Report

11 Cultural Heritage

11.1 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

11.1.1 General

11.1.1.1 Legislation, standards, guidelines and criteria relevant to the consideration of Cultural Heritage Impacts under this Study include the following:

· Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499), including the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (TM-EIAO), Annex 19;

· Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53);

· Guidelines on Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO);

· Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG); and

· Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) in EIA Study Brief.

11.1.2 Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53)

11.1.2.1 The Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (the Ordinance) provides the statutory framework to provide for the preservation of objects of historical, archaeological and paleontological interest. The Ordinance contains the statutory procedures for the Declaration of Monuments. The proposed monument can be any place, building, site or structure, which is considered to be of public interest by reason of its historical, archaeological or paleontological significance.

11.1.2.2 Under Section 6 and subject to sub-section (4) of the Ordinance, the following acts are prohibited in relation to certain monuments, except under permit:

· To excavate, carry on building works, plant or fell trees or deposit earth or refuse on or in a proposed monument or monument; and

· To demolish, remove, obstruct, deface or interfere with a proposed monument or monument.

11.1.2.3 The discovery of an Antiquity, as defined in the Ordinance must be reported to the Antiquities Authority (the Authority), or a designated person. The Ordinance also provides that, the ownership of every relic discovered in Hong Kong after the commencement of this Ordinance shall vest in the Government from the moment of discovery. The Authority on behalf of the Government may disclaim ownership of the relic.

11.1.2.4 No archaeological excavation may be carried out by any person, other than the Authority and the designated person, without a licence issued by the Authority. A licence will only be issued if the Authority is satisfied that the applicant has sufficient scientific training or experience to enable him to carry out the excavation and search satisfactorily, is able to conduct, or arrange for, a proper scientific study of any antiquities discovered as a result of the excavation and search and has sufficient staff and financial support.

11.1.2.5 It should also be noted that the discovery of an antiquity under any circumstances must be reported to the Authority, i.e. the Secretary for Development or designated person. The Authority may require that the antiquity or suspected antiquity is identified to the Authority and that any person who has discovered an antiquity or suspected antiquity should take all reasonable measures to protect it.

11.1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499)

11.1.3.1 The EIAO was implemented on 1 April 1998. Its purpose is to avoid, minimise and control the adverse impact on the environment of designated projects, through the application of the EIA process and / or the Environmental Permit (EP) system.

Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process

11.1.3.2 The general criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing impacts to sites of cultural heritage are listed in Annexes 10 and 19 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (TM-EIAO). It is stated in Annex 10 that all adverse impacts to sites of cultural heritage should be kept to an absolute minimum and that the general presumption of impact assessment should be in favour of the protection and conservation of all sites of cultural heritage. Annex 19 provides the details of scope and methodology for undertaking cultural heritage impact assessment, including baseline study, impact assessment and mitigation measures.

11.1.4 Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines

11.1.4.1 Chapter 10 of the HKPSG details the planning principles for the conservation of natural landscape and habitats, historical buildings and sites of archaeological interest. The document states that the retention of significant heritage features should be adopted through the creation of conservation zones within which uses should be restricted to ensure the sustainability of the heritage features. The guidelines state that the concept of conservation of heritage features should not be restricted to individual structures but should endeavour to embrace the setting of the feature or features in both urban and rural settings.

11.1.4.2 The guidelines also address the issue of the preparation of plans for the conservation of historical buildings, sites of archaeological interest and other antiquities. It is noted that the existing Declared Monuments, proposed Monuments and sites of archaeological interest be listed in the explanatory notes of Statutory Town Plans and that it be stated that prior consultation with AMO is necessary for any redevelopment or rezoning proposals affecting the sites of archaeological interest and buildings and their surrounding environments.

11.1.4.3 It is also noted that planning intention for non-statutory town plans at the sub-regional level should include the protection of monuments, historical buildings, sites of archaeological interest and other antiquities through the identification of such features on sub-regional layout plans. The appendices list the legislation and administrative controls for conservation, other conservation related measures in Hong Kong, and government departments involved in conservation.

