Item 6 - Appendix 2 HRA March Burn Glen Clova

Agenda Item 6

Appendix 2

2025/0053/DET CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 6 Appendix 2 13/06/2025 Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information	2025/0053/DET Pro­posed res­tor­a­tion of March Burn includ­ing realign­ment of river chan­nel, remov­al of lower sec­tion of river embank­ments, infilling and regrad­ing of river chan­nel and river embank­ment, install­a­tion of large wood green bank pro­tec­tion and large wood struc­tures, the form­a­tion of an inset flood­plain and wet­land scrapes, and asso­ci­ated works
Appraised by	Scott Shanks, Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer (Plan­ning)
Date	13/05/2025
Checked by	Polly Thompson — NatureScot
Date	23 May 2025

page 1 of 9

INFORM­A­TION | | | | —- | —- | | European site details | | | Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected | 1) River South Esk Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion (SAC) | | Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s) | | | 1) River South Esk Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion (SAC) | Atlantic sal­mon Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel | | Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests | | | | Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of the River South Esk SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b, 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture (and 2^d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel) 2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel through­out the site 2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food 2^d. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies and their sup­port­ing hab­it­ats 2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel as a viable com­pon­ent of the Site 2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon through­out the site 2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of Food 2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon, includ­ing range of genet­ic types, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive I. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of the River South Esk SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status. |

page 2 of 9

APPRAIS­AL | | | | —- | —- | | STAGE 1: | | | What is the plan or pro­ject? | | | Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc) | Detailed designs have been pro­duced to restore the March Burn, a trib­u­tary of the South Esk with­in Glen Clova, as part of the ​‘Restor­ing the River South Esk’ pro­gramme. The design reach is loc­ated between the B955 road and the con­flu­ence of the March Burn with the South Esk (OS NGR NO 34137 72071 to ΝΟ 34239 71859). Pro­posed res­tor­a­tion of March Burn includ­ing realign­ment of river chan­nel to fol­low the sinu­ous his­tor­ic chan­nel, remov­al of lower sec­tion of river embank­ments, infilling and regrad­ing of river chan­nel and river embank­ment, install­a­tion of large wood green bank pro­tec­tion and large wood struc­tures, the form­a­tion of an inset flood­plain and wet­land scrapes, and asso­ci­ated works. The con­struc­tion work is planned for 8 to 10 weeks dur­ing sum­mer 2025. | | STAGE 2: | | | Is the plan or pro­ject dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature con­ser­va­tion? | Yes, | | i) | Has the effect on all qual­i­fy­ing interests been con­sidered? Yes. Both fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel (FWPM) and Atlantic sal­mon, the qual­i­fy­ing interests (Qls) of the River South Esk SAC, have been con­sidered dur­ing the devel­op­ment of this river res­tor­a­tion and hab­it­at improve­ment pro­pos­al. Exist­ing hab­it­at con­di­tion, pos­i­tion, and extents of the Qls, as well as their con­ser­va­tion object­ives were used to inform the res­tor­a­tion design and pro­posed con­struc­tion works (i.e. meth­od­o­logy and tim­ing) to mit­ig­ate against impacts on these spe­cies. The poten­tial impacts, design meas­ures and mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures under­taken and resid­ual impacts on the Qls are fur­ther dis­cussed in Stage 4. | | ii) | Is the pro­pos­al part of a fully assessed and agreed man­age­ment plan Yes. This pro­pos­al forms part of the ​‘Restor­ing the River South Esk’ man­age­ment pro­gramme led by Angus Coun­cil in part­ner­ship with Esk Rivers and Fish­er­ies Trust (ERFT). The pro­gramme aims to restore nat­ur­al geo­morph­ic pro­cesses and deliv­er hab­it­at improve­ments to the water­course and its trib­u­tar­ies, such as the March Burn. Help­ing to achieve the con­ser­va­tion object­ives of the SACs’ two qual­i­fy­ing interests (i.e. to improve the hab­it­at pro­vi­sion and expand the dis­tri­bu­tion of FWPM and Atlantic sal­mon with­in the River South Esk). | | iii) | Is there a clear rationale to jus­ti­fy the con­nec­tion with the con­ser­va­tion objectives? |

