9 CULTURAL HERITAGE

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1.1 This section presents the cultural heritage impact assessment (CHIA) which includes a Marine Archaeological Investigation due to the construction and operation of the Project.

9.2 Legislative Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

9.2.1 General

9.2.1.1 The following legislation, standards, guidelines and requirements are applicable to the cultural heritage impact assessment in the Project.

· Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499) (EIAO) and the associated Technical Memorandum on the EIA Process (EIAO-TM);

· Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) (A&M Ordinance);

· Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG);

· Requirements for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) from Appendix H of EIA Study Brief (ESB-342/2021); and

· Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI).

9.2.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap 499)

9.2.2.1 Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM outlines the criteria for assessment of impact on sites of cultural heritage. The general presumption is in favour of the protection and conservation of all sites of cultural heritage. In addition, adverse impacts on sites of cultural heritage shall be kept to the absolute minimum.

9.2.2.2 Annex 19 of the EIAO-TM outlines the approaches required in investigating and assessing the impacts on sites of cultural heritage. 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. Preservation in totality is preferred. 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.

9.2.3 Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53)

9.2.3.1 The Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) (A&M Ordinance) provides statutory protection against the threat of development on Declared Monuments to enable their preservation for posterity. The A&M Ordinance also establishes the statutory procedures to be followed in making such a declaration.

9.2.3.2 Any person who discovers an antiquity, or supposed antiquity, is required to report the discovery to the Antiquities Authority.

9.2.4 Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG)

9.2.4.1 The Chapter 10, Conservation, of the HKPSG provides general guidelines and measures for the conservation of historical buildings, sites of archaeological interest and other antiquities.

9.2.5 Requirements for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA)

9.2.5.1 Appendix H of EIA Study Brief (ESB-342/2021) provides requirements on conducting Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for the Project.

9.2.6 Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI)

9.2.6.1 Guidelines for MAI provided in Appendix H of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-342/2021) details the standard practice, procedures and methodology which shall be undertaken in determining marine archaeological baseline and potential, presence of archaeological artefacts, evaluating the potential impact and establishing suitable mitigation measures.

9.2.6.2 The MAI was undertaken in accordance with the survey scope and methodology defined in the Technical Note on Marine Archaeological Investigation dated February 2022 which was confirmed by the EPD with no further comment.

9.3 Assessment Methodology

9.3.1 Criteria, Guidelines and Requirements

9.3.1.1 This CHIA follows the criteria and guidelines in Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM and the Requirements for MAI as stated in Appendix H of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-342/2021).

9.3.2 Assessment Area

9.3.2.1 The construction works of the Project consists of (i) the Airport Tung Chung Link (ATCL) to connect Hong Kong Port (HKP) Island and Tung Chung Town Centre via a road link, and (ii) marine facilities in the waters between Airport Island and HKP Island. The CHIA will cover a Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI). The location of the Project is shown in Figure 9.1.

9.3.2.2 The Assessment Area for the MAI is defined by a distance of 300m from the boundary of the Project area (as shown in Figure 9.2) according to Clause 3.4.10.2 of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-342/2021), which includes areas to be affected by the marine works associated with the construction works of the Project.

9.3.3 Baseline Review

9.3.3.1 A baseline review was conducted to collate existing information to identify the archaeological potential and their likely character, extent, quality and value. The baseline review focus on known sources including:

a) Civil Engineering and Development Department, Geotechnical Engineering Office – The Department holds extensive seabed survey data collected from previous geological research;

b) Marine Department, Hydrographic Office – the Department holds a substantial archives of hydrographic data and charts;

c) The Royal Naval Hydrographic Department in the UK – the Department maintains an archive of all survey data collected by naval hydrographers;

d) Relevant Government departments such as Antiquities and Monuments Office, Environmental Protection Department etc to obtain information on dredging history on the location of the Project; and

e) Internet and libraries sources of relevant studies.

9.3.3.2 The findings provide historical records and more detailed geological analysis of submarine features which may have been subsequently masked by more recent sediment deposits and accumulated debris.

9.3.4 Geophysical Surveys

9.3.4.1 Desktop review identified that previous geophysical surveys were conducted in adjacent areas. However, two information gap areas in relation to the proposed works for the Project have been identified that were not covered by previous geophysical surveys. They are shown in Figure 9.2. Area 1 partly overlaps with the proposed marine facilities and at the coast east of the northern section of the Airport Tung Chung Link alignment for the Project. Area 2 is where the proposed marine viaduct sections of the Project situated.

