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), Annexes 10 and 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-306/2017), 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 task, 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 north-eastern coast of Tung Ping Chau facing towards Ping Chau Hoi. It overlaps mostly with Tung Ping Chau Marine Park and adjacent to Ping Chau Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Plover Cove (Extension) Country Park is located at more than 70m to the west of the Project. Part of the works area is currently occupied by Tung Ping Chau Public Pier of approximately 98m long and 5.5m wide which would be subject to pier improvement works under the Project. The adjacent area of the Project is generally rural in character with Tai Tong, Lei Uk, Chan Uk, Sha Tau and Lam Uk located to more than 210m away. According to the Draft Ping Chau Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/NE-PC/1, the existing Tung Ping Chau Public Pier encroaching the works area is located within an area zoned as “Other Specified Uses” annotated “Pier” (“OU(Pier)”). The proposed new pier falls outside the boundary of the OZP. The areas in proximity to the existing pier are currently zoned as “Coastal Protection Area” (“CPA”), “Green Belt” (“GB”) and Village Type Development (“V”).

11.3 Assessment Area

11.3.1.1 According to Section 3.4.12.2 of the Study Brief (ESB-306/2017), the assessment area for the marine archaeological investigation (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 as shown in Figure 11.1.

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 would be required to assess the potential marine archaeological impact from the Project.

11.4.2 Literature Review

11.4.2.1 Located in the middle of Mirs Bay, the island of Tung Ping Chau (or Ping Chau) has a rich and varied maritime history which can be traced back to the succession of the Qing dynasty in 1644, when the area including the nearby Dapeng Peninsula remained loyal to the deposed Ming court. The settlers of Tung Ping Chau were Mirs Bay people (AFCD) who spoke their own dialect and their champion was Zheng Chenggong or Koxinga the so-called pirate king who established a rebel colony in Tainan in what is now modern-day Taiwan in 1661.

11.4.2.2 It was seafarers loyal to Zheng Chenggong who illicitly controlled maritime trade and activity along the south China coast including Mirs Bay, where Qing forces were largely ineffective. It was frustration which provoked the Qing to implement the coastal evacuation in 1662 and which lasted until 1669 (Hayes, 2002) and wrought havoc on Chinese coastal communities and caused many to flee inland or more likely to ports in what are now modern-day Formosa, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines.

11.4.2.3 There are five villages on the island and the residents were mainly fishermen or farmers. A Tin Hau temple, which indicates a maritime oriented community and cultural connections to Fujian provinces was constructed on the east of the island close to the northern shore. It was completed in the 30^th year of Qianlong of the Qing dynasty (1765) (AMO) when the Qing authorities had finally re-established its grip on Mirs bay. The bell in the temple has the date of construction inscribed on it (AMO). Two other deities often found in local maritime communities are worshipped at its side alters- Hung Shing and Tai Sui. There is also a Tam Tai Sin (Tam Kung) temple (AMO).

11.4.2.4 The Tung Ping Chau economy depended on farming, fishing and maritime transport and until the 1950s supported a population of over 1500 people (AFCD) but smuggling, piracy and the handling of stolen goods was a popular second income line for many fishermen in Mirs Bay. Coastal dwellers themselves were not above resorting to piracy or receiving stolen goods (Faure, 1986). Those on Tung Ping Chau are unlikely to have been the exception. In 1926 a letter from the Chinese authorities in Canton to their British counterparts specifically listed Tung Ping Chau as a common safe haven for pirates fleeing Chinese troops, knowing they could not be pursued by Chinese forces into British territory and Chiang Kai-shek acknowledged piracy in Mirs Bay as a major problem requiring cross border co-operation (Sellick, 2002).

11.4.2.5 While the Qing dynasty re-secured its political grip on the area by the time the Tin Hau temple was constructed it never gained control of piracy which remained a big problem for the Chinese and British authorities until the outbreak of world war two. In 1933, a 2,323-ton Norwegian steamer was seized by pirates in Mirs Bay and according to Hong Kong newspapers, when fired upon by a Hong Kong police launch. The perpetrators fled ashore in “Ha Sha opposite Ping Chau” (Sellick, 2002).

