Item 8 Appendix 2 HRA 20260060DET Biking downhill run

Agenda item 8

Appendix 2

2026/0060/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

---

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion	2026/0060/DET Install addi­tion­al moun­tain bik­ing down­hill run on the exist­ing buz­zard lift The Lecht Ski Centre, Cor­garff, Strath­don Aber­deen­shire, AB36 8YP
Appraised by	Scott Shanks, Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
Date	19 May 2026
Checked by	Fiona Mutch NatureScot Operation’s Officer – North
Date	29 May 2026

---

INFORM­A­TION

European site details
Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected	1) Lad­der Hills SAC (approx­im­ately 20m from devel­op­ment bound­ary) 2) River Spey SAC (approx­im­ately 2.4km from devel­op­ment bound­ary) 3) Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA (approx­im­ately 5.6km from devel­op­ment boundary)
Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)	1) Lad­der Hills SAC European dry heath Alpine and sub­alpine heath Blanket bog
	2) River Spey SAC Otter Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel (FWPM) Sea lamprey Atlantic salmon
	3) Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA Golden eagle

1) Lad­der Hills SAC

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of Lad­der Hills SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing feature:

2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of European dry heath with­in the site 2b. Restore the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of European dry heath 2c. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of European dry heath

2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of alpine and sub­alpine heaths with­in the site

2b. Restore the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of alpine and sub­alpine heaths 2c. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of alpine and sub­alpine heaths

2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of blanket bog with­in the site 2b. Restore the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of blanket bog 2c. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of blanket bog

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 1. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of Lad­der Hills SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status.

2) River Spey SAC

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of the River Spey 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. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey through­out the site 2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing sea lamprey with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food 2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of sea lamprey 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

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site 2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food 2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 1. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of the River Spey SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status.

3) Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of golden eagle or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained; and To ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term:

• Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site
• Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site
• Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species
• Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species
• No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

---

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:

What is the plan or project?

Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)

The pro­pos­al is for install­a­tion of an addi­tion­al moun­tain bike down­hill track at the exist­ing Buz­zard ski-tow lift at the Lecht Ski Centre, Cor­garff, Strath­don, Aber­deen­shire, AB36 8YP.

The pro­posed track will be 1.5m wide and 1,030m in length down a steep slope. It will cross through upland hab­it­ats between the infra­struc­ture of exist­ing ski runs ser­viced by the buz­zard ski tow. A ​‘Trail Con­struc­tion Zone’ has been indic­ated to allow for micro-sit­ing of the route to avoid pri­or­ity peat­land hab­it­ats and deep peat.

The Lecht Ski Centre is sur­roun­ded by the Lad­der Hills SAC/SSSI. Part of the trail con­struc­tion zone appears to approach with­in 20m of the edge of the Lad­der Hills SAC.

A Pre­lim­in­ary Eco­lo­gic­al Apprais­al report and a Peat Depth Sur­vey report (Ref: Tetra Eco­logy, May 2026) have been pre­pared in sup­port of the applic­a­tion. Most of the trail con­struc­tion zone con­sists of dry heath and blanket bog, with some upland acid grass­land close to the road.

There are no water­courses on the site, but a trib­u­tary of the Con­glass Water is with­in 100m of the bot­tom of the site boundary.

The pro­posed con­struc­tion time was ini­tially spring 2026.

STAGE 2:

Is the plan or pro­ject dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation?

1) Lad­der Hills SAC No, this devel­op­ment is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

2) River Spey SAC No, this devel­op­ment is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

3) Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA No, this devel­op­ment is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

STAGE 3:

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) Lad­der Hills SAC

European dry heath: No LSE. There will not be devel­op­ment with­in the bound­ary of this SAC, and so there will not be sig­ni­fic­ant effects on this Qual­i­fy­ing Interest.

Alpine and sub­alpine heath: No LSE. There will not be devel­op­ment with­in the bound­ary of this SAC, and so there will not be sig­ni­fic­ant effects on this Qual­i­fy­ing Interest.

Blanket bog: Yes, LSE. From long-term hydro­lo­gic­al impacts on peat depos­its and peat­land veget­a­tion com­munit­ies through drain­age of hydro­lo­gic­ally con­nec­ted peat­land close to the edge of the SAC.

2) River Spey SAC

Otter: Yes, LSE from short term indir­ect effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity through poten­tial changes to water qual­ity and impacts on prey species.

Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel: YES, LSE from short term indir­ect effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion includ­ing sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity that could smoth­er FWPM pop­u­la­tions down­stream of the site. Pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion work such as fuel spillages could also enter the water­course and impact FWPM and host spe­cies (sal­monids) in the Con­glass Water.

