Construction Activity	Construction Period
Site Clearance	Dec 2005 – Jan 2006
Reclamation	Feb 2006 – Sep 2006
Construction of Helipad	Jan 2006 – Nov 2006
Construction of EVA	Jul 2006 – Nov 2006

Table 1.1 Summary Matrix for Evaluation of Helipad Site Options & Alternatives

Option / Alternative	Location *	Key Environmental Benefit(s)	Key Environmental Dis-benefit(s)	Other Key Considerations (e.g., safety & access)	Conclusion
A1	Pak Wan – marine EVA	· No helicopter manoeuvring noise impact during any operations. · No helicopter flight path noise impacts under normal operations^.	· Helicopter flight path noise impact from use of ‘Super Puma’ type helicopter.	· Easy access from Clinic. · No flight safety concerns.	Residual flight path noise impact from Super Puma, but no helicopter noise impact under normal operations.
A2	Pak Wan – land EVA	· No helicopter flight path noise impacts under normal operations.	· Potential landscape and ecological impact from necessary slope works. · Manoeuvring noise impact from both helicopter types and flight path noise from ‘Super Puma’.	· Easy access from Clinic, although steep slopes to navigate to helipad. · No flight safety concerns.	Potential ecology impacts from EVA construction. Residual manoeuvring noise impacts for both helicopter types.
B1	Pei Lei	· Minimal construction works.	· Potential impacts on hard corals from construction works. · Helicopter flight path and manoeuvring noise impact.	· Easy access from Clinic. · No flight safety concerns.	Potential adverse impacts on hard corals, and likely residual helicopter noise impact under normal operations.
B2	Pei Lei Southwest	· Minimal construction works.	· Potential impacts on hard corals from construction works and shading effect of EVA & Helipad. · Helicopter flight path and manoeuvring noise impact.	· Easy access from Clinic. · No flight safety concerns.	Potential adverse impacts on hard corals, and residual helicopter noise impact under normal operations.
C	Kam Peng Estate	· No significant construction phase impacts (land already formed).	· Significant helicopter flight path and manoeuvring noise impact on nearby residences.	· Best access from Clinic. · Helicopter flight safety concerns due to proximity to built-up area.	No construction phase concerns, but likely significant residual helicopter noise impacts under normal operations. Unacceptable flight satefy concerns.
D	Tai Lei South	· Minimal construction works.	· Potential impacts on hard corals from construction works. · Helicopter flight path and manoeuvring noise impact.	· Easy access from Clinic. · No flight safety concerns.	Potential adverse impacts on hard corals, and residual helicopter noise impact under normal operations.
E	Pak Wan	· No significant construction phase impacts.	· Significant helicopter flight path and manoeuvring noise impacts on nearby residences.	· Easy access from Clinic. · Some flight safety concern due to proximity of Sea Crest Villa.	Likely significant residual helicopter noise impacts under normal operations, and flight safety concerns.
F	Pak Wan Reclamation (Open Space)	· No significant construction phase impacts (land already formed).	· Significant helicopter flight path and manoeuvring noise impact on nearby residences.	· Best access from Clinic. · Helicopter flight safety concerns due to proximity to built-up area.	Likely significant residual helicopter noise impacts under normal operations. Unacceptable flight satefy concerns.
G	Works Area of Highways Department on Tai Lei	· No significant construction phase impacts (land already formed).	· Helicopter flight path and manoeuvring noise impact.	· Easy access from Clinic. · Need to reprovision LPG storage / handling area, otherwise no flight safety concerns.	Likely significant residual helicopter noise impacts under normal operations.
H	Existing Small Pier on Tai Lei	· No significant construction phase impacts.	· Helicopter flight path and manoeuvring noise impact.	· Easy access from Clinic. · Need to reprovision LPG storage / handling area, otherwise no flight safety concerns.	Likely significant residual helicopter noise impacts under normal operations.
I	Pak Wan (EVA East Extension)	· No helicopter manoeuvring or flight path noiuse impact.	· Extended EVA will encroach into zoned “Coastal Protection Area” (CPA).	· Easy access from Clinic. · No flight safety concerns.	The extended EVA on to the ‘CPA’ zone would create a significant adverse landscape impact.