page 3 of 9

Yes. The Con­ser­va­tion Object­ives for both FWPM and Atlantic sal­mon seek to improve the pop­u­la­tion, dis­tri­bu­tion, and avail­ab­il­ity of sup­port­ing hab­it­ats for both pro­tec­ted spe­cies. The chan­nel realign­ment and sup­port­ing design fea­tures are pro­posed primar­ily to restore nat­ur­al river pro­cesses and to improve and diver­si­fy the exist­ing in-chan­nel hab­it­at present along the lower March Burn, which is largely homo­gen­ous. Increased in- chan­nel mor­pho­lo­gic­al diversity has the poten­tial to increase the avail­ab­il­ity of hab­it­at suited to dif­fer­ent stages of the Atlantic sal­mon life cycle, help­ing to expand the area of suit­able hab­it­at through­out this sec­tion of the water­course. As Atlantic sal­mon is a host spe­cies for the glochidia of FWPM, improved hab­it­at for the former may help with the pop­u­la­tion growth of the later. Improved mor­pho­lo­gic­al diversity and sed­i­ment sort­ing across the chan­nel caused by the inclu­sion of large woody struc­tures could also bene­fit FWPM dir­ectly by encour­aging the depos­ition of sand between exist­ing cobbles and boulders, expand­ing suit­able hab­it­at for this spe­cies. | iv) | If there is a clear rationale to jus­ti­fy the con­nec­tion with the con­ser­va­tion object­ives, will any bene­fits arising from the pro­pos­al out­weigh any neg­at­ive impacts? Yes. Steps have been taken dur­ing the scop­ing and design devel­op­ment to mit­ig­ate against impacts to either of this SAC’s qual­i­fy­ing interests. As noted in the response at 2ii) the pro­posed river res­tor­a­tion works on the March Burn have the poten­tial to improve hab­it­at pro­vi­sion and diversity for both Qls, con­trib­ut­ing towards improv­ing the con­di­tion of the des­ig­nated site. The final design and con­struc­tion meth­od­o­logy have been developed with mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures in place to lim­it neg­at­ive impacts on the QI. How­ever, dur­ing the con­struc­tion pro­cess resid­ual risks remain, such as best prac­tice con­struc­tion meth­od­o­lo­gies being ignored or imple­men­ted incor­rectly, or dis­turb­ance of a pre­vi­ously unknown pop­u­la­tion of FWPM. These mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures and resid­ual risk will be dis­cussed fur­ther in Stage 4. Con­struc­tion super­vi­sion is to be under­taken by a mem­ber of the river res­tor­a­tion design team and an exper­i­enced aquat­ic Eco­lo­gic­al Clerk of Works will be on site dur­ing con­struc­tion to ensure that the con­struc­tion is under­taken with sens­it­iv­ity to the Qls. | | v) | Have any altern­at­ive meth­ods of imple­ment­ing the pro­pos­al been explored, includ­ing build­ing in any rel­ev­ant mit­ig­a­tion, to demon­strate that this is a the least dam­aging option? Yes. Dur­ing both the design devel­op­ment and con­struc­tion plan­ning stages. The Design Meth­od State­ment (DMS) out­lines silt and fine sed­i­ment man­age­ment meas­ures that must be employed dur­ing con­struc­tion to pre­vent this mater­i­al from being mobil­ised into the chan­nel. The DMS takes account of mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures recom­men­ded in Alba Ecology’s FWPM sur­vey report (July 2024), as well as out­lining the order in which the design ele­ments should be con­struc­ted to min­im­ise impacts on the sur­round­ing envir­on­ment. | | vi) | Give a Yes/​No con­clu­sion in terms of wheth­er the plan or pro­ject is con­sidered to dir­ectly con­nect with or neces­sary to site man­age­ment for nature conservation. |