11.1.5 Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) in Study Brief

11.1.5.1 According to Section 3.4.12.2 of the Study Brief (ESB-305/2017), a marine archaeological investigation (MAI) in the area to be affected by the marine works associated with the construction of the proposed pier improvement shall be carried out. The MAI shall follow the Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation in Appendix J of the Study Brief. This guideline specifies the standard practice for MAI of four separate tasks, including (1) baseline review, (2) geophysical survey, (3) establishing archaeological potential and (4) remote operated vehicle and visual diver survey/watching brief.

11.1.5.2 Moreover, the MAI shall be carried out by a qualified marine archaeologist and if field investigation is required, he/she shall obtain a licence from the Antiquities Authority under the provision of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53).

11.2 Description of the Environment

11.2.1.1 As discussed in Section 2, the works area of the Project is located at the shore of Lai Chi Wo, mostly within Yan Chau Tong Marine Park, and partly within Plover Cove Country Park. Part of the works area is currently occupied by Lai Chi Wo Pier of approximately 64m long and 2.5m wide which would be subject to pier improvement works under the Project. The adjacent area of the Project is generally rural in character with Lai Chi Wo village located to about 400m southwest of the Project. The Project and its adjacent area are currently not covered by any Outline Zoning Plan (OZP).

11.3 Assessment Area

11.3.1.1 According to Section 3.4.12.2 of the Study Brief (ESB-305/2017), the assessment area for the MAI should be defined as the area to be affected by the marine works associated with the construction of the proposed pier improvement. Therefore, the assessment area is defined as the works area excluding the land as shown in Figure 11.1. Along the shoreline the water is extremely shallow and rocky. In near shore areas, the survey boat was unable to obtain data due to the shallow water and rocks. Nevertheless, visual diver survey will be further undertaken for supplementation.

11.4 Baseline Conditions

11.4.1 Review Approach

11.4.1.1 The Baseline Review established the historical profile and potential for cultural heritage sites and included:

· Publications on local historical, architectural, anthropological, archaeological and other cultural studies; and

· Unpublished papers, records, archival and historical documents held in local libraries and other government departments.

11.4.1.2 Terrestrial archaeological resources and built heritage are not identified in the vicinity of the Project and adverse terrestrial cultural heritage impact is therefore not anticipated. However, pursuant to Clause 3.4.12 of the EIA Study Brief, an MAI is required to assess the potential marine archaeological impact from the Project.

11.4.2 Literature Review

11.4.2.1 Before the evacuation of the coast in the 17^th century, most of the inhabitants were Cantonese (Hayes, 1930). Hakka started moving into southern China after the Mongol invasions of the Song dynasty and prided themselves on their reputation for strength and endurance (Faure, 1986). They were often associated with stonemasonry, farming and building rather than seafaring and maritime trade. They engaged in fishing and the principal routes to market for their products were by sea due to the very basic and steep unpaved paths that connected Hakka villages until late in the 20^th century.

11.4.2.2 Until 1898 when the New Territories were leased to Britain for a period of 99 years, Lai Chi Wo was part of Xian County which was instituted in 1573 and administered from a Yamen in Nantou in what is now modern-day Shenzhen (Faure, 1986). The magistrate in charge was assisted by an assistant posted at Dapeng across Mirs Bay to the east which necessitated sea transport for officials on government business. The magistrate was supported by a small garrison employed largely in the suppression of piracy which was rife in the area before and after the coastal evacuation. War junks were known to patrol the area and military personal made donations to some village temples and worshipped at them (Faure, 1986). This was possibly the case at Lai Chi Wo though it’s more likely that military vessels and personnel visited nearby Sha Tau Kok (5.5km north west of Lai Chi Wo) which was a more significant market from the 17^th century onwards. Previous archaeological investigation has identified Sha Tau Kok as a potential site for some of the earliest inhabitants of Hong Kong dating to 5200-4800 BC (Meacham, 2009).

