Habitats Regulations Assessment Enabling Works to Allow Implementation of Full Runway Alternation During Easterly Operations at Heathrow Airport April 2013

Habitats Regulations Assessment Enabling works to allow implementation of full runway alternation during easterly operations at Heathrow Airport April 2013

HRA

Contents

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background to the Development 1 1.2 Purpose of this Report 2 1.3 Structure of this Report 3

2. Project Description (Step 2) 5 2.1 Site Context 5 2.1.1 Surrounding Area 6 2.2 Description of the Physical Works 6 2.2.1 Airfield Infrastructure 6 2.2.2 Concrete Break Out 7 2.2.3 Noise barrier at Longford 7 2.2.4 Construction methodology 8 2.2.5 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) 9 2.2.6 Decommissioning 10 2.3 Description of the Operational Changes 10 2.3.1 Sensitivity Analysis: Extreme Easterly and Westerly Operations 11 2.3.2 Noise limits 11 2.3.3 Noise monitoring locations 12 2.4 Other projects or plans that could act in combination to affect Natura 2000 sites 13

3. Identifying Natura 2000 Sites within Potential Zone of Influence (Step 3) 14 3.1 Information gathering and literature search 14 3.1.1 Methodology 14 3.1.2 Air quality 14 3.1.3 Noise 15 3.1.4 Identified Natura 2000 sites 15 3.1.5 South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar 17 3.1.6 Windsor Forest & Great Park SAC 22 3.1.7 Richmond Park SAC 23

4. Screening of impacts not for consideration (Step 4) 25

HRA

iii

4.1 Methodology 25 4.1.1 Air quality assessment 25 4.1.2 Noise assessment 26 4.2 Impacts to South West London SPA component sites 26 4.2.1 Assessment of effects 26 4.2.2 Changes to air quality baseline 26 4.2.3 Changes to noise baseline 27 4.3 Impacts to Windsor Forest & Great Park SAC 28 4.3.1 Assessment of effects 28 4.3.2 Changes to air quality baseline 28 4.3.3 Changes to noise baseline 28 4.4 Impacts to Richmond SAC 29 4.4.1 Assessment of effects 29 4.4.2 Changes to air quality baseline 29 4.4.3 Changes to noise baseline 29

5. Significance of effects (Step 5) 30 5.1 Methodology for establishing significant effects 30 5.2 Impacts to South West London SPA component sites: Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit resulting from an increase in the number of aircraft arriving on Runway 09R in an easterly direction 31 5.2.1 Wraysbury Reservoir – Baseline Ecological Status 31 5.2.2 Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit – Baseline Ecological Status 32 5.2.3 Discussion regarding noise disturbance on wildfowl 32 5.2.4 Operational changes and predicted ATM/noise increases 33 5.2.5 Changes to noise baseline at Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit 34 5.3 Other projects or plans that could act in combination to affect the conservation features of the relevant European Sites 35

6. Conclusions 36 6.1 Summary 36

Appendices Appendix A Sites ranked in order of Max Gadwall and Max Shoveler counts Appendix B Screening of potential impacts Appendix C Noise footprint comparison

HRA

1. Introduction

1.1 Background to the Development

The Cranford Agreement was a verbal undertaking made by a senior Government official on the 31st July 1952, at a meeting of the Cranford Residents' and District Amenities Association. The undertaking given is understood to have been a statement of best endeavours that, as far as practicable, Runway 09L (the northern runway) at Heathrow Airport would not be used for departures over Cranford when the airport was on an easterly operational mode (i.e. when the wind is blowing from the east).

It is understood that the reason for the introduction of the Cranford Agreement was to protect the residents of Cranford, which, until the runways were extended westwards in the 1960s, was the nearest residential area to the airport, from the noise of departing aircraft (which was considered to be more disruptive than the noise from arriving aircraft). Therefore, under the current arrangements during easterly operations (which occurs for around 29% of the time), aircraft usually depart from Runway 09R (the southern runway) with arrivals using Runway 09L (the northern runway).

The Cranford Agreement has therefore prevented a more equitable distribution of noise around Heathrow Airport and the application of „runway alternation‟ during easterly operations i.e. using both runways for departures and arrivals. When the airport is on westerly operations (which occurs for around 71% of the time), full runway alternation provides relief to affected communities living under the arrival and departure flight paths. This runway alternation has operated since 1972. Whilst the residents of Cranford currently still benefit from the lack of runway alternation during easterly operations, the residents of Windsor and adjoining areas under Runway 09L approach routes experience no relief from the noise of arriving aircraft, and communities to the east of Runway 09R, such as Hatton and North Feltham, experience no relief from aircraft departure noise.

The Department for Transport (DfT) published a Consultation Document, “Adding Capacity at Heathrow” in November 2007, which sought to canvass views on how Heathrow Airport could be developed over the next 20 years or more. The document included an assessment by the Environmental Research and Consultancy Department (ERCD) of the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) into the noise effects that would result from ending the Cranford Agreement.

The ERCD study concluded that removing the Cranford Agreement (whilst retaining segregated-mode operation ) would result in a redistribution of noise exposure to the west of the airport under the easterly arrival flight paths and also to the east of the airport under the easterly flight departure paths. The study predicted that in 2015, assuming 480,000 ATMs, the removal of the Cranford Agreement would decrease the population within the 57dBA LAeq noise contour (described as the onset of community annoyance) by 10,500 due to the transfer of arrival operations away from Windsor and onto the arrivals flight track to Runway 09R. However, it was also predicted that there would be an increase in the number of people living in higher noise exposure areas; with an additional 3,300 people experiencing 63dBA LAeq or more.

HRA

To inform the consultation document, the potential effects of ending the Cranford Agreement on air quality were also considered. This was also modelled on the basis of 480,000 ATMs in 2015. The results suggested that ending the Cranford Agreement would affect the distribution of NO2 concentrations at some receptors around the western end and eastern ends of the airport.

Further to comments received in response to the DfT consultation, the Government‟s policy decision to end the Cranford Agreement was published in the document “Adding Capacity at Heathrow: Decisions following Consultation” dated 15 January 2009. Paragraphs 74 & 75 of this document state:

“Ending the Cranford Agreement would redistribute noise more fairly around the airport…..The Secretary of State has therefore decided in the interests of equity to confirm the provisional view set out in the consultation document. Therefore the operating practice which implements the Cranford Agreement should end as soon as practicably possible. He notes that this would enable runway alternation to be introduced when the airport is operating on easterlies, giving affected communities predictable periods of relief from airport noise."

Subsequent to the January 2009 decision, the DfT confirmed this position in a letter dated 17 February 2009, which also clearly specified that implementation of the decision to end the Cranford Agreement is the responsibility of the airport operator (HAL), who are expected to give effect to the decision as soon as practicably possible. It was also made clear that, “The Secretary of State does not envisage any further decision by him to be necessary” on the matter.

On 7th September 2010, the coalition Government‟s Secretary of State for Transport (Theresa Villiers) reaffirmed support for the decision to end the Cranford Agreement in a ministerial statement as follows:

“The previous Government's decisions in 2009 also included a commitment to end the Cranford Agreement. This decision was based on the desire to distribute noise more fairly around the airport and extend the benefits of runway alternation to communities under the flight paths during periods of easterly winds. We support that objective and do not intend to re-open the decision…….. I will look to BAA to ensure that proper consideration is given to appropriate mitigation and compensation measures for those likely to be affected by the proposals.”

1.2 Purpose of this Report

Ordinarily, Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) would carry out development projects within the boundary of Heathrow Airport using their permitted development rights under Part 18 of Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO). However, any development that would require EIA (under the EIA Regulations) because it is expected that it will result in significant environmental effects, does not fall under the GPDO rights. HAL recognises that new operating procedures at Heathrow Airport that will be facilitated by the proposed physical development (i.e. the Project) result in potentially significant environmental effects and thus EIA applies.

HRA

In accordance with best practice, an EIA Scoping Report was prepared to identify the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project that needed to be considered in the Environmental Statement and to outline the approach that was to be undertaken to assess the significance of these effects. The EIA Scoping Report provided the opportunity for statutory and non-statutory consultees, and others with an interest in the Project to comment on the proposed scope of the EIA. This report was submitted to LBH on 22nd June 2011, as part of a request for a formal scoping opinion. The EIA scoping response was received on 22nd August 2011. More details are provided in the Environmental Statement that accompanies the Planning Application.

In producing the Scoping Report it was identified that Heathrow Airport is in close proximity to three European/International wildlife sites (i.e. Special Areas of Conservation [SACs], Special Protection Areas [SPAs] and Ramsar sites). As a consequence, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the „Habitats Regulations‟) may be relevant to the development. These require that an Appropriate Assessment (AA) be undertaken by the “competent authority” (in this case London Borough of Hillingdon) if the proposals are likely to have a significant effect on a European („Natura 2000‟) site, specifically a SAC or a SPA in Great Britain (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), as long as the proposals are not directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of the site. Effects on Ramsar sites need also to be considered because the UK Government has stipulated that, although these sites are designated at an international rather than a European level, they should also be considered within the HRA process.

AA is typically undertaken as part of a staged approach (collectively known as a Habitat Regulations Assessment). Stage A (screening), which is the subject of this report, examines the potential effects upon European sites that would result from the proposed development works, both alone and in combination with other plans and projects, in order to determine whether any of these effects is likely to be significant. If one or more significant effects are likely to occur, it is then necessary to proceed to Stage B, the actual AA.

1.3 Structure of this Report

The Stage A „screening‟ assessment comprises five steps.

 Step 1: Determining whether the project or plan is directly connected with or necessary for the management of the site.

 Step 2: Describing the project or plan, and the description and characterisation of other projects or plans that, in combination, have the potential for significant effects on Natura 2000 sites.

 Step 3: Identifying Natura 2000 sites within potential zone of influence.

 Step 4: Identifying the potential effects on the Natura 2000s sites.

 Step 5: Assessing the significance of any effects on Natura 2000 sites.

HRA

In relation to Step 1, the European Commission (2000) makes it clear that, for a project or plan to be „directly‟ connected with or necessary to the management of the site, the management must refer to management measures that are for conservation purposes, with the „directly‟ element referring to measures that are solely conceived for the conservation management of a site and are not direct or indirect consequences of other activities.

The proposed enabling works to allow implementation of full runway alternation during easterly operations are not directly connected with or necessary for the conservation management of any European site and it is therefore appropriate to proceed to Step 2 of the screening process.

Sections 2-5 of this report deal in turn with Steps 2-5 of the screening process.

HRA

2. Project Description (Step 2)

2.1 Site Context

Heathrow Airport is located approximately 15 miles west of Central London and lies within the London Borough of Hillingdon. It is situated on approximately 1,227 hectares of land and operates two parallel runways in segregated mode1, which handle a wide range of aircraft types, including Code F aircraft types, the largest aircraft currently in operation at the airport. In the 12 months to November 2012, the airport handled 472,022 Air Traffic Movements (ATMs).

As shown in Figure 2.1, the airfield system at Heathrow Airport comprises the two runways, taxiways and apron areas that form the aircraft movement areas. These areas are characterised by large expanses of airfield pavement interspersed with grassed verges and strips, and perimeter (security) fencing encircles the airport‟s operation areas. The two parallel runways at Heathrow Airport are concrete with grooved asphalt, and orientated in an east/west alignment with a separation of approximately 1.3km. They are dimensioned as follows:

 Runway 09L/27R2 (northern): 3,902 metres long and 45 metres wide; and

 Runway 09R/27L3 (southern): 3,658 metres long and 45 metres wide.

The complex network of taxiways which connect the passenger terminals, aircraft apron and aircraft stand areas across the airfield to the runways all feature signage, marking and lighting systems which are compliant with the UK Civil Aviation Authority‟s (CAA‟s) „Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 168 – Licensing of Aerodromes‟. This enables the safe movement and manoeuvring of aircraft between the runways and the stands. Heathrow Airport is served by five passenger terminals (although Terminal 2 is currently under redevelopment) which provide 119 contact stands with air bridges for passenger boarding and disembarkation and a further 80 remote stands. The current passenger terminal configuration at Heathrow Airport is as follows:

 Terminals 1, (2) and 3 form a cluster of terminal buildings known as the Central Terminal Area (CTA), which is situated in the central part of the airport between the northern and southern runways. Currently, Terminal 2 is undergoing a major redevelopment due for completion in Spring 2014 that will also replace the existing Terminal 1;

 Terminal 4 is located on the south-eastern part of the airfield to the east of the cargo terminal and south of Runway 09R/27L (the southern runway). It is connected to the CTA via the Heathrow Cargo Tunnel; and

1 Segregated mode for parallel runway operations means that one runway is used for aircraft arrivals with the other used for aircraft departures. 2 09L when on easterly operations and 27R when on westerly operations. 3 09R when on easterly operations and 27L when on westerly operations.