11.4.2.6 There was a scarcity of natural water on Ping Chau and villagers dug wells and cisterns and even built a small reservoir (Hayes, 2002). This made it unlikely that it was a frequent port of call for passing merchant ships in need of a sheltered anchorage and fresh water but all fish, produce and other goods including rice would have been transported to and from local markets by boat.

11.4.2.7 When Mirs Bay was leased to Britain in the 1898 extension of Kowloon agreement, Tung Ping Chau was listed by Commander D Horsby Royal Navy of colonial authorities as one of ten significant anchorages in the recently acquired Mirs Bay. In 1898, it was described as a good anchorage in 7 fathoms under Ping Chau but “much taken up with fishing stakes” but “unimportant for lines of communication”.

11.4.2.8 The same year admiral Dewey of the United States Navy anchored the US Navy Asiatic squadron in Mirs Bay near to Ping Chau on 25 April 1898, to satisfy Britain’s need to be seen as neutral. Dewey proceeded south to engage the Spanish forces occupying the Philippines a few days later.

11.4.2.9 Several Hong Kong newspaper reports from the period shortly after the 1898 lease of Mirs Bay revealed how dependent the area was on maritime transport links and also how difficult it was to impose British systems in a maritime area accustomed to Chinese laws and customs for centuries.

11.4.2.10 On 5^th December 1899 a newspaper report in the Hong Kong Daily Press entitled Disturbances at Mirs Bay Hong Kong police tried to prosecute a Chinese ferry operator from Mirs Bay for charging passengers for landing in what the Hong Kong police regarded as British waters.

11.4.2.11 The fate of Tung Ping Chau was closely aligned with the sea and the close proximity to the garrison town of Dapeng in Guangdong province more than events in colonial Hong Kong. Soon after the outbreak of world war two in Asia, Tung Ping Chau was used by General Chen Che by the Chinese army as a logistics base for counter Japanese efforts (Hayes, 2002). Essential supplies like petrol and ammunition were stored on the island so they could supply Chinese resistance forces fighting in the area. In 1950, when UN sanctions were imposed on China for their support of the Korean war, Tung Ping Chau became a busy transit point for smuggling prohibited goods into Mainland china and an illicit trade in kerosene, cotton yarns and rubber was maintained until the end of the war in 1953 (Hayes, 2002).

11.4.2.12 It was the economic depression and disruption caused by Mao Zedong’s cultural revolution in the 1960s combined with over fishing that reduced the maritime function of Tung Ping Chau and most of its seafaring residents relocated to mainland Hong Kong or the UK (Hayes, 2002).

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 Tung Ping Chau until a new berth of the pier is available for use;

· Removal of temporary pier, modification of the existing pier and installation of piles for the new pier;

· Construction of new pier structures (e.g. installation of precast elements on the pier structure etc.); and

· Construction of associated facilities on the new 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 TPC Public 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 Tung Ping Chau to facilitate the future improvement works of the TPC Public Pier. The data was also used to look for any seabed features with marine archaeological potential.

11.5.1.2 In October 2018, a marine geophysical survey comprising side scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler and magnetometer was completed by EGS at Tung Ping Chau under works order from CEDD (Works Order No. GE/2016/03). The survey was commissioned to study the seabed features and shallow geology at Tung Ping Chau to facilitate construction and upgrading of the pier.

11.5.1.3 The survey was undertaken by using a low speed boat launched from a larger survey vessel, due to the shallow water depths. Survey was taken during high tide periods to maximise the survey coverage.

11.5.1.4 The survey covered a rectangular area with an area of approximately 30,400m², approximately 190m from northeast to southwest and 160m from northwest to southeast in the shallow water. The water level ranges from 1m to 8m. 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.

11.5.1.5 The data obtained from geophysical survey was also used to identify any seabed features with marine archaeological potential.

11.5.2 Results

Seabed Features

11.5.2.1 Tung Ping Chau is known for its complex geological features. They are so unusual and spectacular that the island was designated as a Ping Chau Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). According to the Geological Map of Hong Kong, the unusually shallow sediments belong to the Ping Chau Formation. Unlike most other rock types across the territory the island is made up of sedimentary rock including siltstone, colomitic siltstone, mudstone and chert. The results of the 2018 geophysical survey corresponded well with the existing geological information.