11.4.2.3 Sea bandits and pirates were a periodic scourge especially in the years 1790-1810 when large piratical fleets caused havoc in the Pearl River Delta (Hayes, 1930). Coastal dwellers themselves were not above resorting to piracy or receiving stolen goods (Faure, 1986). The region was also notorious for its inter lineage and inter village wars, sometimes conducted along ethnic lines. In the late 19^th century the coastal regions of the new territories had long acquired a reputation for unruliness (Hayes, 1930).

11.4.2.4 It is interesting to note that until very recently the focus of economic activity in Lai Chi Wo and neighbouring Hakka villages in the north eastern New territory or Tung Lo (eastern section) of Xian as it was called, was Shenzhen.

“It is therefore from the focus of Shenzhen rather than Hong Kong that the unity of the eastern New Territories should be considered” (Faure,1986).

11.4.2.5 JH Stewart Lockhart report on the New Territories in 1898 divided all New Territories villages into six divisions with close trading family and cultural links including links between temples and places of worship.

11.4.2.6 He classified Lai Ch Wo as a part of the Sha Tau Kok division as part of the Shap Yeuk Alliance (Faure, 1986) and the Hip Tin Temple forms part of that alliance. AMO classified the village as one of the seven Hing Chun Yeuk Hakka Villages and its temple erected in 1900, as indicated by its wall paintings, for the worship of Kwan Tai or Hip Tin Tai Tai (the Emperor assisting the heavens). It is likely that the heavy materials necessary for the construction of the temple were delivered by sea transport not overland. It is a rare example of Kwan Tai worship in the coastal regions of the north-eastern new territories. The Tin Hau from the nearby Kat O (Crooked Island) also invited to the Chiu. Kat O was once an important fish market and the involvement of its Tin Hau temple built in 1763 and a Grade II listed historic monument suggests a close maritime link between the two communities.

11.4.2.7 The maritime history of the coastal Hakka villages of the New Territories is not widely explored but it is evident that fishing and maritime transport plus maritime deities like Tin Hau (Matsui) were an essential part of the culture and economy of village life and formed the links with neighbouring villages and the wider economy and official administration cantered around Shenzhen.

11.4.3 Needs of Marine Archaeological Investigation

11.4.3.1 As discussed in Section 1, the Project comprises the following construction activities which may potentially affect the seabed:

· Carrying out site investigation works for detailed design;

· Provision of plants, equipment and materials on working barge(s) for implementation of the Project;

· Provision of temporary berthing and mooring facilities (temporary pier) using working barge and/or steel structures supported by piles to maintain access to Lai Chi Wo throughout the construction stage;

· Installation of piles for the new pier;

· Modification of the existing pier and construction of new pier structures (e.g. installation of precast elements of the new pier structure etc.);

· Construction of associated facilities on the new pier; and

· Removal of temporary pier after completion of the improvement works to the existing pier.

11.4.3.2 The only contemporary source of information about the seabed is the Marine Department Electronic Navigation Chart. No shipwrecks have been identified in the vicinity of the LCW Pier. However, the chart only shows shipwrecks which maybe a potential hazard to navigation. Once wrecks have broken up, they are removed from the chart but could remain buried in the mud. It is therefore very unlikely that a historical shipwreck would be shown on this chart and it cannot be used as a reliable reference for the potential for underwater cultural heritage. It is therefore necessary to establish the maritime history of each location.

11.4.3.3 In the absence of both previous MAI in this location and accurate seabed data available to assess the marine archaeological potential, it is therefore crucial to establish the relevant maritime history by alternative means such as marine geophysical survey and/or visual diver survey.

11.5 Geophysical Survey

11.5.1 Background

11.5.1.1 A marine geophysical survey was commissioned to study the seabed features and shallow geology at Lai Chi Wo to facilitate the future improvement works of the LCW Pier. The data was also used to look for any seabed features with marine archaeological potential.

11.5.1.2 The marine geophysical survey took place on 18 and 19 July 2019 by the GEO Term Contractor – Lam Geotechnics Limited. The survey comprised the use of Side Scan Sonar, Sub-bottom Profiler and Magnetometer. The survey area is located in the north-eastern part of the New Territories, near Kat O / Sha Tau Kok.