HRA

 Terminal 5 is situated between the northern (09L/27R) and southern (09R/27L) runways at the western end of the airfield. It comprises one main, four-storey terminal building and two satellite buildings, which are linked to the main terminal building by an underground people mover transit system. The terminal is served by 60 aircraft stands.

 Cargo facilities are located on the southern part of the airfield with aircraft maintenance facilities situated at the far eastern end of the airfield between the two runways. The Air Traffic Control (ATC) tower is located in the central part of the airfield between the CTA and Terminal 5. The height of the ATC tower structure is 87 metres, which provides unobstructed 3600 views of the entire airfield for controllers.

All the passenger terminals at Heathrow Airport can be accessed by road. There is also a mainline rail link from London Paddington to Terminals in the Central Terminal Area (for Terminals 1, 2 and 3), Terminal 4 and Terminal 5. Heathrow Airport has three stations on London Underground‟s Piccadilly Line (for Terminals 1, 2 & 3, Terminal 4 and Terminal 5).

2.1.1 Surrounding Area

Heathrow Airport is bounded by the A4 (Bath Road – Colnbrook Bypass), the Western Perimeter Road and Wright Way to the north (and the M4 motorway beyond that), the A3133 (Airport Way) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Road) to the west (and the M25 motorway beyond that), the Southern Perimeter Road and the A30 to the south, and the River Crane to the east (and the A312 The Parkway – Causeway, which connects the A30 with the A4 beyond that). The nearest major urban areas to the airport are Hounslow (to the east) and Staines to the south-west. Smaller urban areas immediately surrounding the airport (in a clockwise direction from the north) include Sipson, Harlington, Cranford, Heston, Hatton, East Bedfont, Stanwell, Stanwell Moor, Horton, Poyle, Colnbrook, Longford and Harmondsworth.

The Longford River is an artificial watercourse constructed on the instruction of Charles I to provide water for the lakes at Hampton Court and Bushy Park and which is still the responsibility of the Royal Parks Agency. In its northern course, the Longford River runs adjacent to its „twin‟, the Duke of Northumberland River (together referred to as the Twin Rivers). The course of the Twin Rivers was initially changed in the 1940s due to the construction of Heathrow Airport and they were diverted again to accommodate Terminal 5.

2.2 Description of the Physical Works

2.2.1 Airfield Infrastructure

The extent of the new airfield infrastructure works is relatively limited; comprising the construction of the following key components:

 Creation of a „Hold Area‟ at the western end of Runway 09L comprising:

HRA

 The construction of a new RAT (A13E) between Alpha Taxiway and Runway 09L, situated between the existing A13 and A12 RATs, with a total area of 6,198m2.

 Construction of a new connector taxiway linking the existing Alpha and Bravo Taxiways situated immediately to the south of the proposed new A13E RAT, with a total area of 5,646 m2, to provide greater flexibility for re-sequencing aircraft and to reduce the conflict with the Terminal 5 apron as well as improving ground movement flows and access to the airfield.

 In addition two small areas of additional pavement (A12 and A13 fillets) will be developed to enable A380 aircraft to access and exit the runways to meet the safety requirements of the UK CAA with a total area of 394m2.

Figure 2.2 shows a 1km offset from the area of all proposed works. The total area of new airfield infrastructure will be approximately 1.22 hectares (12,238m2).

The refurbishment and realignment works to two existing RETs (N5E and S5) from Runway 09R (as described in the Scoping Report, June 2011) are no longer included as part of the planning application for works relating to the implementation of full runway alternation during easterly operations. They are required to safely and efficiently operate the airfield even prior to implementation of alternation on easterlies and thus will not form part of the planning application. The RETs will be implemented under HAL‟s permitted development powers following recent consultation with London Borough of Hillingdon who agreed with the approach proposed.

2.2.2 Concrete Break Out

Alongside the construction of the new airfield pavement areas, there will be a need to break out existing redundant areas of pavement on the airfield to ensure that there is no net increase in paved area across the airport that could cause increased run-off and flood volumes.

The total area of concrete breakout will be 12,564m2. This will result in an overall net decrease in paved area across the airport of 326m2.

2.2.3 Noise barrier at Longford

HAL are proposing to construct a noise barrier to the south of the village of Longford. The noise barrier will be constructed in two sections, with a total length of 593m. The western section will be 280m in length and will predominantly follow the alignment of the existing 3m high timber highway noise barrier that is situated between Wright Way and the Duke of Northumberland River. The eastern section will be 313m in length and will follow the alignment of the existing timber perimeter fence surrounding the Terminal 5 Business Car Park. This section will also include a 4m wide access gate to facilitate maintenance of the Duke of Northumberland River. The gap has been assessed to have a negligible affect on the noise attenuation benefit of the barrier. The whole length of the barrier will be 5m high. A number of options for materials for the lower 3 metres of the barrier are being considered. However, to

HRA

ensure that any adverse visual effects are minimised, the upper 2 metres of the barrier will be constructed of a transparent material.

2.2.4 Construction methodology

Construction programme and phasing

In order to effectively manage the interface between construction works and on-going airport operations, in particular to ensure the safety of aircraft and to retain an operation of the airport that is largely unaffected by the works, a significant proportion of the works will take place at night, with daytime working being undertaken where appropriate. The construction period is anticipated to be April 2014 to early 2015. The majority of the works will be carried out during weekdays but there may be some weekend and bank holiday working. Night-time work is defined as work being carried out between 22.30 hrs and 05.45 hrs. Day working hours start at 05.45 and finish at 22.30.

Construction workforce

Construction workforce numbers will vary depending on the stage of construction and certain activities. It is anticipated that the total average daily workforce including both staff and operatives working on the Project will be in the range of 60 to 80 people.

Appropriate car parking provisions for construction workers driving to/from the airport will be made by the contractor, in consultation with HAL, and detailed in a construction transport management plan that will be developed by the contractor (once appointed) in consultation with HAL. Use of public transport will be encouraged where possible.

General construction method

On-Airfield Works

The main construction works will involve the break out of redundant areas of concrete, and the excavation and construction of new pavement areas, together with the installation of surface drainage collection and treatment systems. Topsoil rehabilitation and re-vegetation of areas adjacent to pavement shoulders will also be undertaken during this phase of works.

Concrete from the break out areas will be taken directly to the on airport crushing facility which is located at the eastern end of the airfield close to Hatton Cross station. This material will be crushed during the day and then either taken to the airside concrete batcher, as aggregate for concrete or taken back to the construction site at night to be used as a pavement drainage layer.

Material that has been excavated during night work activities will be transported either to a works area where construction fill is required, or to a temporary stockpile within the airport (the location of which is to

HRA

be identified) and moved to an off airport tip during the following day using HGVs (if it cannot be re-used within the airport).

At the end of each construction shift, in particular prior to the commencement of the first aircraft movement following the night-time work period, the contractor will check all aircraft movement areas adjacent to each work site for material, mud and debris, and sweep clear. If necessary, the contractor will install screens to prevent the ingress of foreign object debris onto the aircraft movement areas.

Noise Barrier

The construction programme for the noise barrier is estimated to be in the order of 10 weeks, 2 weeks for preliminary work and 4 weeks each for the construction of the western and eastern sections of the barrier. Due to the need to avoid the obstacle limitation surfaces, works on the section of the barrier adjacent to the Duke of Northumberland River may be carried out during the night-time, temporary runway closures and/or a combination of both.

Site access and transport As there is no significant requirement for the import or export of material, off-site traffic movements will be intermittent. There will be an initial phase of high activity related to each section of the barrier; for site set up and the import of plant and materials, however, traffic movements will be relatively minor during the construction phase.

Assuming the use of 5m3 concrete delivery trucks, it is estimated that there would be approximately 28 concrete deliveries by HGVs in the first 3 weeks of construction for the western end of the barrier, and 44 delivery trucks in the first 3 weeks of construction for the eastern end of the barrier.

2.2.5 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Prior to commencing the works, a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared by HAL, in conjunction with the appointed contractor to manage and minimise the potential environmental effects of construction activities. This will cover areas such as pollution, visual effects, noise, dust, ground conditions, traffic, archaeology, the water environment and any necessary supervision by an archaeological clerk of works. It will incorporate construction practice with reference to appropriate British Standards (e.g. BS 5228: Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites and the GLA Best Practice Guide for the control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition sites). Best working practices will be stipulated in the CEMP and will be a contractual requirement for the chosen civil engineering contractor(s). The CEMP will be audited and enforced by HAL during the works and will be made available to regulatory authorities such as LBH and the Environment Agency. An outline CEMP for the Project that will guide the final CEMP has been prepared and is included in the Environmental Statement (see Appendix C in the Environmental Statement).

HRA

2.2.6 Decommissioning

This stage is not relevant to the development as there are no proposals for decommissioning.

2.3 Description of the Operational Changes

The implementation of full runway alternation during easterly operations will not result in any changes to the operating hours of Heathrow Airport, or the aircraft movement cap of 480,000 ATMs per annum, or 2 an increase to the 57dB(A) LAeq noise contour area limit of 145km conditioned by the Terminal 5 planning decision. Furthermore it will have no effect on the future number of aircraft movements, types of aircraft or on passenger numbers using Heathrow Airport.

Implementing full alternation during easterly operations will only result in:

 The introduction of regular departures from Runway 09L in an easterly direction over Cranford, i.e. an increase in the number of easterly departures over Cranford;

 A decrease in the number of aircraft arriving on Runway 09L in an easterly direction;

 An increase in the number of aircraft arriving on Runway 09R in an easterly direction; and

 A decrease in the number of aircraft departing from Runway 09R in an easterly direction.

There will be no operational changes when the airport is on westerly operations as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Typical Distribution of Departures and Arrivals when on Westerly Operations (71% of the time) on a Typical Day

Runway Movements with and without runway alternation on westerlies (no change)

Arrivals (total 656)

Northern (27R) 328

Southern (27L) 328

Departures (total 656)

Northern (27R) 328

Southern (27L) 328

ATMs when the aircraft is on westerly operations, are shown on Figure 2.3 (departures) and Figure 2.4 (arrivals).

With the implementation of full runway alternation when the airport is on easterly operations, aircraft will depart from Runway 09L for 50% of the time (equivalent to 14.5% of the total time the airport is operating i.e. half of 29%) and depart from Runway 09R for 50% of the time (again equivalent to 14.5% of the total time the airport is operating). This will equate to approximately 328 departures from 09L and

HRA

approximately 328 departures from 09R on a typical day in 2015 when the airport is on easterly operations. This is illustrated in Figure 2.6 (Runway 09R) and Figure 2.5 (Runway 09L). The position of the NPRs from the two runways is such that there will be areas to the east of Heathrow Airport that currently do not experience overflights from aircraft departing from Runway 09L, but which as a result of implementing full runway alternation during easterly operations, will experience this on a scheduled basis.

Following the implementation of full runway alternation in 2015, arrivals traffic will, as for departures, be equally distributed across the northern (27R) and southern (27L) runways. This will result in approximately 346 arrivals on each runway on a typical easterly day. This is illustrated in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Typical Distribution of Departures and Arrivals when on Easterly Operations (29% of the time) on a Typical Day

Runway No alternation on easterlies With alternation on easterlies

Arrivals

Northern (09L) 630 328

Southern (09R) 26 328

Departures

Northern (09L) (<0.2% of the time) 328

Southern (09R) 656 328

ATMs in 2015, when the aircraft is on easterly operations without full runway alternation (i.e. as per the current situation), are shown on Figure 2.5 (arrivals) and Figure 2.6 (departures).

2.3.1 Sensitivity Analysis: Extreme Easterly and Westerly Operations

On average the airport operates on easterlies for about 29% of the time. However, as this is dependent on wind conditions it varies from year to year. The actual figure has varied from a low of 22% in 2004 to a high of 40% in 1996. A sensitivity test was undertaken to establish the influence of extreme yearly variations in the proportion of easterly and westerly operations. This ensures that both the average and most extreme case scenarios are considered.