9.3.4.2 Geophysical surveys of the Assessment Area of the Project were conducted at areas that may involve seabed disturbance works in the construction site boundary of the Project, these are the Marine Facilities Survey Area (MF Site), which is partly located within information gap Area 1, and the Airport Tung Chung Link Survey Area (ATCL Site), which is located within information gap Area 2. The geophysical survey only covered ATCL Site as no seabed disturbance works would be involved in the marine area outside the ATCL Site within the construction site boundary. Their locations are shown in Figure 9.2. The geophysical survey covering these two work areas will provide adequate field information for the assessment of marine archaeological impact of the Project, as the rest of the information gap area is not impacted by the proposed works for the Project. The data received from the geophysical surveys were analysed in detail to provide:

· Exact definition of the areas of greatest archaeological potential;

· Assessment of the depth and nature of the seabed sediments to define which areas consist of suitable material to bury and preserve archaeological material;

· Detailed examination of Sub-bottom Profiling and Magnetic Survey records to map anomalies in and on the seabed which may be archaeological material; and

· Detailed examination of the multi beam sonar data to assess the archaeological potential of the sonar contact.

9.3.4.3 Geophysical surveys covered areas that involve potential seabed disturbance works and were conducted by Geotechnics & Concrete Engineering (H.K.) LTD on 7^th Apr, 8^th Apr and 20^th Apr 2022. In the MF Site, Multi beam echo sounding (MBES) and Side scan sonar (SSS) surveys were carried out on 7^th Apr 2022. In the ATCL Site, marine magnetometer survey (MAG) was conducted on 7^th April 2022, while MBES, SSS and Sub-bottom Profiling (SBP) surveys were conducted on 8^th Apr 2022. Seismic survey was repeated on 20^th Apr 2022 due to data corruption on some lines recorded earlier. The data received from the surveys were analysed and the findings are presented in Section 9.4.5.

Table 9.1 Details of Survey Types with Objectives and Survey Spacing

Site	Survey Type	Objective	Survey Spacing
MF & ATCL	Multi beam echo sounding (MBES)	To provide seabed levels in details	10m plus infill lines
MF & ATCL	Side scan sonar (SSS)	To locate anomalous features and map sediment types on the seabed	10m plus coastline
ATCL	Sub-bottom Profiling (SBP)	To provide levels and thicknesses of geological interfaces, if identified	10m x 30m
ATCL	Marine magnetometer (MAG)	To identify metallic objects and any archaeological remains on, or just beneath the seabed	10m
Note: It is not practical to conduct SBP and MAG at MF Site since there is no room for vessel movement with MF site constraint by having seawalls enclosed three sides.

Table 9.2 Equipment List

Type	Equipment
*Survey Vessel*	*GEO1*
Horizontal positioning	NovAtel PwrPak7 GNSS system
Single beam echo sounding	Knudsen 320M dual frequency single beam echo sounder
Sub-bottom profiler	LVB
Magnetometer	Geometrics G-882 marine magnetometer
Software	C-Nav computerized navigation suite
	Geometrics MAGLOG software
	C-View digital recording and processing system
Others	A/C generators, computers and bar check equipment

*Survey Vessel*	*Profiler*
Horizontal positioning	NovAtel PwrPak7 GNSS system
Single beam echo sounding	Knudsen 320M dual frequency single beam echo sounder
Multi Beam Echo sounding	NORBIT iWBMS Multi-beam Echo Sounder
Multi Beam Echo sounding	Applanix POS MV Wavemaster II Inertial Navigation System
Side scan sonar	EdgeTech 4125 digital side scan sonar system
Software	C-Nav computerized navigation suite
Software	C-View digital recording and processing system
Others	A/C generators, computers and bar check equipment

9.3.5 Establishing Marine Archaeological Potential

9.3.5.1 The findings from the baseline review and geophysical surveys were reviewed and analysed to provide an indication of the likely character and extent of marine archaeological resources within the Assessment Area. The results are presented in below sections.

9.3.6 Further Archaeological Actions

9.3.6.1 Should marine archaeological potential be identified that require further examination to fill in information gaps for subsequent assessment, further marine archaeological actions such as detailed geophysical surveys, Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV), Visual Diver Survey or Watching Brief at potential area may be recommended.

9.3.7 Impact Assessment and Recommendations

9.3.7.1 Based on the findings and analysis of the baseline conditions and results of the evaluation of the marine archaeological potential, an impact assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential marine archaeological impacts of the Project, and recommend marine archaeological actions or mitigation measures if necessary.

