13 cultural heritage impact assessment

13.1 Introduction

13.1.1.1 This section presents the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) findings of the Project. The assessment area for CHIA is 500m from the Project area (i.e. NOL alignment, works sites and works area). Cultural heritage resources, including built heritage and archaeological resources, within the 500 m assessment area were identified and the potential direct and indirect impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Project on the identified built heritage and archaeological resources were assessed. Appropriate mitigation measures were proposed to alleviate the adverse impacts as necessary.

13.2 Environmental Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

13.2.1.1 Legislation, standards, guidelines and criteria relevant to the CHIA include the following:

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

· Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499);

· Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO -TM) Annexes 10 and 19;

· Guidance Note on Assessment of Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage in Environmental Impact Assessment Studies;

· Chapter 10 of Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG);

· Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (GCHIA); and

· Practice Note for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and Registered Geotechnical Engineers - Ground-borne Vibrations and Ground Settlements Arising from Pile Driving and Similar Operations (PNAP APP-137).

Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (A&MO) (Cap. 53)

13.2.1.2 The A&MO provides the statutory framework for preservation of objects of historical, archaeological and paleontological interest and for matters ancillary thereto or connected therewith. Excavations carried out on building works, demolition and interference of a proposed monument or monument are prohibited except under permit.

Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499) and EIAO-TM Annexes 10 and 19

13.2.1.3 The EIAO was implemented on 1^st April 1998. It aims to avoid, minimise and control the adverse impacts on the environment of designated projects, through the EIA process and the Environmental Permit (EP) system.

13.2.1.4 Annexes 10 and 19 of EIAO-TM provide general criteria and guidelines for evaluating the impacts to sites of cultural heritage. It is stated in Annex 10 that all adverse impacts to Sites of Cultural Heritage shall be kept to an absolute minimum and that the general presumption of impact assessment shall be in favour of the protection and conservation of all Sites of Cultural Heritage. Annexes 19 provides the scope and methodology for undertaking Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, including baseline study, impact assessment and mitigation measures.

Guidance Note on Assessment of Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage in Environmental Impact Assessment Studies

13.2.1.5 The Guidance Note assists the understanding of the requirements of the EIAO-TM in assessing impact on sites of cultural heritage in EIA studies.

Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG)

13.2.1.6 Chapter 10 of HKPSG states that conservation aims to protect declared monuments, historic buildings, Sites of Archaeological Interest and other heritage items including local activities, customs and traditions. In the planning process, efforts should be made to protect and preserve buildings of historical or architectural merits either in their own right or as an integral part of a group or series of buildings. It is encouraged that town planners should consult the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) for any land use or development which may impose impacts on a declared monument or a historic building and its setting.

Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (GCHIA)

13.2.1.7 This document outlines the technical requirements for conducting terrestrial built heritage and archaeological impact assessments. A comprehensive CHIA comprises of a baseline study including both desktop research and field evaluation, an impact assessment associated with appropriate mitigation measures.

Practice Note for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and Registered Geotechnical Engineers - Ground-borne Vibrations and Ground Settlements Arising from Pile Driving and Similar Operations (PNAP APP-137)

13.2.1.8 This practice note provides guidelines on the control of ground-borne vibrations and ground settlements generated from pile driving or similar operations with a view to minimising possible damage to adjacent properties and streets.

13.3 Assessment Methodology

13.3.1.1 The CHIA was carried out in accordance with the GCHIA, the requirements as stated in Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM and the EIA Study Brief, as well as considerations in other relevant guidelines. The assessment methodology for BHIA and AIA are described below.

Built Heritage

13.3.1.2 A desktop review was conducted to identify any built heritage resources within 500m assessment area based on examination on the following resources:

· List of proposed and declared monuments^{^[1]};

· List of the 1,444 Historic Buildings^{^[2]} and list of new items for grading assessment^{^[3]}by the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB);

· Government historic sites^{^[4]};

· Previous related EIA studies, publications and monographs on relevant historical and geographical issues;

· Unpublished archival papers and records, and collection and libraries of tertiary institutions; and

· Geological and historical maps, aerial photos and relevant visual archives.

13.3.1.3 Site visits were carried out in the assessment area in December 2021, January 2022 and June 2022 to evaluate the current condition of the built heritage resources and identify any additional items that have not been covered by the desktop review.

13.3.1.4 The potential direct and indirect impacts on the built heritage resources and other identified items during the construction and operational phases of the Project have been assessed in the CHIA by following the procedures and requirements of GCHIA and Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM.

13.3.1.5 Mitigation measures are proposed in the CHIA for any affected built heritage resources and other identified items to minimise any adverse impacts when necessary.

13.3.1.6 Built Heritage Impact Assessment, including baseline condition, identification of environmental impacts and mitigation measures, would be discussed in Section 13.5.

Archaeology

13.3.1.7 A desktop review was conducted to identify any potential existence of archaeological resources based on examination on the following resources:

· List of Sites of Archaeological Interest^{^[5]} identified by the AMO;

· Previous related EIA studies and archaeological reports;

· Related publications and monographs on relevant archaeological, historical and geographical issues;

· Unpublished archival papers and records, and collection and libraries of tertiary institutions; and

· Geological and historical maps, aerial photos and relevant visual archives.

13.3.1.8 An Archaeological Action Plan (AAP) was prepared and submitted on 24^th February 2023 in accordance with the Guidelines for Handling of Archaeological Finds and Archives and Guidelines for Archaeological Reports established by the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) for the application of the Licence to Excavate and Search for Antiquities to cover the field survey works for the AIA. The AAP outlined the background, objectives, scope and methodology, as well as the programme and staffing arrangement of the AIA under this application.

13.3.1.9 An archaeologist was appointed to conduct the archaeological survey on accessible lands of uncertain archaeological potential. The Licence (No. 478) was issued on 21^st March 2023 by the Antiquities Authority. Fieldwork commenced on 3^rd April 2023 and completed on 20^th June 2023.

13.3.1.10 The potential impacts that may affect the possible archaeological resources during the construction and operational phases of the Project have been assessed in the CHIA by following the procedures and requirements of GCHIA and Annexes 10 and 19 of the TM.

13.3.1.11 In case adverse impacts on archaeological resources cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation measures would be designed and recommended in the CHIA to minimise the impacts.

13.3.1.12 Archaeological Impact Assessment, including baseline condition, identification of environmental impacts and mitigation measures, would be discussed in Section 13.6.

13.4 Project Background

13.4.1.1 NOL is an underground rail line of approximately 10.7 km long travelling between Kwu Tung (古洞) of North District and Kam Sheung Road (錦上路) of Yuen Long (元朗) District. It will have five stations, namely a new Kam Sheung Road Station (KSR(NOL) Station), Au Tau Station (AUT Station), Ngau Tam Mei Station (NTM Station), San Tin Station (SAT Station) and Kwu Tung Station (KTU(NOL) Station).

13.4.1.2 This section presents the geographical, historical and archaeological information of the Project area. Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M50/306 to M50/318 present the Project area.

13.4.1.3 The following sections are prepared according to the geographical location of each station of the Project (i.e. Kam Sheung Road, Au Tau, Ngau Tam Mei, San Tin and Kwu Tung Regions), and the temporary magazine site at Tai Shu Ha, Yuen Long.

Geographical and Geological Background

Physical Geography

13.4.1.4 The Project is located in the northeast of Yuen Long District. The Project stretches from Pat Heung (八鄉) and Kam Tin (錦田) to the northwest limits of North District in Kwu Tung. With the hill ranges of Tai Mo Shan (大帽山), Kai Kung Leng (雞公嶺) and Ki Lun Shan (麒麟山) to its east and the wetlands and Deep Bay (后海灣) to its west, the Project alignment mainly passes through low-lying areas of river valleys and fishponds, as well as foothills (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/301 refers).

13.4.1.5 Most of the stations are situated in river valleys. KSR(NOL) Station is located in Kam Tin plain while AUT Station is located at the mouth of the plain. The western foothill of Kai Kung Leng separates the Kam Tim plain and Ngau Tam Mei (牛潭尾) river valley. NTM Station is located in Ngau Tam Mei river valley. Across the hill ranges of Ki Lun Shan is a river valley in San Tin (新田) where SAT Station is located. The Project continues to the north and reaches its end at the KTU(NOL) Station, which is situated in the river valley of Sheung Yue River (雙魚河).

· Kam Tin Region

13.4.1.6 The KSR(NOL) Station is located between the existing Kam Sheung Road Station of the Tuen Ma Line and the Kam Sheung Road Flea Market. It is on the southern coast of the Kam Tin River with hilly landscape to its west (Cheung Ngau Shan, 掌牛山) and southwest (Tseng Hang Shan, 井坑山), and the flat land of Kam Tin plain to its east. The terrestrial elevation within 500m of the KSR(NOL) Station ranges approximately between +3mPD on the plain area and +97mPD towards the foothills to the west and southwest. Gradient of land in the 500m area of KSR(NOL) Station is roughly between <1° and 45°.

· Au Tau Region

13.4.1.7 The AUT Station is located in the north-western Kam Tin at the mouth of the Kam Tin plain where the Kam Tin River drains into Deep Bay. It is on the eastern coast of Kam Tin River with the hilly landscape to its east (Kai Kung Leng) and a large area of fishponds and farmland in Nam Sang Wai (南生圍) to its west. The terrestrial elevation within 500m from AUT Station ranges approximately between +3mPD and +106mPD towards the foothills of Kai Kung Leng. Gradient of AUT Station is roughly <1° with the hills of Kai Kung Leng to its east raising to over 30°.

· Ngau Tam Mei Region

13.4.1.8 The NTM Station is situated at Ngau Tam Mei in the south of San Tin. Ngau Tam Mei is a west-facing valley to the north of Kai Kung Leng. The terrestrial elevation around the 500m area from NTM Station ranges approximately between +2mPD and +49mPD. Majority of the land within 500m of NTM Station is plain with gradient roughly between <1° and 10°, while some small hill slope to the north and south have gradient roughly between 10° and 42°.

· San Tin Region

13.4.1.9 The SAT Station is situated at San Tin near Lok Ma Chau (落馬洲). It is on the southern coast of the Shenzhen River (深圳河), with hilly landscape of Ki Lun Shan to its east and south. The terrestrial elevation around the 500m area from SAT Station ranges approximately between +4mPD and +98mPD. Gradient of land within 500m of SAT Station is roughly between <1° and 15°, while slope of small hills at its south and southwest rising to approximately 30°.

· Kwu Tung Region

13.4.1.10 The KTU(NOL) Station is situated at Kwu Tung. It is on a relatively flat land at the western coast of the Sheung Yue River, with hilly landscape of Ki Lun Shan to its south and Tit Hang Shan to its west. The terrestrial elevation within 500m of KTU(NOL) Station ranges approximately between +3mPD and +88mPD. Gradient of land in the 500m area of KTU(NOL) Station is roughly between <1° and 28°.

· Yuen Long South Region

13.4.1.11 The temporary magazine site is located at Tai Shu Ha, Yuen Long. It is located within a hilly landscape to the north of Tai Lam Country Park, and was formerly used as a temporary magazine site for the construction of Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link project and Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point project. The terrestrial elevation around 500m from the site ranges approximately between +30mPD to its north and +200mPD to its south, while the site is located at approximately +100mPD. Extensive site formation work was carried out within the 500m assessment area of the temporary magazine site in the late 1990s. Gradient of areas with site formation performed are generally below 10°, while the gradient of natural stopes varies between 10° and 30°.

Past Landscape

13.4.1.12 Past landscape before modern development can be revealed from geology. Various river valleys form a broad and flat land, where most of the stations are located at. Coastal landscape can be identified by a narrow and belt-like deposits at estuaries when the rivers meet Deep Bay or the marine mud of the seabed. The superficial geology^{^[6]} of the regions is presented in Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/301 to M60/313.

· Kam Tin Region

13.4.1.13 Kam Tin area locates at a large river valley bounded by the watersheds of Tai To Yan (大刀刃) to the east, ridge of Tai Mo Shan to the south, Ho Hok Shan (蠔殼山) to the west and Kai Kung Leng to the north. These hill ranges were composed of igneous rocks (gf, gm, gdf) formed during the Jurassic-Cretaceous, and volcanic rocks (JTM, JSM, Jnl) formed during the Upper Jurassic. Debris flow deposits (Qpd) formed during the Pleistocene covering the bedrocks as the slopes of the hills.

13.4.1.14 The rainwater from multiple river valleys converged at Kam Tin River and feed into Deep Bay. River running in the Kam Tin valleys during the Pleistocene formed the second river terrace, which was reflected by the terraced alluvium deposits (Qpa). The first river terrace was formed later during the Holocene due to a drop in sea level at around 6,000BP^{^[7]}, as represented by the alluvium deposits (Qa). The superficial geology of KSR(NOL) Station area is terraced alluvium (Qpa) and alluvium deposits (Qa).

· Au Tau Region

13.4.1.15 The AUT Station is situated at the mouth of Kam Tin river valley where the rivers meet the sea (Deep Bay). The edge between the offshore seabed of the Deep Bay and the first river terrace demarks the ancient coastline. The AUT Station is situated on a former coastal environment, as reflected in the marine mud (QHH) and alluvium deposits (Qa) within the station footprint.

· Ngau Tam Mei Region

13.4.1.16 Ngau Tam Mei region has various landscapes such as river valleys, coast and hill slopes. The Station is located on the valley plain surrounded by hills of Kai Kung Leng and Ki Lun Shan, while facing the coastal landscape to west of the San Tin Highway. The NTM Station and NTD is located at the mouth of Ngau Tam Mei river valley.

13.4.1.17 The volcanic bedrocks (JTM) of Kai Kung Leng and Ki Lun Shan were formed during Upper Jurassic period as part of the Tai Mo Shan Formation. Debris flow deposits (Qpd) formed during the Pleistocene had formed the hillslopes by covering the bedrocks. River running in the Ngau Tam Mei valleys during the Pleistocene formed the second river terrace, which was reflected by the terraced alluvium deposits (Qpa). The first river terrace was formed later during the Holocene due to a drop in sea level at around 6,000BP^{^[8]}, which was reflected by the alluvium deposits (Qa). The materials brought by the rivers were deposited at the estuary of the river (Qam) when it meets the sea (Deep Bay). The NTM Station and Ngau Tam Mei Depot (NTD) is mainly situated on debris flow deposits (Qpd) and terraced alluvium (Qpa).

· San Tin Region

13.4.1.18 San Tin region has various landscapes such as river valleys, coast and hill slopes. River valleys can be found to the south of the San Tin Highway with aspects roughly faces northwest. The coastal landscape was once located near the San Sham Road Junction to the north of SAT Station.

13.4.1.19 The geology of San Tin is similar to the Ngau Tam Mei valley. Ki Lun Shan was formed during Upper Jurassic period (JTM) as part of the Tai Mo Shan Formation. Debris flow deposits (Qpd), terraced alluvium (Qpa) and alluvium (Qa) were formed in the same period as the Ngau Tam Mei valley. The river sediments from the river valleys were deposited at the estuary (Qam), in particular in the inner bay areas. The SAT Station is mainly situated on the terraced alluvium (Qpa) and alluvium (Qa) while the southern portion of the Station Area is situated on debris flow deposits (Qpd) and Jurassic volcanic bedrock (JTM).

· Kwu Tung Region

13.4.1.20 The Kwu Tung region is part of the river valley of Sheung Yue River, bounded by the hill ranges of Tit Hang Shan to the west and Ki Lun Shan to the south. Carboniferous metamorphic bedrocks (Cts and Cmp) formed the Tit Hang Shan, while Jurassic volcanic rocks (JTM) formed Ki Lun Shan. Debris flow deposits (Qpd), terraced alluvium (Qpa) and alluvium (Qa) were formed in the same period as other areas. The KTU(NOL) Station is mainly situated on alluvium (Qa), debris flow deposits (Qpd) and Jurassic volcanic rocks (JTM).

· Yuen Long South Region

13.4.1.21 The surrounding area of the temporary magazine site is mainly formed of Jurassic-Cretaceous intrusive igneous rocks, including megacrystic fined-grained granite (gf), megacrystic fine- to medium-grained granite (gfm) and medium-grained granite (gm). Few patches to the northeast and southeast of the magazine site are of Upper Jurassic volcanic rock (Undifferentiated ruff and tuffite (t) of Repulse Bay Volcanic Group), while a small hill to its northwest is formed of Carboniferous Metasiltstone and phyllite, with metasandstone (Cmp). Debris flow deposits formed during Pleistocene and Pleistocene and Holocene (Qpd and Qd) cover the bedrocks as the slopes of the hills. Alluvium (Qa) deposited during Holocene to the northwest of the temporary magazine site.

Human Geography – Village Settlements

· Kam Tin Region

13.4.1.22 Village settlements around the Kam Tin area are mainly clustered in two areas which are to the north and to the south of the mainstream of the Kam Tin River. Both clusters are located on the low-lying areas in close proximity to the Kam Tin River. Villages including Kat Hing Wai (吉慶圍) and Tsz Tong Tsuen (祠塘村 / 祠堂村) are located within 500m of KSR(NOL) Station.

· Au Tau Region

13.4.1.23 Located near the coastal landscape, the Au Tau region had traditionally been used as cultivation fields in the early 20^th century. The village settlements around the Au Tau area, such as Sha Po Tsuen (沙埔村), are located on a low-lying plain at the mouth of Kam Tin plain.

· Ngau Tam Mei Region

13.4.1.24 Most of the villages are located at the mouth of the valley or near coastal settings, including Wai Tsai Tsuen (圍仔村), San Wai Tsuen (新圍村), Chuk Yuen Tsuen (竹園村) and Pok Wai (壆圍).

13.4.1.25 The plains with the valley in Ngau Tam Mei used to be cultivated by the Punti (本地) people from San Tin. Eventually Hakka people from Boluo (博羅), Huizhou (惠州) and Dongguan (東莞) in the Guangdong Province moved in and rented the lands from the Punti to establish settlements and agriculture activities in the early 20^th century^{^[9]}.

· San Tin Region

13.4.1.26 There are two major village settlements around the SAT Station. They are mainly clustered in two particular areas, namely San Tin (the Man clan) and Mai Po (米埔). Both clusters are located on low-lying areas in close proximity to fishponds to the north. On the other hand, a branch village of the Man clan, namely Shek Wu Wai (石湖圍), is located to the south of the San Tin Highway in close proximity to the SAT Station.

· Kwu Tung Region

13.4.1.27 There is no prominent settlement in the surroundings of KTU(NOL) Station. Kwu Tung Tsuen (古洞村) was recorded in the Xin’an Gazetteer (新安縣誌) edited in the 24^th year of Jiaqing reign (1819). Available record about Kwu Tung village is thin, even its precise location remains obscured. The only certainty about Kwu Tung village is that it was built before 1898, prior to the British colonisation to the New Territories as recorded in the Map of San-on District (1868)^{^[10]}. The aerial photos between 1945 and 1956 ^{^[11]}^{^[12]} showed that the land use in this area was mainly for agricultural purposes.

· Yuen Long South Region

13.4.1.28 The temporary magazine site is located within the hills with a steep terrain, no existing human settlements are found in its vicinity.

Human Geography – Modern Development

13.4.1.29 Castle Peak Road was constructed between 1911 and 1920. It is one of the main roads connecting Sham Shui Po (深水埗), Tuen Mun (屯門), Yuen Long (元朗) and Sheung Shui (上水). Shek Kong Airfield and Shek Kong Camp was constructed between late 1930s and 1950. Other than the modern road and airfield, aerial photos between 1924 and 1956 show that there was no significant change to the settlement patterns and agricultural land use.

13.4.1.30 The landscape changed significantly in the 1960s. Houses were gradually seen occupying the once agricultural fields in the following areas^{^[13]}^{^[14]}:

· South of the Kam Tin clusters and Shek Kong Camp^{^[15]}, along the Kam Sheung Road which was constructed in 1962;

· West foothills of Kai Kung Leng (Fung Kat Heung, 逢吉鄉);

· Plains in Ngau Tam Mei valley;

· South of the San Tin village clusters and Castle Peak Road^{^[16]}; and

· North of the Castle Peak Road – Chau Tau Section^{^[17]}.

13.4.1.31 The industrialisation of Hong Kong and imports of cheap food from Mainland China in the 1950s and 1960s had influenced the key economic activities in San Tin, changing from rice cultivation to vegetation cultivation^{^[18]}. Agricultural fields to the north of San Tin village clusters, Ngau Tam Mei and the mud land to the west of Castle Peak Road in Au Tau area were gradually replaced by fishponds since the late 1950s^{^[19]} and 1960s^{^[20]} ^{^[21]}, while the hill lands owned by the Man clan were rented to Chiu Chau (潮州) immigrants who then successfully cultivated vegetables^{^[22]}.

13.4.1.32 Construction of San Tin Highway commenced in the late 1980s as part of the Route 9 in Hong Kong (also known as New Territories Circular Road). At the same time, a strip of fishponds at Lok Ma Chau had been filled to construct Lok Ma Chau Control Point^{^[23]}. Upon the completion of San Tin Highway and Lok Ma Chau Control Point, the agricultural landscape in Kwu Tung, San Tin, Ngau Tam Mei and Fung Kat Heung has been largely transformed into factories, temporary storage and open carparks area.

13.4.1.33 A series of civil engineering works were carried out since 1990s to improve the living environment in the areas, such as construction of the existing Kam Sheung Road Station as part of the West Rail Line, construction of the Kam Tin Bypass to the north of the town centre^{^[24]}, channalistion of Ngau Tam Mei nullah between 2001 and 2003^{^[25]} and the channalisation of the Kam Tin River South in 2003^{^[26]}.

13.4.1.34 Extensive site formation work was carried out at the existing temporary magazine site in the late 1990s as the Tai Tong East Borrow Area^{^[27]}. The area was restored and maintained by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department via replantation. Further small-scale site formation work was carried out again in the early 2010s^{^[28]} to transform the site into an explosives storage magazine site for the Liantang / Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point.

Historical Background

Qin to Yuan Dynasties (221 BC – AD 1368)

13.4.1.35 Clues of human occupation within the south China can be found in historic textual records such as Shiji (史記) and Hanshu (漢書) written in the first century BC to first century AD. These records describe that Yue ethnic groups (also called Hundreds of Yue (百越)) were scattered around in south China. Such ethnic groups were comprised of different tribes bearing various surnames and can be differentiated from the Han ethnic group who lived in central China in terms of physical characteristics, language, and folklore.