NOTE: FWPM dis­tri­bu­tion data provided by NatureScot indic­ates that FWPM are unlikely to be present in the Con­glass Water, but have been con­sidered here as a pre­cau­tion­ary measure.

Sea lamprey: Yes, LSE from short term indir­ect effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity includ­ing impacts on exist­ing hab­it­at and water qual­ity in the Con­glass Water through release of sed­i­ment mobil­ised from the slopes dur­ing con­struc­tion works, or pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­ity such as fuel spills.

Atlantic sal­mon: Yes, LSE from short term indir­ect effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity includ­ing impacts on exist­ing hab­it­at and water qual­ity in the Con­glass Water through release of mobil­ised sed­i­ment dur­ing con­struc­tion works that could smoth­er Atlantic sal­mon spawn­ing gravels down­stream of the site, or pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­ity such as fuel spills.

3) Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA

Golden eagle: Yes, LSE from poten­tial dis­turb­ance to for­aging golden eagle dur­ing con­struc­tion phase and oper­a­tion­al phase.

STAGE 4:

Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives

1) Lad­der Hills SAC

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of Lad­der Hills SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing feature:

2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of blanket bog with­in the site

No con­struc­tion activ­ity will occur with­in the SAC, and so there will not be dir­ect impacts on the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of blanket bog with­in the SAC due to this devel­op­ment. How­ever, data presen­ted in the Pre­lim­in­ary Eco­logy Apprais­al report (Ref: Tetra Eco­logy, May 2026) and Peat Sur­vey report (Ref: Tetra Eco­logy, May 2026) indic­ate that parts of the ​‘Trail Con­struc­tion Zone’ ‑par­tic­u­larly in the east of the site come close to the edge of the SAC. The hab­it­at in this area is noted to be blanket bog with peat over 80cm recor­ded on the pro­posed route of the track and mul­tiple peat depth read­ings over 1m deep recor­ded with­in 30m buf­fer around the pro­posed track route – includ­ing with­in the SAC close to the devel­op­ment bound­ary. The hab­it­at close to peat depth read­ings 68 (120cm) and 69 (115cm) with­in the SAC appear to be degraded blanket bog as peat haggs with poor cov­er­age of Sphag­num moss were noted. This indic­ates that there are exist­ing neg­at­ive impacts on the blanket bog hab­it­at with­in the SAC at this location.

The peat depth sur­vey was under­taken with­in a broad ​‘trail con­struc­tion zone’ to enable micro-sit­ing of the track route to avoid pri­or­ity peat­land hab­it­ats such as blanket bog and deep peat depos­its (over 50cm).

NatureScot guid­ance on peat­land hab­it­ats and car­bon rich soils in devel­op­ment (Ref:Advising on peat­land hab­it­ats and car­bon-rich soils in devel­op­ment man­age­ment | NatureScot) indic­ates that drain­age of blanket bog hab­it­at can have indir­ect impacts on hydro­lo­gic­ally con­nec­ted blanket bog with­in 30m of the drain­age feature.

The detailed track design doc­u­ment sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion indic­ates that the pro­posed track will use turf-lined drain­age ditches and twin-walled drain­age pipes to keep water off the track. There­fore, where the track passes through blanket bog there will be a neg­at­ive impact on hydro­lo­gic­ally con­nec­ted blanket bog with­in 30m. Where the track comes with­in 30m of the Lad­der Hills SAC this could res­ult in drain­age of blanket bog with­in the SAC, which will have a neg­at­ive impact on the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of this habitat.

A devel­op­ment buf­fer of at least 30m from the Lad­der Hills SAC bound­ary is recom­men­ded through con­di­tion to ensure that the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of blanket bog hab­it­at with­in the SAC is maintained.

If a min­im­um devel­op­ment buf­fer of 30m from the edge of the Lad­der Hills SAC is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2b. Restore the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of blanket bog

No devel­op­ment is pro­posed with­in the bound­ary of the SAC, how­ever drain­age of hydro­lo­gic­ally con­nec­ted peat­land hab­it­ats with­in 30m of the SAC bound­ary (par­tic­u­larly down-slope of the SAC) could res­ult in drain­age of the blanket bog and changes to typ­ic­al veget­a­tion. Typ­ic­ally, drain­age will res­ult in a lower water table with­in the peat and a sub­sequent dry­ing-out of the sur­face acro­telm lay­er of the bog. This can res­ult in the loss (or replace­ment) of peat-form­ing Sphag­num mosses and blanket bog veget­a­tion, and a shift to more acro­carp­ous and peuro­carpus mosses and a dom­in­ance of heath­er. The loss of act­ive peat-form­ing veget­a­tion can res­ult in form­a­tion of bare peat and increased release of sequestered carbon.