9.4 Marine Archaeological Review and Marine Archaeological Potential Establishment

Baseline Review

9.4.1 Review of Historical Documents

Maritime Activities in Tung Chung Water

9.4.1.1 As recorded by the 1819 version of Xinan Gazetteer (新安縣誌), Tung Chung was one of the salt pans involved in the battle between the locals of Lantau Island and the government over the issue on illegal salting trading activities in 1197. Almost all of the residents of Lantau Island were killed by the government in 1197. After this event, 300 naval forces were garrisoned at the island (Murray, 1987; 張一兵, 1997).

9.4.1.2 The area of Tung Chung was associated with different pirate battles in the past. The Nine-day Battle took place in Tung Chung bay in November of 1809. Cheung Po Tsai surrendered to the Qing Government in 1810. It is recorded that at the time of surrender, Cheung Po Tsai had over 270 junks, 16,000 men, 5,000 women, 7,000 swords, and 1,200 guns (Cortesão, 1944). In order to prevent the threat of pirate activities, two Tung Chung Small Batteries and Tung Chung Fort were built in 1817 and 1832 respectively. It reflected the large scale of pirate activities during the 1800s in Tung Chung (蕭國健, 1997).

9.4.1.3 At the same time, the Northern Lantau Channel was used by foreign merchants from the 16th century. The channel was an anchorage area since this period and was systematically recorded on a map in 1856. The Portuguese merchant Jorge Aĺvares landed on Lantau Island in August 1513 and later-on the Portuguese set up trading points in Lantau Island between 1513 and 1522. It was recorded that a sea battle between Chinese navy and Portuguese fleets was fought in the waters between Lantau Island and Tuen Mun in 1521. The Chinese navy destroyed the Portuguese fort in the same year. After the Second Opium War in 1858, the western countries gained the navigation right of China and Hong Kong waters. Frequent maritime trading business was recorded in the channel of northern Lantau (劉蜀永, 2009).

9.4.1.4 In the Second Opium War, British warships attacked the Imperial Chinese navy in 1858 in the water channel between Chek Lap Kok Island and Tung Chung (香港歷史博物館, 2009). A broken cannon and a cannon ball manufactured around 1808 were discovered on the seabed off Tung Chung and Chek Lap Kok during the construction of the HKIA in 1993 (Meacham, 1994). It indicated that the seabed of Tung Chung may contain archeological potential, especially those related to the marine battles after 1808.

Archaeological Background of Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) Island

9.4.1.5 The Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) was built at former Chek Lap Kok Island which is a reclaimed land. Terrestrial archaeological investigations and rescue excavations were therefore conducted prior to the airport development in 1989. Archaeological investigations carried out in Chek Lap Kok Island were recorded in 1923, 1925, 1931, and 1933 by Walter Schofield. In the 1950s, members of the Hong Kong University Archaeological Team discovered Neolithic period stone and pottery artefacts on the island. In 1979, the Hong Kong Archaeological Society began studies on the archaeological sites on the island, and discovered cultural deposit from Neolithic, Tang and Song periods (Meacham, 1994).

9.4.1.6 The Hong Kong Archaeological Society conducted archaeological rescue excavations on sites including Ha Law Wan Site of Archaeological Interest (SAI) (its location can be seen in Figure 9.1) between September 1990 and July 1991 due to the decision to build Hong Kong’s new airport on Chek Lap Kok in 1989 (Meacham, 1994). The Yuan period kiln complex was identified in the site and later preserved in Ancient Kiln Park of the HKIA.

9.4.2 Review of Geological Conditions

9.4.2.1 The solid geology of the Assessment Area belong to East Lantau Rhyolite formation and Fill formation at the southern western part of the Tung Chung link, consists of Hang Hau Formation comprising mud with beach deposit, and Chek Lap Kok Formation comprising coarse sediments with gravels (EGS, 2022).

9.4.3 Review of Charts & United Kingdom Hydrographic Office ‘Wreck’ Files

9.4.3.1 Review of old admiralty charts and database of known shipwrecks/undefined sites in the HKSAR maintained by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office identified no potential marine archaeological interest / wrecks in the MAI Assessment Area.

9.4.4 Review of Previous Marine Archaeological Investigation/Impact Assessment

9.4.4.1 A preliminary review of four previous Marine Archaeological Investigations/Impact Assessments were conducted as part of the EIA for this project. Table 9.3 below summarized the marine archaeological works conducted.