page 4 of 9

STAGE 3: Yes. The March Burn and river cor­ridor are covered by the River South Esk SAC des­ig­na­tion. There­fore, realign­ment of the lower sec­tion of the Burn will dir­ectly impact the SAC. How­ever, the pro­pos­al aims to rein­state nat­ur­al geo­morph­ic pro­cesses, enhance hab­it­at pro­vi­sion and diversity as well as con­trib­ut­ing to nat­ur­al flood risk man­age­ment and improv­ing cli­mate change resi­li­ence. There­fore, it is deemed that this river res­tor­a­tion work is neces­sary for nature con­ser­va­tion and should improve suit­able hab­it­at diversity and poten­tially increase dis­tri­bu­tion of both Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM with­in the site. | Is the plan or pro­ject (either alone or in-com­bin­a­tion with oth­er plans or pro­jects) likely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the site(s)? | | | 1) River South Esk Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion (SAC) | Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel: YES, there will be a LSE from short term effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion includ­ing fine sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity that could smoth­er exist­ing FWPM pop­u­la­tions down­stream of the site, with­in the River South Esk. Pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion work such as fuel spillages could also enter the water­course and impact FWPM and host spe­cies in the River South Esk SAC. Poor bio­se­c­ur­ity meas­ures could res­ult in the spread of dis­ease or invas­ive on-nat­ive spe­cies (INNS) that could impact FWPM pop­u­la­tions and host spe­cies. There could be post-con­struc­tion effects arising from expan­sion of suit­able FWPM hab­it­at, and host spe­cies hab­it­ats with poten­tial to increase FWPM abund­ance and improve dis­tri­bu­tion and encour­age col­on­isa­tion of the res­tor­a­tion site. Atlantic sal­mon: Yes, there will be a LSE from short term effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion includ­ing dis­turb­ance of exist­ing hab­it­at with­in the March Burn through sed­i­ment remov­al for reuse in the re-mean­der­ing of the chan­nel, and release of sed­i­ment mobil­ised from banks and river­bed excav­a­tions that could smoth­er Atlantic sal­mon spawn­ing gravels down­stream of the site, pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­ity such as fuel spills and dis­turb­ance dur­ing spawn­ing peri­ods. There could be post-con­struc­tion impacts from improved hab­it­at diversity across the lower March Burn includ­ing improv­ing spawn­ing hab­it­ats (no spawn­ing cur­rently occurs with­in the res­tor­a­tion site), and hab­it­ats suit­able for all stages of the Atlantic sal­mon life­cycle. | | STAGE 4: | | | Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion object­ives | | | 1. River South Esk SAC | Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of the River South Esk SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b, 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture (and 2^d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel) 2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel through­out the site |

page 5 of 9

The pro­posed river res­tor­a­tion works will con­trib­ute towards achiev­ing this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive. There are cur­rently no known FWPM pop­u­la­tions with­in the pro­ject site (approx­im­ately 250m of the March Burn), and exist­ing geo­mor­pho­logy and hab­it­at diversity with­in the site are cur­rently con­sidered sub-optim­al for FWPM. A pop­u­la­tion of FWPM are found with­in the main South Esk chan­nel, and so pro­posed improve­ments in the pro­ject site geo­mor­pho­logy and hab­it­at diversity will improve suit­ab­il­ity for FWPM and host spe­cies such as Atlantic sal­mon. This could increase the prob­ab­il­ity of col­on­isa­tion of the site by FWPM. Mit­ig­a­tion Meas­ures included in the pro­pos­al will min­im­ise the con­struc­tion phase risks of mobil­isa­tion of sed­i­ments, pol­lu­tion or dis­ease that could impact FWPM down­stream of the pro­ject site. FWPM pop­u­la­tions with­in the South Esk will be the closest source of glochida that would facil­it­ate the col­on­isa­tion of the pro­ject site. | 2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food | The pro­pos­al will con­trib­ute towards achiev­ing this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive. The pro­posed river res­tor­a­tion works will improve hab­it­at diversity for host spe­cies of FWPM (such as Atlantic sal­mon) and encour­age the depos­ition of finer sed­i­ments amongst the boulders and cobbles of the river­bed, this will pro­mote the expan­sion of suit­able FWPM hab­it­ats and improve the chances of col­on­isa­tion of this sec­tion of the SAC. The pro­pos­al will cre­ate a more nat­ur­al cross-sec­tion of the water­course and improve chan­nel to flood plain con­nectiv­ity, which should facil­it­ate improved nutri­ent exchange with the flood­plain, which will provide organ­ic mat­ter for feed­ing FWPMs. Inclu­sion of large woody struc­tures will also facil­it­ate a sup­ply of food for FWPM. | | 2^d. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies and their sup­port­ing hab­it­ats. | The pro­posed mean­der­ing form of the realigned chan­nel to fol­low the his­tor­ic chan­nel, and the install­a­tion of large woody struc­tures are both designed to increase the diversity of geo­morph­ic pro­cesses with­in the chan­nel, which will in turn help to cre­ate a range of hab­it­ats suit­able for sal­monids (FWPM host spe­cies). Deep­er pools are pre­dicted to form on meander bends and oppos­ite large woody struc­tures that will be suit­able rest­ing areas, or thermal refu­gia for adult sal­monids. The designs should also pro­mote the form­a­tion of riffle areas where finer sed­i­ments such as gravels and sands will be depos­ited, which will increase the avail­ab­il­ity of sal­monid spawn­ing hab­it­at. The inclu­sion of large woody struc­tures in the design will provide loc­al­ised shad­ing and pro­tec­tion for sal­monids. These hab­it­at improve­ments have the poten­tial to facil­it­ate an increase in the pop­u­la­tion of the FWPM host spe­cies, which in turn will improve the like­li­hood that they will be encysted by glo­chia. Mit­ig­a­tion Meas­ures included in the pro­pos­al will min­im­ise the con­struc­tion phase risks of dis­turb­ance dur­ing spawn­ing times, mobil­isa­tion of sed­i­ments that could smoth­er spawn­ing sites, and release of pol­lu­tion or spread of dis­ease that could impact host spe­cies with­in the March Burn and down­stream stretches of the SAC. | | 2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel as a viable com­pon­ent of the Site | |