11.5.1.3 The survey covered a rectangular area with an area of approximately 37,080m², approximately 180m from northeast to southwest and 206m from northwest to southeast in shallow water area. The water level ranges from 1m to 5m. The survey spacing for each survey type is presented in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1 Geophysical Survey Types and their Objectives

Survey Type	Objective	Survey Spacing
Single beam echo sounder (SBES)	To provide seabed levels	5m x 30m grid
Side Scan Sonar (SSS)	To map sediment types and locate anomalous features on the seabed which may have archaeological potential.	10m
Sub-bottom Profiling (SBP)	To provide the levels and thicknesses of geological interfaces to establish if the seabed is a good preservation environment for underwater cultural heritage.	10m x30m grid
Marine Magnetometer (MAG)	To identify metallic objects and any archaeological remains on, or just beneath the seabed.	5m
C-Nav computerized navigation suite	To achieve location control accuracy of ±1m or better.	N.A.

11.5.1.4 The data obtained from geophysical survey was also used to look for any seabed features with marine archaeological potential.

11.5.2 Results

Seabed Features

11.5.2.1 The Side Scan Sonar data revealed there is a rocky seabed with numerous boulders along the coast line and close to the pier head in the southeast shallow water area. In the middle part of the survey area, the seabed was covered with intermittent sediment cover and scattered debris. Beneath the sediment cover, there are rocks and boulders. Loose sediment seabed is expected for the central and north-eastern part of the survey area. Their distribution is shown in Figure 11.2. The survey area was classified as below:

· Rocky seabed with numerous boulders;

· High reflectivity area likely with rock exposure, rock dump or other dumped materials;

· Rock/boulders with intermittent sediment cover and scattered debris; and

· Medium reflectivity seabed, likely gravely sand/silt with scattered debris.

11.5.2.2 In total eighteen (18) sonar contacts were identified, including 12 as debris, 4 as linear unknown objects, 1 as tyre; and 1 as dumped material. However, unless a dive inspection is completed, it is not possible to assess their marine archaeological potential and it is preferable to refer to them as Unknown Objects. Table 11.2 shows the details of side scan sonar contacts and Figure 11.2 shows their locations. Details of the side scan sonar results are shown in Appendix 11.1.

Table 11.2 Details of Side Scan Sonar Contacts

Contact ID	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Dimensions (m)	Description
SC001	845122.0	843275.0	1.5x1.2x0.3	Debris (unknown object)
SC002	845170.0	843280.2	2.1x1.5x<0.2	Debris (unknown object)
SC003	845231.7	843315.0	1.2x0.8x<0.2	Debris (unknown object)
SC004	845243.9	843326.2	2.3x1.6x<0.2	Debris (unknown object)
SC005	845264.8	843334.9	1.2x1.0x<0.2	Possible tyre
SC006	845274.2	843324.1	1.9x1.3x<0.2	Debris (unknown object)
SC007	845304.0	843336.8	1.5x1.0x0.3	Debris (unknown object)
SC008	845224.0	843362.2	2.1x1.0x<0.2	Debris (unknown object)
SC009	845189.1	843388.5	1.3x1.0x<0.2	Debris (unknown object)
SC010	845226.6	843386.0	6.5x3.0x0.4	Debris (unknown object)
SC011	845267.6	843380.2	2.6x1.0x<0.2	Debris (unknown object)
SC012	845196.0	843410.9	2.2x1.0x<0.2	Debris (unknown object)
SC013	845234.1	843429.1	1.3x1.1x<0.2	Debris (unknown object)
SC014	845203.0	843380.4	7.0x1.3x<0.2	Linear unknown object
SC015	845203.2	843389.3	6.6x1.1x<0.2	Linear unknown object
SC016	845205.3	843406.4	8.5x1.4x<0.2	Linear unknown object
SC017	845208.0	843420.5	5.5x1.3x<0.2	Linear unknown object
SC018	845249.9	843237.8	12.1x3.8xnmh	Dump (unknown object)

Note:

[1] nmh = non-measurable height

Marine Deposits

11.5.2.3 The entire assessment area is covered with marine deposits dipping from -3mPD in middle-west area to over -10mPD in the northeast corner of the survey area and they are sufficiently thick to contain and preserve buried archaeological artefacts.