Table 9.3 Summary of Previous Marine Archaeological Investigations/Impact Assessments Conducted

EIA Projects	MAI Conducted
Intermodal Transfer Terminal - Bonded Vehicular Bridge and Associated Roads EIA Report [Register No.: AEIAR-216/2018] ⁽[1]⁾	Only desktop MAI was conducted.
Tung Chung New Town Extension EIA Report [Register No.: AEIAR-196/2016] ⁽[2]⁾	No geophysical survey was conducted. Data gap Identified at the Tung Chung Bay for the near shore areas of North Lantau where accessibility for vessels is constrained. Thus, a diver survey was conducted in 2012 to fill in the information gap area. The diver survey was conducted by circular searches and 20 diver surveys were conducted along the Tung Chung Bay coast. No marine archaeological deposit was identified. The dive survey area is outside the MAI Assessment Area for this Project.
Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Investigation (HZMB-BCF) EIA Report [Register No.: AEIAR-145/2009]⁽[3]⁾	Three geophysical surveys as part of the EIAs for both HZMB-BCF and HZMB-NLH Projects were carried out (see HKBCF Geophysical Survey Area in Figure 9.2 showing the geophysical survey coverage in or adjacent to the MAI Assessment Area for this Project). An area of approximately 750 m x 750 m was not recorded during the geophysical surveys for HZMB-BCF in the vicinity of aeronautical lights and landfall of the Hutchison cable on the eastern shore of Chek Lap Kok (see Image 24 extracted from EIA report for HZMB-NLH in Appendix 9.1) but a fibreglass speed boat was used in the very shallow waters and thus echo sounding only was conducted. Diver surveys were conducted in 2009 at three objects (SC006, SC010, and SC011) identified from geophysical surveys but they are confirmed to have no marine archaeological significance (see Figure 12.1 extracted from EIA report for HZMB-BCF in Appendix 9.1).
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and Connection with North Lantau Highway (HZMB-NLH) EIA Report [Register No.: AEIAR-144/2009]⁽[4]⁾	Three geophysical surveys (including multi-beam echo sounding, seismic, side scan sonar and magnetic surveys) were carried out during May to June 2004, November to December 2005 and November to December 2008 as part of the EIAs for both HZMB-BCF and HZMB-NLH Projects (see HKLR Geophysical Survey Area in Figure 9.2 showing the geophysical survey coverage in or adjacent to the MAI Assessment Area for this Project). Because of the variable water depths throughout the survey area, a fibreglass speed boat was used in the very shallow waters in the Airport Channel (situated between Lantau and CLK) for echo sounding only. Further to the geophysical surveys conducted as mentioned above, a total number of twenty-six (26) objects were identified from the geophysical surveys considered to have marine archaeological potential. A visual diver survey was conducted in 2009 to obtain field data to assess their archaeological significance. They were confirmed to have no marine archaeological significance (see Image 27 extracted from EIA report for HZMB-NLH in Appendix 9.1. No. 23 to 26 and on transect fall within the MAI Assessment Area for this Project).

EIA Projects

MAI Conducted

Intermodal Transfer Terminal - Bonded Vehicular Bridge and Associated Roads

EIA Report

[Register No.: AEIAR-216/2018] ⁽[1]⁾

Only desktop MAI was conducted.

Tung Chung New Town Extension

EIA Report

[Register No.: AEIAR-196/2016] ⁽[2]⁾

No geophysical survey was conducted. Data gap Identified at the Tung Chung Bay for the near shore areas of North Lantau where accessibility for vessels is constrained. Thus, a diver survey was conducted in 2012 to fill in the information gap area. The diver survey was conducted by circular searches and 20 diver surveys were conducted along the Tung Chung Bay coast. No marine archaeological deposit was identified. The dive survey area is outside the MAI Assessment Area for this Project.

Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Investigation (HZMB-BCF)

EIA Report

[Register No.: AEIAR-145/2009]⁽[3]⁾

Three geophysical surveys as part of the EIAs for both HZMB-BCF and HZMB-NLH Projects were carried out (see HKBCF Geophysical Survey Area in Figure 9.2 showing the geophysical survey coverage in or adjacent to the MAI Assessment Area for this Project). An area of approximately 750 m x 750 m was not recorded during the geophysical surveys for HZMB-BCF in the vicinity of aeronautical lights and landfall of the Hutchison cable on the eastern shore of Chek Lap Kok (see Image 24 extracted from EIA report for HZMB-NLH in Appendix 9.1) but a fibreglass speed boat was used in the very shallow waters and thus echo sounding only was conducted.