2.3.2 Noise limits

Departure noise limits Air noise is defined as all noise caused by departing and arriving aircraft between start-of-roll (SOR) and completion of the landing run, including the use of reverse thrust where relevant. The consideration of noise issues at Heathrow Airport has largely focused on air noise as the main issue.

HRA

In terms of departure noise limits, aircraft departing from Heathrow are subject to noise limits set by the DfT. Following a review, the current limits were introduced early in 2001. There are three limits in place for the day, shoulder and night-time periods.

The limits are:

 Day (07.00 - 23.00 hours local) 94dBA (LMax)

 Night (23.30 - 06.00 hours local) 87dBA (LMax)

 Shoulder (23.00 - 23.30 & 06.00 - 07.00 hours local) 89dBA (LMax)

Arrivals noise limits There are no arrivals noise limits, although a code of practice has been developed for arrivals. Nevertheless, the sound exposure level (SEL)4 of aircraft arrivals are clearly recognised as contributing to a smaller noise footprint than is the case for departures (see Appendix C – Noise footprint comparison5).

The present pattern provides for one runway to be used by landing aircraft from 0600 until 1500 hours local. The other runway is then used from 1500 hours local until after the last departure. On Sunday each week the runway used before midnight continues to be used for landings until 0600 hours local. This means early morning arrivals before 0600 hours local use a different runway on successive weeks and the runways used by landing aircraft before and after 1500 hours local also alternate on a weekly basis.

2.3.3 Noise monitoring locations

Heathrow has ten permanent noise monitors which are used to monitor adherence to the departure noise limits; of these locations, three are located in closest proximity to South West London Waterbodies SPA (Wraysbury Reservoir). These monitors are located at approximately 6.5km from start-of-roll (SOR). Table 2.3 presents all fixed noise monitoring locations and associated noise limits at different times of the day.

4 SEL is the total noise emitted by one over-flight or aircraft compressed into a time period of one second. This metric takes into account the maximum noise level and the duration of the event.

5 Appendix C is an excerpt from a document published by SeattleTacoma Airport in the USA.

HRA

Table 2.3 Heathrow fixed noise monitor locations with noise limits

Fixed noise monitoring locations Distance from start- Distance to Noise limits (Departures) (dB) of-roll (km) touchdown (km)

Runway Runway Runway Daytime Shoulder Night Limit 27L/R 09L/R 09L/R limit Period Limit (2300-2329 & 0601 and 0700)

Site 6: Thames Water, Wraysbury 6.6 - -

Site A: Colnbrook 6.3 - -

Site B: Poyle 6.0 - -

Site C: Horton 6.6 - - 94.4 89.4 87.4

Site D: Coppermill 6.8 - - 94.1 89.1 87.1

Site E: Wraysbury Reservoir (South) 7.2 - - 93.7 88.7 86.7

Site F: Hounslow West - 6.4 -

Site G: Barracks - 6.5 -

Site H: Hounslow Heath - 6.4 -

Site I: East Feltham - 6.6 -

Site J: Hounslow Cavalry Barracks (North) - 6.7 -

Site K: Hounslow Heath Golf Course - 6.3 -

2.4 Other projects or plans that could act in combination to affect Natura 2000 sites

The study area for identifying other projects or plans that could act in combination with the proposals was determined by undertaking the following exercise:

 Considering whether, as a result of implementing full runway alternation on easterly operations, there would be changes which could lead to effects on the Natura 2000 sites;

 Assuming that changes which could affect the Natura 2000 sites were predicted, identifying the spatial extent of these changes so that a Zone of Influence (ZOI) could be established. This ZOI would become the study area within which other projects and plans, which had the potential to act in combination with the proposal to implement full runway alternation on easterly operations, were identified.

HRA

3. Identifying Natura 2000 Sites within Potential Zone of Influence (Step 3)

3.1 Information gathering and literature search

3.1.1 Methodology Given their minor nature, it was considered that there was no need to assess the effects of the construction works related to the provision of the new infrastructure. Effects considered were therefore limited to those associated with the operation of the Airport after the implementation of full runway alternation during easterly operations.

Specifically this resulted in the following being considered:

 the effects of changes to air quality, particularly increases in the concentrations of NOx6 and levels of nitrogen deposition; and

 the effects of increases in the level of noise and frequency of noise events caused by aircraft overflying.

A study area within which all European sites were identified was established by considering the nature of these changes.

3.1.2 Air quality The study area for air quality was established following advice from experts in aviation based air quality assessment, and comprises:

 The departure routes from Runway 09L (to the east) for a distance of 9 kilometres, which will experience increased departures as a result of implementing full runway alternation on easterly operations. In reality because after a certain distance existing (without full runway alternation) and proposed (with full runway alternation) flight tracks merge the only areas that need to be considered are those that are not currently overflown but which will be after the implementation of the proposals. In addition, also as a result of increased departures from the northern runway, the ZOI will encompass a 200 metre radius from the western end of Runway 09L, where these departing aircraft will initiate their Start of Roll (SOR). A 200 metre radius is considered appropriate because any emissions that occur as a result of easterly aircraft departures from Runway 09Lwill, at distances greater than this, have dispersed to such an extent that they cannot affect biodiversity receptors.

 The arrivals route to the southern runway (09R) (from the west) for a distance of 9 kilometres, which will experience increased arrivals as a result of the ending of the proposals.

6 NOx is a generic term for the mono-nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide).

HRA

3.1.3 Noise The study area for noise was established following advice from experts in aviation based noise assessment, and comprises:

 The departure routes from the northern runway (09L) (to the east) for a distance of 10 kilometres, which will experience increased departures as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations. In reality because after a certain distance existing (without full runway alternation) and proposed (with full runway alternation) flight tracks merge the only areas that need to be considered are those that are not currently overflown but which will be after the implementation of the proposals. The zone of influence for noise associated with SOR activities at the western end of Runway 09L is the area directly between the airport perimeter and the M25, adjacent to the northern runway. It is considered that receptors west of the M25 would not be affected by SOR noise due to distance from SOR activity, high levels of background ambient noise, and noise from aircraft approaching 09R and aircraft departures on 27R.

 The arrivals route to Runway 09R (from the west) for a distance of 15 kilometres which will experience increased arrivals as a result of the ending of the proposals.

The zone of influence is shown on Figure 4.2.

3.1.4 Identified Natura 2000 sites

The following sites were identified as occurring within the study area:

 South West London Waterbodies Special Protection Area (SPA): 3km in a south-west direction from the closest point of the Heathrow Airport boundary;

 Windsor Forest & Great Park Special Area of Conservation (SAC): 8.9km in a south-west direction from the closest point of the Heathrow Airport boundary; and

 Richmond Park SAC: 9km in a south east direction from the closest point of the Heathrow airport boundary (although it is acknowledged that this site is not overflown albeit the flight tracks do get very close).

These sites are identified on Figure 3.1.

The interest features, conservation objectives, condition and vulnerabilities of these European sites were established by obtaining information from the following sources:

 MAGIC Website (http://www.magic.defra.gov.uk/).

 Joint Nature Conservation Committee website (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/)7 ;

 Natural England Website (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/)8 ; and

7 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/SPA/UK9012171.pdf; http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2051

HRA

 Stroud, DA, Chambers, D, Cook, S, Buxton, N, Fraser, B, Clement, P, Lewis, P, McLean, I, Baker, H & Whitehead, S (eds). 2001. The UK SPA network: its scope and content. JNCC, Peterborough. Volume 1: Rationale for the selection of sites; Volume 2: Species accounts; Volume 3: Site accounts. JNCC.

The HRA has taken account of the requirements of, and advice given in the following:

 London Borough of Hillingdon - A vision for 2026, Local Development Framework Core Strategy Pre-Submission Draft, 2011;

 London Borough of Hillingdon - Core Strategy Screening for Appropriate Assessment, 2010;

 Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD;

 London Borough of Hounslow Core Strategy Preferred Strategy; and

 Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan;

A literature search and review was also carried out in order to obtain contextual data and to gain further information on European sites within the Thames Valley and their qualifying interests that are likely to be affected by developmental disturbance and recreational pressures. Primary sources of contextual data identified included:

 Banks, A.N., Austin, G.E., & Rehfisch, M.M. (2004). South West London Waterbodies SPA Wildfowl Population Analysis. In BTO Research Report No.361. British Trust for Ornithology.

 Briggs, B.D.J. (2007). The use of waterbodies in South-West London by gadwall and shoveler; implications for nature conservation. Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor in Philosophy in Biological Sciences University of Oxford Department of Zoology.

 Briggs, B.D.J., Hill, D,A. & Gosler, A.G. (2012). Habitat selection and waterbody-complex use by wintering Gadwall and Shoveler in South West London: Implications for the designation and management of multi-site protected areas. Journal of Nature Conservation: Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 200–210.

 Hill, D. (2007). South West London Waterbodies Study: Implications for planning and nature conservation. A conference held on 7 November 2007 at Wolfson College, Oxford. Summary of Papers. The Environment Bank Ltd.

 Thaxter, C.B., Sansom, A. Thewlis, R.M., Calbrade, N.A, Ross-Smith, V.H., Bailey, S., Mellan, H.J. & Austin, G.E. (2010). Wetland Bird Survey Alerts 2006/2007: Changes in numbers of wintering waterbirds in the Constituent Countries of the United Kingdom, Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). BTO Research Report 556. BTO, Thetford.

8 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designations/sac/londonandsoutheast.aspx

HRA

 Underhill, M.C., & Kirby, J.S. (1993). Waterfowl Use, Management and Human Usage of South-West London Reservoirs, a First Assessment. Wetlands Advisory Service, Slimbridge.

 Underhill, M.C., & Robinthwaite, J. (1993). Waterfowl Use, Management and Human Use of South-West London Waterbodies, 1987/88-1992/3. Wetlands Advisory Service, Slimbridge.

 Underhill, M.C., Kirby, J.S., Bell, M.C. & Robinthwaite, J. (1993). Use of Waterbodies in South-West London by Waterfowl, an Investigation of the Factors Affecting Distribution, Abundance and Community Structure. Wetlands Advisory Service, Slimbridge.

 WAS. (2003). An assessment of the effect on over-wintering ducks of recreation at the Wraysbury and Thorpe Park pits within the SW London Waterbodies Special Protection Area. Wetland Advisory Service report to English Nature. Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge.

 Wernham, C.V., Toms, M.P., Marchant, J.H., Clark, J.A., Siriwardena, G.M. & Baillie, S.R. (eds.). 2002. The Migration Atlas: Movements of the Birds of Britain & Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser, London.

3.1.5 South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar

Description

The South West London Waterbodies SPA is located in the counties of Surrey and Berkshire and in Greater London and comprises a series of embanked water supply reservoirs and former gravel pits that support a range of man-made and semi-natural open water habitats. The predominant habitat is inland water bodies (70%). There are also areas of improved grassland, humid and mesophile grassland and broad-leaved deciduous woodland. The waterbodies cover a total of 829.69 hectares.

The South West London Waterbodies SPA was classified and registered as a SPA in 2000 on the basis of its overwintering waterfowl population, principally for the numbers of gadwall Anas strepera and northern shoveler Anas clypeata that it supports; it is also designated as a Ramsar site based on its internationally important populations of the same species (Table 3.1).

HRA

Table 3.1 Outline of current baseline features for the South West London Waterbodies SPA

Current baseline Description

Interest features The South West London Waterbodies SPA qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following migratory species: Over-winter;  Gadwall, 786 individuals representing at least 2.6% of the wintering North western Europe population (five year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6);  Northern shoveler, 1,075 individuals representing at least 2.7% of the wintering North western/Central Europe population (five year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6). The South West London Waterbodies Ramsar Site is designated under the Ramsar Convention because it is considered to be a wetland of international importance as it supports internationally important populations of the following species of birds.  Species with peak counts in spring / autumn: northern shoveler (North Western & Central Europe) – 397 individuals representing an average of 2.6% of the Great Britain population (five year peak mean 1998/99 – 2002/03);  Species with peak counts in winter: gadwall (North Western Europe) – 487 individuals representing an average of 2.8% of the Great Britain population (5 year peak mean 1998/99 – 2002/03). The Ramsar Site citation also makes reference to a number of other species that are qualifying features of the site, but not primary reasons for its designation;  Species with peak counts in spring / autumn: great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus (North Western Europe) – 318 individuals representing an average of 2% of the Great Britain population (five year peak mean 1998/99 – 2002/03); great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo (North Western Europe) – 318 individuals representing an average of 1.3% of the Great Britain population (5 year peak mean 1998/99 – 2002/03); tufted duck Aythya fuligula (North Western Europe) – 2,731 individuals representing an average of 3% of the Great Britain population (five year peak mean 1998/99 – 2002/03). The site also supports a wide range of other nationally important wildfowl.