13.4.1.36 The Yue people were gradually assimilated by the Han culture when south China became an administration territory of China’s central government since Qin dynasty (221 – 206 BC). During Qin period, the Guangdong region was subordinated to Panyu (番禺) County. In 208 BC, Southern Yue State (南越國) was established around the Guangdong region by military officials, who were sent from the Qin (221 – 206 BC) Court to conquer Yue in the south. Following the collapse of Qin’s political power in the north, Han dynasty (206 BC – AD 220)^{^[29]} began. Southern Yue State was soon becoming a vassal state of Han before integrated into the Han Empire.

13.4.1.37 During Han to early Eastern Jin dynasties (AD317 – 330), Hong Kong was subordinated to Boluo County^{^[30]}. Later in the Eastern Jin dynasty to Tang dynasty (AD 331 – AD 756), Hong Kong was subordinated to Bao’an (寶安) County. After AD 757, Hong Kong was subordinated to Dongguan County and followed by Song dynasty (AD 960 - 1279) and Yuan dynasty (AD 1271 – 1368)^{^[31]}.

13.4.1.38 The history of village settlements in Kam Tin can be dated back to the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms (五代十國). The area was originally called Chan Tin (陳田) based on the surname of the residents^{^[32]}. Upon the Tang clan’s arrival, it was named as Sham Tin (岑田). The area was renamed as Kam Tin in the 15^th year of Wanli reign in Ming dynasty (1587)^{^[33]}.

13.4.1.39 The history of the Tang clan settlement in Kam Tin can be dated as far as the Northern Song dynasty. According to the genealogy of Tang clan, their first-generation ancestor Tang Hon-fat (鄧漢黻)^{^[34]}moved from Jiangxi (江西) to Sham Tin in the 6^th year of Kaibao reign in the Northern Song Dynasty (973)^{^[35]}. Another saying as documented in the Xin’an Gazette edited in the 24^th year of Jiaqing reign (1819), is that Tang Fu-hip (鄧符協), the great-grandson of Tang Hon Fat, migrated from Jiangxi to Sham Tin^{^[36]} and was thus regarded as the first-generation ancestor of the Tang clan in Kam Tin. Tang Fu-hip was the Magistrate of Yangchun county (陽春縣) in Guangdong. Upon his retirement from the civil service, he moved to Kam Tin in the second year of the Xining reign (1069) of the Northern Song dynasty^{^[37]}.

13.4.1.40 Since then, the Tang clan have flourished and expanded into various sizable settlements across Hong Kong including Ping Shan (屏山), Ha Tsuen (廈村) and Fanling (粉嶺). In the Kam Tin area, the clan has established numerous villages, including but not limited to Kat Hing Wai (吉慶圍), Wing Lung Wai (永隆圍), Tai Hong Wai (泰康圍), Tai Hong Tsuen (泰康村), Tsz Tong Tsuen (祠塘村 / 祠堂村), Kam Hing Wai (錦慶圍), Shui Tau Tsuen (水頭村), Shui Mei Tsuen (水尾村) and Ko Po Tusen (高埔村).

Ming to Qing Dynasties (AD 1368 - 1912)

13.4.1.41 The village settlements in San Tin could be dated back to the early Ming dynasty. San Tin was once occupied by various clans such as the Puns, the Lams and the Maks^{^[38]}. Yet little record on those settlements is available. These clans relocated to other areas after the Mans arrival.

13.4.1.42 The Man clan settled in the San Tin area during the Yongle reign of Ming dynasty (1403 – 1424)^{^[39]}. Since then, they have flourished and has grown into On Lung Tsuen (安龍村), San Lung Tsuen (新龍村), Tsing Lung Tsuen (青龍村), Fan Tin Tsuen (蕃田村), Wing Ping Tsuen (永平村), Chau Tau Tsuen (洲頭村), Yan Shau Wai (仁壽圍), Tung Chan Wai (東鎮圍), and Shek Wu Wai (石湖圍).

13.4.1.43 During the 15^th century, the coastal areas of Dongguan County suffered from frequent marauding bandit and pirate attacks. Xin’an County was thus set up in AD 1573 to defend such attacks. According to Xin’an Gazetteer^{^[40]}, the present-day New Territories, Kowloon and Hong Kong were zoned within Xin’an County.

13.4.1.44 In 1661, Coastal Evacuation Order was compelled by the Qing Court in order to stifle the anti-Manchu troops in Taiwan. People living in coastal area were forced to move 50 li (里) (approximately 25 km) inland, including the New Territories inhabitants. The Order was lifted in 1669. However, after the coastal evacuation, population dropped severely. During the Shunzhi reign (1643-1661), the population of Xin’an County was recorded as 6,851. The population dropped to 2,172 in 1664 during the enforcement of the Order. After the Order was lifted, people were encouraged to move back to Xin’an County during late 17th to early 18th centuries. In 1671, the population increased to 3,972, 1,648 people were encouraged to move back during 1669-1671^{^[41]}.

13.4.1.45 The following villages were recorded in the Xin’an Gazetteer^{^[42]}:

· Ko Po Wai (“高莆圍”, probably current Ko Po Tsuen “高埔村”), Kam Tin Tsuen (錦田村), Yuen Long Sha Po (“圓蓢沙莆”, “沙莆圍”, current “沙埔村”), Chuk Yuen Wai (竹園圍), San Tin Tsuen (新田村) and Chau Tau Tsuen were listed in the Gazette edited in the 27^th year of Kangxi reign (1688) and the 24^th year of Jiaqing reign (1819).

· Kwu Tung Tsuen was listed in the Gazetteer edited in the 24^th year of Jiaqing reign (1819).

13.4.1.46 After the First Opium War (1839-1842) between the Qing government and the British Empire, the Qing government “…ceded … the Island of Hongkong, to be possessed in perpetuity by … Great Britain” signed in 1842 under the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Commerce Between Her Majesty The Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of China (also known as the Treaty of Nanking (南京條約) ) ^{^[43]}. The Qing government lost the Second Opium War (1856-1860), which led to the ceding Kowloon as a dependency of Hong Kong under the Convention of Peace Between Her Majesty and The Emperor of China (also known as the Convention of Peking (北京條約) ) in 1860^{^[44]}. At the turn of the 20th century, The Convention between the United Kingdom and China, Respecting an Extension of Hong Kong Territory (展拓香港界址專條) (also known as the Second Convention of Peking (第二北京條約) ) signed between the British and the Qing government in 1898 allowed the British colony to “… enlarged under lease … [for] ninety-nine years.” ^{^[45]}.

13.4.1.47 The Report on the Extension of the Colony of Hong Kong has recorded the region and population of the villages in 1898^{^[46]}:

· San Tin and Cho Tau (“灶頭”, current Chau Tau) were recorded of Punti origin in the Shenzhen region with a population of 3,000 and 250 respectively.

· Sha Po and Kam Tin were recorded of Punti origin in the Yuen Long region with a population of 300 and 2,400 respectively.

13.4.1.48 In 1899, resistance was formed by the villagers mainly in Yuen Long and Tai Po (大埔) to fight against the British takeover of the New Territories. Key battles took place in Tai Po, She Shan (社山), Lam Tsuen (林村) and Shek Tau Wai (石頭圍)^{^[47]}. The battle lasted for six days and the resistance was dismissed by the British troops. The enclosing walls of the Kat Hing Wai in Kam Tin was partly destroyed and the wrought iron gate at the entrance was brought to the residence of the then Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Henry Blake, in Ireland. The gate was returned with the help of Tang Pak-kau (鄧伯裘), a notable clan member, after decades^{^[48]}.

Modern period (after 1912)

13.4.1.49 The construction of Kam Tin Aerodrome began in 1936 for the enforcement of Hong Kong air force^{^[49]}. The construction was then paused and the location was used as a refugee camp instead since 1938 to house the Chinese refugees who fled to Hong Kong due to the Japanese invasion of China^{^[50]}. The acting Chairman of the National Relief Commission Hsu Shih-ying (許世英) visited the camp in the same year to meet the refugees^{^[51]}. During World War II, the Japanese troops crossed the border from Shenzhen and passed through San Tin, Au Tau and Kam Tin on 8^th December 1941^{^[52]}. The construction of airfield in Kam Tin resumed and completed in 1950 along with the Shek Kong Camp^{^[53]}.

13.4.1.50 New villages were established / developed in the 20^th century around the Project area, including:

Kam Tin / Pat Heung

· Tin Sam Tsuen (田心村) – Established by a branch of the Wu clan in the 1920s^{^[54]}.

· Shek Wu Tong (石湖塘) – Inhabited by the Choi clan in the late 19th century^{^[55]}.

· Shing Mun San Tsuen (城門新村) – Established in 1928 by the Cheng clan from Shing Mun Valley due to the construction of Shing Mun Reservoir^{^[56]}.

Au Tau

· Pok Wai – A multi-clan village established around 1900 according to the inscription on the memorial plate in the village temple.

· Fung Kat Heung – Inhabited by Shum Hung-ying (沈鴻英) (a warlord during the warlord period of the Chinese Republic) who constructed his residence probably in 1932^{^[57]}.

· Mo Fan Heung (模範鄉) – Probably originated from a property development plan named “Model Chinese Village” in the 1920s^{^[58]}. However, such property development had not been built according to the aerial photos taken afterwards, yet the name has retained for the area.

· Wah Shing Tsuen (華盛村) – Established in 1966 with donations from the American churches to provide residence to victims who suffered from the damages caused by typhoons^{^[59]}.

Ngau Tam Mei

· Ngau Tam Mei – Established early 20^th century by the Hakka people^{^[60]}.

13.4.1.51 There are also numerous newly established villages on modern maps along the NOL Alignment, yet they have little record available, such as Cheung Chun San Tsuen (長春新村) and Wing Kei Tsuen (榮基村) in Au Tau; Long Ha Tsuen (朗廈村) and Yau Mei San Tsuen (攸美新村) in Ngau Tam Mei; Ki Lun Tsuen (麒麟村), Luk Mei Tsuen (鹿尾村), Mai Po Lung Tsuen (米埔隴村) and Siu Hum Tsuen (小磡村) in San Tin; Tong Kok Tsuen (塘角村) and Fung Kong Tsuen (鳳崗村) in Kwu Tung.

Archaeological Background

Site of Archaeological Interest

· Within Assessment Area

13.4.1.52 There is no known Site of Archaeological Interest (SAI) located within the latest Project area or within the 500m assessment area.

13.4.1.53 Due to the lack of sites with known archaeological potential within the assessment area, the closest SAIs to the Project area were studied and are summarised in Table 13.1, with their locations presented in Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/379.

Table 13.1 Sites of Archaeological Interest Closest to the Project Area

SAI	Description
Yuen Shan SAI^{^[61]}	Yuen Shan SAI was recorded in 2001 for having archaeological potential as cultural remains dated Western Han, Song and Ming dynasties were collected as surface finds^{^[62]}. Further investigation is required to ascertain the archaeological potential of this site.
Ngau Tam Mei SAI^{^[63]}	The site had reported findings on the surface, including of pottery shreds with “Union Jack” patterns, which are dated to the Bronze Age, and tiles dated to the Han dynasty. It is suggested that humans had settled in the area between the Bronze Age and the early Han dynasty. The discovery of these archaeological remains serves as confirmation of its archaeological significance in prehistoric and historical periods. Moreover, the area has been designated as one of the Sites of Archaeological Interest (SAI) in Hong Kong, highlighting its notable archaeological significance.
Mai Po SAI^{^[64]}	A cache of 344 bronze coins dated to the Song dynasty was first recovered by local villagers in Mai Po in 1980. A surface collection of artefacts was carried out by the AMO across the site of discovery in the same year subsequently. A further 150 coins and other artefacts, including celadon and modern stoneware sherds, were found in a soil heap. Two 1m by 2m trenches were partially excavated to 15cm deep at the location with the highest artefact concentration. However, no archaeological deposit was identified. A second surface observation was carried out in 1985. The site of discovery had been destroyed by a housing development. No artefacts or indication of any remaining archaeological potential were found. It was concluded that the area of the development had no further significance. Another discovery of bronze cash coins from the Song dynasty near Mai Po Lung Tsuen was reported to AMO in 2003^{^[65]}, yet this finding was reported by the locals instead of from an archaeological survey and could not be informed as the archaeological information necessary for analysis. The discovery of Song dynasty bronze coins in Mai Po serves as confirmation of its archaeological significance. Moreover, the area has been designated as one of the Sites of Archaeological Interest (SAI) in Hong Kong, highlighting its notable archaeological significance. While the developed portion of the Mai Po SAI has been determined to lack archaeological potential, its surrounding areas continue to hold archaeological potential.

· Previously Surveyed Area within the Assessment Area

13.4.1.54 Although no SAI is located within the assessment area, some archaeological investigations and excavations had been conducted near the Project area. They are discussed and listed in Table 13.2, with their locations presented in Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/379 to M60/386.

Table 13.2 Previous Archaeological Investigations

Region	Archaeological Investigations
Kam Tin and Au Tau	1997 Territorial-Wide Archaeological Survey (Yuen Long)^{^[66]} A territorial-wide heritage survey was conducted in Yuen Long in 1997. Field scanning was carried out in hillslope area near the villages in Kam Tin including Fung Kat Heung, Mo Fan Heung Tsuen, Ko Po Tsuen and Tai Hong Wai. No archaeological materials were found. However, the report does not provide any information on the exact areas that have been surveyed. Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Stage 1 Packages 1A-1T and 1B-1T - Kam Tin Trunk Sewerage Phase I and II - Environmental Impact Assessment Report (Register No.: AEIAR-063/2002)^{^[67]} An archaeological survey was conducted in 1998 and 1999 for the main drainage channels in Yuen Long and Kam Tin (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/380 to M60/383 refer). For the survey conducted within the 500m from the NOL works area, no cultural remains were found. The closest site with discovery was at Yuen Kong Tsuen, where a piece of blue and white porcelain shard dating back to 1870s to 1920 was unearthed, is located over 800m from the NOL Project area.
Ngau Tam Mei	Archaeological Investigation Report on The Main Drainage Channels for Ngau Tam Mei Project, Phase II^{^[68]} An archaeological investigation was conducted in 1999 for the construction of channelised nullah in Ngau Tam Mei (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/384 refers). Twenty-two (22) augur holes and one test pits were dug within the nullah project boundary. Neither heritage sites nor relics were discovered. In addition to the project area for the construction of channelised nullah, this investigation in 1999 also carried out twelve augur holes tests and three trenches in the vicinity of the Ngau Tam Mei SAI to demark the boundary of the SAI. Pottery shreds dated to the late bronze age and tiles dated to the Han dynasty were found on the surface of the SAI, but no relics were discovered from the augur holes and trenches. This suggested that the archaeological potential is unlikely to spread into the area of the nullah project.
San Tin	1997 Territorial-Wide Archaeological Survey (Yuen Long)^{^[69]} A territorial-wide heritage survey was conducted in Yuen Long in 1997. Field scanning was carried out in hillslope area near the villages in San Tin including Pun Uk Tsuen, Chau Tau and Shek Wu Wai. No archaeological materials were found. However, the report does not provide any information on the exact areas that have been surveyed.
Kwu Tung	Planning and Development Study on North East New Territories – Technical Paper 13 – Environmental Impact Assessment – Final Assessment Report^{^[70]} An extensive archaeological survey was carried out in 2000 to 2001 for the Planning and Development Study on North East New Territories. A total of 249 auger holes and 70 test pits were conducted within the Kwu Tong North New Development Area (KTN NDA) and Fanling North New Development Area (FLN NDA). The closest site of discovery to the NOL Project area, where two Song dynasty celadon bowls fragments were collected on the ground surface, was located in an orchid next to the former Dill Corner Camp at Shek Tsai Ling, Kwu Tung (Spot A in Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/386 refers). Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line (Register No.: AEIAR-052/2002)^{^[71]} An archaeological survey comprising of surface field scanning, 87 augering tests and five test pits were carried out at the northern San Tin area from Lok Ma Chau to Ho Sheung Heung (河上鄉). In relation to the NOL Project area of this EIA Study, Unit 3 (Ho Sheung Heung), Unit 4 (south of Ho Sheung Heung Hill), Unit 5 (Pak Shek Au, 白石凹), Unit 6 (south of Castle Peak Road), and Unit 9 (east of Chau Tau) are concerned for being within the Project area and the assessment area. In particular, Unit 5 and 6 are located with the Project area, while Unit 3, Unit 4 and Unit 9 are located within or partially within the assessment area. Village ware and tile fragments and a fragment of a Song bowl were discovered at approximately 80m to the south of Ho Sheung Heung hill (Test Pit ✽3 in Unit 4). But the material was too fragmentary and undiagnostic to determine whether the finds represent a Song deposit or an out of situ find. No archaeological materials were found in the archaeological survey conducted in Unit 3, Unit 5, Unit 6 and Unit 9 (Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/385 and M60/386 refer). Based on the information provided in the report, the archaeological survey conducted for the Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line project appears to be legitimate and thorough. The identification of modern village ware sherds and fragments in specific locations adds to the understanding of the archaeological potential in the surveyed area. Additionally, the detailed descriptions of the soil conditions in different units provided valuable insights for future archaeological investigations in the region. East Rail Extension, LDB201 – Sheung Shui to Chau Tau Tunnels Pre-Construction Archaeological Survey in East EAP and Kwu Tung, Archaeological Report, Archaeological Assessments^{^[72]} An archaeological survey was conducted in 2003 on the Kwu Tung Station Box Site and the EAP Shaft Site as the pre-construction archaeological survey for the Sheung Shui to Chau Tau Tunnels. A total of 50 auger holes and 13 test pits were conducted at the Kwu Tung Station Box Site (north of Dill’s Corner) and the EAP Shaft Site (approximately 200m southeast of Ho Sheung Heung village). No archaeological materials and deposits were found in the Kwu Tung Station Box Site and some isolated materials dated late Qing dynasty were found in the EAP Shaft Site. The report concluded the survey areas have no archaeological potential. North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study – Investigation, Environmental Impact Assessment Report (Register No.: AEIAR-175/2013)^{^[73]} The North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study – Investigation (NENT NDA Study) had evaluated the archaeological potential of Kwu Tung North and the findings are presented in the NENT NDA EIA Report (Register No.: AEIAR-175/2013) (Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/385 and M60/386 refer). An archaeological survey was conducted in the NENT NDA Study, in which thirty nine (39) auger holes and thirty five (35) test pits were carried out in the NENT NDA area. The archaeological survey was primarily focused on the Kwu Tung area, and no archaeological survey was conducted at Pak Shek Au and northern San Tin. Based on the results in the 2001 Planning and Development Study on North East New Territories and this archaeological survey, the Report concludes the existing reserved Kwu Tung Station area has no archaeological potential as it has been heavily disturbed. The remaining KTU(NOL) Station area outside the existing reserved station area, as well as the Kwu Tung Road Ancillary Building were identified to have low archaeological potential in the NENT EIA Report. Its topographical and geological features were considered to be not suitable for human settlements but good for human subsistence catchment, and there were no or very limited archaeological deposits found in the surrounding area in the archaeological surveys conducted before. While no archaeological survey conducted within the Project area, the NENT NDA Study had also assessed the archaeological potential of Pak Shek Au Ancillary Building (PAA) based on previous studies, landscape characteristics, and land use history. The study concluded that the archaeological potential of these areas was considered medium and low. The area to have medium archaeological potential is situated on debris flow deposits with a relatively flat gradient of the original landscape where human could settle. It has not been surveyed before to confirm its archaeological potential. It is worth mentioning that the report does not explicitly address the observation that the test pit excavation was not conducted in the proximity, but much further away in the Kwu Tung area. This may have an impact on the accuracy and reliability of the conclusions drawn regarding the archaeological potential of the Pak Shek Au Ancillary Building (PAA). Other proposed sites of Stations and Ancillary Buildings have not been surveyed or assessed under the NENT NDA EIA to confirm their archaeological significance.

13.5 Built Heritage Impact Assessment

13.5.1 Baseline Conditions

13.5.1.1 This study includes the sites of cultural heritage as defined in the Schedule 1 of the EIAO. According to Schedule 1, site of cultural heritage refers to “an antiquity or monument, whether being a place, building, site or structure or a relic, as defined in the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) and any place, building, site, or structure or a relic identified by the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) to be of archaeological, historical or palaeontological significance.”^{^[74]}

13.5.1.2 Built heritage resources identified within the assessment area include:

(i) declared monuments and proposed monuments;

(ii) historic buildings and sites graded / assessed or proposed to be graded/ assessed by AAB;

(iii) government historic sites identified by AMO; and

(iv) other identified buildings/ structures/ sites.

13.5.1.3 A total of 40 built heritage resources and 180 other identified items was identified within the Project area and 500m assessment area.

13.5.1.4 Four other identified items are located within the Project area, while the remaining 216 built heritage resources/other identified items are located within the assessment area, but all of them are located outside the Project area. A summary of built heritage resources within the Project area and assessment area is presented in Table 13.3.

13.5.1.5 Each built heritage resource has been given a reference number. For any built heritage resources that have been accorded with an official status or included under the grading assessment by the Antiquities Authority, they would be numbered based on their status (i.e. declared monument (DM), historic buildings (HB), sites of archaeological interests (SAI)) and the number given by the Antiquities Authority. For other identified items that are not previously included under grading assessment by the Antiquities Authority, abbreviation of the village name or area is adopted.

13.5.1.6 Among 220 buildings, 40 of them are declared monuments or historic buildings and sites with a confirmed/proposed grading, while the remaining 180 are other identified items. No declared monuments, proposed monuments, graded historic buildings, buildings in the new list of proposed grading items and Government historic sites are located within the Project area, while four other identified items are located within the Project area. The locations of the built heritage resources and other identified items are presented in Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/400 to M60/451.

Declared Monuments and Graded Historic Buildings

13.5.1.7 Three declared monuments, six grade 1 historic buildings, seven grade 2 historic buildings and 24 grade 3 historic buildings are located within 500m assessment area but outside the Project area. A summary of the declared monuments and the graded historic buildings is provided in Table 13.4, while their distribution in each village / region is presented in Table 13.5.

Other Identified Items

13.5.1.8 There was a total of 180 other identified items within the Project area and the 500m assessment area. They are categorised and discussed with respect to their locations in each village / region. For these identified items with locations far from specific village setting, they was grouped for separate discussions. The short form of their respective regions is adopted for the reference number of the villages or locations with items identified.