Diver surveys were conducted in 2009 at three objects (SC006, SC010, and SC011) identified from geophysical surveys but they are confirmed to have no marine archaeological significance (see Figure 12.1 extracted from EIA report for HZMB-BCF in Appendix 9.1).

Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and Connection with North Lantau Highway (HZMB-NLH)

EIA Report

[Register No.: AEIAR-144/2009]⁽[4]⁾

Three geophysical surveys (including multi-beam echo sounding, seismic, side scan sonar and magnetic surveys) were carried out during May to June 2004, November to December 2005 and November to December 2008 as part of the EIAs for both HZMB-BCF and HZMB-NLH Projects (see HKLR Geophysical Survey Area in Figure 9.2 showing the geophysical survey coverage in or adjacent to the MAI Assessment Area for this Project). Because of the variable water depths throughout the survey area, a fibreglass speed boat was used in the very shallow waters in the Airport Channel (situated between Lantau and CLK) for echo sounding only.

Further to the geophysical surveys conducted as mentioned above, a total number of twenty-six (26) objects were identified from the geophysical surveys considered to have marine archaeological potential. A visual diver survey was conducted in 2009 to obtain field data to assess their archaeological significance. They were confirmed to have no marine archaeological significance (see Image 27 extracted from EIA report for HZMB-NLH in Appendix 9.1. No. 23 to 26 and on transect fall within the MAI Assessment Area for this Project).

9.4.5 Review of Geophysical Survey Results

9.4.5.1 Geophysical surveys as part of the Project covered potential seabed disturbance works involved areas and were conducted by Geotechnics & Concrete Engineering (H.K.) LTD on 7^th Apr, 8^th Apr and 20^th Apr 2022 to study the seabed features and to locate anomalous features in the surveyed areas. Side Scan Surveys were conducted in both MF Site and ATCL Site, while Magnetometer Survey was conducted only in ATCL Site. The survey findings were processed by the geophysicists and reviewed by the qualified marine archaeologist, Dr William Jeffery, and cultural heritage specialist, Ms Peggy Wong. The survey track plots are shown in Appendix 9.2. Details of survey types with objectives and survey spacing are shown in Table 9.1, and the equipment list is shown in Table 9.2.

Marine Facilities Survey Area (MF Site)

9.4.5.2 In Marine Facilities Survey Area (MF Site), which is partly located within information gap Area 1, the observed seabed is highly disturbed and characterized by deep seabed scars with isolated debris. The majority of the sediments are interpreted as fine sediments dominated by sandy silt and clay. Boulders and rubbles were located close to the seawalls. Areas of high reflectivity patch are observed in the southern area. They are interpreted as possible dense sand or gravel.

9.4.5.3 Eight sonar contacts (SC001 to SC008) were identified. They are located at a range of water depth from -3.4 mPD to -5.3 mPD and their dimensions are shown in Table 9.4. SC001, SC002 and SC004 are interpreted as modern debris due to their random placement, their irregular shape and small size, low side scan sonar signal strength intensity, and lack of a shadow indicating low elevation. They could be natural or man-made material but given they are located on a seabed that has been worked and re-worked over the years as seen by the highly disturbed seabed with deep scars (see sonar contact image SC004 in Appendix 9.3 showing example of deep scars), they would be greatly impacted and have no marine archaeological interest; SC003, SC005 and SC006 are interpreted as Navigation Buoys without marine archaeological interest. SC007 and SC008 are located close to the rubble mound and appear to be some type of metal framework and most likely dumped materials, given their location at the base of the rubble mound, and are considered of no archaeological interest. The locations of all these features are shown in Figure 9.3 and the sonar contact images are shown in Appendix 9.3.

Airport Tung Chung Link Survey Area (ATCL Site)

9.4.5.4 At ATCL Site, boulders and rubbles dominate along the shoreline in the north and in the south of the channel. Majority of the sediments inside the channel is fine sediments interpreted as soft silt or clay. Isolated boulders are spotted in the southern part of the channel.

