Appendix 6 – Note of Nethy Bridge and Laggan meetings

Appendix 6 Record of site vis­it to area around Nethy Bridge and the meet­ing held at Lag­gan Vil­lage Hall Sarah Hen­shall. Head of Con­ser­va­tion, 18 Octo­ber 2023

Record of vis­it with Nethy Bridge farm­ers 27 Septem­ber 2023 Fol­low­ing on from con­cerns raised by Nethy Bridge) a meet­ing was held between the Park Author­ity, and three oth­er loc­al farm­ers on 23 August 2023. Sub­sequent dis­cus­sions at the Nethy Bridge pub­lic and fish­er­ies beaver engage­ment event led to the organ­isa­tion of a site vis­it to Nethy Bridge to dis­cuss con­cerns and view the land and flood banks. The site vis­it was atten­ded by:

John Kirk — Nethy Bridge and Park Author­ity Board Member

Ali McK­night — Agroe­co­logy farm advisor Kirsten Brew­ster — NatureScot Roisin Cam­bell — Palmer- Beaver Trust Jonath­an Wil­let — CNPA Beaver Pro­ject Man­ager Sarah Hen­shall — CNPA Head of Con­ser­va­tion Lewis Pâté — CNPA Farm Con­ser­va­tion Advisor

This note cap­tures the sub­stant­ive con­cerns raised by this group of six landown­ers and farm­ers at the meet­ing and action points, so that they can be incor­por­ated into the beaver trans­lo­ca­tion engage­ment report and licence sub­mis­sion. The note does not provide responses or solu­tions to the con­cerns raised. When the ​‘group’ is referred to in this doc­u­ment it relates to the views of the six landown­ers and farm­ers lis­ted above.

1. The level of con­cern from this group of landown­ers regard­ing the re-intro­duc­tion of the beavers is very high. This con­cern spe­cific­ally relates to the poten­tial dam­age to the flood banks, dam­ming of drain­age ditches and sub­sequent risk of flood­ing to pro­duct­ive agri­cul­tur­al land. Con­cern was also raised regard­ing the poten­tial impact of beavers on grant fun­ded ripari­an plant­ing schemes.
2. Greatest con­cern was voiced in rela­tion to the poten­tial for beaver bur­row­ing activ­it­ies to com­prom­ise flood bank integ­rity and func­tion espe­cially dur­ing flood events. If flood banks are ​‘blown’, pro­duct­ive agri­cul­tur­al land on the flood­plain will be inund­ated, fences could be dam­aged, and the land strewn with flood debris. Live­li­hoods could be sig­ni­fic­antly impacted, and sub­sequent costs being laid with the landowner
3. The flood banks in this area are con­struc­ted of soil, they are routinely checked and main­tained by landown­ers and ten­ant farm­ers. This involves check­ing for rab­bit, mole and badger bur­rows, keep­ing it free from trees and repair­ing dam­age or erosion where required.
4. The flood banks have been breached and over topped in the past (most recently on 8 Octo­ber 2023, res­ult­ing is con­sid­er­able dam­age to land and live­li­hoods in this area. The flood banks, drain­age sys­tem and flap valves are crit­ic­al to pro­tect­ing this land and redu­cing the impacts of flood events.
5. The cost of main­tain­ing and repair­ing the flood banks is cur­rently the respons­ib­il­ity of the landown­er or ten­ant (example of agree­ment ten­ancy provided by ). This can be very costly; it is strongly felt that if the banks are dam­aged by beaver the cost of repair should not be borne the landown­er / tenant.
6. The group felt that the cur­rent NatureScot beaver mit­ig­a­tion is react­ive rather than pro­act­ive and that scheme is not adequately fun­ded. It does not cov­er the costs asso­ci­ated with major flood bank fail­ure nor does it cov­er landown­er man­age­ment time or costs incurred to carry out oth­er mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures such as dam removal.
7. NatureScot explained the cur­rent beaver mit­ig­a­tion scheme, how it works and what it cov­ers. The Park Author­ity con­firmed that the Beaver Pro­ject Man­ager will provide addi­tion­al sup­port for landown­ers in terms of advice, help with licens­ing admin­is­tra­tion and deliv­ery of mit­ig­a­tion measures.