Conservation objectives The conservation objective for the European and international interest on the SPA and Ramsar site is to, subject to natural change, maintain the habitats, open standing water and canals, in favourable condition, or restore to favourable condition if features are judged to be unfavourable, with particular reference to any dependent component special interest features for which the land is designated (gadwall and northern shoveler).

Condition At the last condition9 surveys, compiled on 1 June 2009, Natural England recorded the following statistics for the SSSIs covered (in whole or in part) by the South West London Waterbodies SPA and Ramsar Site designations.  Of the 1,022.23 hectares assessed during the condition surveys some 807.79 hectares were found to be in „Favourable‟ condition, of which 787.67 hectares were standing open water habitat and 20.12 hectares were lowland neutral grassland habitat.  Of the 1,022.23 hectares assessed during the condition surveys some 156.72 hectares were found to be in „Unfavourable – recovering‟ condition, of which 145.82 hectares were lowland neutral grassland habitat and 10.90 hectares were standing open water habitat.  Of the 1,022.23 hectares assessed during the condition surveys some 57.72 hectares of standing open water habitat were found to be in „Unfavourable – declining‟ condition .

Vulnerabilities Particular site sensitivities are as follows:  Disturbance to bird feeding and roosting habitat (noise / visual). In particular, although the majority of the site is in favourable condition, Wraysbury gravel pits suffer from high levels of disturbance from recreational activities. There is the potential for other parts of the site to be adversely affected by increased recreational pressure.  Water quality - eutrophication is a threat, particularly from point source pollution (e.g. sewage outfalls) but also from surface run-off or groundwater pollution and atmospheric deposition;

9 It should be noted that the SSSI condition surveys are not directly related to SPA, SAC or Ramsar Site qualifying features, and that condition survey data therefore only provides an indication of the status of the designated site in respect of the features for which it was designated as a SSSI (which may or may not include those for which the SPA, SAC or Ramsar Site designation has been made).

HRA

The South West London Waterbodies SPA is composed of seven Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Only seven waterbodies out of a wider complex of some 75 in south-west London are included within the designation. The following SSSIs are included within the South West London Waterbodies SPA (Figure 3.2 and Table 3.2):

Table 3.2 South West London Waterbodies SPA – Components and sub-sites

SPA component Sub-sites Distance/ direction from site

Staines Moor King George VI Reservoir 850m, SW

Staines Reservoirs 650m, S

Wraysbury & Hythe End gravel pits Wraysbury II (North) Gravel Pit 3,700m, SW

Wraysbury II (South) Gravel Pit 4,100m, SW

Kempton Park Reservoirs Kempton Reservoir East 5,100m, SE

Distribution (or Redhouse) 4,700m, SE

Knight & Bessborough Reservoirs Knight & Bessborough Reservoirs 7,300m, SE

Sunnymeads Gravel Pits Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit 4,400m, W

Wraysbury I (South) Gravel Pit 4,100m, W

Thorpe Park Gravel Pit (pit 1) Thorpe Park Gravel Pit (pit 1) 9,400m, SW

Wraysbury Reservoir Wraysbury Reservoir 1,900m W

Current status of SPA component waterbodies and trends in the populations of the qualifying interest species

Much of the data utilised for this assessment has been based on Brian Briggs comprehensive study of the use of waterbodies in South-West London (SWL) by gadwall and shoveler and an earlier BTO wildfowl population analysis study of the SWL Waterbodies SPA (Banks et al. 2004). One of the most important general findings of both studies undertaken is the tremendous variability of the waterbodies in the SW London area, both temporally and physically. From year to year bird numbers have tended to vary tremendously both on individual sites and in the study area as a whole; food and disturbance levels change, and behaviour and patterns of site use change. However, the following data for both qualifying interest species outlines some trends over the past 20-25 years (Box 1 and 2).

HRA

Box 1 Summary of Shoveler status and ecology within SWL Waterbodies SPA

 The SW London area appears to hold a largely self-contained population of shoveler each winter. On a more local scale, sub- populations of shoveler also use a number of smaller waterbody complexes in the Wraysbury and Walton-on-Thames area.  Since 1989, shoveler numbers in both the SW London Waterbodies SPA and the study area as a whole have remained fairly stable, with the exception of a peak in numbers from 1994/5 to 1997/8, which coincided with the period of counts for which the SPA was designated (1993-98). Over the period 1989-2007 around 70% of the shoveler wintering in the study area have been counted on the SPA component sites. Shoveler numbers peak in autumn, when large numbers of birds move through the area on migration.  Shoveler generally prefer treeless sites with high levels of zooplankton, low levels of disturbance and other waterbodies nearby. They prefer gravel pits with low levels of disturbance and high zooplankton levels, and they prefer reservoirs that are close to other waterbodies.  Individual shoveler often use multiple sites over the 24-hour period, roosting on one waterbody during the day but feeding on another during the night. Shoveler also change their patterns of site use regularly over the course of each winter.  Shoveler feed at higher levels during the night (64%) than during the day (42%).  The behaviour of shoveler often differs between sites. For example King George VI, Knight & Bessborough reservoirs, and Colne Mere gravel pit are used predominantly for roosting, whilst Wraysbury II N&S and Princes Lake are used mainly for feeding.

Box 2 Summary of Gadwall status and ecology within SWL Waterbodies SPA

 The SW London area does not appear to hold a self-contained population of wintering Gadwall. There is more exchange of Gadwall with sites outside the study area than there is between sites within the area.  Gadwall numbers in the SW London area have fluctuated widely and have generally been in rapid decline. The decline appears to be largely the result of birds redistributing away from the SW London area to waters in the wider Thames region, although some gadwall have also redistributed more locally from SPA component sites to non-designated sites.  Natural variation in food is unlikely to have been sufficient to cause the redistribution, and it is thought that increasing human disturbance is partly responsible, either directly through water-based activities, or indirectly through ecological changes (e.g. due to authorised carp fishing).  Individual Gadwall tend to remain on a site over the 24-hour period. Over the course of a winter gadwall numbers on individual sites are much more stable than shoveler numbers.  Gadwall generally prefer more complex sites with high levels of macrophytes and treeless shorelines, and they are more likely to be found on gravel pits than reservoirs. They prefer younger gravel pits with low levels of disturbance, high levels of macrophytes and complex shorelines, and they prefer reservoirs with more algal cover at the water‟s edge.  Gadwall spend much of the day feeding (average 62% of birds feeding), and they continue feeding at night (43%), although a higher proportion of birds (33%) roost at this time, when feeding may be less efficient. Gadwall roosting levels are highest on less complex sites with low disturbance levels and low tree cover. The preference for more open sites presumably relates to the easier detection of predators.

Information sourced from Briggs (2007).

HRA

Discussion regarding declines of SPA species

Table 3.3 shows the 5-year mean peak counts for gadwall and shoveler on the SPA component sites for the period used for the designation (1993/4-1997/8) and the mean peak counts for the most recent five years (2002/3-2006/7).

Table 3.3 5-year mean peak counts SPA component sites

Site Gadwall Shoveler

1993/4-1997/8 2002/3-2006/7 1993/4-1997/8 2002/3-2006/7

Staines Moor 60 199 475 330

Wraysbury & Hythe End 317 16 141 52

Kempton Park Reservoirs 126 46 39 54

Knight & Bessborough Reservoirs 37 52 223 103

Sunnymeads Gravel Pits 83 15 35 1

Thorpe Park GP (Pit 1) 94 44 3 8

Wraysbury Reservoir 9 23 152 22 Data from Briggs (2007). Figures are shown in bold where they exceed current levels of national importance (171 for Gadwall and 148 for Shoveler).

Data show that gadwall numbers in the SW London have been in rapid decline; over the period 2001/2 - 2006/7, the mean peak count of gadwall on the SPA was just 395, from 726 over the period 1993/4 – 1997/8, which is well below the threshold of international importance (600); for shoveler, although numbers have also shown significant decline, from 1068 over the period 1993/4 – 1997/8, the mean peak was 570 over the period 2001/2 – 2006/7 which is still above the SPA threshold of 400.

The current decline in Gadwall numbers however, is not reflected in declines in the region as a whole, suggesting that birds are redistributing to other waterbodies outside the SW London area. Briggs (2007) states that the decline has almost certainly occurred because particular SPA sites have become less attractive to gadwall. WeBS data (Thaxter et al. 2010) show dramatic declines in numbers on Wraysbury I, Wraysbury II and Thorpe #1 gravel pits, and likely causes are carp fishing at Wraysbury II and possibly other forms of recreation at Thorpe #1 and Wraysbury I.

Briggs (2007 & 2012) studied 67 different waterbodies in and around the SW London waterbodies SPA, in which he investigated habitat selection and the use made of multiple sites by gadwall and shoveler. Based on these studies, Briggs compiled site rankings based on the usage of both species (comprising both maximum and mean counts) (Appendix A). The site ranking clearly indicates the discrepancies between designated and non-designated sites across the region, with several SPA designated waterbodies falling low down the rankings based on low utilisation by either gadwall or shoveler.

HRA

A key general finding from Briggs (2007) study is that sites, and wildfowl usage of sites, have changed regularly over the last 15-20 years. He makes the case that there are certain designated sites that for some years now have held very little value for either of the citation species. For example, he states that if Wraysbury reservoir were to be removed from the SPA designation, the mean percentage of total gadwall on SPA sites would only drop from 34.07% to 31.8%, and of shoveler from 58.09% to 58.05%. This will be discussed in more detail in Section 5.

3.1.6 Windsor Forest & Great Park SAC

Description

The Windsor Forest & Great Park SAC is located in the counties of Surrey and Berkshire and form part of the largest continuous tract of woodland and parkland in Berkshire and contain a number of veteran trees. The site supports a range of rare species including fungi, the violet click beetle Limoniscus violaceus and stag beetle Lucanus cervus and supports one of the largest wintering flocks of hawfinch Coccothraustes coccothraustes in Britain.

The site covers 1,687.26 hectares according to the SAC citation, and comprises inland water bodies (standing water, running water) (0.5%), dry grassland/steppes (4.5%) and mixed woodland (95%). The site is also a single SSSI, the Windsor Forest & Great Park SSSI. This covers an area of approximately 1,777.23 hectares (4,391.54 acres) as stated on SSSI citation, or 1,778.76 hectares (4,393.53 acres) according to the SSSI condition survey.

Table 3.4 Outline of current baseline features for Windsor Forest & Great Park SAC

Current baseline Description

Interest features The Windsor Forest & Great Park SAC is designated under the EU Habitats Directive for the presence of the following habitat and species:  The primary designation of this site is a result of the Annex I habitat, old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains. Windsor represents old acidophilous oak woods in the south- eastern part of its UK range. It has the largest number of veteran oaks in Britain (and probably in Europe), a consequence of its management as wood-pasture. It is of importance for its range and diversity of saproxylic invertebrates, including many rare species (e.g. the beetle Lacon querceus), some known in the UK only from this site, and has recently been recognised as having rich fungal assemblages. Windsor Forest and Great Park has been identified as of potential international importance for its saproxylic invertebrate fauna by the Council of Europe.  An Annex I habitat which is a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for selection of this site, is Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrub layer.  The primary species that occurs is the violet click beetle. This species was first recorded at Windsor Forest in 1937. The site is thought to support the largest of the known populations of this species in the UK. The large population of ancient trees on the site, which, combined with the historical continuity of woodland cover, has resulted in Windsor Forest being listed as the most important site in the UK for fauna associated with decaying timber on ancient trees (Fowles, Alexander & Key 1999). The site was also identified as of potential international importance for its saproxylic invertebrate fauna by the Council of Europe (Speight, 1989).

HRA

Conservation objectives The conservation objectives for the European interest on the SSSI are to maintain in favourable condition, or restore if the feature is not currently in favourable condition, the:  Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrub layer.  Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains.  Habitats of the violet click beetle.

Condition At the last condition survey, compiled on 1 June 2009, Natural England recorded the following statistics for the SSSI:  Of the 1,778.76 hectares assessed during the condition survey some 826.18 hectares were found to be in „Favourable‟ condition, of which 740.20 were lowland broadleaved mixed and yew woodland habitat, 71.91 hectares were lowland acid grassland habitat and 14.07 hectares were standing open water and canals habitat.  Of the 1,778.76 hectares assessed during the condition survey some 952.58 hectares were found to be in „Unfavourable – recovering‟ condition, of which 885.71 hectares were lowland broadleaved mixed and yew woodland habitat and 66.87 hectares were coniferous woodland habitat6.