13.5.1.9 As exception, two types of other identified items (i.e. “Military Structures” and “Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society”) are categorised based on their functions and purposes regardless of their locations, in order to present their group value.

13.5.1.10 A summary of villages and locations with the number of built heritage resources together with the other identified items is shown in Table 13.5. A full list of built heritage resources identified and the other identified items within the assessment area is presented in Appendix 13.1.

13.5.1.11 Villages / regions as shown in Table 13.5 with built heritage resources identified and other identified items are discussed in the following sessions.

Pat Heung Region

· PH-1 Tin Sam San Tsuen (田心新村)

13.5.1.12 Tin Sam San Tsuen is in the south of Pat Heung, Yuen Long. It was founded by Tang Tai-kei (鄧大紀), a 23^rd generation member of the Tangs from Kiu Tau Wai (橋頭圍) of Ping Shan (屏山), possibly in the early 20^th century^{^[75]}.

13.5.1.13 One grade 3 historic building and three other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet PH-1 in Appendix 13.2.

· PH-2 Shek Wu Tong (石湖塘)

13.5.1.14 Shek Wu Tong is a traditional village formed latest in the late 19^th century. It is a multi-clan village. Most of the inhabitants are the Choi clan^{^[76]}. The presence of a Wong Ancestral Hall in the village suggested that some local inhabitants are from the Wong clan. A private graveyard of the Shum clan located in the northeast of Shek Wu Tong also shows the presence of the Shum clan in the area.

13.5.1.15 Six other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet PH-2 in Appendix 13.2.

Kam Tin Region

· KT-1 Tsz Tong Tsuen (祠堂村)

13.5.1.16 Tsz Tong Tsuen was one of the villages established by the Tang clan in Kam Tin. It was established by a branch of Tangs from Tai Hong Wai in mid-18^th century^{^[77]}. These Tangs were the descendant of Tang Yuen-leung (鄧元亮), the founding ancestor of the Tangs in Kam Tin.

13.5.1.17 One grade 1 historic building, one grade 3 historic building and nine other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-1 in Appendix 13.2.

· KT-2 Kat Hing Wai (吉慶圍)

13.5.1.18 Kat Hing Wai was established in the Chenghua reign during the Ming dynasty by the Tang clan in Kam Tin^{^[78]}. The enclosing walls and moat were constructed between 1662 and 1722^{^[79]}.

13.5.1.19 One group of grade 1 historic building and one other item are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-2 in Appendix 13.2.

· KT-3 Shing Mun San Tsuen (城門新村)

13.5.1.20 Shing Mun San Tsuen was established by the Cheng clan, who moved from Dongguan in the 19^th year of the Kangxi reign (1680) of the Qing dynasty^{^[80]}. The Cheng clan settled in the Shing Mun Valley since 17^th century. There were eight villages in Shing Mun Valley until the construction of Shing Mun Reservoir in 1928^{^[81]}. For the construction, 540 villagers from the Cheng clan were required to migrate to Kam Tin with the assistance of the then government, and established Shing Mun San Tsuen^{^[82]}.

13.5.1.21 One other item is identified. Its details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-3 in Appendix 13.2.

· KT-4 Tai Hong Wai (泰康圍)

13.5.1.22 Tai Hong Wai was established and inhabited in the Chenghua reign during the Ming dynasty by the Tang clan in Kam Tin. It was built by Tang Kwong-hoi (鄧廣海) and his son Tang Chung (鄧璁). The enclosing walls and a moat surrounding the wall was constructed in the Kangxi reign (1662-1722) of the Qing dynasty.

13.5.1.23 Two grade 3 historic building and four other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-4 in Appendix 13.2.

· KT-5 Ko Po Tsuen (高埔村)

13.5.1.24 The exact time of establishment of Ko Po Tsuen is unclear, but it should be as late as early Kangxi period of Qing dynasty. It was recorded as “Ko Po Wai” (高莆圍) in Xin’an Gazetteer edited in the 27^th year of Kangxi reign (1688)^{^[83]}.

13.5.1.25 Five other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-5 in Appendix 13.2.

· KT-6 Kam Hing Wai (錦慶圍)

13.5.1.26 Kam Hing Wai was one of the villages established by the Tangs in Kam Tin^{^[84]}. Its exact time of construction was unclear. According to a Survey on Walled Villages in Hong Kong carried out in 1995^{^[85]}, this village was established in the Ming dynasty. Its date of establishment is probably close to Kat Hing Wai.

13.5.1.27 Two other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-6 in Appendix 13.2.

· KT-7 Shui Tau Tsuen (水頭村)

13.5.1.28 Shui Tau Tsuen was one of the villages established by the Tang clan in Kam Tin. The establishment year of Shui Tau is unknown but probably later than Kat Hing Wai, which was established in the Chenghua reign of the Ming dynasty by the Tang clan.

13.5.1.29 Two declared monuments, two grade 1 historic building, three grade 3 historic building and nine other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-7 in Appendix 13.2.

· KT-8 Shui Mei Tsuen (水尾村)

13.5.1.30 Shui Mei Tsuen was one of the villages established by the Tang Clan in Kam Tin. According to a Survey on Walled Villages in Hong Kong done in 1995, the village used to call Pak Wai Tsuen (北圍村)^{^[86]}. The establishment year of Shui Mei Tsuen is unknown but probably later than Kat Hing Wai, which was established in the Chenghua reign of the Ming dynasty by the Tang clan.

13.5.1.31 One grade 1 historic building and three other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-8 in Appendix 13.2.

· KT-9 General (Kam Tin Area)

13.5.1.32 Various buildings / structures are scattered within the Kam Tin area with no specific village bearings.

13.5.1.33 Three other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-9 in Appendix 13.2.

Au Tau Region

· AT-1 Sha Po (沙埔村)

13.5.1.34 Sha Po Tsuen was a multi-clan village. The exact year of establishment is unknown. Yuen Long Sha Po (“圓蓢沙莆”) and Sha Po Wai (“沙莆圍”) were listed in the Xin’an Gazette edited in the 27^th year of Kangxi reign (1688) and the 24^th year of Jiaqing reign (1819) respectively. The approximate location of the existing Sha Po Tsuen was called Sha Po (“沙莆”) on the Map of San-On District^{^[87]}. In the Report on the Extension of the Colony of Hong Kong by Sir J.H Lockhart in 1898, Sha Po was recorded in the Yuen Long region as a Punti village with a population of 300^{^[88]}. It is speculated the village was established no later than 1688 with a history of over 300 years.

13.5.1.35 Ten other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet AT-1 in Appendix 13.2.

· AT-2 Wah Shing Village (華盛村)

13.5.1.36 Wah Shing Village was established in 1966 for the victims of typhoons and other natural disasters in the New Territories^{^[89]}. The construction of this village was donated by the Americans. It was named after Herman A. Washington, who was “a good and loyal friend of Hong Kong” according to the inscriptions on a marble memorial tablet in the village.

13.5.1.37 Three other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet AT-2 in Appendix 13.2.

· AT-3 Fung Kat Heung (逢吉鄉)

13.5.1.38 Fung Kat Heung was established and inhabited by Shum Hung-ying (沈鴻英). Shum Hung-ying was a well-known warlord during the warlord period of the Republic of China. He had armed confrontations with the renowned generals Pai Chung-hsi (白崇禧) and Li Tsung-jen (李宗仁) in 1925. After his lost the battle, he fled to Hong Kong^{^[90]}.

13.5.1.39 Shum Hung-ying constructed his residence in 1932 and named the location of his residence as “逢吉鄉” (literally means Village of Meeting Luck). Shum Hung-ying passed away in 1935 and was buried in a private graveyard in Shek Wu Tong. His descendants are resided in different places while some have migrated to USA. Only dozens of villagers are still living in Fung Kat Heung^{^[91]}.

13.5.1.40 Three grade 2 historic building and one grade 3 historic building are identified. Details and photo records of built heritage are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet AT-3 in Appendix 13.2.

Ngau Tam Mei Region

· NTM-1 Pok Wai (壆圍)

13.5.1.41 Pok Wai was a multi-clan walled village. The exact year of establishment is unknown. The village has a temple (“神廳”, literally Hall of Gods) at the end of its central axis. Based on the inscription on a memorial tablet in the temple, it is speculated the village was about a century ago (19^th century). The Ngs, the Mans and the Fungs were the three dominant clans in the village^{^[92]}.

13.5.1.42 Seventeen (17) other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-1 in Appendix 13.2.

· NTM-2 Long Ha (朗廈)

13.5.1.43 The Chan Ming Yam Tong (陳明任堂) is the earliest structure in the village area dating to or before 1945^{^[93]}. Houses in the area were rapidly built in the 1960s according to the 1963 aerial photos. According to the couplet of the Chan Ming Yam Tong, the building is associated to the Chan clan from Taishan. The settlers in Long Ha were probably associated to this branch of Chan clan.

13.5.1.44 One other item is identified. Its details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-3 in Appendix 13.2.

· NTM-3 Ha San Wai (下新圍) and NTM-4 San Wai Tsuen (新圍村)

13.5.1.45 The area of Ha San Wai was originally occupied by the Wongs since the early 20^th century. It was then abandoned for a period of time^{^[94]}^{^[95]}.

13.5.1.46 In the late Qing and early Republican period, the village was revitalised and occupied by the Yeungs from Toishan (台山) and Siyi (四邑). The village was originally named as Fuk Hing Lane (福慶里), and was renamed as San Wai (新圍) or San Wai Tsai (新圍仔) afterwards. The Yeungs were later joined by the Lees, the Wongs, the Tongs, the Yans and the Chans^{^[96]}^{^[97]}.

13.5.1.47 A new village was developed to the east since 1920 due to the growth in population. Ha San Wai was the older village in the west, whilst Sheung San Wai was the newer village in the east. The two villages are separated by the Castle Peak Road and the San Tin Highway.

13.5.1.48 Four other items are identified in Ha San Wai. One grade 2 historic building, nine grade 3 historic buildings and five other items are identified in San Wai Tsuen. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-3 and NTM-4 in Appendix 13.2.

· NTM-5 Chuk Yuen (竹園) and NTM-6 Sheung Chuk Yuen (上竹園)

13.5.1.49 Chuk Yuen was established about 300 years ago (in 17^th century) by the Wongs who was originated from Dongguan (東莞). It was listed in the Xin’an Gazetteer edited in the 27^th year of Kangxi reign (1688) and in the 24^th year of Jiaqing reign (1819). The village was also occupied by the Lees, the Chows, the Yuens and the Aus.

13.5.1.50 Due to expansion of the village, Sheung Chuk Yuen was established in the east and Ha Chuk Yuen (下竹園), or Chuk Yuen Tsuen (竹園村) nowadays, in the west. Ha Chuk Yuen being the older village and Sheung Chuk Yuen being the newer. The two villages were separated by the construction of Castle Peak Road and San Tin Highway.

13.5.1.51 One other item is identified in Chuk Yuen Tsuen. Three other items are identified in Sheung Chuk Yuen. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-5 and NTM-6 in Appendix 13.2.

· NTM-7 Wai Tsai (圍仔)

13.5.1.52 Wai Tsai was established by the Wens from Dongguang in the Qing Dynasty (1636-1912). The village situated somewhere else originally, the occupants settled to the current village area due to development after the British colonisation of the New Territories (1898). The village was originally called Tung Hing Tsuen (東慶村) and was renamed as Wai Tsai afterwards. The Cheungs from Waiyang (惠陽), Lungkong (龍岡) and Pingshan (坪山) settled in the village after the Japanese occupation^{^[98]}^{^[99]}. Wai Tsai at the north of mouth of the river valley of Ngau Tam Mei. The village has roughly six rows of buildings in generally rectangular shape, enclosed by fences, walls and building structures. The orientation of the village is facing southwest.

13.5.1.53 Eight other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-7 in Appendix 13.2.

· NTM-8 Yau Tam Mei Tsuen (攸潭尾村)

13.5.1.54 Yau Tam Mei Tsuen was originally named Ngau Tam Mei Tsuen (“牛潭美”). It was renamed as Yau Tam Mei Tsuen since the villagers find the word “牛” (literally mean “cow”) distasteful^{^[100]}. Most of the dwellings in Yau Tam Mei Tsuen are squatters. The settlers came to Ngau Tam Mei area in the early 20th century. Settlers are Hakka people from mainland China^{^[101]}. It is a multi-clan village with the Chus, Yeungs, Cheungs and Laus being the majority.

13.5.1.55 Five other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-8 in Appendix 13.2.

· NTM-9 Along Castle Peak Road

13.5.1.56 The Castle Peak Road was between 1911 and 1920 connecting multiple regions of the Kowloon and the New Territories, including Sham Shui Po, Tuen Mun, Yuen Long and Sheung Shui. The Tam Mi section of the road outside of Ngau Tam Mei area is a two-lane road for two-way traffic. The section did not see much widening or alteration throughout the years.

13.5.1.57 Three other items are identified along the Tam Mi section of Castle Peak Road. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-9 in Appendix 13.2.

San Tin Region

· ST-1 Mai Po Lung Tsuen (米埔隴村)

13.5.1.58 Located to the south of Castle Peak Road and bounded by small hills, Mai Po Lung Tsuen was probably founded by the Chinese immigrants in the 1960s, occupying a strip of agricultural fields in a river valley. According to the inscription on the couplet at the Heroes Temple in the village, they were originated from Huizhou Hai Lu Feng (惠州海陸豐) (current the City of Shanwei, 汕尾市). Squatters are freely arranged across the village area without a united orientation. The village was separated due to the construction of San Tin Highway.

13.5.1.59 One other item is identified. Its details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet ST-1 in Appendix 13.2.

· ST-2 to ST-7 The Man Clan of San Tin: Shek Wu Wai (石湖圍), Tsing Lung Tsuen (青龍村), San Lung Tsuen (新龍村), Fan Tin Tsuen (蕃田村), Wing Ping Tsuen (永平村) and Chau Tau Tsuen (洲頭村)

13.5.1.60 The ancestor of the Man clan in Guangdong region was Man Tin-shui (文天瑞) (1240-1298), the younger cousin of the Duke of Xin (信國公) Man Tin-cheung (文天祥) (1236-1283). He fled to Guangdong in face of the invasion of Mongol Empire^{^[102]}. The seventh generation of Man Tin-shui – Man Sai-gor (文世歌) arrived at Tuen Mun and later settled in San Tin during the Yongle reign (1403-1424) of Ming dynasty^{^[103]}. His descendants resided in the three walled villages and six villages (三圍六村), namely Yan Sau Wai (仁壽圍), Tung Chan Wai (東鎮圍), Shek Wu Wai, On Lung Tsuen (安龍村), Wing Ping Tsuen, Fan Tin Tsuen, San Lung Tsuen, Tsing Lung Tsuen and Chau Tau Tsuen. The exact establishment year of each village is unknown. Yan Sau Wai was the earliest settlement among the nine villages^{^[104]} with a history of over 500 years (i.e. established in the 15^th century)^{^[105]}. The clan continued to expand in the mid Qing dynasty (1636–1912) and developed Chau Tau Tsuen and Shek Wu Wai, which were outside the main cluster^{^[106]}.

13.5.1.61 The Man clan was forced to leave and abandoned their houses and farmlands due to the implementation of the Coastal Evacuation Order. They returned to San Tin after the Order was lifted in 1669^{^[107]}. The Man Ancestral Hall was then rebuilt, and new ancestral halls were constructed as the clan expanded.

13.5.1.62 Traditionally the Man clan mainly relied on crop cultivation and fish farming for living. They were famous for a wine made by a special type of red grain they yielded^{^[108]}. Following the change of farm economy in San Tin in the late 1950s, many Mans of working age had emigrated aboard to seek for better job opportunities. The fields were then rented to outsiders for vegetation cultivation^{^[109]}. Although they moved to the United Kingdom and other European countries, the Mans would send their money back to support their families in Hong Kong, such as providing financial contribution to reconstruct their family houses and renovate their temples in San Tin^{^[110]}.

13.5.1.63 Traditional festivals held by the Man clan of San Tin include, but not limited to:

· Chinese New Year

· Spring and Autumn Sacrificial Rites (春秋二祭)

· Dim dang (點燈) in ancestral halls

· Ching Ming Festival (清明節)

· Chung Yeung Festival (重陽節)

· Da Jiu (打醮) (every three years)^{^[111]}

· Tin Hau Festival (天后誕) and Je Fu (借庫) in Tung Shan Temple

13.5.1.64 One declared monument, one grade 1 historic building, one grade 2 historic building, two grade 3 historic buildings, 53 other items are identified in the six villages of the Man Clan within the assessment area. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet ST-2 to ST-7 in Appendix 13.2.

13.5.1.65 Given that Yan Sau Wai, Tung Chan Wai and On Lung Tsuen are located outside the 500m assessment area, and thus they are not considered under this study.

· ST-8 General (San Tin Area)

13.5.1.66 The Man clan settled in San Tin during the Yongle reign (1403-1424) of Ming dynasty. Since then, they have flourished and resided in nine villages around the San Tin area. As their main settlement, various structures were constructed outside village environment in the wider San Tin area by the Man clan or in close relation to the development of Man clan, namely Tung Shan Temple (grade 3 historic building), San Tin Post Office, Tun Yu School, Mans’ Boundary Stone, Grave of Man Chung Luen, Grave of Mrs Man Ng and Grave of Mrs Man Leung.

13.5.1.67 Apart from the structures related to the Man clan, an unusual grave is identified to be located at Pak Shek Au. It belongs to Chong Yin-kei (莊彥其). The grave was erected in the 12^th year of Guangxu reign (1886). The grave is approximately 11m in width, 15m in length and over 2m in height. It is known as one of the famous fung shui spots, namely Hot Ma Yam Chuen (“渴馬飲泉”, literally means thirsty house drinking from spring).

13.5.1.68 One grade 3 historic building and eight other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet ST-8 in Appendix 13.2.

Kwu Tung Region

· KW-1 General (Kwu Tung Area)

13.5.1.69 The name of Kwu Tung Tsuen (古洞村) was recorded in the Jiaqing edition of the Xin’an Gazetteer of Qing dynasty, which was written in the 1819^{^[112]}. In the Extracts from A Report by Mr. Stewart Lockhart on the Extension of the Colony of Hong Kong by Sir J.H Lockhart in 1898, Kwu Tung (古洞) was recorded in the Sheung Yue region, it was recorded as a Punti village with a population of 50^{^[113]}.

13.5.1.70 The population of Kwu Tung had risen to approximately 1,200 in the 1960s due to influx of immigrants from Dongguan^{^[114]}. The then District Office has divided Kwu Tung into 14 zones to better manage the area^{^[115]}. Meanwhile, factories were opened in northern Kwu Tung, including traditional soy sauce factories, sawmills, handbag factories. Kwu Tung was therefore turning into a hub for light industry^{^[116]}.

13.5.1.71 Two grade 2 historic building, four grade 3 historic building and three other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet KW-1 in Appendix 13.2.

Others

· MS-1 Military Structures

13.5.1.72 The barracks at Tam Mei and San Tin were first appeared in the 1952 topographic map^{^[117]} with the names of “Tam Mi Camp” and “Norwegian Farm Camp”. According to the correspondence between the Hong Kong Land Forces and Colonial Secretariat, Norwegian Farm Camp in San Tin was temporary construction “erected at the time of the 1950/51 crisis”^{^[118]}. After the end of the Korean War, the British reduced the size of the garrison in Hong Kong^{^[119]}. In 1961, Tam Mi Camp and Norwegian Farm Camp were proposed to be rebuilt into a permanent barrack in 1961^{^[120]}. Norwegian Farm Camp was renamed as “Cassino” in the same year^{^[121]}.

13.5.1.73 According to the 1994 Exchange of Notes between the Chinese Government and the British Government on the Arrangements for the Future Use of the Military Sites in Hong Kong, from 1^st July 1997, Cassino Lines and Tam Mi Camp would be handed over to the People’s Republic of China for defence purposes by the military forces stated in Hong Kong^{^[122]}.

13.5.1.74 The Gurkha Cemetery is part of the former Cassino Lines (current San Tin Barracks) in San Tin. Site formation was observed in the 1954 aerial photo^{^[123]} and the Cemetery was completed as shown in the 1956 aerial photo^{^[124]}. It is currently managed by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

13.5.1.75 These three military related structures are considered to have historical interest. They reflect the defence role of Hong Kong during the cold war period and contribution of Gurkha soldiers in Hong Kong. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet MS-1 in Appendix 13.2.

· VG-1 Vegetation Marketing Co-operative Societies

13.5.1.76 The Federation of Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Societies, Ltd was established in 1953 by farmers with an aim to enhance vegetable production, marketing and selling, as well as to increase the income and improve the living conditions of farmers in New Territories^{^[125]}^{^[126]}. There are 26 societies under the Federation. They are generally founded in 1960s and 1970s. Among the 26 societies, three of them are located within the Project area and four of them are located outside the Project area but within the assessment area.

13.5.1.77 The significance in cultural heritage of the Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Societies is embodied in historical perspective. As a group, these venues are a testimony of the agricultural cooperative movement in the New Territories in the latter half of the 20^th century. The geological distribution of these societies in the north-west New Territories also reflects the importance of local vegetable supply from Yuen Long to wider Hong Kong.

13.5.1.78 Six other items are identified. Their details and photo records are presented in Built Heritage Recording Sheet VG-1 in Appendix 13.2.

