils and thus have low archaeological
potential. (AECOM 2017b)
The school development sites are situated on Pleistocene terraced and
Holocene alluvial deposits and elevation similar to
the area of 2016 testing (AECOM 2017b). It is likely that this untested area
has low archaeological potential due to fill over thin agricultural soils.
Potential impacts are considered acceptable with mitigation.
|
|
AREA 3
(Figure 13.1)
|
Housing
development and school site and associated works
|
The proposed development in Area 3, with exception of the eastern edge
are located outside of the SAIs in an agricultural area bounded by foot
slopes with numerous graves to the north and a new development to the west.
The eastern edge of the developments is located within the San Hing Tsuen
SAI.
A single auger test was conducted within Area 3 and some further
testing including auger test and two test pit excavations within wider area
but did not reveal archaeological potential (HKIA 2000). Despite a topography of Pleistocene
terraced alluvium and debris flow the area is expected to have low
archaeological potential. The eastern edge is located on deposits similar to the 2016 archaeologically tested area within
San Hing Tsuen SAI (AECOM 2017b) which indicated low archaeological
potential.
Potential impacts are considered acceptable.
|
|
AREA 4
(Figure 13.1)
|
Housing
development site and associated works
|
Area 4 occupies debris flow.
The topography is one of lower hill slopes and the current use exists
of residential and temporary structures, some with squatter appearance. Few
auger test and two test pit excavations (HKIA 2000)
within and around Area 4 did not reveal archaeological potential. Area 4 is
considered to have low archaeological potential.
Potential impacts are considered acceptable.
|
|
AREA 5
(Figure 13.1)
|
New road
development and associated infrastructure works
|
The new road/infrastructure works areas are proposed mainly on the
lower slopes of the hills and occupies andesite and tuff and tuffites with Pleistocene debris flow deposits largely
outside the SAIs boundary. The
proposed development impacts on the southern edge of San Hing Tsuen SAI and
the western part of Siu Hang Tsuen SAI.
The road/infrastructure development near the San Hing Tsuen SAI
affects mainly the area along a channeled stream on Holocene and Pleistocene
alluvium. Previous investigations relevant include test pit excavations in
2016 (AECOM 2017b) within San Hing Tsuen SAI which indicate low
archaeological potential.
The topography of proposed works in and nearby Siu Hang Tsuen SAI is
very different in comparison to the main archaeological finding’ areas of the
SAI (HKIA 2000). Auger testing and
test pit excavation in 1998, yielded some evidence for Ming/ Qing material on
the lower slopes to the north of Siu Hang Tsuen SAI and a presence of Song
dynasty pottery west of Siu Hang Tsuen within the SAI. The testing results of
augering and test pit excavations conducted in 2000
indicate meandering of river and a larger river channel than currently at the
northern end of the road (which connects to AREA 3 and 4) (HKIA 2000).
Previous investigations also include test pit excavations conducted in
2014/2015 (AECOM 2017a) within and nearby the Assessment Area. The results of
the testing (TP2, TPs 4-6, TPs 9-12, and TPs 15-20) in the Assessment Area
suggest little (mainly natural) soil cover over decomposing rock.
Despite the presence of some Song to Qing dynasties material, the
overall results indicated low archaeological potential.
The existing impacts along the proposed road/infrastructure
development alignment are limited to graves, terracing, stream channeling,
and recent road construction, overall the road alignment is deemed to have
low archaeological potential.
Potential impacts are considered acceptable.
|
|
AREA 6
(Figure 13.2)
|
Proposed
gravity sewer and pumping station
|
The proposed gravity sewers and location of pumping station of Area 6
is located to the south of Areas 1, 2 and 3 and are DP elements. The works area covers mainly Holocene
alluvial deposits but also Pleistocene terraced alluvium and debris flow
deposits below Hong Po Road towards Tuen Mun Road
descending from 17m to 7mPD.
There has not been previous archaeological testing in the area, but
the Pleistocene terraced alluvium and debris flow deposits topography is similar to the 2016 tested area to the north, northeast
(AECOM 2017b) which suggests low archaeological potential due to removed
agricultural soils. The Holocene deposits were largely tested during investigations
conducted in 2000 (HKIA 2000) which indicated no archaeological
potential.
Previous investigations on similar deposits to the north and the 2000
survey failed to identify significant archaeological deposits of features.
The archaeological potential is considered low.
Potential impacts are considered acceptable.
|
|
AREA 7
(Figure 13.2)
|
Proposed
twin rising mains
|
The proposed twin rising mains of Area 7 are located within and near
Kei Lun Wai SAI.