Notes: * Figure 1.2 refers. ^ Normal operation refers to the use of EC155 B1 type helicopter.

2 construction dust

2.1.1 Through proper implementation of dust control measures as required under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, construction dust can be controlled to acceptable level and no significant impacts are anticipated with the implementation of standard dust control measures.

3 Construction Noise

3.1.1 During the construction phase of the helipad, Powered Mechanical Equipment used for the helipad construction will be the primary noise sources. The key noise generating activities include site clearance for the erection of site office, hoarding and fencing; reclamation works, and construction of the helipad and EVA.

3.1.2 The potential noise levels arising from daytime construction activities were evaluated at both existing and planned representative noise sensitive receivers (NSRs), as illustrated by Figure 3.1.

3.1.3 Based on the construction schedule and plant inventory given, the unmitigated construction noise level at Sea Crest Villa is predicted to exceed the daytime noise standard of 75 dB(A). However, with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, including use of silenced equipment and temporary noise barriers, construction noise impacts can be reduced to an acceptable level.

3.1.4 The cumulative noise impacts arising from the construction of helipad and sewage treatment works upgrade at Tai Lei Island upon the common NSR has also been evaluated and no cumulative construction noise impacts are anticipated.

4 Helicopter Noise

4.1 Impact Assessment

4.1.1 The sole noise source during the operational phase of the Project will be from helicopter activities. At any one time, the helipad may be used by either one of two helicopter types deployed by Government Flying Service (GFS) for emergency casualty evacuation: Eurocopter Super Puma AS332 L2 and Eurocopter EC155 B1.

4.1.2 Helicopter noise will be generated when the helicopter is approaching and departing the helipad, and when it is manoeuvring on and over the helipad (i.e., hovering over the helipad; touchdown on the helipad; idling on the ground; and lift-off from the helipad surface to achieve a hover).

4.1.3 Based on the worst case scenario, the maximum predicted helicopter noise level during manoeuvring for both helicopter models is within the L_max limit and no mitigation is required. During helicopter approach the predicted noise level was initially 91 dB(A) and 88 dB(A) at NSR1 using the ‘Super Puma AS332 L2’ and ‘EC155 B1’ helicopters, respectively. Accordingly, in consultation with GFS, the angle of the flight path was reduced by 35 degrees, resulting in approach mode noise from the ‘EC155 B1’ helicopter being within the noise criteria of L_max 85dB(A).

4.1.4 There remains a maximum residual impact of 3 dB(A) at NSR2 (Sea Crest Villa) during the approach mode for the ‘Super Puma AS332 L2’. However, with reference to actual ‘casevac’ helicopter usage in Table 4.1, there will normally be no residual impact as the ‘EC155 B1’ helicopter will be used whenever possible. Use of the ‘Super Puma AS332 L2’ will be restricted to special emergency situations when a larger capacity helicopter is required. Furthermore, when use of the ‘Super Puma AS332 L2’ is necessary, the residual impact duration will be very short (< 10 seconds).

Table 4.1 Helicopter Usage for Peng Chau ‘Casevac’ Operations during years 2000 - 2004

Year	Total No. of Casevac from 0700 to 2200 hours¹	Total No. of Casevac from 2200 – 0700 hours²	No. of Casevac Training Flights³
2000	97 (1)	51	2
2001	125 (9)	57	3
2002	234 (29)	56	5
2003	167 (4)	42	5
2004	140 (5)	37	3

Notes:

1. The figures in brackets ( ) are the number of casevac flights carried out by Super Puma (or Sikorsky prior to 2004).

2. Since 2003, all nighttime casevac has been undertaken using the EC155 B1 type helicopter only, although for the purpose of this noise impact assessment it cannot be discounted that the Super Puma may be required for nighttime casevac in future years.

3. Five casevac training flights were conducted to the Peng Chau helipad in 2003 (i.e., an additional 2.3% of the total casevac flights). As no such data is available for other years, the number of casevac training flights for 2000-2002 and 2004 have been calculated using the same % contribution. It should be noted that GFS does not anticipate any increase in training flights in the short to medium term as the helicopter fleet was upgraded in 2001/02 and there are no plans to add additional types of helicopters.