11.5.2.2 The survey results were analysed in detail by the marine archaeology specialist (SDA Marine Ltd.) and there was no indication of any object or feature with archaeological potential. Over 60% of the survey area is characterized by boulders and rock which were also observed along the coastline. Soft sediments (i.e. silty clay area) are located in the north-eastern part of the survey area, but outside the works area of the Project. Figure 11.2 presents the seabed features across the survey area and the Project site. The survey area was classified as follows:

· silty clay area;

· areas with gravely sand with scattered boulders;

· boulders with rocks and sand patches;

· low to medium relief rock; and

· one side scan sonar contact.

11.5.2.3 Only one sonar contact was identified in the survey. The location of SC001 is shown in Figure 11.2. As it is located at approximately 40m from the proposed pier head, it will not be impacted by the construction works even though it is within the works area. The location of the side scan sonar contact is presented in Table 11.2. Details of the side scan sonar results are shown in Appendix 11.1.

Table 11.2 List of side scan sonar contacts

Contact ID	Easting (m)	Northing (m)	Dimensions (m)	Description
SC001	862691.7	845137.8	1.8 x 0.8 x nmh ^[1]	Debris

Note:

[1] nmh = non-measurable height

Marine Deposits

Outside the Project Site but within the Geophysical Survey Boundary

11.5.2.4 The Sub-bottom Profiler data indicates the general regime at the base level of the marine deposits and shows the geological succession. As shown in Appendix 11.2, the upper-most geological unit at the north-eastern region away from the coast is the “Marine Deposits” of the Holocene Hang Hau Formation. This comprises very soft to soft homogenous sediments deposited shortly after the rise in sea level at the end of the last ice age, which was 10,000 to 6,000 years ago. It typically consists of greenish grey silty clay that has a variable thickness up to 30m at its maximum in Hong Kong. However, within the geophysical survey boundary, the marine deposits are very thin near the coastal area and have a maximum depth of 6m at the out edge of the survey area. The variation in depths can be seen clearly in Appendix 11.2. According to Figure 11.2 which presents the seabed features and works area, it can be noted that the silty seabed area only starts outside and away from the Project site.

11.5.2.5 Although silty clay area with marine sediment provides an excellent preservation environment for archaeological remains, it is located in the north-eastern side is outside the works area of the Project. Direct impact from the construction of the Project is not anticipated. Further, the footprint of the proposed pier and the temporary pier will be located more than 60m from the silty clay region. As bored piling method with low vibration will be adopted of pile construction instead of percussive piling method, indirect impact to the silty clay area is also not anticipated. There is no need for any further investigation or mitigation as it will not be impacted by the construction of the new pier.

Within the Project Site

11.5.2.6 Towards the south-western side near the coast, the seabed particles generally become coarser. The marine deposit becomes thinner and thinner near the coastal area. As illustrated in Appendix 11.2, marine deposit is finally missing in the south-western coastal rocky area. Borehole data from a previous pier reconstruction in 2002 was used to correlate the seismic data and proved that it was accurate.

11.5.2.7 As shown in Figure 11.2, the upper-most geological units are rock and boulders in the near-shore area. Such geological features in the near-shore area do not favour the preservation of, if any, archaeological remains. The dominance of rocks and boulders and lack of soft sediments mean that it is very unlikely that there are any features with underwater cultural heritage potential as they would have degraded without a good preservation environment. Additionally, the works area is very shallow open bay exposed to wind from the North East. If there had been a shipwreck at the surface it would have been smashed to pieces very quickly due to the lack of protection.

Magnetic Contacts

11.5.2.8 The area has a quiet ambient field as the marine traffic was relatively scarce. The magnetic variations which were recorded were believed to mostly correspond with to the scattered boulders and rocks at the existing pier structure. The image of processed magnetic intensity over the survey area is shown in Appendix 11.3. A prominent magnetic change can be seen at the existing pier where there are also rocks and boulders around it. However, no isolated features have been identified with archaeological potential. There is no need for any further investigation or mitigation.

11.5.3 Summary of Geophysical Survey

11.5.3.1 The survey achieved its objectives of providing detailed information about the seabed and surface and sub sediments. For the entire geophysical survey area, the sediment layer is thin and very coarse near the shore end and thicker and finer towards the offshore. Over 60% of the survey area is characterised by rocks and boulders which make it a poor preservation environment for archaeological remains, therefore giving low archaeological potential of the survey area.