Vulnerabilities The special invertebrate interest is heavily dependent upon a continuous supply of very old and decaying trees. Both the invertebrate interest and oak woodland are vulnerable to changes in management practices. The violet click beetle is thought to be present as a very small, localised population, restricted to two decaying trees.

3.1.7 Richmond Park SAC

Description

Richmond Park is a site of both national and international importance for wildlife conservation. As well as being designated a SAC, it is London's largest SSSI and a National Nature Reserve. The Park also incorporates the most important area of lowland acid grassland in the Greater London region. Lowland acid grassland is a priority habitat in the Government's Biodiversity Action Plan. The Park is also a top UK site for ancient trees, particularly oaks, which have great historic and wildlife importance. The trees and associated decaying wood support nationally endangered species of fungi, as well as a remarkable range of nationally scarce invertebrates. Over one thousand species of beetle (more than one quarter of the British list) have been recorded in the Park.

Table 3.5 Outline of current baseline features for Richmond Park SAC

Current baseline Description

Interest features The Richmond Park SAC is designated under the EU Habitats Directive for the presence of the following species: Stag beetle Lucanus cervus is an Annex II species that is the primary reason for selection of this site. Richmond Park has a large number of ancient trees with decaying timber. It is at the heart of the south London centre of distribution for stag beetle, and is a site of national importance for the conservation of the fauna of invertebrates associated with the decaying timber of ancient trees.

Conservation objectives European Site Conservation Objectives for Richmond Park SAC are to avoid the deterioration of the habitats of stag beetles and the significant disturbance of this species, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status for this species.

HRA

Condition At the last condition survey, compiled on 1 November 2012, Natural England recorded the following statistics for the SSSI: Of the 840 hectares assessed during the condition survey, all 13 units were recorded as unfavourable recovering. These comprised 5 units (734ha) of lowland acid grassland and 8 units (106ha) of lowland broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland.

Vulnerabilities The site is surrounded by urban area and therefore experiences high levels of recreational pressure. The whole site has been declared a NNR.

HRA

4. Screening of impacts not for consideration (Step 4)

4.1 Methodology

The following impacts are not likely to be significant and are „screened out‟ as, on the basis of a high level assessment, it has been concluded that they are not likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development (Appendix B – Screening of Potential Impacts). The methodology and rationale for this conclusion is outlined below.

4.1.1 Air quality assessment

Environment Agency guidance (2010) states that if the long term contribution to NOx levels is less than 1% of the long term environmental standard, it is deemed that there is no potential for a significant effect on ecological receptors and thus for a conservation objective of a European site to be compromised. However, for this to apply the European site must occur:

 more than 20 kilometres from an agglomeration (a city with a population of at least 250,000);

 more than 5 kilometres away from industrial sources regulated under Part A of the 1990 Environment Act;

 more than 5 kilometres away from motorways; and

 more than 5 kilometres away from built up areas of more than 5,000 people.

These criteria do not apply to any of the European sites identified.

The potential for conservation objectives not to be achieved because of changes in concentrations of NOx to which the sites are exposed has therefore been assessed on the basis of the professional judgement of air quality experts and ecologists. Professional judgement has, however, been guided by the principle that should the overall concentration of NOx increase by less than 1% of the current contribution made by activities associated with Heathrow Airport, the change will not compromise the potential to achieve the relevant conservation objectives.

The potential for conservation objectives not to be achieved because of an increase in the deposition rates of nitrogen has similarly been undertaken using professional judgement, guided by the principle that an increase in the overall deposition rate of nitrogen of less than 1% of the current contribution made by activities associated with Heathrow Airport will not lead to the potential to achieve the relevant conservation objectives being compromised.

HRA

4.1.2 Noise assessment

Air noise is defined as all noise caused by departing and arriving aircraft between start-of-roll (SOR) and completion of the landing run, including the use of reverse thrust where relevant. The consideration of noise issues at Heathrow Airport in this study has largely focused on air noise as the main issue. Air noise is typically represented by a series of noise contours that portray noise levels in areas surrounding airports. At Heathrow Airport, air noise contours are generated annually and can be interpreted in order to understand and assess air noise exposure upon surrounding communities. These air noise contours are produced by the UK CAA using its Aircraft Noise Contour Model (ANCON) model. In simple terms, the model works by using the characteristics of the airport and its airspace along with arrival and departure track distribution information which includes the numbers and types of aircraft that will use the airport, to calculate noise levels at various grid points surrounding the airport. The noise grid results are then used to plot noise contours which identify locations of equivalent noise exposure.

Professional judgement, informed by data on the nature and extent of likely changes in the air noise baseline environment, has been used to determine whether the ability to meet the conservation objectives could be compromised by implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations. In addition, the sensitivity, specifically with relation to the changes that are predicted to happen, of the special interest features for which the European site in question has been designated has also been considered.

4.2 Impacts to South West London SPA component sites

4.2.1 Assessment of effects

The conservation objective for the South West London Waterbodies SPA is to maintain in favourable condition, or restore to favourable condition if features are judged to be unfavourable, the habitats that support the special interest features for which the site is designated (gadwall and northern shoveler). These habitats, which are open standing water and lowland neutral grassland, are considered to be particularly vulnerable to changes in water quality (eutrophication), and disturbance to bird feeding and roosting habitat (increased noise and visual disturbance particularly related to increased recreational pressure).

4.2.2 Changes to air quality baseline

Modelling of the change in air quality as a result the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations has been undertaken at more than 58 locations to the west of Heathrow Airport (Figure 4.1). More than 20 of these locations occur within the immediate vicinity of the Wraysbury Reservoir and King George VI Reservoir components of the SPA. The modelling has established that nitrogen deposition rates at all locations are predicted to be only negligible.

Concentrations of NOx at those receptors within the immediate vicinity of South West London Waterbodies such as receptor 175 at Wraysbury Reservoir, experience increases of approximately 0.3

HRA

µg/m3 or 0.4% of the total airport contribution. At other receptors significant reductions in NOx concentrations are predicted. For example, at King George Reservoir (receptor 182) reductions in NOx concentration are predicted to be 1.59 µg/m3 or 2.6% of the airport contribution. For these reasons it is considered that changes in NOx concentration as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the ability to successfully achieve the relevant conservation objectives.

The maximum increase in the deposition rate of nitrogen at those receptors within the immediate vicinity of South West London Waterbodies is 0.066 kg/ha/year at receptor 186, which is located in the centre of Staines Reservoir, to the south of the airport. This represents an increase of only 0.5% of the total current airport contribution, this being significantly below the threshold (established in the assessment methodology) above which the ability to achieve the relevant conservation objectives could be compromised. As such, it is considered that there will be negligible effects on all of the SPA component waterbodies and their qualifying interest species.

4.2.3 Changes to noise baseline

The implementation of full alternation on easterlies will result in:

a) the introduction of regular departures from Runway 09L in an easterly direction over Cranford;

b) a decrease in the number of aircraft arriving on Runway 09L in an easterly direction;

c) an increase in the number of aircraft arriving on Runway 09R in an easterly direction; and

d) a decrease in the number of aircraft departing from Runway 09R in an easterly direction.

Of these operational changes, only c) is considered to present a potentially significant effect to an SPA component. In this case, arrival traffic to the southern runway will overfly two components of the South West London Waterbodies SPA – Wraysbury I North Gravel Pit and Wraysbury Reservoir (Section 5). None of the other three operational changes would lead to increase in ATMs within the proposed zone of influence (ZOI) of the SPA components (Figure 4.2 and Appendix B).

Modelling undertaken to establish the increases of noise as a result of the implementation of the proposals at sensitive receptors surrounding the Airport, has established that the annual average increase at the following components is less than 1db and are therefore considered to be located outside of the proposed ZOI:

 Staines Moor - (King George VI Reservoir; and Staines Reservoir);

 Wraysbury & Hythe End gravel pits - (Wraysbury II (North) Gravel Pit; and Wraysbury II (South) Gravel Pit);

 Kempton Park Reservoirs - (Kempton Reservoir East; and Distribution (or Redhouse));

HRA

 Knight & Bessborough Reservoirs;

 Sunnymeads Gravel Pits - (Wraysbury I (South) Gravel Pit); and

 Thorpe Park Gravel Pit (Pit 1).

For these reasons it is considered that changes in the noise environment as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the potential for the conservation objectives at each of these component sites to be achieved.

4.3 Impacts to Windsor Forest & Great Park SAC

4.3.1 Assessment of effects

The conservation objectives for the Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC are to maintain in favourable condition, or restore if the feature is not currently in favourable condition, the special features for which the site is designated (atlantic acidophilous beech forests, old acidophilous oak woods and habitats of the violet click beetle - specifically very old and decaying trees).

4.3.2 Changes to air quality baseline

Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC is located nearly 6 kilometres further away from the southern runway than the South West London Waterbodies SPA, where, it has already been determined that increases in NOx emissions and nitrogen deposition brought about as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations will be insignificant. When overflying Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC the altitude of aircraft will therefore be significantly) higher than at the South West London Waterbodies SPA. This will result in NOx and nitrogen emissions being dissipated over a wider area, resulting in lower net concentrations per unit area at ground level than at the SPA. There is therefore judged to be no potential for the conservation objectives of this site not to be achieved by these changes. (In fact changes are deemed likely to be so insignificant that they have not even been modelled at this location.)

4.3.3 Changes to noise baseline

There is no potential for changes in the noise environment to influence the ability for the conservation objectives of this European site to be achieved. The special interest features include woodland habitats, which by their nature could not, of course, be affected by increases in noise. In addition although studies have identified that some species of invertebrate can be affected by noise, it is considered, that because there is already existing overflying of Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC would not be affected by any changes in the noise environment.

HRA

4.4 Impacts to Richmond SAC

4.4.1 Assessment of effects

The conservation objectives for Richmond Park SAC are to maintain in favourable condition, or restore if the feature is not currently in favourable condition, the special features for which the site is designated (stag beetles).

4.4.2 Changes to air quality baseline

Richmond Park SAC is located nearly 9 km further away from the southern runway than the South West London Waterbodies SPA, where, it has already been determined (see section 4.1.1) that increases in NOx emissions and nitrogen deposition brought about as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations will be insignificant. When overflying Richmond Park SAC the altitude of aircraft will therefore be significantly) higher than at the South West London Waterbodies SPA. This will result in NOx and nitrogen emissions being dissipated over a wider area, resulting in lower net concentrations per unit area at ground level than at the SPA. There is therefore judged to be no potential for the conservation objectives of this site not to be achieved by these changes. (In fact changes are deemed likely to be so insignificant that they have not even been modelled at this location.)

4.4.3 Changes to noise baseline

There is no potential for changes in the noise environment to influence the ability for the conservation objectives of this European site to be achieved. The special interest features include stag beetles, which by their nature could not be affected by increases in noise. In addition, although studies have identified that some species of invertebrate can be affected by noise, it is considered, that because there is already existing overflying of Richmond Park SAC, they would not be affected by any changes in the noise environment.

HRA

5. Significance of effects (Step 5)

5.1 Methodology for establishing significant effects

A likely significant effect on a European site is considered to be “any effect that may reasonably be predicted as a consequence of a plan or project that may affect the conservation objectives of the features for which the site was designated, but excluding trivial or inconsequential effects” (English Nature 1999).

On a precautionary basis, a judgement as to whether the ability to achieve a conservation objective could potentially be compromised by the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations has been made by considering whether any increase in noise levels of arrival traffic to the southern runway, which will directly overfly two SPA component sub-sites: Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit (Figure 3.2), may potentially lead to disturbance and displacement of qualifying interest species.

A literature search and review was carried out in order to obtain contextual data and to gain further information on disturbance and particularly aircraft disturbance and how they may affect waterfowl. Primary sources of contextual data identified included:

 Conomy, J.T., J.A. Collazo, J.A. Dubovsky and W.J. Fleming. 1998. Dabbling duck behavior and aircraft activity in coastal North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1127-1134.

 Drewitt, A. (1999). Disturbance effects of aircraft on birds. Birds Network Information Note, pp. 14. English Nature, Peterborough.