Table 13.3 Summary of Built Heritage Resources/Other Identified Items within the Project Area and Assessment Area

Within Project Area (i.e. both underground and aboveground works areas and works site)

Within Assessment Area but outside Project Area

Total

Declared Monuments and Graded Historic Buildings

220

Other Identified Items (with no grading or no grade accorded^{^[127]})

176

Table 13.4 Declared Monuments and Confirmed/ Proposed Graded Historic Buildings within 500m Assessment Area

Ref. No.	Built Heritage	Status	Closest Approx. Horizontal Distance to Project Area	Details and Photographic Record
DM32	Tai Fu Tai	Declared Monument	400m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet ST-6
DM47	Yi Tai Study Hall	Declared Monument	340m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-7
DM97	Tang Kwong U Ancestral Hall	Declared Monument	395m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-7
HB2	Kat Hing Wai, Shrine	Combined as one item and accorded with Grade 1 collectively	315m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-2
HB3	Kat Hing Wai, Entrance Gate		255m (to underground Project area)
HB4	Kat Hing Wai, Watchtower (northwest) and Enclosing Walls		275m (to underground Project area)
HB5	Kat Hing Wai, Watchtower (northeast) and Enclosing Walls		300m (to underground Project area)
HB6	Kat Hing Wai, Watchtower (southeast) and Enclosing Walls		235m (to underground Project area)
HB7	Kat Hing Wai, Watchtower (southwest) and Enclosing Walls		235m (to underground Project area)
HB75	Man Ancestral Hall, Fan Tin Tsuen	Grade 1 Historic Building	475m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet ST-5
HB125	Cheung Chun Yuen	Grade 1 Historic Building	430m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-7
HB141	Tang Tsing Lok Ancestral Hall	Grade 1 Historic Building	400m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-8
HB211	Lik Wing Tong Study Hall	Grade 1 Historic Building	425m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-7
HB612	The Residence of Tang Pak Kau	Grade 1 Historic Building	415m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-1
HB307	General House, Main Building	Grade 2 Historic Building	65m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet AT-3
HB312	Lady Ho Tung Welfare Centre, Main Block	Grade 2 Historic Building	415m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KW-1
HB313	Lady Ho Tung Welfare Centre, Bungalow	Grade 2 Historic Building	430m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KW-1
HB318	Man San Ye Ancestral Hall	Grade 2 Historic Building	475m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet ST-5
HB355	General House, Hip Wai House	Grade 2 Historic Building	88m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet AT-3
HB376	No. 57 San Wai Tsuen	Grade 2 Historic Building	66m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-4
HB405	General House, Shum Ancestral Hall	Grade 2 Historic Building	56m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet AT-3
HB508	Entrance Gate, Tai Hong Wai	Grade 3 Historic Building	425m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-4
HB613	No. 50 San Wai Tsuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	94m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-4
HB628	No. 51 San Wai Tsuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	100m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-4
HB658	No. 35 San Wai Tsuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	265m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-4
HB659	No. 36 San Wai Tsuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	265m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-4
HB718	Yeung Yuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	380m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KW-1
HB775	Tang Lung Yau Wan Tsuen Um Ancestral Hall	Grade 3 Historic Building	380m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-1
HB781	Miu Kok Yuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	465m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet AT-3
HB784	No. 71 San Wai Tsuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	98m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-4
HB785	No. 87 San Wai Tsuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	260m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-4
HB802	Sin Wai Nunnery	Grade 3 Historic Building	415m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KW-1
HB858	No. 70 San Wai Tsuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	135m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-4
HB884	Yan Wah Lo	Grade 3 Historic Building	225m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KW-1
HB926	Watchtower (northwest), No. 9F Tai Hong Wai	Grade 3 Historic Building	450m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-4
HB932	Tang Yu Kai Study Hall	Grade 3 Historic Building	290m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-7
HB945	Hung Shing Temple and Pai Fung Temple	Grade 3 Historic Building	490m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KW-1
HB959	No. 21 San Lung Tsuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	445m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet ST-4
HB948	No. 22 San Lung Tsuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	445m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet ST-4
HB973	Tung Shan Temple	Grade 3 Historic Building	230m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet ST-8
HB1004	So Lau Yuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	365m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-7
HB1016	Hon Lo, No. 61 San Wai Tsuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	30m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-4
HB1032	No. 62 San Wai Tsuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	35m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet NTM-4
HB1046	Hung Shing Temple, No. 31 Shui Tau Tsuen	Grade 3 Historic Building	415m (to underground Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet KT-7
HB1114	Tai Kei Study Hall	Grade 3 Historic Building	470m (to at-grade Project area)	Built Heritage Recording Sheet PH-1

Table 13.5 Summary of Built Heritage and Other Identified Items within the Assessment Area

Built Heritage Recording Sheet Index	Location	No. of Declared Monuments and Graded Historic Building	No. of Other Identified Items (with No Grading or No Grade Accorded)	Figure Number (with prefix of “C1603/C/NOL/ACM/”)
Pat Heung
PH-1	Tin Sam San Tsuen	1	3	M60/401
PH-2	Shek Wu Tong	0	6	M60/402 to M60/404
Kam Tin
KT-1	Tsz Tong Tsuen	2	9	M60/405
KT-2	Kat Hing Wai	1	1	M60/406
KT-3	Shing Mun San Tsuen	0	1	M60/407
KT-4	Tai Hong Wai	2	4	M60/408
KT-5	Ko Po Tsuen	0	5	M60/409
KT-6	Kam Hing Wai	0	2	M60/410
KT-7	Shui Tau Tsuen	7	9	M60/411 and M60/412
KT-8	Shui Mei Tsuen	1	3	M60/413
KT-9	General (Kam Tin Area)	0	3	M60/406, M60/414 and M60/415
Au Tau
AT-1	Sha Po Tsuen	0	10	M60/416
AT-2	Wah Shing Village	0	3	M60/417
AT-3	Fung Kat Heung	4	0	M60/418 and M60/419
Ngau Tam Mei
NTM-1	Pok Wai	0	17	M60/420 and M60/421
NTM-2	Long Ha	0	1	M60/422
NTM-3	Ha San Wai	0	4	M60/423
NTM-4	San Wai Tsuen	10	5	M60/424 and M60/425
NTM-5	Chuk Yuen	0	1	M60/426
NTM-6	Sheung Chuk Yuen	0	3	M60/427
NTM-7	Wai Tsai Tsuen	0	8	M60/428
NTM-8	Yau Tam Mei Tsuen	0	5	M60/429 and M60/430
NTM-9	Along Castle Peak Road	0	3	M60/424, M60/426 and M60/431
San Tin
ST-1	Mai Po Lung Tsuen	0	1	M60/432
ST-2	Shek Wu Wai	0	1	M60/433
ST-3	Tsing Lung Tsuen	0	7	M60/434
ST-4	San Lung Tsuen	2	4	M60/435
ST-5	Fan Tin Tsuen	2	29	M60/436
ST-6	Wing Ping Tsuen	1	4	M60/437
ST-7	Chau Tau Tsuen	0	8	M60/438
ST-8	General (San Tin Area)	1	8	M60/439 to M60/443
Kwu Tung
KW-1	General (Kwu Tung Area)	6	3	M60/444 to M40/448
Others
MS-1	Military Structures	0	3	M60/400 and M60/449
VG-1	Vegetation Marketing Co-operative Societies	0	6	M60/419, M60/427, M60/445, M60/446, M60/450 and M60/451

13.5.2 Identification of Impacts

13.5.2.1 A total of the 40 built heritage resources and 180 other identified items was identified within the Project area and assessment area of NOL. Four of other identified items are within the Project area of NOL, namely Pok Wai Public School (POW17), San Yau Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG02), Fung Kat Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG04) and Tam Mei Barracks (MIL01). The remaining 216 built heritage resources/other identified items are outside Project area (Table 13.3 refers).

13.5.2.2 Six other identified items, namely Grave of Man Chung Luen (GST04), Grave of Mrs Man Leung (GST07), Structure Between No. 5 and No. 7 of Shek Wu Wai (SWW01), Tin Tak Heroes Temple (MPL01), Sun Tin Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG03) and Mai Po Lung Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG05) are located outside NOL Project area but within the project area of San Tin / Lok Ma Chau Development Node (STLMC DN). The impact assessment of these items will be provided under the jurisdiction of STLMC DN. Thus, they are excluded from the following impact assessment.

13.5.2.3 Further assessment on Tam Mei Barracks (MIL01) and San Tin Barracks (MIL02) are not available due to restricted access. Noting that this Project would not directly alter the Barracks, they are thus not considered in this impact assessment.

13.5.2.4 The following impact assessment and the relevant proposed mitigation measures will be provided on the remaining 212 built heritage resources/other identified items. Three of them are within the Project area of NOL, while the remaining 209 built heritage resources/other identified items are outside Project area (Table 13.6 refers). The following discussions on the impact to built heritage resources/other identified items are based on their relations to Project area.

Table 13.6 Number of Built Heritage Resources/Other Identified Items to be considered in the Impact Assessment

	Excluded from Impact Assessment		Included in Impact Assessment		Total Built Heritage Resources to be Considered in Impact Assessment
	Within PA⁽¹⁾	Outside PA	Within PA	Outside PA
Declared Monuments and Graded Historic Buildings	0	0	0	40	40	212
Other Identified Items (with no grading or no grade accorded)	0	8⁽²⁾	3	169	172	212

Notes:

(1) “PA” stands for “Project area”.

(2) A total eight items including six buildings with no grade accorded (i.e. Grave of Man Chung Luen (GST04), Grave of Mrs Man Leung (GST07), Structure Between No. 5 and No. 7 of Shek Wu Wai (SWW01), Tin Tak Heroes Temple (MPL01), Sun Tin Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society, Ltd. (VEG03) and Mai Po Lung Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG05)) located within the project area of STLMC DN, and two Barracks (i.e. Tam Mei Barracks (MIL01) and San Tin Barracks (MIL02)) located partially within or outside PA were excluded from this assessment.

13.5.2.5 The potential direct and indirect impacts are classified into the ﬁve levels of signiﬁcance:

a) Beneﬁcial impact: if the Project will enhance the preservation of the heritage site(s);

b) Acceptable impact: if the assessment indicates that there will be no signiﬁcant effects on the heritage site(s);

c) Acceptable impact with mitigation measures: if there will be some adverse effects, but these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a large extent by speciﬁc measures, such as conducting a follow-up Conservation Proposal or Conservation Management Plan for the affected heritage site(s) before the commencement of work in order to avoid any inappropriate and unnecessary interventions to the buildings;

d) Unacceptable impact: if the adverse effects are considered to be excessive and are unable to mitigate practically; and

e) Undetermined impact: if the signiﬁcant adverse effects are likely, but the extent to which they may occur or may be mitigated cannot be determined from the Heritage Impact Assessment study. Further detailed study will be required for the specific effects in question.

Construction Phase

Built Heritage within the Project Area

13.5.2.6 No declared monuments, proposed monuments, graded historic buildings, buildings in the list of new items with proposed grading and Government historic sites are located within the Project area of NOL.

13.5.2.7 Three other items are identified within or partially within the Project area, namely Pok Wai Public School (POW17), San Yau Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG02) and Fung Kat Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG04).

13.5.2.8 Direct impact of demolition is anticipated for two identified items, namely Pok Wai Public School (POW17) and Fung Kat Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG04), located within the at-grade Project’s works sites where site formation and construction works would be carried out, and the preservation of these two identified items is not practicable.

13.5.2.9 San Yau Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG02) is located above the underground tunnel near NTD. As there would be no at-grade construction works to be carried out, the building will be remained in situ and no direct impact is anticipated.

13.5.2.10 However, given that the building is situated directly above the underground works site, there may be potential indirect impact of ground-borne vibration, tilting and settlement on the building during the tunnelling works right below building. Temporary change of access may also be required during the construction stage as Ching Yau Road would partially form part of the works site for the construction of NTD.

Built Heritage within the Assessment Area but outside the Project Area

13.5.2.11 A total of 209 built heritage resources/other identified items are located within the assessment area but outside the Project area, including three declared monuments, six grade 1 historic buildings, seven grade 2 historic buildings, 24 grade 3 historic buildings and 169 other identified items.

13.5.2.12 Majority of the declared monuments and graded historic buildings listed in Table 13.4 are located at a considerable distance from the at-grade Project areas. Such distance would buffer any potential adverse impacts (if any) of ground-borne vibration, tilting and ground settlement from the construction activities. No indirect impacts would be anticipated on all the declared monuments and confirmed/ proposed graded historic buildings.

13.5.2.13 It is noted that three grade 2 historic buildings, namely, General House, Main Building (HB307), General House, Hip Wai House (HB355), and General House, Shum Ancestral Hall (HB405), are located between 56m and 88m from the at-grade Project works areas for AUT Station. As only bored piling works will be conducted at the area of AUT Station, such construction method would be conducted in a precise and controlled manner which could minimise vibration generated. Comparing to percussive piling, bored piling is anticipated to generate lower noise and vibration. Considering the separation distance and the nature of bored piling works, no adverse indirect impact is anticipated.

13.5.2.14 One grade 2 historic building, namely No. 57 San Wai Tsuen (HB376), and five grade 3 historic buildings including No. 50 San Wai Tsuen (HB613), No. 51 San Wai Tsuen (HB628), No. 71 San Wai Tsuen (HB784), Hon Lo, No. 61 San Wai Tsuen (HB1016) and No. 62 San Wai Tsuen (HB1032), are located between 30m and 100m from the underground Project works site. The underground tunnels between stations and ancillary buildings would be constructed using tunnel boring machine (TBM) / drill-and-blast method. The gradual cutting in a controlled manner during the operation of TBMs would minimise any sudden and disruptive vibration. Before carrying out the blasting which is under the control of the Dangerous Goods Ordinance, the contractor shall obtain a blasting permit from the Mines Division of CEDD, with the support of a method statement including manner of working and protective measures to protect adjacent land and property during blasting. In addition to the considerable separation distance horizontally and vertically between the built heritage and the tunnels, the settlement to the ground above, if any, arising from these tunnelling methods would be controlled and would not cause significant settlement to the ground above.

13.5.2.15 Moreover, they were all in good condition as of site visits carried out in late 2021 to early 2022. No significant structural issues such as large cracks and deformation were observed. They have been in use with continuous upkeeping and maintenance. Therefore, no indirect impact to all the declared monuments and graded historic buildings would be anticipated.

13.5.2.16 For the remaining 169 other identified items, all of them are located at considerable distances from the at-grade and / or underground works areas. Therefore, they would not be directly or indirectly impacted.

Operational Phase

13.5.2.17 The NOL would enhance the transportation network in the northeast Yuen Long as well as the accessibility to the built heritage in the region. It would encourage the locals to visit the built heritage in the vicinity of the stations such as two declared monuments (i.e. Man Lun Fung Ancestral Hall (DM19) and Tai Fu Tai (DM32)) and Gurkha Cemetery near SAT Station, and three grade 2 historic buildings (i.e. General House, Main Building, General House, Hip Wai House and General House, Shum Ancestral Hall (HB307, HB355 and HB405)) near AUT Station. The increased connectivity offers opportunities for heritage promotion and cultural tourism such that the history of northeast Yuen Long could be better known, and the significance of the built heritage could be appreciated.

13.5.2.18 No adverse impact on built heritage and other identified items is anticipated during operational phase.

13.5.2.19 A summary of the impact assessment results is presented in Table 13.7.

Table 13.7 Summary of Impact Assessment Result on Built Heritage and Other Identified Items

Buildings	Direct Impact	Indirect Impact	No Impact	Total
Declared Monuments and Graded Historic Buildings	0	0	40	212
Other Identified Items (with no grading or no grade accorded)	2	1	169	212

13.5.3 Mitigation Measures

Construction Phase

Cartographic and Photographic Record

13.5.3.1 Pok Wai Public School (POW17) and Fung Kat Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG04) should be preserved by record if direct impact is imminent. Cartographic and photographic record, and other documentation means (including 3D scanning), should be conducted prior to the commencement of any construction works at the respective locations. The record should be shared with AMO for record purposes and future use, such as research, exhibition and educational programmes.

Monitoring of Ground-borne Vibration, Tilting and Ground Settlement

13.5.3.2 Monitoring of ground-borne vibration, tilting and ground settlement, is proposed to be employed for San Yau Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG02) during the construction phase under Buildings Ordinance. The monitoring should be incorporated with a set of Alert, Alarm and Action (3As) system strictly following the requirements set out in Practice Note for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and Registered Geotechnical Engineers - Ground-borne Vibrations and Ground Settlements Arising from Pile Driving and Similar Operations (PNAP APP-137) on vibration-sensitive and dilapidated buildings ^{^[128]}. If the alert level is exceeded, the monitoring frequency should be increased. If the alarm level is exceeded, the design of the construction may have to be amended. If the action level is exceeded, all works should be stopped. Empirical guidelines on the 3As criteria provided in PNAP APP-137 during construction phase are quoted in Table 13.8. The actual 3As criteria shall be further confirmed via an assessment on the effects of ground-borne vibrations, settlements and tilting on VEG02.

Table 13.8 Guidelines on 3As Criteria Recommended in PNAP APP-137

Building Type

Guide values of maximum ppv (mm/sec)

Transient Vibration

Continuous Vibration

Vibration-sensitive/

dilapidated buildings

7.5

3.0

Instrument	Criterion	Alert	Alarm	Action
Ground settlement marker	Total settlement	12mm	18mm	25mm
Services settlement marker	Total settlement & Angular distortion	12mm or 1:600	18mm or 1:450	25mm or 1:300
Building tilting marker	Angular distortion	1:1000	1:750	1:500

13.5.3.3 Prior agreement and consent should be sought from the owner(s), stakeholder(s) and relevant Government department(s) for the installation of monitoring points on the building before commencement of the works. Record of monitoring should be submitted regularly to the Buildings Department during the construction under Buildings Ordinance. Buildings Department should be alerted in case any irregularities are observed.

13.5.3.4 No other identified item is located within 100m from the drill-and-blast tunnel section between NTD and PWA. However, should the construction method of the remaining tunnel boring machine (TBM) tunnel sections resort to blasting, the abovementioned mitigation measures should be applied to all the other identified items located within 100m from the underground works sites and areas under the same 3As system with the same criteria (Table 13.9 refers).

Temporary Change of Access

13.5.3.5 There would be a temporary change of access to San Yau Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG02) during the construction phase. To ensure the smooth and continuous operation of the Society, a safe access route should be maintained for the users of the Society.

13.5.3.6 A summary on the potential adverse impact and proposed mitigation measures for the impacted other identified items is presented in Table 13.9.

Operational Phase

13.5.3.7 In view of no impact on built heritage resources/other identified items during the operational phase, mitigation measure is not required.

Other Identified Items (with No Grading or No Grade Accorded)	Status	Relation to the Project Area	Potential Impact	Mitigation Measures
Ngau Tam Mei
POW17	Pok Wai Public School	No grade accorded	Located in the works site for the construction of Pok Wai Ancillary Building	The building falls within the at-grade construction works areas of NOL, direct impact due to demolition is anticipated. Mitigation measures including cartographic and photographic record, and other documentation means are recommended. Acceptable impact with mitigation measures.	Not Applicable	Preservation by record via cartographic and photographic record, and other documentation means (including 3D scanning), should be conducted prior to the commencement of construction works at the respective area.
Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society
VEG02	San Yau Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd.	No grade accorded	Located above the underground tunnel construction works site	Potential indirect impact of ground borne vibration, tilting and settlement is anticipated from the underground tunnel construction works. Temporary change of access may be required. Mitigation measures including monitoring of ground-borne vibration, tilting and ground settlement during construction phase are recommended. Acceptable impact with mitigation measures.	No Impact	Monitoring of ground-borne vibration, tilting and ground settlement should be employed. A safe access route should be maintained for the users of the Society to ensure the Society can operate business as usual.
VEG04	Fung Kat Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd.	No grade accorded	Located in the works site for the construction of AUT Station by cut-and-cover	The building falls within the at-grade construction works areas of NOL, direct impact due to demolition is anticipated. Mitigation measures including cartographic and photographic record, and other documentation means are recommended. Acceptable impact with mitigation measures.	Not Applicable	Preservation by record via cartographic and photographic record, and other documentation means (including 3D scanning), should be conducted prior to the commencement of construction works at the respective area.

13.5.4 Evaluation of Residual Impacts

13.5.4.1 With the implementation of mitigation measures mentioned in Section 13.5.3, the adverse impacts on the identified items could be mitigated. No residual impact is therefore anticipated on the identified items.

13.5.5 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

13.5.5.1 The implementation of the recommended mitigation measures mentioned in Section 13.5.3 should be audited as part of the EM&A programme. Details of the EM&A requirements are provided in the EM&A Manual.

13.5.6 Conclusion

13.5.6.1 The northeast Yuen Long region is rich in history and cultural heritage. The settlements could be dated back as far as the Northern Song dynasty in Kam Tin and early Ming dynasty in San Tin region. Baseline study, comprises of desktop research and field evaluation, has identified three declared monuments, 37 graded historic buildings in the vicinity of NOL alignment.

13.5.6.2 Six other identified items, namely Grave of Man Chung Luen (GST04), Grave of Mrs Man Leung (GST07), Structure Between No. 5 and No. 7 of Shek Wu Wai (SWW01), Tin Tak Heroes Temple (MPL01), Sun Tin Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society, Ltd. (VEG03) and Mai Po Lung Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG05) are located outside NOL Project Area but within the project area of San Tin / Lok Ma Chau Development Node (STLMC DN). The impact assessment of these items will be provided under the jurisdiction of STLMC DN. Thus, they are excluded from this impact assessment.

13.5.6.3 Further assessment on Tam Mei Barracks (MIL01) and San Tin Barracks (MIL02) are not available due to restricted access. Noting that this Project would not directly alter the Barracks, they are thus not considered in this impact assessment.

13.5.6.4 The Project connects Kam Tin and Kwu Tung regions, with intermediate stations in Au Tau, Ngau Tam Mei and San Tin. It would enhance the connectivity and accessibility in these areas and thus offer opportunities on heritage promotion and cultural tourism and allow the significance of these heritage resources to be better known and appreciated.

13.5.6.5 No direct or indirect impact is anticipated on any declared monuments, i.e. site of cultural heritage. Hence, no particular mitigation measure is necessary for the conservation and preservation of sites of cultural heritage and the requirements in Annex 10 and 19 of the TM have been met. Also, there is no direct or indirect impact anticipated on any graded/ proposed graded historic buildings and Government historic sites from the Project.

13.5.6.6 For other identified items, direct impact due to demolition is anticipated for Pok Wai Public School (POW17) and Fung Kat Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG04). Cartographic and photographic record, and other documentation means (including 3D scanning), should be carried out for these items prior to the commencement of the construction works at the respective area and the record should be shared with AMO for record purposes and future use, such as research, exhibition and educational programmes.

13.5.6.7 Potential adverse impacts of ground borne vibration, settlement and tilting is anticipated for San Yau Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG02) due to its close proximity to the Project’s works sites. Monitoring of ground-borne vibration, tilting and ground settlement under Buildings Ordinance is proposed to be employed for this item that may be impacted by ground-borne vibration, tilting and ground settlement.