11.5.3.2 The geophysical survey was extremely detailed and apart from one side scan sonar contact, there were no seabed anomalies which might indicate marine archaeological potential. As there was no object or feature located which might have archaeological potential, further action or any mitigation measure is not required. Diver survey is considered not required. The marine geophysical summary report based on the marine geophysical survey at Tung Ping Chau is included in Appendix 11.4.

11.6 Establishment of Marine Archaeological Potential

11.6.1.1 With reference to the marine geophysical summary report (see Appendix 11.4), the overall marine archaeological potential within the survey area is considered as low. In addition, the construction of the existing pier might already have significant seabed disturbance in the surroundings. As no seabed anomalies are identified within the survey area by the marine geophysical survey, further visual diver survey for marine archaeology or any other type of investigation or mitigation are therefore not required.

11.7 Construction Phase Impact Assessment

11.7.1 Identification and Evaluation of Impact

11.7.1.1 Both marine-based and above-water construction works are expected during the construction phase of the Project. For the marine-based works, seabed disturbance is anticipated during the construction of bored piles for the proposed pier and temporary pier.

11.7.1.2 As shown in Figure 11.2, although marine sediment provides an excellent preservation environment for archaeological remains, the silty clay area located to the north-eastern side is outside the works area of the Project. Direct impact from the Project is not anticipated. Further, the footprint of the proposed pier and the temporary pier will be located more than 60m from the silty clay area. As bored piling method with low vibration will be adopted for pile construction instead of percussive piling method, indirect impact from the Project on the silty clay area is also not anticipated.

11.7.1.3 Furthermore, within the Project site, there are no soft sediments in which archaeological remains could be buried beneath the surface. No object or feature with archaeological potential was identified by geophysical survey. No marine archaeological resources are identified within the survey area and the Project site. Adverse marine archaeological impact is not anticipated during the construction phase.

11.7.1.4 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 phase of the Project.

11.7.2 Mitigation Measures

11.7.2.1 As no marine archaeological impact is expected from the construction of the Project, mitigation measure is not necessary. As a precautionary measure, AMO should be informed in case of discovery of antiquities or supposed antiquities in the course of marine works.

11.7.3 Cumulative Impacts with Concurrent Projects

11.7.3.1 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.

11.7.4 Residual Impact

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

11.8 Operational Phase Impact Assessment

11.8.1 Identification and Evaluation of Impact

11.8.1.1 As mentioned in Section 2, the main objective of the Project is to enhance the safety and accessibility of the pubic using the pier. The existing pier of 98 m long and 5.5m wide will be widened and extended. The proposed pier would have a width of 5.5m to 6m increased to 15m at the head and a length of 123m. With the improved pier head located further 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.

11.8.1.2 More importantly, no object or feature with archaeological potential was identified by geophysical survey. No marine archaeological resources are identified in the survey area and the Project site. As there is no marine archaeological potential within the Project site, adverse marine archaeological impact is not anticipated during the operational phase.

11.8.1.3 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 phase of the Project.

11.8.2 Mitigation Measures

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

11.8.3 Cumulative Impacts with Concurrent Projects

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

11.9 Conclusion

11.9.1.1 During the construction phase, it is concluded that the marine archaeological potential of the survey area is considered as low by the geophysical survey. No marine archaeological resources were identified by the geophysical survey. It is therefore concluded that no marine archaeological impact from the construction works is anticipated. Further visual diver survey for marine archaeology or any other type of investigation or mitigation are therefore not required. As a precautionary measure, AMO should be informed in case of discovery of antiquities or supposed antiquities in the course of marine works.

11.9.1.2 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. No adverse impact to cultural heritage is 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 construction and operation of the Project.

11.10 References

AMO Historic Building Appraisal Number 1022 (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. Oxford University Press.

Hayes, J. 2002. South Chan Village Culture- James Hayes. Oxford University Press.

Exploring Tung Ping Chau- AFCD. Hong Kong government. Cosmos Books.

Hong Kong Daily Press 1898 and 1899

Sellick, R. G., 2010. Pirate Outrages: True Stories of Terror on the China Seas. Freemantle Press.