Magnetic Contacts

11.5.2.4 The area had a quiet ambient field as the marine traffic was relatively scarce. The major magnetic variation was believed to correspond to the existing pier structure and moored boats. The image of processed magnetic intensity over the survey area is shown in Appendix 11.2. A total of 10 magnetic contacts were identified of which 4 (i.e. MC003, MC005-007) are very likely to be associated with the existing pier structure as shown in Figure 11.2. It is noted that MC004 and MC008 correspond well to Sonar Contacts SC001 and SC009 respectively. These 2 Sonar Contacts were interpreted as debris and are likely iron-bearing and could have marine archaeological potential. Table 11.3 shows the details of magnetic contacts and Figure 11.2 shows their locations.

Table 11.3 Details of Magnetic Contacts

Contact ID	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Size (nT/m)	Description
MC001	845235.2	843239.7	8	Unknown object
MC002	845213.5	843248.1	4	Unknown object
MC003	845239.2	843261.2	3	Unknown object
MC004	845121.9	843273.0	17	Debris (unknown object)
MC005	845136.9	843305.1	12	Pier structure
MC006	845154.1	843305.6	12	Pier structure
MC007	845163.1	843355.2	5	Pier structure
MC008	845188.5	843387.9	4	Debris (unknown object)
MC009	845176.6	843395.4	17	Unknown object
MC010	845162.0	843411.3	10	Unknown object

11.5.3 Summary of Geophysical Survey

11.5.3.1 The comprehensive marine geophysical survey at Lai Chi Wo has located 18 Side Scan Sonar Unknown Objects and 10 Magnetic Contacts. Two of the Contacts (MC004/SC001 and MC008/SC009) were located in both of the surveys giving them greater archaeological potential. It is very likely that SC005 is a modern rubber tyre. There are 4 Magnetic Contacts, namely MC003, MC005-007, associated with the existing pier structure which can be removed from any further investigation.

11.5.3.2 There remain 6 nos. of Magnetic Contacts and 17 nos. of Side Scan Sonar Contacts unidentified, since 2 are the same object, it leaves a total of 21 Unknown Objects requiring inspection. The only way to obtain an accurate assessment of their archaeological value is by carrying out a visual diver survey.

11.5.3.3 Accurate identification of the Side Scan Sonar Contacts and Magnetic Contacts can only be achieved with a diver inspection which will gather accurate information about their archaeological value.

11.5.4 Recommendations

11.5.4.1 It is proposed to conduct diver surveys to obtain accurate information about the 21 Unknown Objects. The diver survey will establish if there are any unknown objects with marine archaeological value and if any further mitigation action is required.

11.6 Establishment of Marine Archaeological Potential

11.6.1.1 As discussed in Section 11.4, the baseline review established that Lai Chi Wo has a maritime history dating back to the seventeenth century. The potential for archaeological evidence within ports and harbours can be particularly high as sheltered, low energy environments favour preservation of heritage assets.

11.6.1.2 Many piers and harbours in use today have a long history of use, often extending back into prehistory. Even before any harbour infrastructure existed in a particular location, the advantages of natural geography and topography may have been utilised by early seafarers, and it would have been this early use that gave rise to increasing harbour infrastructure; from perhaps a few storage buildings in the late prehistoric to a modern harbour that we would recognise today.

11.6.1.3 However, no specific marine archaeological assets were located at Lai Chi Wo and there is insufficient seabed data to make an accurate assessment. In this case the precautionary approach is to assign a high level of importance. This will ensure that, where uncertainty occurs and risk remains high, impacts are not under assessed and significant impacts can be avoided.

11.7 Diver Survey

11.7.1.1 The visual diver survey for the examination of seabed features, magnetic anomalies from the geophysical survey was conducted in Nov 2019.