8. The Park Authority’s sup­port was wel­comed how­ever it was high­lighted they would like to see a long-term com­mit­ment ie 20 – 30 years plus to provide reas­sur­ance that future farm­ing gen­er­a­tions will be supported.

9. There were unan­im­ous calls from the group for the devel­op­ment of a com­pens­a­tion scheme for dam­age to pro­duct­ive agri­cul­tur­al land and renu­mer­a­tion for repair of flood banks – by either an uplif­ted NatureScot beaver mit­ig­a­tion scheme or a bespoke fund provided by the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity. With regards to any poten­tial addi­tion­al resources, they have asked NatureScot and the Park Author­ity to pose this ques­tion to seni­or rep­res­ent­at­ives at Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment, ask­ing them to cla­ri­fy more detail on the resources are being com­mit­ted and on what timescale?

Action: NatureScot and the Park Author­ity to relay con­cerns raised by the group to seni­or man­age­ment with­in their organ­isa­tions and for them to seek an oppor­tun­ity to raise with Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment. Spe­cific­ally ask­ing if addi­tion­al resource will be made avail­able if the flood bank is dam­aged by beaver?

1. Examples of dam­age to flood banks and breaches in the Tay catch­ment were dis­cussed, NatureScot con­firmed that they had only been made aware of two cases of sus­pec­ted beaver related dam­age. Giv­en the size of the pop­u­la­tion and pres­ence of beavers for over a dec­ade in the catch­ment, the impact on flood banks was low, but per­cep­tion of poten­tial dam­age is high.
2. The like­li­hood of beavers bur­row­ing into flood banks along the Spey was dis­cussed, the Beaver Trust explained that it will be depend­ent on the prox­im­ity of flood banks to the Spey along with qual­ity and quant­ity of ripari­an habitat.
3. Beaver bur­row­ing activ­ity may not be detec­ted as the bur­row entrances can be below the water sur­face. Mak­ing it dif­fi­cult to determ­ine if flood bank dam­age or breach is due to beaver activity.

Action: The Park Author­ity to map the loc­a­tion of flood banks and their prox­im­ity to the Spey, this data to be over­laid with beaver hab­it­at to identi­fy areas of high­er poten­tial risk.

Action: The Park Author­ity will com­mis­sion walk over sur­vey of the flood banks to estab­lish cur­rent condition.

1. Con­cern was raised about the poten­tial of beaver dam­ming ditches and block­ing the flaps valves. All agreed that if a dam was built in front of a flap valve that it would need to be removed promptly as per the mit­ig­a­tion scheme with the sup­port of the Park Author­ity Beaver Pro­ject Manager.

2. Mon­it­or­ing of beaver activ­ity and shar­ing inform­a­tion when beavers arrive in this area. The Park Author­ity, work­ing with part­ners, will be respons­ible for closely mon­it­or­ing beaver activ­ity. Mon­it­or­ing res­ults will be shared pub­licly at an appro­pri­ate res­ol­u­tion. In areas where beaver impacts are poten­tially high risk, such as here, inform­a­tion will be shared with landown­ers dir­ectly, promptly and addi­tion­al mon­it­or­ing put in place to estab­lish the level if impact, if any.

3. Uncer­tainty over future farm­ing sub­sidies was raised and call for future schemes to include pay­ments for ripari­an mar­gin man­age­ment and beavers. The group felt landown­ers and farm­ers should be incentiv­ised to farm along­side beavers.
4. Con­cern that ripari­an plant­ing schemes could be dam­aged or fail due to beaver brows­ing. An option could be increas­ing the plant­ing dens­ity, change the spe­cies mix and/​or con­sider plant­ing sac­ri­fi­cial wil­low between the river and plant­ing scheme. The Park Author­ity could poten­tially provide top-up funding.
5. The group acknow­ledged that beavers could bring bene­fits in some areas in the Nation­al Park. How­ever, in areas with pro­duct­ive agri­cul­tur­al land and flood banks they feel the risk and poten­tial impacts are unac­cept­ably high. The group asked for a beaver exclu­sion zone to be con­sidered, where beavers removed and trans­lo­cated else­where. The pro­posed zone would include low-lying farm­land adja­cent to the Spey between Nethy Bridge and Boat of Garten and the flood plain of the Dul­nain between Car­rbridge and Dul­nain Bridge.
6. There was broad sup­port and interest in the estab­lish­ment of a Cairngorms Farm­ers For­um to share inform­a­tion and provide a for­um for dis­cus­sion about beaver and oth­er con­ser­va­tion related farm­ing topics.