 Harms, C.A., W.J. Fleming, M.K. Stoskopf. (1997). A Technique for Dorsal Subcutaneous Implantation of Heart Rate Biotelemeter Transmitters in Black Ducks: Application In An Aircraft Noise Response Study. The Condor 99:231-237.

 Hill, D., Hockin, D., Price, D., Tucker, G., Morris, R. & Treweek, J. (1997). Bird disturbance: Improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34(2), 275-88.

 Kempf, N. & O. Hüppop (1998): “Wie wirken Flugzeuge auf Vögel? - Eine bewertende Übersicht” in Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 30, (l), pp.17 - 28

 Komenda-Zehnder, S., Cevallos, M. & Bruderer, B. (2003). Effects of disturbance by aircraft overflight on waterbirds – An experimental approach. International Birdstrike Committe. IBSC26/WP-LE2.

 Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Vilella and M.G. Cavendish. (1988). Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: a literature synthesis. National Ecology Research Center Report# NERC-88/29.

HRA

 Plumpton, D.L., Sheaffer, S. E., Hunsaker, D., & Petrie, S.A. (2007). Review of Studies Related to Aircraft Noise Disturbance of Waterfowl: A Technical Report in Support of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Introduction of F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet) Aircraft to the East Coast of the United States. U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, 2007.

 http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070806-041.pdf Realistic Bomber Training Initiative Final EIS. Appendix G: Aircraft Noise Analysis.

 FHWA (2004). Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations. Publication No. FHWA- HEP-06-016. Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation.

 Tuite, C.H., Hanson, P.R. & Owen, M. (1984). Some Ecological Factors Affecting Winter Wildfowl Distribution on Inland Waters in England and Wales, and the Influence of Water- Based Recreation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 21(1), 41-61.

In order to determine the significance of the afore-mentioned effect, outlined in the following section is an analysis of the current baseline ecological status of both SPA component sub-sites, discussion regarding noise disturbance and more specifically aircraft disturbance, followed by the likely changes in the noise baseline upon both sites.

5.2 Impacts to South West London SPA component sites: Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit resulting from an increase in the number of aircraft arriving on Runway 09R in an easterly direction

5.2.1 Wraysbury Reservoir – Baseline Ecological Status

Wraysbury Reservoir is concrete banked with little or no fringing vegetation (similar in many respects to all the other large reservoirs - King George VI, Queen Mary, Queen Mother and Queen Elizabeth II). Wraysbury Reservoir is in regular operational use, and consequently experiences fluctuations in water levels. As a result, according to Briggs (2007), the reservoir is not regularly used by large numbers of gadwall or shoveler. He states that the primary reason for low usage of Wraysbury Reservoir and the other large reservoirs is the limited availability of food, notably algae for gadwall and zooplankton for shoveler.

Those birds that do visit primarily use the site for roosting or as a temporary refuge. Underhill and Kirby (1993) reported that waterfowl movements (of both species) on the non-SPA waterbodies (Hythe End or Yeoveney pits) were almost invariably onto the centre pit (Colne Mere), and that if the birds were disturbed from here they flew to Wraysbury Reservoir, which was thought to be an important temporary refuge for waterfowl in the Wraysbury area.

Notable declines of Shoveler occurred at Wraysbury reservoir, which typically held between 100-200 birds during winters from 1990-1996. However, according to Briggs (2007), mean numbers had dropped to zero by 2000 and have remained very low in all winters since then. Potential causes of declines at Wraysbury Reservoir are not clear according to Banks et al. (2004), as the waterbody is

HRA

generally used as a roosting/loafing area only, and is subject to little recreational disturbance (birdwatchers being considered to be the sole pressure). It is suggested that shoveler formerly using the site to loaf have moved elsewhere, or that temporal use of the reservoir has altered.

5.2.2 Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit – Baseline Ecological Status

Similar to many of the other gravel pits in the SW London area, Wraysbury I was dug steeply and deeply during gravel extraction, consequently there are no shallow areas and therefore macrophytes are largely inaccessible to gadwall, despite coverage being fairly high. Briggs (2007) states that for this reason gravel pits such as Wraysbury I N hold less value for dabbling ducks such as gadwall than they potentially could. Wraysbury I N and S are physically connected and very similar ecologically, but the south lake is slightly more disturbed than the north, chiefly as a result of sailing activities during the winter.

Wetlands Advisory Service (WAS 2003) found that diurnal distributions of gadwall on Wraysbury I gravel pit were linked to sailing activities, and particular areas appeared to function as refuges for birds disturbed from both within and outside the boundaries of the SPA. Gadwall numbers on Wraysbury I N declined from a combined mean of 38 in 2000/01 down to 12 in 2006/7. Currently, the Wraysbury I gravel pits are also now rarely used by either species; however, Briggs (2007) suggests that the decline in their value for wildfowl could almost certainly be reversed with effective site management.

5.2.3 Discussion regarding noise disturbance on wildfowl

Hill et al (1997) refer to a disturbance gradient, whereby the response by birds can be identified, depending on the intensity, frequency and duration of disturbance. Frequent, high-intensity activities such as power boats using a lake constantly throughout the day, or hunters shooting regularly over a marsh, cause more disturbance than continuous low-intensity disturbances such as floodlighting, electricity generators, or planes arriving at, and departing from Heathrow (Hill et al. 1997; Briggs, 2007). In general, birds appear to habituate to continual noises so long as there is no large amplitude „startling‟ component (Hockin et al 1992) and can easily habituate to noise-based disturbances but not to water- based disturbances (Hockin et al 1992, Hill et al 1997; and Tuite et al 1984).

Behavioural and physiological responses to noise by a range of species, including birds have been reviewed and studied with particular emphasis on the greater noise of aircraft (FHWA, 2004). The FHWA review appears to be the only significant review of studies on the effect of aircraft noise on wildlife (including migratory wildfowl and dabbling ducks). The FHWA identify a number of potentially negative effects that accompany these sound levels in both domestic and wild species ranging from alert reactions to physiological indicators of stress (e.g. changes in hormonal levels, organ function, etc.). However, it should be noted that noise levels in these studies are generally intermittent and occur at levels greater than that typically encountered for road traffic (i.e. aircraft sounds generally > 100 dB). With regard specifically to waterfowl and dabbling ducks and their response to aircraft noise:

HRA

 A review by the FHWA (2004) found that migratory waterfowl exhibited moderate responses and habituate slowly to aircraft overflight. For example, migratory waterfowl often made brief flights in response to aircraft overflights.

 A field study by Conomy et al. (1998) of dabbling ducks including black ducks, American wigeon (Anas americana), gadwall and green-winged teal (A. crecea carolinensis) found no effect on the time-activity budgets at a mean sound level of 85dB(A) when exposed to low-flying aircraft (Leq 24 hr. = 63 dB(A). It was indicated that there is no major disturbance to normal behaviour for these species.

 A study by Harms et al. (1997) measured the heart rate of black ducks for 4 days and subjected them to simulated aircraft noise for 48 episodes per day with peak volume of 110 dB. Acute response occurred on the first day but diminished rapidly after that. This indicated the ability of black ducks to habituate to the auditory component of low altitude aircraft overflight.

 Kempf & Hüppop (1998) determine that the frequency and above all the regularity with which an aeroplane flies past has a decisive influence on the reactions of birds. They found that the same bird species which developed a certain tolerance to air traffic on Wadden Sea islands that have an airfield, showed considerable flight reactions to comparable flyovers on Mellum, where there is no airfield in the vicinity.

5.2.4 Operational changes and predicted ATM/noise increases

As outlined in Section 2.3 (Description of operational changes), currently the airport typically operates on westerlies for 71% of the time (where aircraft depart in a westerly direction). These westerly movements are already evenly split across the two runways with each experiencing a typical daily total of 328 departures when the airport is operating on westerlies. The airport operates on easterlies for only 29% of the time; as dictated by weather conditions and so there is no pattern to when this occurs. The numbers of aircraft landing from the west of Heathrow will not change as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations. They will, however, be redistributed so that there is a more even division across the two runways.

The implementation of full runway alternation on easterlies will not result in any changes to the operating hours of Heathrow Airport, the aircraft movement cap of 480,000 ATMs per annum or an increase to the 57dB(A) LAeq noise contour area limit of 145km2 conditioned by the Terminal 5 planning decision.

Table 5.1 presents the current and proposed ATM arrivals at Runway 09R for both standard and extreme operations and Runways 27L and 27R during standard operations.

HRA

Table 5.1 Comparison between ATM increases for arrival and departures

ATMS Approximate ATMs Approximate Predicted (Current) ATMs/annum (Easterly ATMs/annum increase in (Current) runway (Easterly ATMs/annum alteration) runway (Easterly runway alteration) alteration)

Arrivals 09R 29% 26 2,752 328 34,718 +31,966 (Standard)

40% 26 3,796 328 47,888 +44,092 (Extreme)

Departures 27L 71% 328 85,001 328 85,001 0 (Standard)

Departures 27R 71% 328 85,001 328 85,001 0 (Standard)

Departures 27L 78% 328 85,001 328 93,382 0 (Extreme)

Departures 27R 78% 328 85,001 328 93,382 0 (Extreme)

Effectively, the easterly runway alterations will lead to an increase in 328 ATMs each day overflying Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I North Gravel Pit. Dependent on whether or not standard or extreme conditions are in operation, the total annual ATMs would be between 31,966 and 44,092. The existing baseline number of departures from Runways 27R and 27L (328 ATMSs/day or 85,001/annum) will remain unchanged. These figures then increase to 186,764 ATMS/annum when running extreme westerlies.

Based on noise data from fixed noise monitoring locations (Table 2.3), each ATM departure (on westerly operations) is likely to lead to a potential disturbance event on average of, on average, between 80-90dB over Wraysbury Reservoir. Each ATM arrival (on easterly operations) leads to a potential disturbance event of, on average, between 70-80dB over Wraysbury Reservoir.

5.2.5 Changes to noise baseline at Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit

The following explanations provide reasoned justification as to why this proposed implementation of full runway alternation during easterly operations at Heathrow Airport would not result in a likely significant effect to the qualifying interest species that utilise the SWL Waterbodies SPA:

 Even with a proposed annual increase of between 31,966 and 44,092 arrival ATMs overflying Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit, given the existing and continued noise effects of westerly departures (170,002 ATMs from 27L and 27R) over both waterbodies, which are of greater amplitude and therefore more substantial disturbance events than arrival ATMs, these increases in daily and annual ATMs are unlikely to significantly affect those birds still utilising these waterbodies. Baseline disturbance would be increased further when extreme westerlies are in operation, leading to a maximum additional

HRA

16,762 ATMs/annum. It is highly likely therefore, that such continued/existing disturbance from departures overflying these water bodies is likely have either led to dispersal to other water bodies or simply habituation to this air noise.

 Data from recent studies provides strong indication that a variety of potential factors have lead to the decline in utilisation of both waterbodies, but particularly Wraysbury Reservoir. Based on the review of disturbance and in particular, disturbance related activities at the SWL Waterbodies SPA, there is nothing to suggest in any of the disturbance studies undertaken to date (Briggs, 2007; Banks et al. 2004; Briggs 2012), that overflying aircraft are causing a significant effect to the integrity of the SPA. Rather, that a variety of human recreational disturbance events e.g. angling, waterskiing, sailing and dog-walking , both water based and from the shoreline appear to be contributing to a greater decline in SPA species across the designated waterbodies.

 Given the decline in qualifying interest species utilising both SPA components (Appendix A), the current baseline number s of gadwall and shoveler utilising Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I North Gravel Pit is such that neither body supports SPA qualifying numbers of either species. This is key to determining significance of effect to these sites, whereby low level regular disturbance effects on generally very small numbers of qualifying interest species are therefore unlikely to affect the SPA population status of either species. Furthermore the periodicity of arrival flights is always alternated between runways and therefore does not provide any overly intensive periods of disturbance. For these reasons it is not considered that the development would threaten the wintering population of either of the SPA species.

5.3 Other projects or plans that could act in combination to affect the conservation features of the relevant European Sites

Because the assessment of effects has concluded that any changes in the quality of air or the noise environment will not affect either of the relevant European sites significantly, it is considered that there is no possibility that proposals within other projects or plans could cause in-combination effects with the proposals. This is because the changes to both the baseline air quality and noise environments are predicted to be very small, and will occur at locations that already experience significant overflying by aircraft, particularly when the airport is operating on westerly operations. The potential for in- combination significant effects to occur with other projects or plans is therefore considered to be very low. No further consideration is therefore given to in-combination effects on these European sites.