13.5.6.8 As the access roads of San Yau Vegetable Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (VEG02) will fall within the project works site for NTD, temporary change of access may be required. A safe access route should be maintained for the users of the Society to ensure they can operate as usual.

13.5.6.9 No impact is anticipated for the remaining 169 other identified items. Therefore, no mitigation measure is required.

13.6 Archaeological Impact Assessment

13.6.1 Desktop Study

13.6.1.1 Previous archaeological findings from prehistoric period have uncovered evidence of past human occupation in Hong Kong. Archaeological sites from the prehistory have been discovered on the relatively flat area along coastal beaches in the western Hong Kong near the Zhujiang River Delta^{^[129]}. Prehistoric archaeological remains have been found in locations such as Lau Fau Shan, Ngau Hom Shek and Mong Tseng. The geographical condition in these areas would have made them attractive places for human settlement during the prehistoric period. Table 13.10 presents the known archaeological periods previously identified in Hong Kong, with sensitive landscape to each period in general.

Table 13.10 Known Archaeological Periods in Hong Kong

Period	Years	Representative Sites	Landforms with Archaeological Potential
Middle to Late Neolithic	7000BC – 3500BC	Lung Kwu Chau, Tai Wan (Lamma Island), Yung Long	Coastal plains, low hills, river terraces near estuaries
Bronze Age	3500BC – 2500BC	Tai Wan (Lamma Island), Lo So Shing, Man Kok Tsui	Coastal plains, low hills, river terraces near estuaries
Song Dynasty	AD960 – AD1279	Mong Tseng Wai, Tai Hom Tsuen	plains, valleys, river terraces
Ming and Qing Dynasty	AD1368 – AD1912	Chok Ko Wan, Kowloon Walled City	plains, valleys, river terraces

13.6.1.2 Based on the geographical and geological background, the proposed NOL alignment mainly passes through low-lying areas of river valleys and fishponds, as well as foothills with the hill ranges of Tai Mo Shan, Kai Kung Leng and Ki Lun Shan to its east and the wetlands and Deep Bay to its west. Most of the stations are situated in river valleys.

13.6.1.3 Most of traditional villages settled on river terraces or on the coast in close proximity to small hills. There are two prominent settlements in the vicinity of the NOL alignment, namely the Tang clan and the Man clan. The settlement of the Tang clan in Kam Tin area can be dated as far as the Northern Song dynasty, while the San Tin was occupied by the Man clan since the Ming dynasty. These traditional villages would have historical significance as past human activities in these villages would yield abundant archaeological materials in situ. Moreover, surviving structures are identified within these villages supporting settlement history in historical period. Therefore, they would be considered to have high archaeological potential in historical period ^{^[130]}.

13.6.1.4 The at-grade Project works sites and works areas have not been surveyed archaeologically to provide a holistic understanding of their archaeological significance. On the other hand, there had been many modern disturbances to the potential archaeological information within the at-grade Project works sites and works areas.

13.6.1.5 No SAI is located within the Project area or the assessment area. No known traditional and well-established village that appeared in historical documents is located within the at-grade Project works sites and works areas. In all the regions, the existing village establishments located within or in close proximity to the Project area are mostly of 20th century origin, with buildings / structures possibly dated to the early to mid-20^th century. The possibility of discovering archaeological materials of historical periods from these regions is therefore deemed low.

13.6.1.6 However, noting that there had been no archaeological survey (and hence no data is available), and that the alluvial nature of soils in this area might be suitable for past human activities (such as agriculture in the historical period), archaeological potential within the at-grade Project works sites and works areas cannot be denied entirely based on desktop analysis only. Yet, it is possible to determine areas where the soil had been disturbed, which contain no archaeological potential.

13.6.1.7 Some land uses and landscape are considered to have no archaeological potential (i.e. archaeological remains unlikely exist), and / or locations with heavy modern disturbances in which the surface soil had been removed, these include:

· Former Coast;

· Cut slopes;

· Natural streams;

· Ponds;

· Roads; and

· Development(s) where site formation works had been carried out.

13.6.1.8 In additional, past archaeological investigations conducted in the vicinity had also surveyed and confirmed the archaeological potential of some areas located within the assessment area (Table 13.2 refers).

13.6.1.9 These past archaeological surveys and review on modern disturbance had confirmed that the works sites/areas of KSR(NOL) Station, Shui Mei Road Ancillary Building and the temporary explosives magazine site at Tai Shu Ha have no archaeological potential due to modern development.

13.6.1.10 The site formation of the existing KSR(TML) Station, the Public Transport Interchange and the public carpark commenced in 1999^{^[131]}. The surface has been heavily disturbed during the construction works, archaeological deposits (if any) in KSR(NOL) Station area would have been removed or destroyed. Therefore, KSR(NOL) Station can be confirmed to be of no archaeological potential.

13.6.1.11 The location of Shui Mei Road Ancillary Building has been traditionally used as fishponds^{^[132]}. As the construction of fishponds involves removal of topsoil, any archaeological deposits would have been removed or destroyed. Therefore, Shui Mei Road Ancillary Building can be confirmed to be of no archaeological potential.

13.6.1.12 The location of Long Ha Tsuen Ancillary Building has been traditionally used as cultivation fields. However, it had been disturbed by the small village houses development, site clearance works for orchard and construction of a new concrete road in late 1990s^{^[133]}. Recent site formation works were also observed to transform a camping site^{^[134]}. As the construction works involved in the changes of land uses involves disturbance to topsoil, any archaeological deposits would have been removed or destroyed.

13.6.1.13 For the temporary explosives magazine site at Tai Shu Ha, The site was once served as the Tai Tong East Borrow Area in the late 1990s where soil was removed and transported for construction works elsewhere (Section 13.4.1.34 refers). The site had also been used as a magazine site for other projects. Therefore, the temporary explosives magazine site at Tai Shu Ha can be confirmed to be of no archaeological potential.

13.6.1.14 For works sites/areas of KTU(NOL) Station, they have been heavily disturbed due to the construction of the tunnel box and enabling works for the planned KTU(EAL) Station in early 2000s. It is also confirmed to be of low archaeological potential in the NENT EIA Study (Register No.: AEIAR-175/2013) as well (Table 13.2 refers). For the remaining area, their archaeological potential are mostly remains undetermined.

13.6.1.15 A review on the archaeological potential on the assessment area based on desktop study with the latest Project area and assessment area adopted in this report is shown in Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/600 to M60/613.

13.6.1.16 In order to seek further archaeological information for the assessment, an archaeological field survey was conducted as part of the EIA study intended to confirm those areas of uncertain archaeological potential identified in the at-grade Project’s works sites and works areas. Details of the archaeological field survey are presented below.

13.6.2 Archaeological Field Survey

Approach and Methodology of Archaeological Survey

13.6.2.1 An application of the Licence to Excavate and Search for Antiquities to cover the field survey works for the AIA, together with an Archaeological Action Plan (AAP) which was prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for Archaeological Impact Assessment established by AMO, was submitted on 24^th February 2023. The AAP outlined the background, objectives, scope and methodology, as well as the programme and staffing arrangement of the AIA under this application.

13.6.2.2 The Licence (No. 478) was issued on 21^st March 2023 by the Antiquities Authority. Fieldworks were conducted by the licensed archaeologist between 3^rd April 2023 and 20^th June 2023.

13.6.2.3 The archaeological field survey was conducted before the land resumption. However, due to land status constraints, the survey was only conducted on the assessable areas with undetermined archaeological potential identified in desktop study. Also, the NOL runs underground in tunnel between KSR and KTU. The construction of the underground tunnel would not cause significant settlement to the ground above. As there would be no disturbance to the superficial deposit that may, or may not, contains archaeological potential, it is anticipated that the underground tunnelling works would not cause any direct or indirect impact on archaeology. Therefore, no archaeological survey was conducted for the underground tunnel section.

13.6.2.4 For the Project’s works sites and works areas with unknown archaeological potential but inaccessible at the time of the survey, no archaeological action was carried out to avoid violation of private land rights.

13.6.2.5 A total of thirteen (13) test pits and two (2) auger hole tests were excavated under this Licence as well as field scanning in six areas within the Licence Area. Approximately eight hectares of land were surveyed. A summary of archaeological works is presented in Table 13.11. Their respective locations are presented in Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/615 to M60/622.

Table 13.11 Summary of Archaeological Field Survey Conducted under Licence No. 478

Survey Area	Archaeological Works Completed Under the Licence	Figure No.	Region
Pok Wai Survey Area	· Field scanning · 1 test pit (PWA-TP1) · 2 auger holes (PWA-AH1, PWA-AH2)	C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/616	Au Tau
Long Ha Tsuen Survey Area	· Field scanning	C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/617	Ngau Tam Mei
Ngau Tam Mei Survey Area	· Field scanning · 3 test pits (NTM-TP1 to 3)	C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/618	Ngau Tam Mei
San Tin Survey Area	· Field Scanning · 9 test pits (SAT-TP1 to 9)	C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/619 and M60/620	San Tin
Ki Lun Tsuen Survey Area	· Field scanning	C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/621	Kwu Tung
Pak Shek Au Survey Area	· Field scanning	C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/622	Kwu Tung

Limitation

13.6.2.6 All the test pits had experienced relocation from the original indicative locations proposed in the AAP due to accessibility issues and on-site conditions. Alternative locations with similar land use, elevation and geology were selected to ensure the archaeological data collected would fulfil the archaeological assessment intended under the Licence. The alternative locations were reported to and endorsed by AMO.

13.6.2.7 A comparison of the land use and geology of the indicative test pits locations in AAP and the actual test pits conducted on site is shown in Table 13.12.

Table 13.12 Summary of Test Pit Locations

Test Pit	Original Location		Relocated Location
Test Pit	Land use	Superficial Geology	Approximate Distance to Original Location	Land use	Superficial Geology
PWA-TP1	Hill Slope	JTM	18m	Hill Slope	JTM
NTM-TP1	Cultivation Fields	Qpa	37m	Abandoned Land	Qpa
NTM-TP2	Abandoned Land	Qa	84m	Abandoned Land	Qa
NTM-TP3	Abandoned Land	Qa	5m	Abandoned Land	Qa
SAT-TP1	Abandoned Land	Qpa	44m	Abandoned Land	Qpa
SAT-TP2	Cultivation Fields	Qpa	52m	Abandoned Land	Qpa
SAT-TP3	Abandoned Land	Qa	99m	Abandoned Land; Ruins	Qpa
SAT-TP4	Abandoned Land	Qpa	30m	Abandoned Land	Qa
SAT-TP5	Abandoned Land	Qa	55m	Abandoned Land	Qa
SAT-TP6	Abandoned Land	Qa	104m	Abandoned Land	Qa
SAT-TP7	Abandoned Land	Qa	11m	Abandoned Land	Qa
SAT-TP8	Abandoned Land	Qa	5.5m	Abandoned Land	Qa
SAT-TP9	Cultivation Fields	Qa	59m	Abandoned Land	Qpa

Summary and Interpretation of Archaeological Field Survey Results

13.6.2.8 Details of archaeological survey findings, which were based on the tentative scope of the Project in December 2022, is provided in Appendix 13.3 Archaeological Impact Assessment Report. The findings of the archaeological surveys in the Archaeological Impact Assessment Report (Appendix 13.3) have been provided to AMO and adopted for assessing archaeological impact arising from the Project in this Assessment Chapter. The archaeological potential of the at-grade Project works sites and works areas based on fieldwork results is shown in Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/625 to M60/638. A summary on the archaeological field survey results is presented below.

13.6.2.9 In the archaeological survey area, a total of six locations were investigated, and 13 archaeological test pits were excavated in three of them. All test pits were 2 meters by 1 meter in size with regular shape. All excavation was conducted until reaching the sterile layer as much as possible, the accessible areas of the project has been surveyed to obtain comprehensive information. Based on the results of this survey, it is determined that there were only two main types of landforms in the archaeological survey area. The first type is a hillside landform, mainly distributed in Pok Wai. The second type is a coastal wetland landform, which is found in all other locations except Pok Wai.

13.6.2.10 Based on the archaeological survey results of NTM-TP1 and NTM-TP2 in Ngau Tam Mei Survey Area, it is confirmed that the northern part of the Survey Area has low archaeological potential. It was revealed on site that NTM-TP3 of Ngau Tam Mei Survey Area, was covered by a thick layer of fill soil that could not yield adequate archaeological information. Further archaeological field investigation on this spot after land resumption is recommended to remove the fill soil and reveal the pre-filled natural soil in order to retrieve adequate archaeological information.

13.6.2.11 The discovery of a modern blue and white porcelain sherd in the fill soil layer of SAT-TP4 showed that the flat land in San Tin was existed for a relatively short period during human activities. Most of the surrounding area was brownfields with no traditional settlements. Therefore, the northern San Tin Survey Area is confirmed to have low archaeological potential. For the southern portion of the Survey Area that was mostly inaccessible during the course of fieldworks, its archaeological potential remained undetermined.

13.6.2.12 This archaeological survey has provided further information on the ancient landscape of San Tin. The original landscape of the San Tin area was a bay, with the sea level elevated at approximately +4mPD to +5mPD ^{^[135]}. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that most of the low-lying areas in the Project site were shallow sea or mangrove-like marshland during the Song-Yuan dynasties.

13.6.2.13 After the Song and Yuan dynasties, the relevant area was gradually covered by alluvial mud from the nearby hillsides, transforming from a coastline to a wetland, and then into farmland. People also built their own houses and began to live there. It was not until the late Qing dynasty that people started engaging in agricultural activities in the Project area. These activities later ceased due to the development of Hong Kong and have become abandoned land. Based on past discoveries, it is reasonably deduced that the Project area contains low archaeological potential.

13.6.2.14 The archaeological fieldworks in Pok Wai Survey Area did not discover any archaeological materials. Its surface soil and archaeological remains (if any) have been disturbed by the construction of village houses and Pok Wai Public School nearby. Therefore, the archaeological potential of Pok Wai Survey Area was confirmed as low. However, the lower hillslopes area outside and to the south of the Pok Wai Survey Area have archaeological potential in prehistoric periods for having a gentle terrain and west-facing orientation. It was also close to the former coastline. As it has similar environmental settings to other SAIs in the prehistoric period, this area to the south of the Pok Wai Survey Area would have archaeological potential in prehistoric periods.

13.6.2.15 During the course of the fieldworks, it was also discovered that Long Ha Tsuen Survey Area had experienced large site formation works with evidence of soil removal and slope cutting observed. Further desktop study had been carried out to evaluate its past land use and the extent of the site formation works^{^[136]}. The Survey Area had transformed from open storages and abandoned fields into a camping site. Therefore, Long Ha Tsuen Survey Area was confirmed to have no archaeological potential.

13.6.2.16 For Ki Lun Tsuen Survey Area and Pak Shek Au Survey Area, no archaeological materials were discovered. Thus, they were confirmed to have low archaeological potential.

13.6.2.17 The survey results provide physical evidence to supplement historical records and understand the history of the Project area.

Difference between Licence Area and the Confirmed Scheme of Project Area Adopted for AIA

13.6.2.18 To obtain archaeological information on the tentative Project area which have not been surveyed before and facilitate the design of NOL, this archaeological field survey was conducted before finalisation on the design of Project area and land resumption.

13.6.2.19 The Licence Area for this archaeological field survey was based on the tentative Project area dated December 2022, but refinement of Project area was proposed after December 2022 according to the latest Project’s design and land status. The extent of Project area between these two versions has some noticeable changes, including extension, reduction and omission of Project area. As a result, the gap between these two versions was not fully captured in the archaeological field survey. Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/615 to M60/622 present the Licence Area and the latest Project area.

13.6.2.20 Despite the changes in the Project area, the locations where archaeological fieldworks were performed are still within the latest Project area. The data retrieved from the fieldworks would still be applicable for analysing the archaeological potential of the latest Project area.

Additional Survey Information and Archaeological Impact Assessment from Recent Project

13.6.2.21 The First Phase Development of the New Territories North – San Tin / Lok Ma Chau Development Node – Investigation Project (“STLMC DN”) has carried out archaeological fieldworks in the San Tin area and provided archaeological impact assessment to the San Tin area ^{^[137]}. The archaeological fieldworks had discovered twenty nine (29) pieces of blue and white porcelain sherds on a vacant land to the northwest side of Shek Wu Wai village. The discovery of these blue and white porcelain sherds together with construction materials and rubbish of modern origin suggested that they were possibly secondary deposits from demolition of village houses nearby. The field scanning and test pit excavation conducted under the STLMC DN project had yielded no significant archaeological remains.

13.6.2.22 Based on the archaeological fieldwork results and interpretation on the ancient landscape of San Tin, the licensed archaeologist of the STLMC DN project believed the prehistoric shoreline in San Tin would have been further inland to the lower hillsides of Ngau Tam Shan and Ki Lun Shan (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/390 refers). Over time, the sediments carried by the rivers were deposited at the estuary and developed a sandbar between Tit Hang Shan and Mai Po (as identified by Qam on geological map, Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/301 refers), creating a lagoon landscape in San Tin. It is believed that the sandbar was formed before the Ming dynasty, as the San Tin villages of the Man clan was settled during that time. The lagoons were then converted into agricultural lands and fishponds by the locals, taking advantage of the fertile lagoon sediments and abundant water resources.

13.6.2.23 An archaeological prediction model was utilised in the STLMC DN project to evaluate the likelihood of having archaeological deposits of the unsurveyed area or area with archaeological potential unconfirmed in San Tin area. A total of thirteen areas with archaeological potential were identified, namely Mai Po Lung Area, Mai Po Area, Hop Shing Wai Area, San Tin Area, Siu Hom Tsuen Area, Pang Loon Tei Area, Hang Tau Area, Ngau Tam Mei (North) Area, Shek Wu Wai Area, Shek Wu Wai Tsuen Area, Chau Tau Area, Lok Ma Chau Tsuen Area and Pun Uk Tsuen Area. Among these thirteen areas, nine of them are located within the assessment area of NOL. In particular, Mai Po Lung Area was separated by San Tin Highway and regarded to “Mai Po Lung (North) Archaeologically Sensitive Area (ASA)” and “Mai Po Lung (South) ASA” in the STLMC DN project. The “Mai Po Lung (South) ASA” is located partially within the at-grade Project area of NOL. The assessment of the archaeological potential of San Tin by the STLMC DN project is presented in Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/631 to M60/636.

13.6.2.24 The evaluation of archaeological potential by STLMC DN project has provided further insight in understanding the archaeological potential of SAT Station and San Tin Ancillary Building, Ka Lung Road Ancillary Building and Kwu Tung Road Ancillary Building. The south of SAT Station, where archaeological fieldworks were not conducted due to access issue, was assessed to be of low archaeological potential. Ka Lung Road Ancillary Building and Kwu Tung Road Ancillary Building were also assessed to be of low archaeological potential.

13.6.2.25 San Tin was a coastal environmental in prehistoric period and the existing low-lying inland areas would be below sea level. Furthermore, the formation of a lagoon from after the prehistoric period to approximately 1,000BP was supported by the high underground water table. This is also observed in the fieldworks of NOL (Test Pit Records for SAT-TP1, SAT-TP3, SAT-TP4, SAT-TP5, SAT-TP6, SAT-TP8 and SAT-TP9 in Annex B, Appendix 13.3). Colluvial soil beneath the topsoil noted from the NOL excavation suggested that the lagoon was later converted into land, become suitable to human agricultural activities.

13.6.3 Application of Archaeological Predictive Modelling for Archaeological Potential Assessment in Unsurveyed Area or Area Where Archaeological Potential Unconfirmed

13.6.3.1 The desktop study and archaeological fieldwork alone cannot establish a conclusive result due to accessibility issue, and the licensed archaeologist makes an environmental judgement as stated in Section 13.6.2.12. For further enhancement of the archaeological review and identification of suitable landscape, Geographical Information System (GIS) supporting tools in the form of predictive modelling was adopted. This predictive modelling would help the licensed archaeologist to carry out a more comprehensive environmental analysis on the potential landscape where might had past human activities within the assessment area that have not been surveyed or archaeological potential remained unconfirmed.

13.6.3.2 The archaeological predictive modelling, i.e. Maximum Entropy Modelling (MaxEnt), was utilised to predict archaeological potential via analysing the relationship between the location of known archaeological sites and their environmental variables. Two prediction models, one for prehistoric period and one for historical period, were established. Please refer to Annex C of Appendix 13.3 which details the methodology and result of the archaeological prediction model. Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/640 to M60/649 present the result of the archaeological prediction model for prehistoric period of the not survey area or areas where archaeological potential have not confirmed within the latest Project area and assessment area adopted of this report, while Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/655 to M60/664 present the result of the archaeological prediction model for historical period of the not survey area or areas where archaeological potential have not confirmed within the latest Project area and assessment area adopted of this report.

13.6.4 Evaluation of Archaeological Potential

13.6.4.1 The archaeological prediction model results were combined with the desktop review, past archaeological surveys, archaeological investigation results conducted during this EIA study and modern disturbance, the archaeological potential areas of various areas within the 500m assessment area were evaluated. Based on the evaluation, the archaeological potential of the assessment area has been identified and grouped into the following categories:

· No Archaeological Potential Area – Where archaeological remains are unlikely to exist, including areas of former coast that is unsuitable for human settlement due to previously submerged underwater, disturbed/developed areas where archaeological deposits if any have been destroyed; and/or where has been confirmed to have no archaeological potential by previous archaeological investigation/survey and/or the archaeological survey under this Project.

· Low Archaeological Potential Area – Where archaeological remains may once have existed, but where the survival of such remains would have been significantly affected by past and/or present disturbance/development (e.g. grave areas); and/or where low-lying lands with ancient sandbar character but subject to inundation; and/or where has been confirmed to have low archaeological potential by previous archaeological investigation/survey and/or the archaeological survey under this Project.

· Moderate Archaeological Potential Area – Where geographical and geological features are likely to have been conducive to past human settlement and/or indicate that archaeological remains may survive, but where detailed investigation/survey is lacking and where has been low or moderate impact from past or present disturbance/development; and/or where has been confirmed to have moderate archaeological potential by previous archaeological investigation/survey and/or the archaeological survey under this Project.

· High Archaeological Potential Area – Where archaeological sites, finds spots, and/or standing structures are known^{^[138]}; and/or where geographical and/or geological factors are likely to have been conducive to past human settlement with no or low impact from past or present disturbance/development; areas inside the Sites of Archaeological Interest^{^[139]} identified by the AMO; and/or where has been confirmed to have high archaeological potential by previous archaeological investigation/survey and/or the archaeological survey under this Project.