11.7.1.2 17 side scan sonar contacts and 6 magnetic contacts were successfully located during diver survey. They were identified as a wide range of modern debris such as gabion cage, metal pipe, metal cage, abandoned fishing gear/net and modern building debris. Images of visual diver survey are provided in Appendix 11.3.

11.7.1.3 The two large features (SC001 and MC004) & (SC009 and MC008) were both Gabion cages which had been dumped. These are metal cages usually filled with rocks and used as shoreline protection. There was also another large metal cage (SC003) which looked the protection for a water tank. The feature (SC005) is further inspected and confirmed as a tyre heavily encrusted with marine growth. The remaining side scan sonar objects were mainly either abandoned fishing or construction waste.

11.7.1.4 For the magnetic contacts, they were mainly either abandoned fishing or construction waste. Summary tables for each item of side scan sonar contact and magnetic anomalies are given in Table 11.4 and Table 11.5 respectively

Table 11.4 Summary of the Findings on Side Scan Sonar Contacts

Contact ID	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Dimensions (m)	Description
SC001	845122.0	843275.0	1.5x1.2x0.3	Gabion cage (Same location as MC04)
SC002	845170.0	843280.2	2.1x1.5x<0.2	Metal pipe
SC003	845231.7	843315.0	1.2x0.8x<0.2	Metal cage – Possible water tank protector
SC004	845243.9	843326.2	2.3x1.6x<0.2	Abandoned fishing gear
SC005	845264.8	843334.9	1.2x1.0x<0.2	Tyre heavily encrusted with marine growth
SC006	845274.2	843324.1	1.9x1.3x<0.2	Abandoned fishing net
SC007	845304.0	843336.8	1.5x1.0x0.3	Modern building debris
SC008	845224.0	843362.2	2.1x1.0x<0.2	Modern debris with heavy marine growth
SC009	845189.1	843388.5	1.3x1.0x<0.2	Metal cage (Same location as MC008)
SC010	845226.6	843386.0	6.5x3.0x0.4	Large area of dead trees and cut branches
SC011	845267.6	843380.2	2.6x1.0x<0.2	Abandoned fishing gear
SC012	845196.0	843410.9	2.2x1.0x<0.2	Abandoned fishing gear
SC013	845234.1	843429.1	1.3x1.1x<0.2	Abandoned fishing gear
SC014	845203.0	843380.4	7.0x1.3x<0.2	Metal pipe
SC015	845203.2	843389.3	6.6x1.1x<0.2	Metal pipe
SC016	845205.3	843406.4	8.5x1.4x<0.2	Metal pipe located on the seabed and taken to the sea level for identification and photography
SC017	845208.0	843420.5	5.5x1.3x<0.2	Metal pipe
SC018	845249.9	843237.8	12.1x3.8xnmh	Abandoned fishing gear

Table 11.5 Summary of the Findings on Magnetic Contacts

Contact ID	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Size (nT/m)	Description
MC001	845235.2	843239.7	8	Metal pipe with marine growth and other debris
MC002	845213.5	843248.1	4	Partially buried metal degraded metal pipe
MC003	845239.2	843261.2	3	Abandoned broken metal wire
MC004	845121.9	843273.0	17	Gabion cage (Same Location as SC001)
MC005	845136.9	843305.1	12	Gabion cage with marine growth
MC006	845154.1	843305.6	12	Abandoned fishing net
MC007	845163.1	843355.2	5	Partially buried metal sheet with modern debris
MC008	845188.5	843387.9	4	Metal cage (Same location as SC009)
MC009	845176.6	843395.4	17	Modern debris with massive marine growth
MC010	845162.0	843411.3	10	Metal bar with marine growth and building debris

11.7.1.5 Detailed inspection of the side scan sonar contacts and magnetic anomalies was carried out through visual diver survey. No features or objects with marine archaeological potential within / near the survey area were found. Based on the findings, it is concluded that no further action or mitigation measure are required.