Action: Lewis Pâté and Ali McK­night to explore what a farm­er led for­um could look like and how the Park Author­ity could sup­port and facil­it­ate it.

1. The Park Author­ity is arran­ging two fur­ther vis­its to South Clunes in Novem­ber, this will provide an oppor­tun­ity to vis­it a farm with beavers and speak with a farm­er liv­ing and work­ing along­side beavers since 2008. John Kirk has already vis­ited the farm and found it hugely inform­at­ive and encour­aged the rest of the group to do so too.

Action: The Park Author­ity to con­firm dates of vis­it and extend invite to mem­bers of this group.

Ends.

Record of meet­ing with Lag­gan farm­ers, crofters and res­id­ents 12 Octo­ber 2023 and raised con­cerns about poten­tial beaver impacts on farm­land in Lag­gan via dis­cus­sion with Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity, NatureScot and Beaver Trust staff at the inform­al beaver bleth­er at Kin­craig on the 1 March and the form­al pub­lic engage­ment event at Kin­gussie on 30 August. The Park Author­ity offered to fol­low up dis­cus­sions with a site vis­it, arranged a meet­ing at Lag­gan Vil­lage Hall on 12 Octo­ber 12 – 2pm and invited loc­al landown­ers, farmers/​crofters and inter­ested parties to attend. This meet­ing provided an oppor­tun­ity to share inform­a­tion about the Park Author­it­ies plans to bring beavers back to the Cairngorms and hear con­cerns. The meet­ing was atten­ded by:

John Kirk — Nethy Bridge and CNPA Board Mem­ber lan Wilson — NFUS Jonath­an Wil­let – Park Author­ity Beaver Pro­ject Man­ager Sarah Hen­shall – Park Author­ity Head of Con­ser­va­tion Lewis Pâté – Park Author­ity Farm Con­ser­va­tion Advisor

This note cap­tures the sub­stant­ive con­cerns raised by this group of landown­ers, farm­ers / crofters and res­id­ents at the meet­ing. The note does not provide responses or

solu­tions, it cap­tures the nature of the con­cerns and action points so that they can be incor­por­ated into the engage­ment report and licence sub­mis­sion. When the ​‘group’ is referred to in this doc­u­ment it relates to the views of the 17 farm­ers / crofters and res­id­ents lis­ted above.

1. The level of con­cern from this group of landown­ers, farm­ers / crofters and res­id­ents regard­ing the re-intro­duc­tion of the beavers is very high. They were dis­ap­poin­ted that a form­al engage­ment event was not held in Lag­gan as per in Kin­gussie and Kincraig.
2. Their con­cerns spe­cific­ally relate to the poten­tial impacts on low-lying pro­duct­ive agri­cul­tur­al land in Lag­gan, through dam­age to the flood bank, dam­ming of ditches and burns and sub­sequent blow outs and debris, flood­ing and fence dam­age. Con­cern was also raised regard­ing the poten­tial impact of beavers on grant fun­ded ripari­an plant­ing schemes and oth­er con­ser­va­tion ini­ti­at­ives ad pri­or­it­ies includ­ing soil health.
3. Video foot­age taken after floods at the week­end (7÷8 Octo­ber) by Mar­tin Kennedy (NFUS) show­ing a flood bank breach in Tay­side was shown to the group by Martin’s opin­ion is that it was due to beaver bur­row­ing, although this has not been con­firmed. NatureScot has con­firmed that up until the end of Septem­ber 2023 they had only been made aware of two cases of sus­pec­ted beaver related dam­age to flood banks in the Tay catch­ment. Giv­en the size of the pop­u­la­tion and pres­ence of beavers for over a dec­ade in the catch­ment, the impact on the flood bank was low, but per­cep­tion of poten­tial dam­age is high.
4. The group felt that the cur­rent NatureScot beaver mit­ig­a­tion scheme is react­ive rather than pro­act­ive and that scheme is not adequately fun­ded. It does not cov­er the costs asso­ci­ated with major flood bank fail­ure. The cost of repair­ing flood banks, fen­cing or oth­er poten­tial beaver dam­age could be pro­hib­it­ive and could be bey­ond the cap­ab­il­ity of the farm­ers to cov­er. This has the poten­tial to neg­at­ively affect livelihoods.
5. It was acknow­ledged by the group that the mit­ig­a­tion scheme does provides meas­ures to address some beaver impacts, how­ever a sig­ni­fic­ant con­cern is the poten­tial fin­an­cial (and time) bur­den to be borne by the farmers/​crofters. The Park Author­ity con­firmed that the Beaver Pro­ject Man­ager will provide addi­tion­al sup­port for landown­ers in terms of advice, help with licens­ing admin­is­tra­tion and deliv­ery of mit­ig­a­tion measures.