Within Kei Lun Wai SAI, the 1998 result indicated some Ming to Qing
dynasty material was present. Further
investigation in 2010 indicated similar findings in alluvial agricultural
soil. The authors concluded no stable and significant archaeological
deposit was present (AMO 2010).
Finally, in 2011 within the proposed works boundary a number of pottery fragments mainly dated to Qing Dynasty
were excavated from disturbed and alluvial layer. No stable and significant archaeological
deposits were located within the tested area according to the authors.
The area outside Kei Lun Wai SAI is within existing road
alignment and is not expected to have archaeological potential.
The previous findings represent low archaeological potential.
Potential impacts are considered acceptable.
|
|
AREA 8:
(Figure 13.3)
|
Proposed
salt and freshwater mains Southern section along Ming Kum Road and road
upgrading works
|
The
impacts are situated entirely within existing road and outside of area of
archaeological interest. The
archaeological potential should be considered low due to existing
disturbance.
Potential
impacts are considered acceptable.
|
|
AREA 9
(Figure 13.2)
|
Traffic
improvement works near Lam Tei Interchange
|
The impacts are entirely situated on low-lying Holocene alluvium with
no archaeological potential. The
construction of the Lam Tei interchange would have
impacted upper deposits and affected potential archaeology.
Potential impacts are considered acceptable.
|
13.6
Archaeology Mitigation Recommendations
13.6.1
The proposed developments are located within or in very close
proximity to San Hing Tsuen, Siu Hang Tsuen, and Kei Lun Wai SAIs. The evaluation of the previous findings,
proposed works locations and geology, topography however, identified one area which may
be adversely affected. The table below summarizes the assessment and
recommended mitigation for each area as defined in Section 13.4.
Table 13.3 - Summary
of the Assessment and Recommended Mitigation for Each Area
|
Area
|
Proposed works
|
Mitigation
|
|
AREA 1
(Figure 13.1)
|
Housing
development site and associated works
|
No
mitigation required.
If
antiquities or supposed antiquities are discovered during the construction
works, works should cease and AMO should be informed immediately and
agreement from AMO would be sought on the follow-up actions if required.
|
|
AREA 2
(Figure 13.1)
|
Housing
development and school site and associated works
|
The proposed developments fall largely within the San Hing Tsuen
SAI. Previous archaeological
investigations however, indicate mixed potential for archaeological deposits
and features within the SAI.
It is recommended that prior to the construction phase a programme of Archaeological Field Survey be
implemented for the development in northern part (Figure 13.5). The survey cannot be conducted at this stage
as the area is occupied by light industrial activities, structures and
buildings. Field works will have to be
conducted after land resumption and clearance of structures. The scope and methodology for the
Archaeological Field Survey is presented in Sections 13.6.2-16 and Appendix 13.1.
The field evaluation will identify if significant deposits or features
are present and if further mitigation is required.
A qualified archaeologist should be engaged by the project proponent who
shall apply for a licence under the Antiquities and
Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) to conduct the archaeological fieldwork.
With exception of the proposed development within the northern part,
no mitigation is expected.
If antiquities or supposed antiquities are discovered during the
construction works outside of the above identified area, works should cease
and AMO should be informed immediately and agreement from AMO would be sought
on the follow-up actions if required.
|
|
AREA 3
(Figure 13.1)
|
Housing
development and school site and associated works
|
No mitigation required.
If antiquities or supposed antiquities are discovered during the
construction works, works should cease and AMO should be informed immediately
and agreement from AMO would be sought on the follow-up actions if required.
|
|
AREA 4
(Figure 13.1)
|
Housing
development site and associated works
|
|
AREA 5
(Figure 13.1)
|
New road
development and associated infrastructure works
|
|
AREA 6
(Figure 13.2)
|
Proposed
gravity sewer and pumping station
|
|
AREA 7
(Figure 13.2)
|
Proposed
twin rising mains
|
|
AREA 8
(Figure 13.3)
|
Proposed
salt and freshwater mains Southern section along Ming Kum Road and road
upgrading works
|
|
AREA 9
(Figure 13.2)
|
Traffic
improvement works near Lam Tei Interchange
|
13.6.2
The following archaeological works are
proposed to be implemented in AREA 2 after the identified area for testing (Figure
1 in Appendix 13.1) has been resumed and the structures and
surface covering has been removed. The
scope is subject to agreement with AMO within the Archaeological Action Plan to
be submitted by a qualified archaeologist engaged by project proponent prior to
implementation.
Field Scan
13.6.3
Field walking may not be relevant
depending on the surface clearing after the structures are removed however,
attention should be given to cuts and recently exposed areas.