page 6 of 9

The pro­posed river res­tor­a­tion works will con­trib­ute towards achiev­ing this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive. There are cur­rently no known FWPM pop­u­la­tions with­in the pro­ject site (a 250m stretch of the March Burn, a trib­u­tary of the River South Esk), and exist­ing geo­mor­pho­logy and hab­it­at diversity with­in the site are sub-optim­al for FWPM. How­ever, FWPMs are found with­in the main South Esk chan­nel, and so pro­posed improve­ments in the pro­ject site geo­mor­pho­logy and hab­it­at diversity will increase hab­it­at suit­ab­il­ity for both FWPM and host spe­cies such as Atlantic Sal­mon and could increase the prob­ab­il­ity of col­on­isa­tion of the site by FWPM. Mit­ig­a­tion Meas­ures included in the pro­pos­al will min­im­ise the con­struc­tion phase risks of mobil­isa­tion of sed­i­ments, pol­lu­tion or dis­ease that could impact the known pop­u­la­tion of FWPM down­stream of the pro­ject site. This FWPM pop­u­la­tion will be the closest source of glochida that would facil­it­ate the col­on­isa­tion of the pro­ject site. | 2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon through­out the site. | The pro­posed works will con­trib­ute towards achiev­ing this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive. The res­tor­a­tion of the March Burn will increase hab­it­at avail­ab­il­ity and diversity for addi­tion­al life­cycle stages of Atlantic sal­mon with­in this sec­tion of the SAC. This increase in suit­able hab­it­at should in turn pro­mote an increase in the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic Sal­mon with­in the SAC. Mit­ig­a­tion Meas­ures included in the pro­pos­al will min­im­ise the con­struc­tion phase risks of dis­turb­ance dur­ing spawn­ing time, mobil­isa­tion of sed­i­ments that could smoth­er spawn­ing sites, dis­turb­ance and tem­por­ary loss of parr hab­it­at, and release of pol­lu­tion or spread of dis­ease that could impact Atlantic sal­mon with­in the March Burn and down­stream stretches of the SAC. | | 2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of Food. | The prosed works will con­trib­ute towards achiev­ing this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive. In chan­nel hab­it­ats with­in the study site are cur­rently dom­in­ated by cobble boulder bed mater­i­al which is best suited to parr. The pro­posed works will increase mor­pho­lo­gic­al diversity with­in this sec­tion of the SAC, pro­mot­ing the devel­op­ment of hab­it­ats suit­able for dif­fer­ent life stages of Atlantic Sal­mon. Mit­ig­a­tion Meas­ures included in the pro­pos­al will min­im­ise the con­struc­tion phase risks of dis­turb­ance dur­ing spawn­ing time, mobil­isa­tion of sed­i­ments that could smoth­er spawn­ing sites, dis­turb­ance and tem­por­ary loss of parr hab­it­at, and release of pol­lu­tion or spread of dis­ease that could impact Atlantic sal­mon with­in the March Burn and down­stream stretches of the SAC. | | 2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon, includ­ing range of genet­ic types, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site | The pro­posed works will partly con­trib­ute towards achiev­ing this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive. The res­tor­a­tion of the March Burn will increase hab­it­at avail­ab­il­ity and hab­it­at diversity suit­able for addi­tion­al life stages of Atlantic sal­mon with­in this sec­tion of the SAC. This increase in suit­able hab­it­at should in turn pro­mote an increase in the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon with­in the SAC. How­ever, the pro­posed works will not influ­ence the range of genet­ic types with­in the |