Action: The Park Author­ity to con­firm what would their response times be in rela­tion to ini­tial enquir­ies and then mit­ig­a­tion action?

1. The Park Author­it­ies’ sup­port was wel­comed how­ever it was high­lighted the need for a long-term com­mit­ment and plan for beaver man­age­ment in the Park ie 10−20−30 years plus to provide reas­sur­ance that future farm­ing gen­er­a­tions will be sup­por­ted. Scotland’s Beaver Strategy cov­ers the 2022 – 2045.
2. Uncer­tainty over future farm­ing sub­sidies was raised and call for future schemes to include pay­ments for ripari­an mar­gin man­age­ment and beavers. Landown­ers and farm­ers should be incentiv­ised to farm along­side beavers.
3. The scale of beaver impacts will be geo­graph­ic­ally and tem­por­ally vari­able depend­ing on beaver hab­it­at suit­ab­il­ity, dam­ming capa­city, land use and beaver distribution.

Action: Park Author­ity to send beaver hab­it­at and dam maps to and for dis­tri­bu­tion to those attend­ing the meeting.

1. Con­cerns were aired regard­ing beaver impacts and RPID grants and sub­sidies, also Scot­tish Forestry grants for ripari­an tree planting.

Action: The Park Author­ity to ask Scot­tish Forestry the ques­tion about ripari­an trees that have been planted and pay­ment if they have been beaver-felled.

1. The group asked about SEPA’s role in mit­ig­a­tion – what would their pos­i­tion and role be in rela­tion to mech­an­ic­al remov­al of dams? Con­cern over SEPA being pro­hib­it­ive on pro­tec­ted sites. The Park Author­ity con­firmed that SEPA are a sup­port­ing organ­isa­tion of Scotland’s Beaver Strategy 2022 – 45, but do not have a role in the imple­ment­a­tion of the beaver mit­ig­a­tion scheme.

Action: The Park Author­ity to ask SEPA what would their pos­i­tion and role is in rela­tion to mech­an­ic­al remov­al of beaver dams?

1. The group sug­ges­ted zon­ing of beavers on a risk-based approach. An exclu­sion zone in Lag­gan was unan­im­ously sup­por­ted by those attend­ing the meet­ing. This was to ensure the pro­tec­tion of flood banks, fen­cing and pro­duct­ive agri­cul­tur­al land. Ian Wilson, NFUS cau­tioned for a fuzzy bound­ary and hard lines on map would not be help­ful in the long term.

2. The group called for Park Author­ity to be trans­par­ent and the need to build trust with farm­ers and crofters in Lag­gan. A clear timeline was giv­en regard­ing the times­cale for the licence sub­mis­sion and the sub­sequent pro­cess should the licence applic­a­tion be granted.

3. There was interest in vis­it­ing a site with beavers and speak­ing to farm­ers liv­ing with beavers. Tay­side was dis­cussed but it was agreed that vis­it­ing a site more akin to the Cairngorms would be more use­ful. The Park Author­ity is arran­ging two fur­ther vis­its to South Clune in Novem­ber, this will provide an oppor­tun­ity to vis­it a farm with beavers and speak with a farm­er liv­ing and work­ing along­side beavers for more than ten years. John Kirk has already vis­ited the farm and found it hugely inform­at­ive and encour­aged the rest of the group to do so too when the oppor­tun­ity arises.

Action: The Park Author­ity to con­firm dates and cir­cu­late invite to the group.

Ends.