HRA

6. Conclusions

6.1 Summary

Of the proposed operational changes only „an increase in the number of aircraft arriving on Runway 09R in an easterly direction‟ was considered to pose a likely significant effect and only to the South West London Waterbodies SPA.

On a precautionary basis a judgement as to whether the ability to achieve a conservation objective could potentially be compromised by the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations was made by considering whether any increase in noise levels of arrival traffic to the southern runway, and which would directly overfly two SPA component sub-sites: Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit, might potentially lead to disturbance and displacement of qualifying interest species.

Pertinent to this assessment, numbers of both species at both Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit have gradually declined over a period of twenty to twenty five years, such that numerous non-designated waterbodies within the wider area regularly support larger numbers of either species than either of the two SPA sites. However, available disturbance studies make very limited reference to overflying aircraft causing significant disturbance to SPA species on any of the component waterbodies.

As such, even with a proposed annual increase of between 31,966 and 44,092 arrival ATMs overflying Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit, given the existing and continued noise effects of westerly departures (170,002 ATMs/annum from 27L and 27R) over both waterbodies, which are of greater amplitude and therefore more substantial disturbance events than arrival ATMs, these increases in daily and annual ATMs are unlikely to significantly affect those birds still utilising these waterbodies. It is considered highly likely therefore, that such continued/existing disturbance from departures overflying these water bodies is likely have either led to dispersal to other water bodies or simply habituation to this air noise.

It is considered therefore that an increase in the number of arrival ATMs to 09R from 28 to 328 per day (29% - 40% of the time), is unlikely to significantly affect the integrity of the SPA.

HRA

Appendix A Sites ranked in order of Max Gadwall and Max Shoveler counts

Rank Site (SPA in bold) Max GA Mean GA Site (SPA in bold) Max SV Mean SV

1 Staines N 367 39.5 Staines N 401 103.9

2 Princes Lake 179 61.48 Colne Mere 227 28.08

3 Colne Mere 177 28.44 Wraysbury II S 203 25.77

4 Kingsmead 135 17.78 Staines S 195 39.75

5 Colnbrook small 100 29.21 Stain Hill E 189 40.38

6 Kempton East 90 15.73 Wraysbury II N 176 36.6

7 Longside Lake 78 22.28 Bessborough 161 15.08

8 Island Barn 66 23.51 Knight 144 7.53

9 Staines S 65 17.9 Stain Hill W 130 18.27

10 Wraysbury II S 64 19.12 KGVI 74 12.44

11 Kempton Racecourse 62 10.88 Kempton East 73 16.5

12 Hythe Lagoon 61 3.78 Stanwell Moor N 66 13.85

13 Stain Hill E 59 10.67 Princes Lake 63 10.07

14 Thorpe #1 56 23.19 Colnbrook small 50 7.76

15 Queen Mary 55 9.14 Broadwater 46 17.48

16 Horton S 55 5.28 The Ranges 38 23.75

17 Colnbrook S 54 11.73 A320 GP 31 3.049

18 Stanwell Moor N 52 5.44 Island Barn 27 2.404

19 Colnbrook N 51 8.58 QEII 24 2.244

20 Bessborough 49 13.04 Molesey E 24 5.3

21 QEII 49 3.98 Old Charlton Road 23 0.878

22 Wraysbury Reservoir 49 5.65 Colnbrook S 19 2.415

23 Knight 48 11.29 Longside Lake 18 0.884

24 Bedfont Lakes 45 13.38 Molesey W 17 2.321

25 Ferry Lane 42 7.26 Hythe Lagoon 16 1.609

26 Wraysbury I N 38 7.28 Ferry Lane 16 1.419

27 Egham Hythe Pond 33 6.18 Cemex HQ 15 1.175

28 Sheepwalk W 32 3.76 Hampton Waterworks 14 1.065

29 Hersham GP 32 3.8 Ashford WW 13 4.529

30 Wraysbury II N 31 2.745 Staines Moor 12 4.5

HRA

31 KGVI 29 5.24 Egham Hythe Pond 10 1.128

32 Ashford WW 29 4.29 Reservoir aggregates 10 2.073

33 Littleton Lane E 28 7.05 Heron Lake 10 0.261

34 A320 GP 26 7.15 Littleton Lane E 9 0.256

35 The Moor GP 26 6.3 Church Lammas 9 2.294

36 Redhouse 24 2.636 The Moor GP 8 1.116

37 Wraysbury I S 23 3.261 Redhouse 8 0.591

38 Thorpe amusement 22 1.929 Thorpe #1 7 1.271

39 Cemex HQ 21 1.8 Bedfont Lakes 6 0.426

40 Church Lammas 21 5.71 Sheepwalk W 6 0.357

41 Reservoir aggregates 20 3.927 Stanwell Moor S 6 0.925

42 Queen Mother 20 2.256 Charlton Village 6 0.512

43 Stanwell Moor S 17 4.125 Kingsmead 5 0.356

44 Hampton Waterworks 16 4.478 Queen Mother 5 0.186

45 Staines Moor 16 4.5 Hersham GP 4 0.422

46 Molesey E 15 3.227 Halliford Mere 4 0.167

47 Heron Lake 13 2.5 Littleton Lane W(N) 4 0.182

48 Stain Hill W 10 1.756 Colnbrook N 3 0.1163

49 Old Charlton Road 10 0.756 Wraysbury Reservoir 3 0.1304

50 Molesey W 8 0.786 Wraysbury I S 3 0.261

51 Stanwell Moor new 8 0.75 Stanwell Moor new 3 0.25

52 Wraysbury Hilton 7 0.714 Queen Mary 2 0.093

53 Halliford Mere 6 1.024 Blenheim angling 2 0.143

54 Blenheim angling 4 0.429 Queensmead 2 0.2

55 Douglas Lane 4 0.625 Kempton Racecourse 0 0

56 Molesey GP 4 1.077 Horton S 0 0

57 Sheepwalk E 4 0.366 Wraysbury I N 0 0

58 Datchet GP 3 0.333 Thorpe amusement 0 0

59 Broadwater 2 0.15 Wraysbury Hilton 0 0

60 Queensmead 2 0.2 Douglas Lane 0 0

61 Lower Hythe GPs 2 1 Molesey GP 0 0

62 The Ranges 0 0 Sheepwalk E 0 0

63 Charlton Village 0 0 Datchet GP 0 0

64 Littleton Lane W(N) 0 0 Lower Hythe GPs 0 0

65 Horton N 0 0 Horton N 0 0

66 Littleton Lane W(S) 0 0 Littleton Lane W(S) 0 0

67 Twynersh angling 0 0 Twynersh angling 0 0 Data from Briggs (2007).

HRA

Appendix B Screening of potential impacts

SPA Sub-sites Distance/ Potential impact Justification component direction significance to qualifying from site interest species (Yes ✓or no X)

Air quality Noise

Staines King George 850m, SW x x Air quality: Moor VI Reservoir Significant reductions in NOx concentrations are predicted within the vicinity of King George Reservoir (receptor 182) reductions are predicted to be 1.59 µg/m3 or 2.6% of the airport contribution. For these reasons it is considered that changes in NOx concentration as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the ability to successfully achieve the relevant conservation objectives. Noise: Modelling undertaken to establish the increases of noise as a result of the implementation of the proposals at sensitive receptors surrounding the Airport has established that the annual average increase, in the area of King George VI Reservoir is less than 1db. Such an increase is considered to be negligible. For these reasons it is considered that changes in the noise environment as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the potential for the conservation objectives for this site to be achieved.

Staines 650m, S x x Air quality: Reservoirs Significant reductions in NOx concentrations are predicted within the vicinity of Staines Reservoirs (receptor 182) reductions are predicted to be 1.59 µg/m3 or 2.6% of the airport contribution. For these reasons it is considered that changes in NOx concentration as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the ability to successfully achieve the relevant conservation objectives. Noise: Modelling undertaken to establish the increases of noise as a result of the implementation of the proposals at sensitive receptors surrounding the Airport has established that the annual average increase, in the area of Staines Reservoirs is less than 1db. Such an increase is considered to be negligible. For these reasons it is considered that changes in the noise environment as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the potential for the conservation objectives for this site to be achieved.

HRA

Wraysbury & Wraysbury II 3,700m, SW x x Air quality: Hythe End (North) Gravel Significant reductions in NOx concentrations are predicted within the vicinity of Wraysbury II gravel pits Pit (North) Gravel Pit (receptor 182) reductions are predicted to be 1.59 µg/m3 or 2.6% of the airport contribution. For these reasons it is considered that changes in NOx concentration as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the ability to successfully achieve the relevant conservation objectives. Noise: Modelling undertaken to establish the increases of noise as a result of the implementation of the proposals at sensitive receptors surrounding the Airport has established that the annual average increase, in the area of Wraysbury II (North) Gravel Pit is less than 1db. Such an increase is considered to be negligible. For these reasons it is considered that changes in the noise environment as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the potential for the conservation objectives for this site to be achieved.

Wraysbury II 4,100m, SW x x Air quality: (South) Gravel Significant reductions in NOx concentrations are predicted within the vicinity of Wraysbury II Pit (South) Gravel Pit (receptor 182) reductions are predicted to be 1.59 µg/m3 or 2.6% of the airport contribution. For these reasons it is considered that changes in NOx concentration as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the ability to successfully achieve the relevant conservation objectives. Noise: Modelling undertaken to establish the increases of noise as a result of the implementation of the proposals at sensitive receptors surrounding the Airport has established that the annual average increase, in the area of Wraysbury II (South) Gravel Pit is less than 1db. Such an increase is considered to be negligible. For these reasons it is considered that changes in the noise environment as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the potential for the conservation objectives for this site to be achieved.

Kempton Kempton 5,100m, SE x x Air quality: Park Reservoir East Given that Kempton Reservoir East is over 5km from the airport and the maximum increase in the Reservoirs deposition rate of nitrogen is located in the centre of Staines Reservoir (receptor 186), to the south of the airport (which is already significantly below the threshold established in the assessment methodology, above which the ability to achieve the relevant conservation objectives could be compromised), air quality effects are considered to be negligible. Noise: Modelling undertaken to establish the increases of noise as a result of the implementation of the proposals at sensitive receptors surrounding the Airport has established that the annual average increase, in the area of Kempton Reservoir East is less than 1db. Such an increase is considered to be negligible. For these reasons it is considered that changes in the noise environment as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the potential for the conservation objectives for this site to be achieved.

HRA

Distribution (or 4,700m, SE x x Air quality: Redhouse) Given that Distribution (or Redhouse) is over 4km from the airport and the maximum increase in the deposition rate of nitrogen is located in the centre of Staines Reservoir (receptor 186), to the south of the airport (which is already significantly below the threshold established in the assessment methodology, above which the ability to achieve the relevant conservation objectives could be compromised), air quality effects are considered to be negligible. Noise: Modelling undertaken to establish the increases of noise as a result of the implementation of the proposals at sensitive receptors surrounding the Airport has established that the annual average increase, in the area of Distribution (or Redhouse) is less than 1db. Such an increase is considered to be negligible. For these reasons it is considered that changes in the noise environment as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the potential for the conservation objectives for this site to be achieved.

Knight & Knight & 7,300m, SE x x Air quality: Bessboroug Bessborough Given that Knight & Bessborough Reservoirs are over 7km from the airport and the maximum h Reservoirs Reservoirs increase in the deposition rate of nitrogen is located in the centre of Staines Reservoir (receptor 186), to the south of the airport (which is already significantly below the threshold established in the assessment methodology, above which the ability to achieve the relevant conservation objectives could be compromised), air quality effects are considered to be negligible. Noise: Modelling undertaken to establish the increases of noise as a result of the implementation of the proposals at sensitive receptors surrounding the Airport has established that the annual average increase, in the area of Knight & Bessborough Reservoirs is less than 1db. Such an increase is considered to be negligible. For these reasons it is considered that changes in the noise environment as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the potential for the conservation objectives for this site to be achieved.

Sunnymead Wraysbury I 4,400m, W x ✓ Air quality: s Gravel Pits (North) Gravel Given that Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit is over 4km from the airport and the maximum increase Pit in the deposition rate of nitrogen is located in the centre of Staines Reservoir (receptor 186), to the south of the airport (which is already significantly below the threshold established in the assessment methodology, above which the ability to achieve the relevant conservation objectives could be compromised), air quality effects are considered to be negligible. Noise: The numbers of aircraft landing from the west of Heathrow will not change as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations. They will, however, be redistributed so that there is a more even division across the two runways. As it is arrival traffic to the southern runway only that overflies Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit, there is the potential for an increase in noise levels at the SPA.