13.6.4.2 Details of the discussion on the archaeological potential are presented in the sections below. Archaeological potential derived from desktop study and fieldwork results, are presented in Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/600-613 and Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/625-638 respectively. An overview of the archaeological potential within the 500m assessment area based on the desktop study, fieldwork results and archaeological prediction model results is presented in Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/670-683.

13.6.4.3 To facilitate the discussion in the next sections on impact assessment and mitigation measures, a specific term “Archaeological Sensitive Area (ASA)” is adopted to refer to the area having moderate or high archaeological potential within the at-grade Project works sites and works areas that require to be further surveyed/studied.

No Archaeological Potential Area

Confirmed in Archaeological Survey for this Project

13.6.4.4 The archaeological survey conducted for this Project has found site formation works had been conducted in the Long Ha Tsuen Survey Area. It had been transformed into a camping site. The topsoil was found to be fresh fill soil with no archaeological materials remained. Therefore, Long Ha Tsuen Survey Area is concluded to have no archaeological potential.

Former Offshore Area

13.6.4.5 The former offshore area before modern development is established based on the geological deposits in the area. Area with superficial deposits of marine mud or marine sand indicates it was previously submerged under water. Due to its unsuitability for human settlement, area beyond the former coastline (i.e. the sea) would have no archaeological potential.

Disturbed/Developed Area

13.6.4.6 Based on desktop study, it is noted that the assessment area has experienced heavy modern disturbance, such as infrastructure and property development, cut slopes and fishponds. As the site formation and construction works of these modern developments would involve soil disturbance, archaeological deposits, if any, would have been destroyed. Therefore, the developed/ disturbed area would have no archaeological potential.

Low Archaeological Potential Area

Confirmed in Archaeological Survey for this Project

13.6.4.7 The archaeological survey conducted in San Tin Survey Area and Ngau Tam Mei Survey Area reflects there was no human settlement in or near the surveyed area in SAT Survey Area and NTM Survey Area before modern times. The fieldworks also revealed these areas have a high underground water table. The northern San Tin Survey Area and northern Ngau Tam Mei Survey Area are concluded to have low archaeological potential.

Confirmed in Previous Archaeological Surveys and Archaeological Survey for this Project

13.6.4.8 The NENT NDA Study has assessed the Kwu Tung Road Ancillary Building, majority of the Pak Shek Au Ancillary Building and KTU(NOL) Station to be of low archaeological potential based on past fieldworks, fieldworks conducted for the NENT NDA Study and the topographical and geological features of its cultural heritage assessment area.

13.6.4.9 A portion of the Pak Shek Au Ancillary Building was assessed to be of moderate archaeological potential in the NENT NDA Study with no survey conducted. Field scanning conducted in Pak Shek Au Survey Area for this Project have found no archaeological materials. The area has been disturbed due to the construction of factories and open storages. Therefore, the Pak Shek Au Survey Area is confirmed to be of low archaeological potential.

Confirmed in Other Recent Project

13.6.4.10 The STLMC DN project has assessed the Ka Lung Road Ancillary Building and SAT Station and San Tin Ancillary Building to be of low archaeological potential based on their archaeological survey results, interpretation by their licensed archaeologist and archaeological prediction model results adopted in their project. Their result also in line with the archaeological survey conducted in this Project where the northern SAT Station and San Tin Ancillary Building was confirmed to be of low archaeological potential.

Archaeological Prediction Model Results

13.6.4.11 The archaeological prediction models have assessed the likelihood of archaeological deposits for areas that have not been surveyed, as well as areas where archaeological potential remained unconfirmed within the assessment area (Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/640-649 and Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/655-664 refer). Areas with higher probabilities have values closer to 1, while areas with lower probabilities have values closer to 0. Areas with likelihoods below 0.7 consist of many low-lying agricultural lands and fishponds connected by rivers and streams. The continuous agricultural activities that took place, coupled with persistent high water level, suggested that the surface soil of the low-lying agricultural fields had underwent significant disturbance, rendering these areas inhospitable for lasting human habitation. Hilly landscape with steep slopes were also predicted to have likelihoods below 0.7. The rough terrain was not suitable for human settlements. This resounding absence of any evidences reinforces the notion that sustained settlement was impractical in these low-lying agricultural lands or hilly landscape in both historical and prehistoric period. Consequently, it can be concluded that these areas hold low archaeological potential and were unsuitable for past human habitation.

Moderate Archaeological Potential

Shek Wu Wai Area, San Tin Region

· Confirmed in Other Recent Project

13.6.4.12 Locating to the north of the existing Shek Wu Wai village and next to San Tin Highway, Shek Wu Wai Area was assessed to have moderate archaeological potential in historical period (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/679 refers). It is situated on river terraces that would have favoured human settlement in the historical period. The elevation ranges from +4mPD to +8mPD approximately and slopes range from 1° to 9° approximately. It sits on the colluvial deposits and is in close proximity to alluvial deposits (within 40 meters).

13.6.4.13 The natural terrain to the north of Shek Wu Wai village had discovered surface findings with blue and white porcelain sherds. Such archaeological finds were considered to be secondary deposits as refuse by the past humans in Shek Wu Wai. The area was thus considered to have moderate archaeological potential^{^[140]}. Shek Wu Wai Area is located outside the at-grade Project area but within the assessment area of this Project.

Mai Po Lung (South) Area, San Tin Region

· Confirmed in Other Recent Project

13.6.4.14 Mai Po Lung Area was assessed to have moderate archaeological potential in prehistoric period due to its landscape which would have favoured human settlements (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/679 refers). The area is located on a low-lying coastal plain with characteristics that would have favoured human settlements. The elevation ranges from +4mPD to +31mPD (mean = +11mPD) and slopes range from 2° to 20° (mean = 7°) approximately. It is located close to the coast, between 228m and 560m approximately. Separated by San Tin Highway, Mai Po Lung Area was divided into Mai Po Lung (North) Area and Mai Po Lung (South) Area in the assessment.

13.6.4.15 Mai Po Lung (North) Area was assessed to have high archaeological potential in prehistoric period. Considering the Mai Po Lung (South) Area might experience more disturbance from road construction and village development, it was considered to have moderate archaeological potential ^{^[141]}.

13.6.4.16 Mai Po Lung (South) Area is located partially within the at-grade Project area. The overlapped portion between the Mai Po Lung (South) Area and the at-grade Project area is thus constituted to the Mai Po Lung (South) Archaeologically Sensitive Area (ASA) in this Project (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/688 refers).

High Archaeological Potential

Yuen Long East Area, Kam Tin Region

· Archaeological Prediction Model Results

13.6.4.17 Yuen Long East Area was predicted to have high archaeological potential from prehistoric period by the archaeological prediction model (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/673 refers). The area has a coastal landscape that would have favoured prehistoric human settlements. The area has an elevation of +6 to +34mPD (mean = +13mPD), and on gradient 0° to 19° (mean = 6°) approximately. It is located at the mouth of a river valley plain leading towards the Deep Bay. The location is sitting at past shoreline in front of hillslope facing northeast, within 300m approximately from former shoreline. The coastal settings are similar to the SAIs in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long, i.e., Mong Tseng SAI and Ngau Hom Shek SAI. The model suggests that area with a probability over 0.7 would have a higher likelihood of containing archaeological deposits from prehistoric period.

13.6.4.18 However, Yuen Long East Area has experienced heavy modern disturbance from multiple road construction in the late 20^th century. Only small portions of the Yuen Long East Area remain to potentially have archaeological potential. It is outside the at-grade Project area but within the assessment area of this Project.

Kam Tin South Area, Kam Tin Region

· Archaeological Prediction Model Results

13.6.4.19 The area is located on a river terrace in the middle of the river valley plain (Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/671 to M60/672 refer). It has an elevation between +8 to +16mPD (mean = +12mPD) with gradient between 3° and 145° (mean = 1°) approximately. The area is mainly sitting on alluvial deposits (Qa) and Pleistocene alluvial deposits (Qpa). Shui Lau Tin SAI with known archaeological potential in historical period has a similar environmental setting, which is sitting on a river terrace within a large valley. The traditional village, Tin Sam San Tsuen, has known historical potential and the village extent is used as presence data for the historical model. The model suggests that area with a probability over 0.7 would have a higher likelihood of containing archaeological deposits from historical period. This area is outside the at-grade Project area but within the assessment area of this Project.

Kam Tin Area, Kam Tin Region

· Archaeological Prediction Model Results

13.6.4.20 The area is located on a river terrace within the large river plain in Kam Tin (Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/672 to M60/673 refer). However, it is not close to hillslopes, instead it is sitting on a low-lying flat land. It has an elevation of +2 to +12mPD (mean = +7mPD) and gradient of 0° to 9° (mean = 1°) approximately. The area is in close proximity to the rivers within the valley, its distance to the alluvial (Qa) deposits is 0 to 192m (mean = 41m) approximately. The river terrace settings are favourable to historical human settlement. The model suggests that area with a probability over 0.7 would have a higher likelihood of containing archaeological deposits from historical period.

13.6.4.21 Traditional settlement such as Kat Hing Wai and surrounding villages, Shui Tau Tsuen and Shui Mei Tsuen are the evidence of archaeological potential in the historical period to the area. Kat Hing Wai was established in the Chenghua reign during the Ming dynasty by the Tangs in Kam Tin. The traditional villages were used as presence data for the historical model. Furthermore, the east of the area encroached on the Yuen Shan SAI which has found artefacts dated to the Western Han, Song and Mong dynasty. The SAI has known archaeological potential. This area is outside the at-grade Project area but within the assessment area of this Project.

Ko Po Tsuen Area, Kam Tin Region

· Archaeological Prediction Model Results

13.6.4.22 The area is located at the mouth of a large river valley plain in Kam Tin (Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/672 to M60/673 refer). It is sitting on a gentle hillslope with an elevation of +6 to +15mPD (mean = +8mPD) and gradient of 0° to 12° (mean = 3°) approximately. The superficial geological deposits of the area are alluvium (Qa), Pleistocene alluvium (Qpa) and Pleistocene colluvium (Qpd). Such features had the environmental settings of a river terraces which favours historical settlement.

13.6.4.23 Furthermore, Ko Po Tsuen is a traditional village, although established date unknown, its record can be dated back to the Qing dynasty from Xin’an Gazette. The village has known historical potential and the village extent is used as presence data for the historical model. This area is outside the at-grade Project area but within the assessment area of this Project.

Fung Kat Heung Area, Au Tau Region

· Archaeological Prediction Model Results

13.6.4.24 The area is sitting at the mouth of the large river valley plain in Kam Tin (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/674 refers). It has a river terrace landscape with a hillslope to the northeast. The superficial deposits are mainly alluvium (Qa), Pleistocene alluvium (Qpa) and Pleistocene colluvium (Qpd). The elevation is between +4 to +12mPD (mean = +7mPD) with gradient between 0° and 6° (mean = 2°) approximately. The location probably has an estuary landscape since it is close to a river valley in Kam Tin and to the shallow sea of Deep Bay to the west. The landscape settings are favourable to human settlement in the historical period. The model suggests that area with a probability over 0.7 would have a higher likelihood of containing archaeological deposits from historical period.

13.6.4.25 Furthermore, Sha Po Tsuen is a traditional village over a history of over 300 years. The village has known historical potential and the village extent is used as presence data for the historical model. This area is outside the at-grade Project area but within the assessment area of this Project.

Pok Wai Tsuen Area, Ngau Tam Mei Region

· Traditional Village

13.6.4.26 The area has a coastal setting close to the shallow sea of Deep Bay to the west (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/675 refers). It is located on a hillslope with superficial geology of Pleistocene colluvium (Qpd). The area has an elevation between +4 and +6mPD (mean = +4mPD) and gradient below 5° approximately.

13.6.4.27 Pok Wai was a traditional village probably dated to a century ago (19^th century), the village has known archaeological potential in the historical period, and it is used as presence data to the historical prediction model. This area is outside the at-grade Project area but within the assessment area of this Project.

Chuk Yuen Tsuen Area, Ngau Tam Mei Region

13.6.4.28 The area was assessed to have high archaeological potential from historical period (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/676 refers). Chuk Yuen Tsuen is a traditional village established about 300 years ago (in 17^th century), human activities and settlement during historical period was normal. This area is outside the at-grade Project area but partially within the assessment area of this Project.

Long Ha Area, Ngau Tam Mei Region

· Interpretation by Licensed Archaeologist

13.6.4.29 The licensed archaeologist had assessed the surrounding landscape of Pok Wai Survey Area and opined the flat lower hillslopes to the south of Pok Wai Survey Area would have high archaeological potential in prehistoric period. The lower hillslopes, currently used as burial grounds, are west-oriented and have a gentle gradient. It is also located in close proximity to the former coastline. It is located outside the at-grade Project area while within the assessment area.

· Archaeological Prediction Model Results

13.6.4.30 Similar to Yuen Long East Area, the area has a coastal landscape favouring prehistoric human settlements (Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/674 to M60/676 refer). The area has an elevation of +3 to +67mPD (mean = +14mPD) and gradient of 0° to 31° (mean = 5°) approximately. The area is sitting between the mouth of two river valleys, Ngau Tam Mei and Kam Tin. It is located immediately in front and on top of the hillslope of Kai Kung Leng facing westward. The area is very close to the former coastline, within 500m. Such coastal settings are similar to the westward facing SAIs in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long, e.g., Ngau Hom Shek. The archaeological potential of the area interpreted by the licensed archaeologist is high, which aligns with the finding (i.e. high likelihood of archaeological deposits) of the model.

13.6.4.31 The model suggests that area with a probability over 0.7 would have a higher likelihood of containing archaeological deposits from prehistoric period. This area partially overlaps with the at-grade Project area of AUT Station. The overlapped portion is thus constituted to the Long Ha ASA (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/686 refers).

Ngau Tam Mei Area, Ngau Tam Mei Region

· Archaeological Prediction Model Results

13.6.4.32 Ngau Tam Mei Area was predicted to have high likelihood of archaeological deposits from prehistoric period (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/676 refers). The area is sitting on the foot of a small mound within the river valley within Ngau Tam Mei. The area has an elevation of +8 to +13mPD (mean = +14mPD) and a gradient of 0° to 8° (mean = 4°) approximately. It has an environmental settings of river terraces near hillslope that the geology of the area is mainly Qa, Qpa and Qpd, alluvial and colluvial deposits. The area has a similar environmental setting like Tsat Sing Kong SAI which is also sitting on a river terrace in front of hillslope. Proposed works of railway facilities, including NTM Station and NTD, would encroach on the area predicted to have high likelihood of archaeological deposits from prehistoric period in the archaeological prediction model.

13.6.4.33 It was also predicted to have high likelihood of archaeological deposits from historical period (Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/675 to M60/677 refer). The area is located at the mouth of the narrow river valley in Ngau Tam Mei, while facing the shallow sea of Deep Bay to the west. The area has elevation between +2 to +24mPD (mean = 8mPD) and gradient between 0° and 18° (mean = 2°) approximately. The area is sitting on a hillslope of Kai Kung Leng to the south. The river terrace and coastal landscape is favourable to human settlement in the historical period. Wai Tsai Tsuen and Chuk Yuen Tsuen are examples of historical settlements near the coast of Deep Bay. These villages can be dated to as early as the Qing dynasty, in which the villages have archaeological potential. The two villages are used as presence data for the historical prediction model. The model suggests that area with a probability over 0.7 would have a higher likelihood of containing archaeological deposits from historical period. Part of the proposed works of railway facilities, including NTM Station and NTD, would encroach on the area predicted to have high likelihood of archaeological deposits from historical period in the archaeological prediction model.

13.6.4.34 The overlapped portion between the predicted high archaeological areas and the at-grade Project area is thus constituted to the Ngau Tam Mei ASA (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/687 refers).

Ngau Tam Mei (North) Area, Ngau Tam Mei Region

· Confirmed in Other Recent Project

13.6.4.35 Ngau Tam Mei (North) Area was assessed to have high archaeological potential in prehistoric period (Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/676 to M60/677 refer). The area is located on a southern hillslope of Ngau Tam Shan within the Ngau Tam Mei river valley. Its geology mainly comprises of colluvial deposits (Qpd) with some alluvial deposits (Qa and Qpa) in the south. It is located on a higher elevation between +14mPD and +28mPD approximately and on steeper slopes between 2° and 15° approximately. It is located outside the at-grade Project area and partially within the assessment area.

Siu Hom Tsuen Area, San Tin Region

· Confirmed in Other Recent Project

13.6.4.36 Siu Hom Tsuen Area were assessed to have high archaeological potential in prehistoric period (Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/677 to M60/678 refer). It has a river terrace landscape on gentle hill slopes that would have favoured settlement during the prehistoric period. It is also comparable to other SAIs with known archaeological potential. Similar landscape can be found in SAI of prehistoric period, such as Po Leng SAI and Sheung Shui Wa Shan SAI, which are also located on river terrace at the foot of hills. It is located on a higher elevation between +2mPD and +48mPD (mean = +25mPD) and on steeper slopes between 1° and 18° (mean = 8°) approximately. It is also further away from the coast, over 1,000m to 2,000m away. Meanwhile, the geology of the area is mainly alluvial and colluvial deposits (Qa, Qpa and Qpd), features typical of river terrace. These areas have landscape setting similar to the Po Leng SAI to the east (outside the assessment area), where prehistoric findings have been found. This area is outside the at-grade Project area but partially within the assessment area of this Project.

Hop Shing Wai Area, San Tin Region

· Confirmed in Other Recent Project

13.6.4.37 Hop Shing Wai Area was assessed to have high archaeological potential in prehistoric and historical periods (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/679 refers). The area has a coastal landscape that would have supported prehistoric and historical human settlements. The land sits at an elevation approximately between +4mPD and +43mPD (mean = +9mPD) with slopes generally lower than 10°. The area is close to the coast, between 30m and 295m approximately. It is located in close vicinity to other known historical settlement such as the village cluster at San Tin and Mai Po Lo Wai. It is also similar to known prehistoric coastal setting in the southwestern coast of Deep Bay in Tuen Mun. It is believed to be located on a sandbar in ancient landscape which is considered to have high likelihood of archaeological remains in prehistoric and historical periods. This area is outside the at-grade Project area but partially within the assessment area of this Project.

Mai Po Area, San Tin Region

· Confirmed in Other Recent Project

13.6.4.38 Mai Po Area was assessed to have high archaeological potential in prehistoric and historical periods (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/679 refers). The land sits at an elevation approximately between +4mPD and +32mPD (mean = +12mPD) with a slope generally lower than 10°. The area is close to the coast, between 85m and 633m approximately. It faces west towards the Shenzhen River and Deep Bay. Such coastal setting has been known to have supported historical settlement such as the village cluster at San Tin and the Mai Po Lo Wai, as well as prehistoric sites on the coast of Deep Bay in Tuen Mun. The area is also near to the Mai Po SAI, which has known archaeological potential. It is believed to be located on a sandbar in ancient landscape which is considered to have high likelihood of archaeological remains in prehistoric and historical periods. This area is outside the at-grade Project area but partially within the assessment area of this Project.

Mai Po Lung (North) Area, San Tin Region

· Confirmed in Other Recent Project

13.6.4.39 As discussed in Section 13.6.4.14 and 13.6.4.15, Mai Po Lung (North) Area was assessed to be of high archaeological potential in prehistoric period (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/679 refers). This area is outside the at-grade Project area but within the assessment area of this Project.

San Tin Area, San Tin Region

· Confirmed in Other Recent Project

13.6.4.40 San Tin Area was assessed to have high archaeological potential in prehistoric and historical periods (Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/679 to M60/681 refer). The area has known historical potential as the villages in San Tin could be dated to the early Ming dynasty. The San Tin Area is a flat coastal plan with an elevation between +2mPD and +10mPD and slopes of 0° to 4° approximately. The villages of San Tin are situated in front of a small hill facing northwest. They are close to the coast, between 90m and 446m approximately. These landscape characteristics (a low-lying, gently sloping coastal plain close to a source of fresh water) are features that would have favoured human settlements. The presence of Ming dynasty villages indicates the area has high potential to contain archaeological remains dating from this period. This area is outside the at-grade Project area but partially within the assessment area of this Project.

Shek Wu Wai Tsuen Area, San Tin Region

· Confirmed in Other Recent Project

13.6.4.41 The existing location of the village in Shek Wu Wai was assessed to have high archaeological potential from historical period (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/680 refers). Shek Wu Wai Tsuen is a traditional village established probably in the Qing dynasty, human activities and settlement during historical period was normal. This area is outside the at-grade Project area but within the assessment area of this Project.

Chau Tau Area, San Tin Region

· Confirmed in Other Recent Project

13.6.4.42 The area was assessed to have high archaeological potential from historical period (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/681 refers). Chau Tau Tsuen is a traditional village established probably in the Qing dynasty, human activities and settlement during historical period was normal. This area is outside the at-grade Project area but partially within the assessment area of this Project.

Fung Kong Hillslope Area, Fung Kong Valley Area and Sin Wai Nunnery, Ho Sheung Heung Area, Kwu Tung Region

· Confirmed in Previous Archaeological Survey

13.6.4.43 The NENT NDA Study^{^[142]} has identified three areas with archaeological potential in Hon Sheung Heung, namely Fung Kong Hillslope Area, Fung Kong Valley Area and Sin Wai Nunnery, Ho Sheung Heung Area (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/682 refers). Artefacts dating to the late Bronze Age and Iron Age, as well as in the historical periods, were discovered in the archaeological investigations conducted in 2000 and 2001 for the project. These areas are thus confirmed to have high archaeological potential. However, they have been disturbed by the small houses development and agricultural activities in the area. The archaeological significance of the potential finds was concluded as medium.

Tai Shu Ha Area, Yuen Long South Region

· Confirmed in Archaeological Prediction Model Results

13.6.4.44 The area is on hillslopes near river close to rivers south of Yuen Long (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/683 refers). It is sitting on a gentle hillslope with an elevation of +23 to +88mPD (mean: +30mPD) and gradient of 0° to 31° (mean: 12°). The superficial deposits are mainly alluvial (Qa) and Pleistocene colluvium (Qpd) on solid geology gf, gm and Cmp. Such settings are commonly found in river terrace landscape on hillslope. Similar landscape can be found in SAIs of prehistoric period, such as Po Leng SAI and Sheung Shui Wah Shan SAI, which are also located on river terraces at the foot of hills. The model suggests that area with a probability over 0.7 would have a higher likelihood of containing archaeological deposits from prehistoric period. The predicted area is located outside the at-grade Project area but within the assessment area of this Project.