9.4.5.5 Through the magnetic survey, five magnetic anomalies (MC001 to MC005) were identified. These anomalies were interpreted as debris and of no archaeological potential. A significant ferrous archaeological object detectable would be an iron cannon, but none of the nano-Tesla (nT) values are in the range for a cannon, e.g. a one tonne cannon at two metres depth of water would give a value of c. 2,000 nT (MC005 nT is 43 and is in one to two metres of water); and at seven metres depth of water the nT value would be about 500 (MC001, MC002, MC003, MC004 have a nT value of eight to twelve and are in five to eight metres of water) (Green, 2004). Their details are shown in Table 9.5, locations are shown in Figure 9.3, and the magnetic anomalies images, including any seabed features in the vicinity of the magnetic anomalies are shown in Appendix 9.4. No side scan sonar contacts or sub-bottom anomalies were identified.

Table 9.4 Sonar Contact Identified in Marine Facilities Survey Site

Contact number	Latitude Longitude	Easting Northing	Water depth (-mPD)	Dimensions (m)	Description
SC001	22° 19.043' N 113° 56.497' E	812281.0E 819669.9N	4.2	0.6x0.6xnmh	Debris
SC002	22° 19.023' N 113° 56.526' E	812331.3E 819633.2N	5.1	0.9x0.8x0.3	Debris
SC003	22° 18.995' N 113° 56.522' E	812323.6E 819580.9N	5.1	0.5x1.2xnmh	Navigation buoy
SC004	22° 18.997' N 113° 56.542' E	812358.3E 819585.1N	5	1.2x1.2x0.7	Debris
SC005	22° 19.017' N 113° 56.612' E	812477.7E 819621.7N	5	0.2x0.4xnmh	Navigation buoy
SC006	22° 19.006' N 113° 56.643' E	812532.1E 819601.8N	3.4	0.9x0.5xnmh	Navigation buoy
SC007	22° 18.960' N 113° 56.531' E	812339.1E 819517.2N	5.3	10x1x0.35	Dumped materials
SC008	22° 18.956' N 113° 56.533' E	812341.9E 819509.4N	5.2	7x5.8x0.3	Dumped materials

Table 9.5 Position of High Magnetic List

Contact number	Latitude Longitude	Easting Northing	Gradients (nT/m)
MC001	22° 17.642' N 113° 56.147' E	811675.5E 817085.2N	8
MC002	22° 17.649' N 113° 56.125' E	811638.5E 817097.9N	7.6
MC003	22° 17.643' N 113° 56.125' E	811638.4E 817086.8N	7.6
MC004	22° 17.638' N 113° 56.121' E	811631.1E 817079.0N	12.2
MC005	22° 17.681' N 113° 56.067' E	811538.1E 817157.6N	43.4

9.4.6 Marine Archaeological Potential

9.4.6.1 Based on the historical review, human activities and cultural deposits have occurred since the Neolithic period in Tung Chung waters, and Tang and Song period cultural materials have been found on Chek Lap Kok Island. A Yuan period kiln complex has also been found in the Ha Law Wan SAI which is partly located within the Assessment Area, showing past human activities and settlements. This evidence highlights how the waters of the Assessment Area may have marine archaeological potential.

9.4.6.2 The desktop review identified no declared monuments, proposed monuments, graded historic sites/buildings/structures, sites/buildings/structures in the new list of proposed grading items; and Government historic sites identified by the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) within the Assessment Area.

9.4.6.3 Preliminary review of old admiralty charts and a database of known shipwrecks/undefined sites in the HKSAR maintained by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office identified no potential marine archaeological interest / wrecks in the MAI Assessment Area.

9.4.6.4 Although sub-bottom profiling (SBP) and marine magnetometer (MAG) were not conducted at the MF Site since there is no room for vessel movement with MF site constraint by having seawalls enclosed three sides, the seabed in MF Site has been highly disturbed with deep scars from anchoring and seabed disturbance works in the past for many years. The seabed has been heavily disturbed and remixed down to several metres greatly impacting any sub-bottom anomalies, if present. Therefore, the marine archaeological potential within MF Site is very low.

9.4.6.5 There are eight sonar contacts (SC001 to SC008) in MF Site and five magnetic anomalies (MC001 to MC005) in ATCL Site.

9.4.6.6 In MF Site, SC001, SC002 and SC004 are interpreted as debris, SC007 and SC008 as dumped materials, and SC003, SC005 and SC006 are interpreted as navigation buoys and of no marine archaeological interest.

9.4.6.7 In ATCL Site, all five magnetic anomalies are considered as debris, and while their actual origins are not clear they are not considered to have archaeological potential. No side scan sonar contacts or sub-bottom anomalies were identified.