13.6.4
The scanning of the surface for
archaeological material is conducted, under ideal circumstances, in a
systematic manner and covers the archaeological potential area identified in
the desk-based review within a certain area, in this case the proposed licence area as marked on Figure 1 in Appendix 13.1. Particular attention is given to exposed
areas such as riverbed cuts, erosion areas, terraces, etc,
if applicable.
13.6.5
Material and concentrations of finds are
recorded, mapped at 1:1000 scale and collected during the field scanning and
form part of the archive. Topography,
surface conditions and existing conditions are noted during the field walking.
Auger Survey
13.6.6
Auger survey of the identified untested
area should be carried out in order to establish soil sequence, the
presence/absence of cultural soils or deposits and their horizontal extent. No
less than fifty auger tests are tentatively proposed subject to further
confirmation with AMO during the licence application stage,
scope and locations are subject to agreement with AMO, see Figure 2 in Appendix 13.1 for tentative locations within the proposed licence
area.
13.6.7
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 of
any material found is also measured. 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.
13.6.8
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.
Test
Pit Excavation
13.6.9
Test pit excavations are carried out to
verify the archaeological potential identified in the desk-based review within
a certain area. The choice for the
location of the test pit excavation depends on various factors such as
desk-based information, landforms, field scan and auger test results as well as
access issues. It is recommended to
undertake no less than twenty test pit excavations subject to further
confirmation with AMO during the licence application
stage as marked on Figure 2 in Appendix 13.1. Location
and scope of test pit excavations is subject to detailed
design of the Project Site and
the actual site condition and is to be
agreed with AMO prior to implementation. Further test pits or extensions of test
pits should be considered if in situ deposits or features are found.
13.6.10
Hand digging of test pits measuring 2 x 2
meters should be carried out in order to determine the presence/absence of
archaeological deposits and their stratigraphy.
The size, however, may depend on close proximity
to large trees, narrow terraces or other external factors. The test pit is hand excavated, contexts,
finds and features are recorded, soils described, and relevant depths
measured. Artefacts are recorded and
collected. Photographs of sections and
other relevant information are taken and section and ground plans, if required,
are drawn.
13.6.11
Hand excavation will continue until rock
or decomposing rock are reached and no potential for archaeological soils or
deposits exist. Additionally, the test
pit will be abandoned when the water table is reached or when the depth of
excavation poses safety problems.
13.6.12
The hand excavated test pit is backfilled
after full recording. Field records
containing information regarding the physical location of the test pit, weather
conditions, size and benchmark, description of the soils and their measured
depths, artefact and feature finds are kept for each pit. Photographs are taken and drawings and plans
produced, finds are bagged, labelled and stored for transport. The location of the test pit is mapped on a
1:1000 scale map.
13.6.13
An archaeological report will be prepared
by the qualified archaeologist(s) in accordance to the agreed Archaeological
Action Plan, to present the findings of the archaeological survey and further
mitigation, if any.
13.6.14
The engaged archaeologist shall be
required to obtain a licence from the Antiquities
Authority before undertaking archaeological field investigation under the
provision of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap.53). It is recommended to engage a qualified
archaeologist with no less than 5 years of field experience.
13.6.15
The archaeologist shall be required to
submit the essential documentation to AMO to obtain a Licence
to undertake archaeological research.
Within this documentation the archaeologist shall identify the team and
approach to field investigation.
13.6.16
The expected timing in undertaking an
archaeological investigation includes:
·
Upon commissioning, 2 weeks to submit Licence
application to AMO;
·
Granting of the licence usually requires
up to 8 weeks once the application is accepted;
·
Field works are expected to be completed within 4 to 6 months
tentatively (subject to weather, completion of surface clearance of the site
and resources);
·
Processing, analysis and draft reporting of findings, within 6
months of completion of field works;
·
Final submission of archaeological investigation report, depending
on AMO comments; and
·
Submission of archives, no more than 12 months after acceptance of
final report.
13.7.1
There are no recognized built heritage sites within the Assessment
Area. Although seventeen pre-1950
clan graves and three kam tap (urn
houses) were
identified within the Assessment Area (CEDD 2013; CEDD/B&V September 2017), they are
not classed as graded historic structures or New Items and are
as such
not a heritage issue.
13.7.2
Previous investigations within the current study and around
indicate little potential for built heritage or heritage as identified in
Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (AMO 2012) and as such no
further built heritage survey was deemed necessary. In summary it can be stated that no heritage site,
i.e. declared monuments, proposed monuments, graded historic sites/buildings or
any Government historic sites identified by AMO will be affected
during construction and operational phases of the project under the
proposed developments
13.8.1
No mitigation will be required based on built heritage assessment.
END
OF TEXT