Summary of Archaeological Potential within 500m Assessment Area

13.6.4.45 With consideration over previous archaeological surveys, archaeological survey results conducted for this Project, the model prediction results and model disturbance, two moderate archaeological potential areas and 21 high archaeological potential areas are identified within 500m assessment area^{^[143]}. For the remaining area, they are predicted to have low or no archaeological potential.

13.6.4.46 Among the 23 archaeological potential areas, three of them have encroached onto the at-grade Project area. The encroached areas are thus constituting to three archaeologically sensitive areas that required to be further surveyed/studied, namely Mai Po Lung (South) ASA, Long Ha ASA and Ngau Tam Mei ASA.

13.6.4.47 The archaeological potential areas are summarised in Table 13.13, with their locations presented in Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/670 to M60/683.

Table 13.13 Summary of Archaeological Potential Areas

Archaeological Potential Area	Archaeological Potential	Region		Location to At-grade Project Area
Moderate Archaeological Potential
Shek Wu Wai Area	Historical	San Tin		Outside Project Area
Rationale: Shek Wu Wai Area is located to the north of the existing Shek Wu Wai village and next to San Tin Highway. As confirmed in other recent project, it has a river terrace setting that favour human settlement. Blue and white porcelain sherds were discovered and considered to be secondary deposits as refuse by past humans in Shek Wu Wai.
Mai Po Lung (South) Area	Prehistoric	San Tin		Partially within Project Area
Rationale: As confirmed in other recent project, the coastal settings is favourable to human settlement in the prehistoric period. However, the site has likely been disturbed by modern development.
High Archaeological Potential
Yuen Long East Area	Prehistoric	Kam Tin		Outside Project Area
Rationale: The coastal settings are similar to the SAIs in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long, i.e. Mong Tseng SAI and Ngau Hom Shek SAI.
Kam Tin South Area	Historical	Kam Tin		Outside Project Area
Rationale: The river terrace settings are similar to the Shui Lau Tin SAI in Kam Tin.
Kam Tin Area	Historical	Kam Tin		Outside Project Area
Rationale: It has a river terrace setting that favour human settlement. Furthermore, traditional villages, i.e. Shui Tau Tsuen, Shui Mei Tsuen, Kat Hing Wai and its nearby villages are considered to have archaeological potential in historical period. The Yuen Shan SAI to the east of the area is also considered to have archaeological potential in historical period.
Ko Po Tsuen Area	Historical	Kam Tin		Outside Project Area
Rationale: It has a river terrace setting that favour human settlement. Furthermore, Ko Po Tsuen is a traditional village considered to have archaeological potential in historical period.
Fung Kat Heung Area	Historical	Au Tau		Outside Project Area
Rationale: The area has an estuary setting favouring human settlement. It is located in the Kam Tin river valley and close to the coast of Deep Bay to the west.
Pok Wai Tsuen Area	Historical	Ngau Tam Mei		Outside Project Area
Rationale: Pok Wai village is a traditional village considered to have archaeological potential in historical period.
Chuk Yuen Tsuen Area	Historical	Ngau Tam Mei		Outside Project Area
Rationale: Chuk Yuen village is a traditional village considered to have archaeological potential in historical period.
Long Ha Area	Prehistoric	Ngau Tam Mei		Within Project Area
Rationale: Coastal settings are similar to the westward facing SAIs in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long, e.g., Ngau Hom Shek.
Ngau Tam Mei Area	Prehistoric + Historical	Ngau Tam Mei		Within Project Area
Rationale: Similar environmental setting like Tsat Sing Kong SAI which is also sitting on a river terrace in front of hillslope
Ngau Tam Mei (North) Area	Prehistoric	Ngau Tam Mei		Outside Project Area
Rationale: As confirmed in other recent project, its environmental setting, which is sitting on river terrace in front of hillslope, is favourable to prehistoric human settlements.
Siu Hom Tsuen Area	Prehistoric	San Tin		Outside Project Area
Rationale: As confirmed in other recent project, similar landscape can be found in SAI of prehistoric period, such as Po Leng SAI and Sheung Shui Wah Shan SAI, which are also located on river terrace at the foot of hills.
Hop Shing Wai Area	Prehistoric		San Tin	Outside Project Area
Rationale: As confirmed in other recent project, the coastal settings is favourable to human settlement in the prehistoric period.
Mai Po Area	Prehistoric + Historical		San Tin	Outside Project Area
Rationale: As confirmed in other recent project, the coastal settings is favourable to human settlement in the prehistoric and historical period.
Mai Po Lung (North) Area	Prehistoric		San Tin	Outside Project Area
Rationale: As confirmed in other recent project, the coastal settings is favourable to human settlement in the prehistoric period.
San Tin Area	Prehistoric + Historical		San Tin	Outside Project Area
Rationale: As confirmed in other recent project, the coastal settings is favourable to human settlement in the prehistoric and historical period. The traditional villages in San Tin, are considered to have archaeological potential in historical period.
Shek Wu Wai Tsuen Area	Historical		San Tin	Outside Project Area
Rationale: Shek Wu Wai Tsuen Area is the existing location of Shek Wu Wai village. As confirmed in other recent project, Shek Wu Wai village is a traditional village considered to have archaeological potential in historical period.
Chau Tau Area	Historical		San Tin	Outside Project Area
Rationale: As confirmed in other recent project, it is located near coastal area in front of a gentle hill slope which is favoured by human settlement.
Fung Kong Hillslope Area	Prehistoric + Historical		Kwu Tung	Outside Project Area
Rationale: Artefacts dating to prehistoric period and historical periods were discovered in previous archaeological surveys for the NENT NDA study.
Fung Kong Valley Area	Prehistoric + Historical	Kwu Tung		Outside Project Area
Rationale: Artefacts dating to prehistoric period and historical periods were discovered in previous archaeological surveys for the NENT NDA study.
Sin Wai Nunnery, Ho Sheung Heung Area	Prehistoric + Historical	Kwu Tung		Outside Project Area
Rationale: Artefacts dating to prehistoric period and historical periods were discovered in previous archaeological surveys for the NENT NDA study.
Tai Shu Ha Area	Prehistoric	Yuen Long South		Outside Project Area
Rationale: It is located on river terraces and hillslopes near rivers which is favoured by human settlement.

13.6.5 Identification of Impacts

13.6.5.1 Identification of the impacts to archaeology will be discussed in relation to the Project area where construction works involving soil disturbance will occur during the construction phase (such as site formation and piling works).

13.6.5.2 The potential direct and indirect impacts are classified into the ﬁve levels of signiﬁcance:

a) Beneﬁcial impact: if the Project will enhance the preservation of the heritage site(s);

b) Acceptable impact: if the assessment indicates that there will be no signiﬁcant effects on the heritage site(s);

d) Unacceptable impact: if the adverse effects are considered to be excessive and are unable to mitigate practically; and

e) Undetermined impact: if the signiﬁcant adverse effects are likely, but the extent to which they may occur or may be mitigated cannot be determined from the Archaeological Impact Assessment. Further detailed study will be required for the specific effects in question.

Construction Phase: Acceptable Impact with Mitigation Measures

Archaeologically Sensitive Areas with High Archaeological Potential

13.6.5.3 Two archaeologically sensitive areas with high archaeological potential, namely Long Ha ASA and Ngau Tam Mei ASA, are located in the at-grade Project area. Long Ha ASA encroaches on the north of AUT Station. Ngau Tam Mei ASA encroaches on the at-grade works sites and works areas of NTM Station and NTD. Direct impact to the archaeological deposits (if any) would be anticipated should works involve soil disturbance occurred (such as site formation) during the construction phase.

Archaeologically Sensitive Areas with Moderate Archaeological Potential

13.6.5.4 As assessed in other recent project, Mai Po Lung (South) ASA was considered to have moderate archaeological potential, taking its environmental settings which were favourable to prehistoric settlements and modern disturbance into account. It is located within the at-grade Project works sites/areas to the northwest of SAT Station. Direct impact to archaeology is anticipated for this area.

Construction Phase: Acceptable Impact

13.6.5.5 In the archaeological field survey conducted under this study, no archaeological material was discovered at the Pok Wai Survey Area, north of Ngau Tam Mei Survey Area, north of San Tin Survey Area and Pak Shek Au Survey Area. Therefore, it was concluded that Pok Wai Ancillary Building, north of NTM Station, north of SAT Station and San Tin Ancillary Building and Pak Shek Au Ancillary Building have low archaeological potential (Appendix 13.3 refers).

13.6.5.6 The south of AUT Station, south of SAT Station, Ka Lung Road Ancillary Building, Kwu Tung Road Ancillary Building and KTU Station to be of low archaeological potential in previous archaeological assessments, including the Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Stage 1 Packages 1A-1T and 1B-1T - Kam Tin Trunk Sewerage Phase I and II, NENT NDA Study and STLMC DN project (Table 13.2 and Section 13.6.2.21 to 13.6.2.25 refer).

13.6.5.7 Direct impacts to the potential archaeological remains (if any) are anticipated due to the proposed construction works to be carried out in the at-grade Project area. However, as the archaeological potential of these Project area is low, the impact to archaeology by the Project is considered acceptable.

Construction Phase: No Impact

13.6.5.8 For KSR(NOL) Station, Shui Mei Road Ancillary Building, Long Ha Tsuen Ancillary Building and Temporary Magazine Site at Tai Shu Ha, these sites have been disturbed heavily due to modern development (such as large-scale infrastructure works and construction of roads and ponds), and have no archaeological potential, thus no impact on archaeology for these at-grade works sites/ works areas is anticipated.

13.6.5.9 The underground tunnels between stations and ancillary buildings would be constructed using tunnel boring machine (TBM) / drill-and-blast method. The gradual cutting in a controlled manner during the operation of TBMs would minimise any sudden and disruptive vibration. Before carrying out the blasting which is under the control of the Dangerous Goods Ordinance, the contractor shall obtain a blasting permit from the Mines Division of CEDD, with the support of a method statement including manner of working and protective measures to protect adjacent land and property during blasting. In addition to the considerable separation distance between the ground and the tunnels, the settlement to the ground above arising from these tunnelling methods would be controlled and would not cause significant settlement to the ground above, and there would be no disturbance to the superficial deposit that may, or may not, contains archaeological deposits. Therefore, the underground tunnelling works would have no impact on archaeology.

13.6.5.10 For other archaeological potential areas located outside the at-grade Project area, since construction works will not exceed the Project boundary, no impact to archaeology is anticipated.

Operational Phase

13.6.5.11 No impact on archaeology is anticipated during operational phase as any archaeological deposits would have been mitigated prior or during the construction phase.

13.6.6 Mitigation Measures

Pre-construction Phase: Survey-cum-Excavation

13.6.6.1 Long Ha ASA and Ngau Tam Mei ASA are located in the north of AUT Station, south of NTM Station and NTD. As these ASAs were generally not accessible during the archaeological fieldworks and had not been archaeologically surveyed before, leading to a lack of archaeological fieldwork data. Considering their high archaeological potential and potential direct impact to archaeology, archaeological survey-cum-excavation is recommended to obtain adequate archaeological information of the inaccessible areas for fully assessment of the archaeological potential, and fully retrieve the archaeological data, if any, before commencement of site formation and construction works, subject to future land resumption status and discussion with AMO in later stage.

13.6.6.2 In principle, archaeological survey should be conducted with an aim to locate the precise horizontal extent and nature of the archaeological deposits (Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/691 and M60/692 refer). Should key archaeological findings occurred, excavation works should be applied to retrieve archaeological data completely before the commencement of site formation and construction works.

13.6.6.3 In particular, it was revealed on site that NTM-TP3, located within the Ngau Tam Mei Area, was covered by a thick layer of fill soil that could not yield adequate archaeological information. Further archaeological investigation on this spot after land resumption should be carried out to remove the fill soil and reveal the pre-filled natural soil in order to retrieve adequate archaeological information.

13.6.6.4 The survey-cum-excavation should be conducted by an archaeologist who should have obtained a Licence to Excavate and Search for Antiquities from the Antiquities Authority prior to the commencement of the fieldworks. The scope, methodology and programme of the survey-cum-excavation should be agreed with AMO. Should archaeological deposits discovered in the archaeological fieldworks, mitigation measures should be proposed and agreed with AMO.

Pre-Construction Phase: Archaeological Survey

13.6.6.5 Due to land accessibility issue during the course of archaeological fieldworks conducted for this Project (Section 13.6.2.3 refers), fieldworks were not able to cover the south of San Tin Survey Area where permission was not granted by owners. Although other recent project had projected the SAT Station to be of low archaeological potential, for the sake of satisfying licence requirements and provide a more comprehensive analysis on the archaeological potential within the Licence Area, future archaeological survey is recommended on the south of SAT Station where archaeological fieldworks were not available at this stage (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/693 refers) after land resumption and before commencement of site formation and construction works. The extent and objective of the survey would be subject to future land resumption status, and discussion with AMO in later stage.

13.6.6.6 The survey should be conducted by an archaeologist who should obtain a Licence to Excavate and Search for Antiquities from the Antiquities Authority prior to the commencement of the fieldworks. The scope, methodology and programme of the survey should be agreed with AMO. Should archaeological deposits discovered in the archaeological fieldworks, mitigation measures should be proposed and agreed with AMO.

Construction Phase: Archaeological Watching Brief

13.6.6.7 Archaeological watching brief is recommended to be carried out by an archaeologist for Mai Po Lung (South) ASA at the northwest of SAT Station during the course of excavation works (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/693 refers). The Mai Po Lung (South) ASA have experience modern disturbance, the archaeological deposits (if any) in this area might have been disturbed. Furthermore, the jar of coins dated to the Song dynasty reported in 2003 did not inform any archaeological information. This shed uncertainty to the nature of archaeological findings in Mai Po Lung (South) ASA. Nevertheless, to ensure protection to the archaeological information, an Archaeological Watching Brief is thus recommended to be carried out in Mai Po Lung (South) ASA should works involve soil disturbance occurred (such as site formation) during the course of excavation works.

13.6.6.8 The objective of the archaeological watching brief is to ensure the protection and preservation of any potential archaeological deposits, particularly those from Song and Ming-Qing dynasties, that may exist within the Mai Po Lung (South) ASA. The project proponent should employ an archaeologist who must obtain a Licence to Excavate and Search for Antiquities from the Antiquities Authority prior the commencement of the fieldworks. The scope, methodology and programme of the archaeological works shall be agreed with AMO.

Construction Phase: No Mitigation Measure Required

13.6.6.9 The south of AUT Station, Pok Wai Ancillary Building, north of SAT Station and San Tin Ancillary Building, Ka Lung Road Ancillary Building, Kwu Tung Road Ancillary Building, Pak Shek Au Ancillary Building and KTU Station are considered to have low archaeological potential, the direct impact to archaeology is considered acceptable. Hence, no mitigation measure is required.

13.6.6.10 KSR(NOL) Station, Shui Mei Road Ancillary Building, Long Ha Tsuen Ancillary Building and Temporary Magazine Site at Tai Shu Ha are considered to have no archaeological potential. No impact to archaeological is anticipated, no mitigation measure is required.

13.6.6.11 No impact on archaeology is anticipated due to the underground tunnelling works using TBM (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/670 refers). No mitigation measure is required.

13.6.6.12 As no construction works would be carried out outside the at-grade Project area, no impact is anticipated on other archaeological potential areas located outside the at-grade Project area. No mitigation measure is required.

Construction Phase

13.6.6.13 If antiquities or supposed antiquities under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) are discovered during the construction phase, the project proponent is required to inform AMO immediately for discussion of appropriate mitigation measures to be agreed by AMO before implementation by the project proponent to the satisfaction of AMO.

Operational Phase

13.6.6.14 As no impact is anticipated during operational phase, no mitigation measure is required.

13.6.6.15 A summary of the impact assessment and proposed mitigation measures is presented in Table 13.14. The indicative extent for the implementation of mitigation measures is presented in Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/690 to M60/693, subject to future land resumption status and discussion with AMO.

Region	Areas	Impact Assessment	Mitigation Measures
Acceptable Impact with Mitigation Measures
AUT	North of AUT Station	Long Ha ASA overlaps with the north of AUT Station. Ngau Tam Mei ASA overlaps with the at-grade works sites and works areas of NTM Station and NTD. Direct impact to the archaeological deposits (if any) would be anticipated should works involve soil disturbance occurred (such as site formation) during the construction phase.	Long Ha ASA is located in the north of AUT Station, while Ngau Tam Mei ASA is located in the south of NTM Station and NTD. As these ASAs were generally not accessible during the archaeological fieldworks and had not been archaeologically surveyed before, leading to a lack of archaeological fieldwork data. Considering the high archaeological potential and potential direct impact to archaeology, survey-cum-excavation is recommended to obtain adequate archaeological information of the inaccessible areas for fully assessment of the archaeological potential, and fully retrieve the archaeological data, if any, before commencement of site formation and construction works, subject to future land resumption status and discussion with AMO in later stage. In principle, archaeological survey should be conducted with an aim to locate the precise horizontal extent and nature of the archaeological deposits, if any. Should key archaeological findings occurred, excavation works should be applied to retrieve archaeological data completely before the commencement of site formation and construction works. Further archaeological investigation shall be carried out at the NTM-TP3 location which requires removal of the top fill soil and reveal the pre-filled natural soil in order to yield adequate archaeological information. The survey-cum-excavation should be conducted by an archaeologist who should have obtained a Licence to Excavate and Search for Antiquities from the Antiquities Authority prior to the commencement of the fieldworks. The scope, methodology and programme of the survey-cum-excavation should be agreed with AMO. Should archaeological deposits discovered in the archaeological fieldworks, mitigation measures should be proposed and agreed with AMO. No mitigation measure is required during operational phase.
NTM	South of NTM Station and NTD
SAT	Northwest of SAT Station	Mai Po Lung (South) ASA overlaps with the at-grade Project works site and works area to the northwest of SAT Station. Mai Po Lung (South) ASA was assessed to have moderate archaeological potential in other recent project. Direct impact to archaeology is anticipated for this area.	Archaeological Watching Brief is recommended to be carried out on the Mai Po Lung (South) ASA. The project proponent or future subsequent developer(s) should employ an archaeologist who must obtain a Licence to Excavate and Search for Antiquities from the Antiquities Authority prior the commencement of the fieldworks. The scope, methodology and programme of the archaeological works shall be agreed with AMO. An archaeologist should obtain a Licence to Excavate and Search for Antiquities from the Antiquities Authority prior the commencement of the fieldworks. The scope, methodology and programme of the archaeological works should be agreed with AMO. No mitigation measure is required during operational phase.
Acceptable Impact
SAT	South of SAT Station	The archaeological potential is low. Direct impact to the potential archaeological remains (if any) is anticipated due to the construction works to be carried out in the at-grade Project area. The impact is considered acceptable due to low archaeological potential.	For the sake of satisfying licence requirements and provide a more comprehensive analysis on the archaeological potential within the Licence Area, future archaeological survey is recommended on the south of SAT Station where archaeological fieldworks were not available at this stage (Figure No. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/693 refers) after land resumption and before commencement of construction works. The archaeological survey should be conducted by an archaeologist after land resumption and before commencement of construction works. The archaeologist should have obtained a Licence to Excavate and Search for Antiquities from the Antiquities Authority prior to the commencement of the fieldworks. The scope, methodology and programme of the survey should be agreed with AMO. Should archaeological deposits discovered in the archaeological fieldworks, mitigation measures should be proposed and agreed with AMO. No mitigation measure is required during operational phase.
AUT	South of AUT Station	The archaeological potential is low. Direct impact to the potential archaeological remains (if any) is anticipated due to the construction works to be carried out in the at-grade Project area. The impact is considered acceptable due to low archaeological potential.	As impact to archaeology is considered acceptable, no mitigation measure is required during construction phase. If antiquities or supposed antiquities under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) are discovered during construction phase, the project proponent is required to inform AMO immediately for discussion of appropriate mitigation measures to be agreed by AMO before implementation by the project proponent to the satisfaction of AMO. No mitigation measure is required during operational phase.
NTM	Pok Wai Ancillary Building
NTM	North of NTM Station
SAT	North of SAT Station and San Tin Ancillary Building
SAT	Ka Lung Road Ancillary Building
SAT	Kwu Tung Road Ancillary Building
KTU	Pak Shek Au Ancillary Building
KTU	KTU Station
No Impact
KSR	KSR(NOL) Station	The sites have been disturbed heavily due to modern development (such as large-scale infrastructure works and construction of roads and ponds). They have no archaeological potential, thus no impact on archaeology is anticipated.	As no impact to archaeology is anticipated, no mitigation measure is required during construction phase. If antiquities or supposed antiquities under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) are discovered during construction phase, the project proponent is required to inform AMO immediately for discussion of appropriate mitigation measures to be agreed by AMO before implementation by the project proponent to the satisfaction of AMO. No mitigation measure is required during operational phase.
AUT	Shui Mei Road Ancillary Building
Ngau Tam Mei	Long Ha Tsuen Ancillary Building
YLS	Temporary Magazine Site (Tai Shu Ha)
All	Underground tunnels	The underground tunnels would be constructed under controlled manner. Such construction method would not cause significant settlement to the ground above, and there would be no disturbance to the superficial deposit that may, or may not, contains archaeological deposits. Therefore, the underground tunnelling works would have no impact on archaeology.
All	Archaeological potential areas located outside at-grade Project Area	As construction works will not exceed the project boundary, no impact to the archaeology is anticipated.	No mitigation measure is required during construction and operational phases.

^{^[1]}Antiquities and Monuments Office. Declared Monuments in Hong Kong (as at 20 October 2023). Retrieved from https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/DM_Mon_List_e.pdf.

^{^[2]} Antiquities Advisory Board. List of the 1,444 Historic Buildings with Assessment Results (as of 20 October 2023). Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/AAB-SM-chi.pdf.

^{^[3]} Antiquities Advisory Board. List of New Items for Grading Assessment with Assessment Results (as of 7 September 2023). Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/list_new_items_assessed.pdf.

^{^[4]} Antiquities and Monuments Office. Government Historic Sites Identified by AMO (as at May 2022). Retrieved from https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/build_hia_government_historic_sites.pdf.