11.8 Construction Phase Impact Assessment

11.8.1 Identification and Evaluation of Impact

11.8.1.1 Both marine-based and above-water construction works are expected during the construction phase of the Project. For the marine-based works, potential cultural heritage impact due to seabed disturbance is anticipated during the construction of bored piles for the proposed pier and the temporary pier. Bored piles will be constructed as the pier foundation.

11.8.1.2 However, by the geophysical survey and visual diver survey, no marine archaeological resources are identified within the assessment area. No marine archaeological impact from the construction works is anticipated.

11.8.1.3 Terrestrial archaeological resources and built heritage are not identified in the vicinity of the Project and adverse terrestrial cultural heritage impact is therefore not anticipated during the construction of the Project.

11.8.2 Mitigation Measures

11.8.2.1 As no features or objects with marine archaeological potential within/near the survey area was found, no further action or mitigation measures are required.

11.8.3 Cumulative Impacts with Concurrent Projects

11.8.3.1 As the Project would not generate or induce any additional cultural heritage impact during the construction phase, cumulative impacts with concurrent projects are not anticipated.

11.8.4 Residual Impact

11.8.4.1 As the Project would not generate or induce any additional cultural heritage impact during the construction phase, adverse residual impact on marine archaeology is not anticipated.

11.9 Operational Phase Impact Assessment

11.9.1 Identification and Evaluation of Impact

11.9.1.1 As mentioned in Section 2, the main objective of the Project is to provide improved pier facilities and adequate structural integrity for safe pier usage. The existing pier of 64m long and 2.5m wide will be widened and extended. The improved pier would have a width of 6m to 8m increased to15m at the pier head and a length of 155m. With the improved pier head located farther away from the shoreline and at a deeper seabed level, a deeper draft can be provided for vessel berthing. Besides, the Project does not plan to increase the number of Kaito or alter the existing Kaito routing. No adverse impact to cultural heritage is anticipated from the Project during the operational phase.

11.9.1.2 More importantly, no marine archaeological resources are identified by the geophysical survey and visual diver survey in the assessment area. Therefore, adverse impact on marine archaeology is not anticipated from the Project during the operational phase.

11.9.1.3 In addition, terrestrial archaeological resources and built heritage are not identified in the vicinity of the Project and adverse terrestrial cultural heritage impact is therefore not anticipated during the operation of the Project.

11.9.2 Mitigation Measures

11.9.2.1 As the Project would not generate or induce any additional cultural heritage impact during the operational phase, mitigation measures are considered not necessary.

11.9.3 Cumulative Impacts with Concurrent Projects

11.9.3.1 As the Project would not generate or induce any additional cultural heritage impact during the operational phase, cumulative impacts with concurrent projects are not anticipated.

11.9.4 Residual Impact

11.9.4.1 As the Project would not generate or induce any additional cultural heritage impact during the operational phase, residual impacts are not anticipated.

11.10 Conclusion

11.10.1.1 During the construction phase, potential cultural heritage impact due to seabed disturbance is anticipated during the construction of bored piles for the proposed pier. However, no marine archaeological resources are identified within the assessment area through the geophysical survey and visual diver survey. It is therefore concluded that no marine archaeological impact from the construction works of the Project is anticipated.

11.10.1.2 During the operational phase, with the improved pier head located farther away from the shoreline and at a deeper seabed level, a deeper draft can be provided for vessel berthing. Besides, the Project does not plan to increase the number of Kaito or alter the existing Kaito routing. Adverse impact to cultural heritage is not anticipated from the Project during the operational phase.

11.10.1.3 In addition, terrestrial archaeological resources and built heritage are not identified in the vicinity of the Project and adverse terrestrial cultural heritage impact is therefore not anticipated during the construction and operation of the Project.

11.11 References

AMO Historic Building appraisal Number 944. (unpublished archives of the Antiquities and Monuments Office).

Faure, D. 1986. The structure of Chinese rural society: lineage and village in the eastern New Territories, Hong Kong. Hong Kong; New York; Oxford University Press.

Hayes, J. 1930. South China Village Culture. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Meacham, W. 2009. The Archaeology of Hong Kong. Hong Kong University Press.