A devel­op­ment buf­fer of at least 30m from the Lad­der Hills SAC bound­ary is recom­men­ded through con­di­tion to ensure that struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of blanket bog hab­it­at with­in the SAC is main­tained. If a buf­fer was con­di­tioned it would not inhib­it future res­tor­a­tion of the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of degraded blanket bog that cur­rently might be present.

If a min­im­um devel­op­ment buf­fer of 30m from the edge of the Lad­der Hills SAC is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2c. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of blanket bog

No devel­op­ment is pro­posed with­in the bound­ary of the SAC, how­ever drain­age of hydro­lo­gic­ally con­nec­ted peat­land hab­it­ats with­in 30m of the SAC bound­ary (par­tic­u­larly down-slope of the SAC) could res­ult in drain­age of the blanket bog and changes to typ­ic­al blanket bog veget­a­tion. All char­ac­ter­ist­ic blanket bog spe­cies such as Sphag­num mosses, cot­ton-grasses, sun­dews, and ericaceous shrubs rely on a high water-table, and are likely to bene­fit from meas­ures to improve the bog’s hydro­lo­gic­al integ­rity, prin­cip­ally by pre­vent­ing drain­age, and tramp­ling which could impact peat-form­ing veget­a­tion, and dam­ming of any arti­fi­cial drainage.

A devel­op­ment buf­fer of at least 30m from the Lad­der Hills SAC bound­ary is recom­men­ded through con­di­tion to ensure that dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of blanket bog with­in the SAC is main­tained and any degraded hab­it­at can be restored in the future.

If a min­im­um devel­op­ment buf­fer of 30m from the edge of the Lad­der Hills SAC is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 1. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of Lad­der Hills SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status.

As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives would be met, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not pre­vent or hinder the con­di­tion or con­ser­va­tion status of the qual­i­fy­ing interests of the SAC, and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

In con­clu­sion, if a min­im­um devel­op­ment buf­fer of 30m from the edge of the Lad­der Hills SAC is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted this will reduce the poten­tial effects to a min­im­al level, so that all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for the Lad­der Hills SAC.

2) River Spey SAC

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of the River Spey 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 Atlantic sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel through­out the site

No works are pro­posed with­in the Con­glass Water (part of the River Spey SAC), so there will be no dir­ect loss of suit­able hab­it­at for these spe­cies with­in the SAC. There­fore, the cur­rent and poten­tial dis­tri­bu­tion of these spe­cies would not be dir­ectly affected.

How­ever, there is poten­tial for indir­ect impacts from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies, e.g., mobil­ised sed­i­ments, oils or fuel enter­ing the Alt na Lice water­course (approx­im­ately 100m from the devel­op­ment site. The devel­op­ment is approx­im­ately 2.6km upstream of the Alt na Lice con­flu­ence with the Con­glass Water. Pol­lu­tion events could indir­ectly cause the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel to change due to changes in water qual­ity (tem­por­ary) and, if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment reach the water­course, through smoth­er­ing of hab­it­ats which are used by sal­mon for spawning/​juveniles and hab­it­ats suit­able for sup­port­ing FWPM (long term).

Tim­ing of works to avoid the key Atlantic sal­mon spawn­ing peri­od (mid-Octo­ber to end of Feb­ru­ary) would reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion or mobil­ised sed­i­ment impact­ing breed­ing Atlantic sal­mon dur­ing this sens­it­ive time.

A Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan (PPP) is recom­men­ded through con­di­tion. The PPP should include stand­ard good prac­tice, such as not stor­ing oil with­in 10m of a water­course. Guid­ance for Pol­lu­tion Doc­u­ments should also be referred to and imple­men­ted on site (i.e. GPP2, GPP5, GPP8, GPP21, GPP221) If a pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted — this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

If the tim­ing of works to avoid the key Atlantic spawn­ing peri­od (mid-Octo­ber to end of Feb­ru­ary), and a pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic Sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

The cur­rent and poten­tial res­tor­a­tion of the dis­tri­bu­tion of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM with­in the SAC would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur with­in the water­course. How­ever, pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies on this site could poten­tially affect sup­port­ing hab­it­ats if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment reach the SAC and cause smoth­er­ing of hab­it­ats, redu­cing the dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­at suit­able for sal­mon spawn­ing and juven­ile sal­mon, and hab­it­ats suit­able for FWPM (long term). Mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures iden­ti­fied for 2b above would reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion reach­ing the water­course to a min­im­al level and so this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive would be met.