Potential Sources of Impact

9.4.6.8 The marine construction works of the proposed Project would mainly be the marine viaduct section of ATCL and marine facilities including a pier and berthing facilities. Although these works would not involve open sea dredging and the marine viaduct’s foundation would generally involve only the use of in-situ bored plies founded on bedrock, potential impacts arising from these activities include:

· Direct loss of potential marine archaeological deposits (if present) due to seabed disturbance works from temporary working platform on the seaside for the piling works at the seawall for the construction of marine viaduct;

· Indirect impact on access for future archaeological surveys; and

· Permanent disturbance to marine archaeological deposits if they are found to be within the Assessment Area.

9.5 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment

9.5.1 Construction Phase

9.5.1.1 The desktop review identified no declared monuments, proposed monuments, graded historic sites/buildings/structures, sites/buildings/structures in the new list of proposed grading items; and Government historic sites identified by the AMO fall within the Assessment Area. No impact to these cultural heritage resources is anticipated.

9.5.1.2 A part of the Ha Law Wan SAI is located within the Assessment Area with large separation distance (295m) from the proposed works of the Project (See Figure 9.1). No impact is anticipated.

9.5.1.3 Geophysical surveys conducted for the Project identified eight sonar contacts (SC001 to SC008) in the MF Site and five magnetic anomalies (MC001 to MC005) in the ATCL Site. SC001, SC002 and SC004 are interpreted as modern debris, SC003, SC005 and SC006 are interpreted as navigation buoys, and SC007 & SC008 are interpreted as dumped materials, while MC001 to MC005 are considered as debris. They are considered to have no marine archaeological potential. No marine archaeological impact is anticipated.

9.5.1.4 Although sub-bottom profiling (SBP) and marine magnetometer (MAG) were not conducted at the Marine Facilities Survey Area (MF Site), the seabed in MF Site has been highly disturbed with deep scars from anchoring and seabed disturbance works in the past for many years with very low marine archaeological potential, the potential impact is considered minimal.

9.5.2 Operational Phase

9.5.2.1 No excavation works will be involved in operational phase of the Project, therefore no adverse cultural heritage or marine archaeological impact is anticipated.

9.6 Mitigation Measures

9.6.1 Construction Phase

9.6.1.1 No impact on declared monuments, proposed monuments, graded historic sites/buildings/structures, sites/buildings/structures in the new list of proposed grading items; and Government historic sites and Site of Archaeological Interest has been identified. No mitigation measure is required.

9.6.1.2 As sonar contacts and magnetic anomalies identified from geophysical surveys are of no marine archaeological potential, no marine archaeological impact is anticipated and therefore no mitigation measures is required.

9.6.1.3 Although sub-bottom profiling (SBP) and marine magnetometer (MAG) were not conducted at the Marine Facilities Survey Area (MF Site), the seabed in MF Site has been highly disturbed with deep scars from anchoring and seabed disturbance works in the past for many years with very low marine archaeological potential, the potential impact is considered minimal. As a precautionary measure, the project proponent and his/her contractor are required to inform AMO immediately when any antiquities or supposed antiquities under the A&M Ordinance are discovered during the seabed disturbance works in the MF Site and the ATCL Site.

9.6.2 Operational Phase

9.6.2.1 As no adverse cultural heritage/marine archaeological impact is anticipated in operational phase of the Project, no mitigation measure is required.

9.7 Residual and Cumulative Impacts

9.7.1.1 No adverse residual and cumulative cultural heritage impacts are anticipated.

9.8 Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A)

9.8.1 Construction Phase

9.8.1.1 No EM&A is required. However, as a precautionary measure, the project proponent and his/her contractor are required to inform AMO immediately when any antiquities or supposed antiquities under the A&M Ordinance are discovered during the seabed disturbance works in the MF Site and the ATCL Site.

9.8.2 Operational Phase

9.8.2.1 As no adverse cultural heritage/marine archaeological impact is anticipated during operational phase of the Project, no EM&A is required.

9.9 Conclusions

9.9.1.1 No impact on declared monuments, proposed monuments, graded historic sites/buildings/structures, sites/buildings/structures in the new list of proposed grading items; and Government historic sites are identified within the Assessment Area. No impact to these cultural heritage resources arising from the Project is anticipated. No mitigation measures is required.

9.9.1.2 A part of Ha Law Wan SAI located within the Assessment Area with large separation distance (approximately 295m) from the proposed works of the Project. No impact is anticipated and thus no mitigation measures is required.