4.2 Impact Mitigation Assessment

4.2.1 The natural terrain of the cliff adjacent to the helipad effectively controls manoeuvring noise from both helicopter types, although noise levels from the approaching ‘Super Puma’ type helicopter are predicted to exceed the L_max 85 dB(A) limit at Sea Crest Villa. As such, consideration was given to direct mitigation involving relocation of the helipad a further 70 metres to the east [Figure 1.2; ‘Option I’]. Ultimately, such relocation would encroach on to an area currently zoned as a ‘Coastal Protection Area’ to protect and conserve the natural shoreline, and would bring about landscape and increased ecological impacts, including the complete loss of a sandy beach, as well as increased dredging requirements and associated water quality impacts.

4.2.2 A noise barrier is not practicable as the approach noise impact arises when the ‘Super Puma’ type helicopter is in mid-air over the sea, approximately 30 metres north of the helipad surface.

4.2.3 Consideration was given to the application of indirect mitigation measures that would require installation of acoustic insulation into all NSRs at which the predicted L_maxexceeds 85 dB(A). Effective indirect mitigation would require that NSR residents comply with a ‘closed-window’ living environment during helicopter manoeuvering. However, it was considered that such measures would not be effective as occupants of Sea Crest Villa would receive no prior notice of an impending helicopter arrival, and because the noise impact duration would be so short (< 10 seconds) the impact event would be over by the time a response could be made.

4.3 Evaluation of Residual Helicopter Noise Impacts

4.3.1 Based on GFS data for the years 2000 - 2004, after taking into account all the practicable direct mitigation measures the residual impact from the ‘Super Puma AS332 L2’ type helicopter would involve a 3 dB(A) exceedance of the 85 dB(A) limit approximately every 12 days, affecting approximately 6 units at Sea Crest Villa. The impact duration would last for 5-10 seconds per event, and the predicted magnitude, frequency and duration of residual impacts would not give rise to serious long-term environmental implications.

4.3.2 It should be noted that the existing worst-case helicopter noise level at Sea Crest Villa exceeds the noise standard by 4-7 dB(A) and there will be no spread of such noise impacts elsewhere after implementing the proposed new helipad. Moreover, there are over 100 residential building currently affected by the existing helipad. As such, the proposed new helipad will improve the ambient noise environment.

4.3.3 Residual noise may be audible during night time from 7pm to 7am. Research was undertaken to identify a suitable local or international standard to govern helicopter noise at night. In accordance with “Recommended Noise Reduction Approaches” in the United States of America Federal Aviation Agency Hearings on [Non-military Helicopter Noise], the proposed use of the new helipad for emergency use and noise from emergency medical helicopter service is exempted and that emergency helicopter service is a tolerable necessity.

4.3.4 There is no standard on emergency helicopter noise at night. Based on Civil Aviation (Aircraft Noise) Ordinance (Cap 312) of Hong Kong, although administrative means can be used to reduce the noise impact of the helipad operations on the NSRs, restrictions such as limiting the number of helicopter flights during night time as well as restrictions on the operating hours of the helipad will not be practical as the use concerned is for emergency service, which will be on an as needed basis that cannot be controlled.

4.3.5 Best helicopter route over the least densely populated areas will be used for the proposed new helipad. Considering that the helipad is for emergency service and this is a tolerable necessity, the construction of the helipad at the proposed location would therefore be acceptable.

4.3.6 In addition, GFS has agreed to avoid the use of the ‘Super Puma AS332 L2’ type helicopter whenever practicable, although should the need arise, the local community may lodge noise complaints with the Islands District Office by the following means: (Fax) 2815 2291; (e-mail) dois@had.gov.hk; or (Post) Islands District Office, Harbour Building, 20th Floor, 38 Pier road, Central.