^{^[5]}Antiquities and Monuments Office. List of Sites of Archaeological Interest in Hong Kong (as at Nov 2012). Retrieved from https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/list_archaeolog_site_eng.pdf.

^{^[6]} Geotechnical Control Office. (1988). Hong Kong Geological Survey Sheet 2. Government of Hong Kong.

^{^[7]} Fyfe, J. A et al. (2000). The Quaternary Geology of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Civil Engineering Department.

^{^[8]} Ibid.

^{^[9]} U.S.D. Antiquities and Monuments Section. (1987). Survey on historical rural architecture in San Tin Area. Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments Office.

^{^[10]}Ng, Peter Y. L. (1983). New Peace County – A Chinese Gazetteer of the Hong Kong Region. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

^{^[11]}Lands Department. (1945). 1:12000, 20000ft, 681_4-3074 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[12]}Lands Department. (1954). 1:25029, 29200ft, V81A_550-0047R [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[13]} Lands Department. (1956). 1:10020, 16700ft., F21_564-0119 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[14]} Lands Department. (1963). 1:7800, 3900ft., 1963-0133 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[15]}Lands Department. (1963). 1:7800, 3900ft, 1963-8400 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[16]}Lands Department. (1961). 1:10000, 30000ft, F41_625-0023 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[17]} Lands Department. (1961). 1:10000, 30000ft, F41_625-0027 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[18]} Johnson, E. (2000). Recording a rich heritage: research on Hong Kong's "New Territories". Hong Kong: Leisure & Cultural Services Department.

^{^[19]}Lands Department. (1956). 1:10020, 16700 ft. F22_560-0205 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[20]}Lands Department. (1963). 1:27000, 13500 ft., V81A_857-0013R [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[21]} Lands Department. (1975). 1:25000, 12500ft, 11882R [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[22]}Johnson, E. (2000). Recording a rich heritage: research on Hong Kong's "New Territories". Hong Kong: Leisure & Cultural Services Department.

^{^[23]}Lands Department. (1988). 1:8000, 4000ft., A13139 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[24]} Transport Bureau. (2000). Legislative Council Panel on Transport – Kam Tin Bypass. Retrieved from https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr00-01/english/panels/tp/papers/a287e01.pdf.

^{^[25]} Lands Department. (2006). 2-SE-C. 1: 5000. Hong Kong: Lands Department.

^{^[26]}Drainage Services Department. Kam Tin River South – Overview. Retrieved from https://www.dsd.gov.hk/EcoDMS/EN/River_Channels/Kam_Tin_River_South/Overview.html.

^{^[27]} Lands Department. (1998). 1:7000, 3500 ft., A48406 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[28]}Lands Department. (2010). 1:16000, 8000 ft., CW87853 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[29]} 司馬遷 (c.a. 91BC)。史記卷一百一十三南越列傳第五十三。北京：中華書局 (1959) 。

^{^[30]}Although the boundary between Boluo (博羅) County and Panyu (番禺) County during Han to East Jin period is unclear, it is generally suggested that Hong Kong region belonged to Boluo County at that time, according to Xinan Gazetteer (1819), Social Change in Hong Kong Before and After the Early Qing Clearance (1986), and Brief History of Ancient Shenzhen (1997). However, Professor Jao Tsung-I (2005) discussed that the area belonged to Panyu based on the inscriptions on bricks of Lei Cheng Uk Han Tomb.

^{^[31]}周佳榮 (2017) 。香港通史 : 遠古至清代。香港：三聯書店（香港）有限公司。

^{^[32]}饒玖才(2012) 。香港的地名與地方歷史(下) –新界。香港：天地圖書。

^{^[33]}蘇萬興 (2008)。坐言集之錦田鄧族。香港：超媒體。

^{^[34]}For the ease of discussion in this report, Tang Hon-fat would be regarded as the first-generation ancestor of the Tang clan.

^{^[35]}蘇萬興 (2008)。坐言集之錦田鄧族。香港：超媒體。

^{^[36]}劉智鵬、劉蜀永 (編) (2020) 。方志中的古代香港- 《新安縣志》香港史料選。香港：三聯書店（香港）有限公司。

^{^[37]}古物古蹟辦事處 (2014)。錦田鄧族。香港：古物古蹟辦事處。

^{^[38]}陳六霞、洪小麗 (1985)。田野工作報告 – 新田區總報告。

^{^[39]}嚴瑞源 (2005) 。新界宗族文化之旅。香港：萬里機構。

^{^[40]}劉智鵬、劉蜀永 (編) (2020) 。方志中的古代香港- 《新安縣志》香港史料選。香港：三聯書店（香港）有限公司。

^{^[41]}靳文謨修、鄧文蔚纂 (1688) 。新安縣志。在廣東省地方志辦公室編，廣東歷代方志集成：廣州府部（二六）[康熙]新安縣志 [嘉慶]新安縣志。廣東：嶺南美術出版社。

^{^[42]}劉智鵬、劉蜀永 (編) (2020) 。方志中的古代香港- 《新安縣志》香港史料選。香港：三聯書店（香港）有限公司。

^{^[43]}Mayers, William Fredrick. (1902, 4^th edition). Treaties Between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers. Shanghai: North-China Hera Treaty of London (1871).

^{^[44]}Ibid.

^{^[45]}Ibid.

^{^[46]} 劉智鵬 (編) (2010) 。展拓界址：英治新界早期歷史探索。香港：中華書局（香港）有限公司。

^{^[47]}夏思義 (Hase, Patrick H.) (2014) 。被遺忘的六日戰爭:1899年新界鄉民與英軍之戰（林立偉譯）。香港：中華書局（香港）有限公司。

^{^[48]}Antiquities Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal – Entrance Gate, Kat Hing Wai, Kam Tin, Yuen Long. Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/3_Appraisal_En.pdf.

^{^[49]}錦田機場建築費共達十三萬五千元（1936年6月23日）。香港工商日報，第三張第一版。

^{^[50]} Kam Tin Changed from Aerodrome to Centre for Chinese Refugees. (1938, October 26). Hong Kong Daily Press, p.9.

^{^[51]}Hsu Shih Ying Visits Kam Tin Camp. (1938, November 21). Hong Kong Daily Press, p.6.

^{^[52]}History in Data Project website (Accessed on 22^nd February 2022) Hong Kong 1941.

https://digital.lib.hkbu.edu.hk/1941hkbattle/en/research-team.php.

^{^[53]} 錦田小型機場計劃擴大多放軍機（1950年8月4日）。香港工商日報，第六頁。

^{^[54]}Antiquities Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal - Nos. 652-654 Tin Sam Tsuen, Pat Heung, Yuen Long, New Territories. Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/1420_Appraisal_En.pdf.

^{^[55]}Antiquities Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal - Choi Kei Tung (Tso) Ancestral Hall, Shek Wu Tong, Pat Heung, Yuen Long. Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/1438_Appraisal_En.pdf.

^{^[56]}Antiquities Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal - Cheng Ancestral Hall, Shing Mun San Tsuen, Kam Tin, Yuen Long. Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/1223_Appraisal_En.pdf.

^{^[57]}Antiquities Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal - General House – Main Building, Fung Kat Heung, Yuen Long. Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/307_Appraisal_En.pdf.

^{^[58]}Novel Scheme – Proposed $200,000 Model Village (1925, April 16). The China Mail, p. 1.

^{^[59]}錦田逢吉鄉興建華盛頓新邨下月十一日開幕（1966年2月27日）。華僑日報，第三張第三頁。

^{^[60]} U.S.D. Antiquities and Monuments Section. (1987). Survey on historical rural architecture in San Tin Area. Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments Office.

^{^[61]}Antiquities and Monuments Office. Yuen Shan Site of Archaeological Interest. Retrieved from

https://gish.amo.gov.hk/internet/index.html?lang=en-us.

^{^[62]}Antiquities and Monuments Office. Yuen Shan Site of Archaeological Interest. Geographical Information System on Hong Kong Heritage. Retrieved from https://gish.amo.gov.hk/internet/index.html?lang=en-us. The finding was only by notification to AMO and was not recorded in the archaeological report.

^{^[63]} 古物古蹟辦事處 (1997) 。全港文物普查1997第一地區(元朗區)工作報告。香港：古物古蹟辦事處檔案。

^{^[64]}Peacock, B.A.V. and Nixon, T.J.P. (1985). “Summary Site Data Sheet Of Mai Po, Site No. 02/01”, in Report of the Hong Kong Archaeological Survey. 3.ab(1985-6): pp. 1-3. Unpublished, Antiquities and Monuments Office, Ref. no. ID5.

^{^[65]}Antiquities and Monuments Office. Mai Po Site of Archaeological Interest. Geographical Information System on Hong Kong Heritage. Retrieved from https://gish.amo.gov.hk/internet/index.html?lang=en-us.

^{^[66]}區家發 (1997)。全港文物普查1997第一地區(元朗區)工作報告。

^{^[67]}Drainage Services Department. (2002). Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Stage 1 Packages 1A-1T and 1B-1T - Kam Tin Trunk Sewerage Phase I and II - Archaeological Survey Report and Historical Building and Features Location Maps and Photographic Record. Retrieved from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_0742002/Annex%20F1-%20Archaeology_Survey.htm.

^{^[68]} 古物古蹟辦事處 (1999) 。元朗牛潭尾主渠道第二期工程考古調查工作報告。香港：古物古蹟辦事處檔案。

^{^[69]}區家發 (1997)。全港文物普查1997第一地區(元朗區)工作報告。

^{^[70]}Maunsell Consultants Asia Limited. (2003). Planning and Development Study on North East New Territories Technical Paper 13 Environmental Impact Assessment Final Assessment Report Volumes 2 and 6. Hong Kong: Territory Development Department and Planning Department. Information retrieved from New Territories North and West Development Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department. (2013). North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study – Investigation Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report. 11 Cultural Heritage. Retrieved from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2132013/eia/pdf/ch_11_text.pdf.

^{^[71]}Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation. (2002). Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Retrieved from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_0712001/Content/Content.htm.

^{^[72]}Archaeological Assessments, 2003. KCRC – East Rail Extension, LDB201 – Sheung Shui to Chau Tau Tunnels Pre-Construction Archaeological Survey in East EAP and Kwu Tung, Archaeological Report, Archaeological Assessments. Information retrieved from New Territories North and West Development Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department. (2013). North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study – Investigation Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report. 11 Cultural Heritage. Retrieved from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2132013/eia/pdf/ch_11_text.pdf.

^{^[73]}New Territories North and West Development Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department. (2013). North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study – Investigation Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report. 11 Cultural Heritage. Retrieved from https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2132013/eia/pdf/ch_11_text.pdf.

^{^[74]} Hong Kong e-Legislation. Cap. 499 Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance. Retrieved from https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap499?xpid=ID_1438403274391_002.

^{^[75]} Antiquities Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal - Tai Kei Study Hall, Tin Sam Tsuen, Pat Heung, Yuen Long. Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/1114_Appraisal_En.pdf.

^{^[76]} Antiquities Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal – Choi Kei Tung (Tso) Ancestral Hall Shek Wu Tong, Pat Heung, Yuen Long. Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/1438_Appraisal_En.pdf.

^{^[77]} Antiquities Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal - Tang Lung Yau Wan Tsuen Um Ancestral Hall, No. 57 Tsz Tong Tsuen, Kam Tin, Yuen Long. Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/775_Appraisal_En.pdf.

^{^[78]}Antiquities Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal - Shrine, Kat Hing Wai, Kam Tin, Yuen Long. Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/2_Appraisal_En.pdf.

^{^[79]}王賡武 (2016) 。香港史新編（增訂版）上冊。香港：三聯書店(香港)有限公司。

^{^[80]} Ibid.

^{^[81]}Hayes, J. (2006). The Great Difference: Hong Kong’s New Territories and Its People 1898-2004. Hong Kong University Press.

^{^[82]} Ibid.

^{^[83]}靳文謨修、鄧文蔚纂 (1688) 。新安縣志。在廣東省地方志辦公室編，廣東歷代方志集成：廣州府部（二六）[康熙]新安縣志 [嘉慶]新安縣志。廣東：嶺南美術出版社。

^{^[84]} 蕭國健 (1991) 。香港新界家族發展。香港：顯朝書室。

^{^[85]}Siu, K.K. (1995). Survey on Walled Villages in Hong Kong. The Lord Wilson Heritage Trust.

^{^[86]}Ibid.

^{^[87]}Volonteri, Simeone & Brockhaus, F. A & Volonteri, Simeone. (1866). Map of the San-On District, (Kwangtung Province) drawn from actual observations made by an Italian Missionary of the Propaganda in the course of his professional labors during a period of four years : being the first and only map hitherto published, May 1866 = Xin'an Xian quan tu. Retrieved on October 28, 2022, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-231220841.

^{^[88]}劉智鵬 (編) (2010) 。展拓界址：英治新界早期歷史探索。香港：中華書局（香港）有限公司。

^{^[89]} 錦田逢吉鄉興建華盛頓新邨下月十一日開幕為新界遭受風災災民而建 (1966年2月27日)。華僑日報，第三張第三頁。

^{^[90]}Antiquities Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal - General House – Main Building, Fung Kat Heung, Yuen Long. Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/307_Appraisal_En.pdf.

^{^[91]}陳天權 (2021)。時代見證：隱藏城鄉的歷史建築。香港：中華書局。

^{^[92]} U.S.D. Antiquities and Monuments Section. (1987). Survey on historical rural architecture in San Tin Area. Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments Office.

^{^[93]}Lands Department. (1945). 1:12000, 681_4-4137 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[94]}陳六霞、洪小麗 (1985)。田野工作報告 – 新田區總報告。

^{^[95]}U.S.D. Antiquities and Monuments Section. (1987). Survey on historical rural architecture in San Tin Area. Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments Office.

^{^[96]}陳六霞、洪小麗 (1985)。田野工作報告 – 新田區總報告。

^{^[97]}U.S.D. Antiquities and Monuments Section. (1987). Survey on historical rural architecture in San Tin Area. Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments Office.

^{^[98]} 陳六霞、洪小麗 (1985)。田野工作報告 – 新田區總報告。

^{^[99]}U.S.D. Antiquities and Monuments Section. (1987). Survey on historical rural architecture in San Tin Area. Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments Office.

^{^[100]}陳六霞、洪小麗 (1985)。田野工作報告 – 新田區總報告。

^{^[101]} Ibid.

^{^[102]}Man Tin-shui would be referred as the first generation ancestor of the Man clan in Guangdong region.

^{^[103]}嚴瑞源 (2005) 。新界宗族文化之旅。香港：萬里機構。

^{^[104]}饒玖才(2012) 。香港的地名與地方歷史(下) –新界。香港：天地圖書。

^{^[105]}Antiquities Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal - Entrance Gate, Enclosing Walls and Shrine, Yan Shau Wai, San Tin, Yuen Long, N.T. Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/N186_Appraisal_En.pdf.

^{^[106]} 饒玖才(2012) 。香港的地名與地方歷史(下) –新界。香港：天地圖書。

^{^[107]}Antiquities Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal – Man Ancestral Hall, Fan Tin Tsuen, San Tin, Yuen Long. Retrieved from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/75_Appraisal_En.pdf.

^{^[108]}黃佩佳 (2017) 。香港本地風光．附新界百詠。香港：商務印書館(香港)有限公司。

^{^[109]}Johnson, E. (2000). Recording a rich heritage: research on Hong Kong's "New Territories". Hong Kong: Leisure & Cultural Services Department.

^{^[110]} Watson, J. L. and Watson, R.S. (2011) 。鄉土香港：新界的政治、性別及禮儀 (Village Life in Hong Kong: Politics, Gender, and Ritual in the New Territories) (張婉麗、盛思維譯)。香港：香港中文大學。

^{^[111]} Tai Ping Ching Chiu (太平清醮) (usually lasted five days) was once held in the village but later discounted. The Mans now practice Hung Man Ching Chiu (洪文清醮) every three years, which is a one-day event. The last Hung Man Ching Chiu was carried out in 2019. Information regarding Da Jiu in 2022 was not available, possible due to the recent pandemic.

^{^[112]} 劉智鵬、劉蜀永 (編) (2020) 。方志中的古代香港- 《新安縣志》香港史料選。香港：三聯書店（香港）有限公司。

^{^[113]} Lockhart, JH S. (1989) 。The Lockhart Report on the New Territory (駱克先生香港殖民地展拓界址報告書)。在劉智鵩主編，展拓界址：英治新界早期歷史探索。香港：中華書局。

^{^[114]}阮志 (2016)。越界：香港跨境村莊及文化遺產。香港：三聯書店。

^{^[115]}Ibid.

^{^[116]}Ibid.

^{^[117]} Great Britain. War Office. General Staff. Geographical Section. (1952). San Tin: Hong Kong and the New Territories. Retrieved from http://digitalarchive.mcmaster.ca/islandora/object/macrepo%3A66895.

^{^[118]}Public Records Office. (1961). Renaming of Army Camps. HKRS156-1-1217.

^{^[119]}Kwong, C.M. & Tsoi, Y.L. (2014). Eastern Fortress: A Military History of Hong Kong, 1840–1970. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

^{^[120]}Public Records Office. (1961). Camps Required in Long Term. HKRS934-7-72.

^{^[121]}Public Records Office. (1961). Renaming of Army Camps. HKRS156-1-1217.

^{^[122]}Hong Kong Government. (1994). The Future of the Defence Estate. Hong Kong: Sino-British Joint Liaison Group.

^{^[123]}Lands Department. (1954). 1:25029, 29200ft, V81A_550-0078 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[124]} Lands Department. (1956). 1:10020, 16700ft, F22_561-0056 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[125]}菜聯社。菜聯社簡介。檢自：https://www.fedvmcs.org/4。

^{^[126]}顯示農人團結　蔬菜產銷合作社一週年紀念長報告中心工作兩大目標（1952年8月10日）。華僑日報，第二張第一頁。

^{^[127]}Items with No Grade Accorded refer to buildings/structures/sites that are out of the list of the 1,444 historic buildings and has not previously been included under grading assessment by the Antiquities Authority, yet still have possible significance in cultural heritage.

^{^[128]}Buildings Department. Practice Note for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and Registered Geotechnical Engineers - Ground-borne Vibrations and Ground Settlements Arising from Pile Driving and Similar Operations. Retrieved on https://www.bd.gov.hk/doc/en/resources/codes-and-references/practice-notes-and-circular-letters/pnap/APP/APP137.pdf.

^{^[129]} 商志𩡝、吳偉鴻 (2010) 。香港考古學叙研。北京：文物出版社。

^{^[130]}The assessment criteria on whether a traditional village would be considered to have high archaeological potential are specific to this Report only. The application of such criteria on assessing traditional village in other situations or assessments should be subject to further review.

^{^[131]} Lands Department. (1999). 1:7000, 3500ft, CN24571 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[132]} Lands Department. (1991). 1:4000, 2000ft, A26446 [aerial photo]. Lands Department.

^{^[133]}Lands Department. (1998). 1:8000, 4000 ft., CN21435 [aerial photo]. Lands Department. Retrieved from https://www.hkmapservice.gov.hk/OneStopSystem/map-search.

^{^[134]}Lands Department. (2022). 1:10000, 6900 ft., E173883C [aerial photo]. Lands Department. Retrieved from https://www.hkmapservice.gov.hk/OneStopSystem/map-search.

^{^[135]} Fyfe, J. A et al., (2000), The Quaternary Geology of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Civil Engineering Department, 28, fig. 2.2.

^{^[136]}Lands Department. (2022). 1:10000, 6900 ft., E173883C [aerial photo]. Lands Department. Retrieved from https://www.hkmapservice.gov.hk/OneStopSystem/map-search.

^{^[137]}Civil Engineering and Development Department. First Phase Development of the New Territories North – San Tin / Lok ma Chau Development Node – Investigation, Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

^{^[138]}The grading criteria presented in this Section are specific to this Report only. The traditional villages identified within the 500m assessment area are considered to have high archaeological potential on the basis that they were established during historical period where past human settlements and activities are normal and have surviving structures supporting their settlement history (Section 13.5 on Built Heritage Impact Assessment refers). The application of this grading criteria on assessing the archaeological potential for traditional village should be subject to further review in other situations or assessments.

^{^[139]}Antiquities and Monuments Office. List of Sites of Archaeological Interest in Hong Kong (as at Nov 2012). Retrieve from https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/list_archaeolog_site_eng.pdf.

^{^[140]}Civil Engineering and Development Department. First Phase Development of the New Territories North – San Tin / Lok ma Chau Development Node – Investigation, Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

^{^[141]}Ibid.

[142] Civil Engineering and Development Department. (2013). North East New Territories Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study – Investigation – Final Environmental Impact Assessment. 11 Cultural Heritage Impact. https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2132013/eia/pdf/ch_11_text.pdf.

^{^[143]}The 23 archaeological potential areas are identified based on the latest Project area and the 500m assessment area adopted in this EIA Report.

C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/301 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/313	Solid and Superficial Geology of Project Area
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/316 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/335	Historical Aerial Photo of Project Area (1956 and 1963)
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/338 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/356	Historical Topographical Map of Project Area (1960s)
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/359 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/377	Aerial Photo of Project Area (2020s)
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/379 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/386	Archaeological Background
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/390	Hypothesis on Prehistoric Shoreline Provided in STLMC DN EIA Report
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/400 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/451	Location of Built Heritage Resources
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/600 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/613	Archaeological Potential Based on Desktop Study
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/615 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/622	Archaeological Field Survey
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/625 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/638	Archaeological Potential Based on Fieldwork Results and Findings from Recent Project
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/640 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/649	Likelihood of Having Prehistoric Archaeological Deposits Generated by MaxEnt Model
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/655 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/664	Likelihood of Having Historical Archaeological Deposits Generated by MaxEnt Model
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/670 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/683	Archaeological Potential within Assessment Area
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/685 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/688	Archaeologically Sensitive Area within At-grade Project Area
C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/690 to C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/693	Mitigation Measures for Archaeology

Appendix 13.1	Full List of Built Heritage Resources Identified within Project Area and Assessment Area
Appendix 13.2	Built Heritage Recording Sheets
Appendix 13.3	Archaeological Impact Assessment Report (in Chinese)
Note: Location plans used in Appendix 13.2 are captured from Geoinfo Map (https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/map/) for indication purposes only. Please refer to Figure Nos. C1603/C/NOL/ACM/M60/400-451 for the locations of individual built heritage resources and other identified items.