9.9.1.3 The desktop review supplemented with the results of geophysical surveys conducted for the Project identified eight sonar contacts in MF Site, which are interpreted as modern debris, dumped materials, and navigation buoys, while five magnetic anomalies found in ATCL Site are interpreted as debris. They are considered to have no marine archaeological potential. No marine archaeological impact arising from the Project is anticipated. No mitigation measures and further MAI are required.

9.9.1.4 Although sub-bottom profiling (SBP) and marine magnetometer (MAG) were not conducted at the Marine Facilities Survey Area (MF Site), the seabed in MF Site has been highly disturbed with deep scars from anchoring and seabed disturbance works in the past for many years with very low marine archaeological potential, the potential impact is considered minimal. As a precautionary measure, the project proponent and his/her contractor are required to inform AMO immediately when any antiquities or supposed antiquities under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) are discovered during the seabed disturbance works in the MF Site and the ATCL Site.

9.10 Bibliography

9.10.1 English

EGS, 2022 Marine Geophysical Surveys - Preliminary Report. April 2022

Green, J.N. 2004 Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam,

Meacham, W. 1994 Archaeological Discovery at Chek Lap Kok. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Archaeological Society.

Meacham, W. 1994 Archaeological Investigations on Chek Lap Kok Island. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Archaeological Society.

Murray, D.H. 1987 Pirates of the South China Coast 1790-1810. Stanford University Press.

Cortesão, A. 1944 The Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires and the Book of Francisco Rodrigues. London: Hakluyt Society.

9.10.2 Chinese

張一兵1997 《深圳古代簡史》，北京：文物出版社。

蕭國健 1997 《關城與炮台》，香港市政局。

劉蜀永 2009 《香港簡明史》，三聯書店香港有限公司。

香港歷史博物館 2009 《我武維揚──近代中國海軍史新論》，香港歷史博物館。

9.10.3 Internet

Antiquities and Monuments Office. 2022. Declared monuments in Hong Kong (as of 20 May 2022); [information on line]; available from https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/DM_Mon_List_e.pdf; internet; access on 2 May 2023

Antiquities and Monuments Office. 2022. Government Historic sites Identified by AMO (as at May 2022); [information on line]; available from https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/build_hia_government_historic_sites.pdf; internet; access on 2 May 2023

Antiquities and Monuments Office. 2022. List of the 1444 Historic Buildings with Assessment Results (as at 9 March 2023); [information on line]; available from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/AAB-SM-chi.pdf; internet; access on 2 May 2023

Antiquities and Monuments Office. 2022. List of new items for grading assessment with assessment results (as at 9 March 2023); [information on line]; available from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/list_new_items_assessed.pdf; internet; access on 2 May 2023.

List of Sites of Archaeological Interest in Hong Kong (as at Nov 2012). Available from: https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/list_archaeolog_site_eng.pdf; accessed on 2 May 2023.

AECOM, 2018, Intermodal Transfer Terminal - Bonded Vehicular Bridge and Associated Roads. EIA Report for Airport Authority Hong Kong. Available from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2572018/Index.htm; accessed on 2 May 2023.

Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited, 2015, Tung Chung New Town Extension EIA Report for Civil Engineering Development Department. Available from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2332015/html/EIA/Text/General/Combined_html%20version.htm; accessed on 2 May 2023.

Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited, 2009, Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Investigation EIA Report for Highways Department. Available from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1732009/Contents%20Page%20(PDF).htm; accessed on 2 May 2023.

Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited, 2009, Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and Connection with North Lantau Highway EIA Report for Civil Engineering Development Department. Available from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1722009/Contents%20Page.htm; accessed on 2 May 2023.

^([1]) AECOM, 2018, Intermodal Transfer Terminal - Bonded Vehicular Bridge and Associated Roads

EIA Report for Airport Authority Hong Kong. Available from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2572018/Index.htm; accessed on 25 August 2022.

^([2]) Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited, 2015, Tung Chung New Town Extension EIA Report for Civil Engineering Development Department. Available from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2332015/html/EIA/Text/General/Combined_html%20version.htm; accessed on 25 August 2022.

^([3]) Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited, 2009, Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Investigation EIA Report for Highways Department. Available from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1732009/Contents%20Page%20(PDF).htm; accessed on 25 August 2022.

^([4]) Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited, 2009, Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and Connection with North Lantau Highway EIA Report for Civil Engineering Development Department. Available from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1722009/Contents%20Page.htm; accessed on 25 August 2022.