5 Waste MANAGEMENT

5.1 Construction Phase

5.1.1 The waste management assessment analysed the type of activities associated with the construction of the helipad and the likely types of waste to be generated in order to outline measures to minimize impacts to the surrounding environment and where possible to minimize generation in the first place. It is estimated that 14,000m³ of predominantly fine to coarse marine sand will be dredged for disposal at the South Cheung Chau Spoil Disposal Area. Reclamation of approximately 30,200m³ of imported material will be required, of which approximately 25,000m³ will be rock fill and rock armour.

5.1.2 Through good practice and the mitigation measures that have been proposed for ensuring proper handling, storage, transportation and disposal of various types of waste / materials throughout the construction phase, no significant adverse impacts from waste management are anticipated.

5.2 Operational Phase

5.2.1 Organic (vegetation) waste is anticipated to be the only form of waste generated due to the operation of the helipad (from intermittent maintenance works). However, the volume of such waste is expected to be negligible, and no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated during the operational phase.

6 water quality

6.1 Construction Phase

6.1.1 As only one dredger will be in operation during the dredging works, calculations predict that elevations in suspended solids at the identified sensitive receivers are negligible and well within the tolerance level. It is also predicted that the SS elevation will not exceed the tolerance level of 10.1 mg/l even in the very vicinity of the dredger, based on an average water depth of 5.8m in the study area. The mixing zone where the SS elevation will exceed the tolerance level is only 16m (along the main flow direction) by 5m (normal to the flow direction) at a water depth of 3m and 25m by 8m at a water depth of 2m, and will not affect water sensitive receivers.

6.1.2 As the backfilling material will be rock armour and granular material with a minimum particle size of 20mm, no fine sediment is expected to be released into water column during the backfilling stage and this activity will have much less water quality impacts than the dredging activities.

6.1.3 The use of silt curtains will be used to limit the extent of the impact zone.

6.2 Operational Phase

6.2.1 Hydrodynamic effects of the constructed Project will be negligible, while there will be no operational discharges that could potentially translate into impacts on the marine environment.

7 Ecology

7.1 Construction Phase

7.1.1 The Project requires approximately 14,000m³ of dredging covering a seabed area of approximately 0.57 ha. Of this area, approximately 0.33 ha of sub-tidal benthic habitat will be permanently lost under the reclamation, with the remaining 0.24 ha temporarily affected and available for recolonisation on completion of marine works. There will also be the permanent loss of approximately 0.1 ha of mixed sandy, rocky and boulder inter-tidal habitat.

7.1.2 As regards impact mitigation, a length of approximately 200m of artificial sloping boulder seawall is to be constructed that will provide some level of mitigation for the permanent loss of natural habitat. Approximately 0.08 ha of sub-tidal benthic habitat and 0.12 ha of inter-tidal habitat can be created, resulting in a net loss of some 0.25 ha of sub-tidal benthic habitat and a net gain of some 0.02 ha of inter-tidal habitat. Given the low baseline ecological value of the sub-tidal and inter-tidal habitats at Pak Wan, the residual impact is not considered significant.

7.1.3 The small scale and short duration of the marine works will not cause any adverse water quality-induced impacts on the hard coral community at east Tai Lei. Use of a silt curtain is recommended to contain water quality impacts, and this will ensure no adverse ecological impacts on the hard coral community. No significant terrestrial ecology impacts are anticipated.

7.2 Operational Phase

7.2.1 Although the operational helipad will be a source of noise when in use that has the potential to disturb birds and potentially affect butterflies through air turbulence, no significant ecological impacts are anticipated during the operational phase of the Project.

8 fisheries

8.1 Construction Phase

8.1.1 While the Project will lead to the permanent loss of approximately 0.33 hectares of shallow coastal environment, the permanently affected area is not of any particular fisheries value being situated in very shallow coastal waters. There is unrestricted fisheries habitat in adjacent waters contiguous with the Project area, including undeveloped / undisturbed shallow coastal water habitat east of the Project area.

8.1.2 No significant water quality-induced impacts are predicted in the popular fishing area off Tai Lei bridge given the small scale of the dredging activities for the access road link, while there are no impacts on the waters of this popular fishing area form the larger dredging activity scheduled for the helipad footprint due to the greater distance separation.