HRA

Wraysbury I 4,100m, W x x Air quality: (South) Gravel Given that Wraysbury I (South) Gravel Pit is over 4km from the airport and the maximum increase Pit in the deposition rate of nitrogen is located in the centre of Staines Reservoir (receptor 186), to the south of the airport (which is already significantly below the threshold established in the assessment methodology, above which the ability to achieve the relevant conservation objectives could be compromised), air quality effects are considered to be negligible. Noise: Modelling undertaken to establish the increases of noise as a result of the implementation of the proposals at sensitive receptors surrounding the Airport has established that the annual average increase, in the area of Wraysbury I (South) Gravel Pit is less than 1db. Such an increase is considered to be negligible. For these reasons it is considered that changes in the noise environment as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the potential for the conservation objectives for this site to be achieved.

Thorpe Park Thorpe Park 9,400m, SW x x Air quality: Gravel Pit Gravel Pit (pit Given that Thorpe Park Gravel Pit (pit I) is over 9km from the airport and the maximum increase in (pit 1) 1) the deposition rate of nitrogen is located in the centre of Staines Reservoir (receptor 186), to the south of the airport (which is already significantly below the threshold established in the assessment methodology, above which the ability to achieve the relevant conservation objectives could be compromised), air quality effects are considered to be negligible. Noise: Modelling undertaken to establish the increases of noise as a result of the implementation of the proposals at sensitive receptors surrounding the Airport has established that the annual average increase, in the area of Thorpe Park Gravel Pit (pit I) is less than 1db. Such an increase is considered to be negligible. For these reasons it is considered that changes in the noise environment as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations are unlikely to compromise the potential for the conservation objectives for this site to be achieved.

HRA

Wraysbury Wraysbury 3,450m, SW x ✓ Air quality: Reservoir Reservoir Concentrations of NOx at those receptors within the immediate vicinity of South West London Waterbodies such as receptor 175 at Wraysbury Reservoir, experience increases of approximately 0.3 µg/m3 or 0.4% of the total airport contribution. The maximum increase in the deposition rate of nitrogen at those receptors within the immediate vicinity of South West London Waterbodies is 0.066 kg/ha/year at receptor 186, which is located at the centre of Staines Reservoir to the south of the airport. This represents an increase of only 0.5% of the total current airport contribution, this being significantly below the threshold (established in the assessment methodology) above which the ability to achieve the relevant conservation objectives could be compromised. Noise: The numbers of aircraft landing from the west of Heathrow will not change as a result of the implementation of full runway alternation on easterly operations. They will, however, be redistributed so that there is a more even division across the two runways. As it is arrival traffic to the southern runway only that overflies Wraysbury Reservoir, there is the potential for an increase in noise levels at the SPA.

HRA

Appendix C Noise footprint comparison

HRA

498000 499000 500000 501000 502000 503000 504000 505000 506000 507000 508000 509000 510000 511000 512000 513000 514000 515000 516000 182000 182000

N 181000 181000 180000 180000 179000 179000 178000 178000 177000 177000

176000 HEATHROW 176000 AIRPORT 175000 175000 174000 174000

173000 0 3,000 173000 Metres Scale: 1:50,000 @ A3

H:\Projects\33068 LHR Cranford\Drawings\GIS 172000 172000

Enabling Works to Allow Implementation of Full Runway Alternation During 171000 Easterly Operations - HRA Screening 171000

Figure 2.1 Site Location Plan 170000 170000

February 2013 33068-Lon07.mxd squij 498000 499000 500000 501000 502000 503000 504000 505000 506000 507000 508000 509000 510000 511000 512000 513000 514000 515000 516000

1km buffer from area of works

N 178000 178000 177000 177000 176000 176000 175000 175000

0 1,000 Metres Scale: 1:20,000 @ A3

H:\Projects\33068 LHR Cranford\Drawings\GIS

174000 174000 Enabling Works to Allow Implementation of Full Runway Alternation During Easterly Operations - HRA Screening

Figure 2.2 1km Buffer From Area of Works

February 2013 33068-Lon08.mxd squij 504000 505000 506000 507000 508000 509000

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right. All rights reserved. BAA Ltd, O.S. Licence Number AL100020071. 460000 470000 480000 490000 500000 510000 520000 530000 540000 550000 560000 Key:

Departures from Runway 27L

Departures from Runway 27R 220000 N 220000 210000 210000 200000 200000

27L/R Departures

190000 Approx 206 movments 190000 on a typical westerly day 180000 180000

27L/R Departures Approx 157 movements on a typical westerly day 170000 170000

27L/R Departures Approx 149 movements on a typical westerly day

27L/R Departures

160000 Approx 144 movements 160000 on a typical westerly day

0 20,000 Metres Scale: 1:370,000 @ A3

H:\Projects\33068 LHR Cranford\Drawings\GIS 150000 150000

Enabling Works to Allow Implementation of Full Runway Alternation During Easterly Operations - HRA Screening 140000 140000

Figure 2.3 Number of Departure ATMs when Airport Operating on Westerlies (71% of the Time) 130000 130000 February 2013 33068-Lon09.mxd squij 460000 470000 480000 490000 500000 510000 520000 530000 540000 550000 560000

Arrivals to Runway 27L

Arrivals to Runway 27R 220000 N 220000 210000 210000 200000 200000 190000 190000

27R Arrivals Approx 328 movements on a typical westerly day 180000 180000

27L Arrivals Approx 328 movements on a typical westerly day 170000 170000 160000 160000

0 20,000 Metres Scale: 1:370,000 @ A3

H:\Projects\33068 LHR Cranford\Drawings\GIS 150000 150000

Enabling Works to Allow Implementation of Full Runway Alternation During Easterly Operations - HRA Screening 140000 140000

Figure 2.4 Number of Arrival ATMs when Airport Operating on Westerlies (71% of the Time) 130000 130000 February 2013 33068-Lon10.mxd squij 460000 470000 480000 490000 500000 510000 520000 530000 540000 550000 560000

Departures from Runway 09R

Departures from Runway 09L 220000 N 220000 210000 210000 09L Departures <0.2% of all departures

09R Departures Approx 656 movements on a 200000 typical easterly day 200000

09R Departures Approx 204 movements on a typical easterly day 190000 190000 180000 180000

09R Departures Approx 123 movements 170000 09R Departures on a typical easterly day 170000 Approx 122 movements on a typical easterly day

09R Departures Approx 207 movements

160000 on a typical easterly day 160000

0 20,000 Metres Scale: 1:370,000 @ A3

H:\Projects\33068 LHR Cranford\Drawings\GIS 150000 150000

Enabling Works to Allow Implementation of Full Runway Alternation During Easterly Operations - HRA Screening 140000 140000

Figure 2.5 Number of Departure ATMs when Airport Operating on Easterlies (29% of the Time) without Full Runway Alternation 130000 130000 February 2013 33068-Lon11.mxd squij 460000 470000 480000 490000 500000 510000 520000 530000 540000 550000 560000

Arrivals to Runway 09R

Arrivals to Runway 09L 220000 N 220000 210000 210000 200000 200000 190000 190000

09L Arrivals Approx 630 movements on a typical easterly day 180000 180000 170000 170000 09R Arrivals Approx 26 movements on a typical easterly day 160000 160000

0 20,000 Metres Scale: 1:370,000 @ A3

H:\Projects\33068 LHR Cranford\Drawings\GIS 150000 150000

Enabling Works to Allow Implementation of Full Runway Alternation During Easterly Operations - HRA Screening 140000 140000

Figure 2.6 Number of Arrival ATMs when Airport Operating on Easterlies (29% of the Time) without Full Runway Alternation 130000 130000 February 2013 33068-Lon12.mxd squij 460000 470000 480000 490000 500000 510000 520000 530000 540000 550000 560000

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right. All rights reserved. BAA Ltd, O.S. Licence Number AL100020071. 495000 500000 505000 510000 515000 520000 Key:

185000 185000 SPA

SAC N 180000 180000

175000 South West London Waterbodies SPA 175000

Windsor Forest & Great Park SAC Richmond Park SAC 170000 170000

South West London Waterbodies SPA

0 5,000 Metres Scale: 1:100,000 @ A3

H:\Projects\33068 LHR Cranford\Drawings\GIS 165000 165000

Enabling Works to Allow Implementation of Full Runway Alternation During Easterly Operations - HRA Screening

Figure 3.1 Natura 2000 Sites 160000 160000

February 2013 33068-Lon13.mxd squij 495000 500000 505000 510000 515000 520000

SPA

Wraysbury I North 175000 175000

Wraysbury I South Wraysbury Reservoir

Wraysbury II North

Wraysbury II South Staines North King George IV Reservoir

Staines South

Kempton East

Red House 170000 170000

0 2,000 Metres Scale: 1:45,000 @ A3

H:\Projects\33068 LHR Cranford\Drawings\GIS

Thorpe #1 Bessborough Knight

Enabling Works to Allow Implementation of Full Runway Alternation During Easterly Operations - HRA Screening

Figure 3.2 South West London Waterbodies SPA - Components and Sub-Sites

February 2013 33068-Lon14.mxd squij 500000 505000 510000

!( Receptors 1-13 182000 182000

!( Receptors 14-114

N !( Receptors 115-124

181000 181000 Receptors 125-128 194 !( !( Receptors 129-157 158 195 !( !( !( Receptors 158-216 180000 180000

197 159 !( !( 196 !(

160 !( 10

179000 !( 179000 143 199 1391416 161 157 !(142!( !( 133134135!( !(!( !(138!( !(!(!( !( !( !( 140 145!(146 !(!(130!(!(!(132 136137 198 !(!( 148149151153154155156 129 131 !( 144!(147!( !(!(150!( !( !(!(!( 162 163 !(152 !( 164 !( !( 203 125 !( !( 200 201 165 166 !( !( 202 178000 !( !( 167 8 !( 178000 !( !( 204 5 126 !( !( !( 127 !( 171 169 7 !( 168 !( !( 11 !( 98 205 !( !(99 121 124 !( 105 !(!(!(97!( 9293 120 123 122 !( 1159 170 !(72!(96 !(!(3 !( !( !( !( !( 4 !( !(!(95!(!(!(!(!(91 !( 177000 !( 64!(!(!(83!(!(!( !(!(!( 177000 !( 39!( !(!(!(!( 84 90 87 1 114 !(!(63!(!(!(61 !(31!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( 172 11329!(!(!(!(4243 !( 22 176 !( 206 !(

176000 173 176000 !( 174 !(

175 !( 207 208 !( !( 190 !( 11712 !( 175000 179 178 118 175000 !( !( 177 !( 209 !( 116 !( 2 !( 210 !( !( 181 128 213 211 184 !( 182 !( 119 !( 191 !( 183 !( !( !( !( !( 174000 174000

192 180 !( !( 0 2,000 212 Metres 185 186 !( Scale: 1:45,000 @ A3 !( !( H:\Projects\33068 LHR Cranford\Drawings\GIS 214 !( 173000 173000 189 !( 13 216 !( 187 188 !( !( !(

215 Enabling Works to Allow Implementation 193 !( !( of Full Runway Alternation During 172000 172000 Easterly Operations - HRA Screening

Figure 4.1 Air Quality Monitoring Locations 171000 171000

February 2013 33068-Lon15.mxd squij 500000 501000 502000 503000 504000 505000 506000 507000 508000 509000 510000 511000 512000 513000

SW London Waterbodies SPA

Top ranked waterbodies based on peak/max gadwell number N Top ranked waterbodies based on peak/max shoveler number

Regular flight path (gadwell)

Regular flight path (shoveler)

Existing runway

Zone of influence (ZOI)

Wraysbury I North 175000 175000

Wraysbury Reservoir Wraysbury I South

Wraysbury II North Staines North

Wraysbury II South King George IV Reservoir Staines South

Kempton East

Red House 170000 170000

0 3,000 Thorpe #1 Bessborough Metres Scale: 1:60,000 @ A3 Knight H:\Projects\33068 LHR Cranford\Drawings\GIS

Enabling Works to Allow Implementation of Full Runway Alternation During Easterly Operations - HRA Screening

Figure 4.2 South West London Waterbodies SPA

165000 165000 and Proposed ZOI

February 2013 33068-Lon16.mxd squij 500000 505000 510000 515000