page 7 of 9

SAC. Mit­ig­a­tion Meas­ures included in the pro­pos­al will min­im­ise the con­struc­tion phase risks of dis­turb­ance dur­ing spawn­ing time, mobil­isa­tion of sed­i­ments that could smoth­er spawn­ing sites, dis­turb­ance and tem­por­ary loss of parr hab­it­at, and release of pol­lu­tion or spread of dis­ease that could impact Atlantic sal­mon with­in the March Burn and down­stream stretches of the SAC. | Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive I. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of the River South Esk SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status. | As the pro­posed works will con­trib­ute towards achiev­ing this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive by improv­ing the geo­morph­ic form and func­tion of the March Burn, this will in turn pro­mote diversity and improve hab­it­at avail­ab­il­ity for both FWPM and Atlantic sal­mon across the site. Mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures included in the pro­pos­al will reduce the con­struc­tion phase, and post-con­struc­tion phase risks of dis­turb­ance and impacts from sed­i­ment mobil­isa­tion, con­struc­tion pol­lu­tion and the spread of dis­ease to a min­im­um level. Whilst this site rep­res­ents only a small part of the River South Esk SAC, this pro­ject com­bined with oth­er res­tor­a­tion pro­jects across the SAC could con­trib­ute to both QI achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status. | | In con­clu­sion, the pro­posed mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures (which include tim­ing of the con­struc­tion work to avoid spawn­ing of Atlantic sal­mon; the chan­nel realign­ment being mainly con­struc­ted ​‘off- line’ to lim­it the length of time that exist­ing Atlantic sal­mon hab­it­ats are impacted; the employ­ment of an exper­i­enced aquat­ic ECoW to check for pre­vi­ously undetec­ted FWPMs dur­ing con­struc­tion; imple­ment­a­tion of sed­i­ment and silt man­age­ment meas­ures dur­ing the con­struc­tion phase; refilling fuel only in the site com­pound, spill kits to be read­ily avail­able and machinery stored with drip trays in place when not in use; and imple­ment­a­tion of strict bio­se­c­ur­ity meas­ures to pre­vent the spread of dis­ease or invas­ive non-nat­ive spe­cies) if imple­men­ted, will reduce the poten­tial effects to a min­im­al level, so that all con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for the River South Esk SAC. | | | STAGE 5: | | | Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity? | Provided the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures included in the plan­ning applic­a­tion are secured by con­di­tion and imple­men­ted, then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there­fore there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity for the River South Esk SAC. The mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures that require to be secured by con­di­tion are: • Tim­ing of the works to avoid the Atlantic sal­mon spawn­ing sea­son (Octo­ber to Feb­ru­ary)- to min­im­ise impacts on qual­i­fy­ing interests of the River South Esk SAC. • Mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures detailed in the March Burn Res­tor­a­tion Design Meth­od State­ment, Ver­sion I (dated 30/01/2025) should be imple­men­ted in full. In par­tic­u­lar, the pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion and con­trol meas­ures to pre­vent excess silt and sed­i­ment enter­ing the River South Esk dur­ing con­struc­tion. The reas­on for this con­di­tion is to avoid pol­lu­tion or mobil­ised sed­i­ments neg­at­ively impact­ing Atlantic sal­mon and the pop­u­la­tion of FWPM down­stream of the site, with­in the River South Esk SAC. |

page 8 of 9

page 9 of 9