8.2 Operational Phase

8.2.1 The operational Project will not give rise to any fisheries impacts, while there may be some fisheries benefits from the construction of approximately 200m length of artificial seawall habitat.

9 CULTURAL HERITAGE

9.1 Construction Phase

9.1.1 Marine geophysical survey at Pak Wan identified two ‘items’ of potential marine archaeological value. However, due to geophysical survey limitations imposed by the shallow water depth it was decided to conduct a precautionary dive survey to cover these areas.

9.1.2 The two items recorded detected by the geophysical survey were identified as an area of coral rubble that was deposited from the shoreline, and a boulder. Various small items were recorded form the dive survey in waters too shallow for the geophysical survey boat, and these have been assessed to be of minimal to low cultural heritage significance. No further field investigation is recommended for the Peng Chau study area.

9.1.3 Desktop and field evaluation of terrestrial cultural heritage in and around the study area at Peng Chau revealed that no archaeological sites, historic buildings or structures will be impacted by the helipad development.

9.2 Operational Phase

9.2.1 The operational phase will not give rise to any cultural heritage impacts.

10 Conclusion

10.1.1 The Project involves the construction and operation of a permanent helipad at Pak Wan, Peng Chau and is required mainly for transporting Peng Chau residents to urban areas for medical treatment in emergency situations. The Project will be constructed by reclamation, and through site surveys and impact assessment no significant adverse water quality or ecological impacts are anticipated from Project construction or operation.

10.1.2 The Pak Wan site was one of eleven site options for the Helipad considered in detail, and was selected as the optimal location for the Project due to its remoteness from the built environment, while it is still easily accessible from the Peng Chau medical clinic. The chosen helipad site offers the local community a significant time saving compared with the existing helipad at Tai Lung Tsuen which is also predicted to generate significant helicopter noise impacts (i.e., > 85 dB(A)) on residents of over 100 village type and medium rise residential buildings, including residents at Sea Crest Villa.

10.1.3 The helipad location also makes use of the natural rocky cliff-face between the helipad surface and Sea Crest Villa to effectively shield the residential development from helicopter manoeuvring noise, while the helicopter flight path has been refined to eliminate approaching helicopter noise impacts on residences under most operating conditions.

10.1.4 While a residual helicopter noise impact is predicted during the approach mode of the ‘Super Puma AS L2’ type helicopter, the impact frequency will be approximately once every 12 days. The impact duration would last for less than 10 seconds per event, and the predicted magnitude, frequency and duration of residual impacts would not give rise to serious long-term environmental implications.

1.1.2 The Agreement requires the completion of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies for the construction and operation of two proposed permanent helipads: one at Peng Chau and one Yung Shue Wan, Lamma Island. This report is the Executive Summary for the proposed Peng Chau Helipad.

1.2.1 The Project is ‘designated’ under Item B.2, Schedule 2 of the EIA Ordinance (EIAO) by virtue of being: “A helipad within 300m of existing or planned residential development”. Accordingly, an Environmental Permit is required for the Project.

1.2.2 The Project is required mainly by the Government Flying Service (GFS) for transporting Peng Chau residents to urban areas for medical treatment in emergency situations. The helipad may also be used by GFS for training flights and for official Government visits.

1.3.1 The Project will be constructed by dredging / reclamation in shallow coastal waters at Pak Wan, northwest Peng Chau [Figure 1.1]. An access road will be constructed along the natural shoreline to link the proposed helipad with existing Emergency Vehicular Access (EVA).

1.3.3 Key Project details include: dredging of approximately 14,000m3 of fine to coarse marine sand; and construction of a 150 metres long and 4.5 metres wide access road link, and helipad 25 metres in diameter. Figure 1.3 illustrates the proposed Peng Chau Helipad.

1.3.4 The construction programme can be broadly summarised as presented by Table 1.2.

1.5.1 One other project identified in the vicinity that requires consideration for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects is the Drainage Services Department’s (DSD) Peng Chau Sewage Treatment Works (STW) Upgrade Project that is due to commence construction in mid 2005.

1.5.2 DSD is currently implementing sewerage works at Peng Chau. It has been confirmed with DSD that the portion of the works within the helipad Project boundary were completed in 2004.