2^d. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies and their sup­port­ing habitats

The dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of FWPM host spe­cies (Atlantic sal­mon and oth­er sal­monids) would not be dir­ectly affected, as no work will be under­taken with­in the River Spey SAC. How­ever, as dis­cussed in 2b & 2c, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies to indir­ectly affect the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing these spe­cies which may in turn lead to a change in dis­tri­bu­tion or in change in health of FWPM host spe­cies. Mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures iden­ti­fied for 2b above would reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion reach­ing the water­course to a min­im­al level and so this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive would be met.

2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic Sal­mon (includ­ing a range of genet­ic types) and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel as viable com­pon­ents of the site

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM with mit­ig­a­tion, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not hinder or pre­vent the res­tor­a­tion of the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon or FWPM as viable com­pon­ents of site. How­ever, the pro­posed devel­op­ment will not have an impact on the genet­ic types of salmon.

[1] https://​www​.net​regs​.org​.uk/​t​o​o​l​s​/​g​u​i​d​a​n​c​e​-​f​o​r​-​p​o​l​l​u​t​i​o​n​-​p​r​e​v​e​n​t​i​o​n​-​g​p​p​-​d​o​c​u​m​ents/

There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey through­out the site

The cur­rent dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey would not be dir­ectly impacted by the devel­op­ment pro­pos­als as no works will take place with­in the River Spey SAC. How­ever, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies to enter the Con­glass Water (part of the River Spey SAC) via the Alt na Lice water­course, which could indir­ectly affect spawn­ing sub­strates (long term) and water qual­ity (tem­por­ary) which may alter the dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey.

As detailed with­in 2b for Atlantic sal­mon & fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan detail­ing stand­ard good prac­tice con­struc­tion activ­ity will reduce the risk of acci­dent­al pol­lu­tion and there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing sea lamprey with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

Hab­it­ats sup­port­ing sea lamprey will not be dir­ectly impacted as no works will take place with­in the water­course. How­ever, there is poten­tial for indir­ect effects from pol­lu­tion or sed­i­ment enter­ing the water­course that could smooth­er poten­tial sea lamprey spawn­ing grounds (long term). Changes to water qual­ity through sus­pen­ded solids or chem­ic­als (tem­por­ary) may lead to a reduc­tion in food avail­ab­il­ity through neg­at­ively impact­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of prey fish species.

The imple­ment­a­tion of stand­ard pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion meas­ures in a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan will reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion enter­ing the water­course, so that this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of sea lamprey as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives for sea lamprey can be met through the imple­ment­a­tion of mit­ig­a­tion, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not neg­at­ively impact on the cur­rent pop­u­la­tion of sea lamprey with­in the SAC, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site

Otter have been recor­ded with­in the Con­glass Water (Lut­ra lut­ra : Otter | NBN Atlas), which is a des­ig­nated trib­u­tary of the River Spey SAC. The Con­glass Water is approx­im­ately 2.4km from the devel­op­ment site. There­fore, there will not be a dir­ect impact on hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter, or otter prey spe­cies with­in the SAC. The Alt na Lice trib­u­tary of the Con­glass Water may poten­tially be used by for­aging otter from the River Spey SAC. The closest stretch of the Alt na Lice is approx­im­ately 100m from the devel­op­ment site, across the A939 road. The devel­op­ment site is with­in the bound­ary of the Lecht Ski Centre and next to exist­ing ski-tow infrastructure.

Due to the dis­tance from the water­course, and the steep heath­er-dom­in­ated hab­it­ats with­in the devel­op­ment it is unlikely that otter from the River Spey SAC would reg­u­larly for­age with­in the devel­op­ment site, and there­fore the pro­posed devel­op­ment at this loc­a­tion is unlikely to res­ult in a sig­ni­fic­ant impact on for­aging otter from the SAC.

How­ever, there is poten­tial for indir­ect effects from pol­lu­tion or sed­i­ment enter­ing the water­course that could poten­tially res­ult in changes to water qual­ity through sus­pen­ded sed­i­ments or chem­ic­als that could tem­por­ar­ily lead to a reduc­tion in food avail­ab­il­ity through neg­at­ively impact­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of prey fish species.

The imple­ment­a­tion of stand­ard pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion meas­ures in a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan (as dis­cussed for Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM), and avoid­ing con­struc­tion dur­ing the Atlantic sal­mon spawn­ing sea­son will reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion enter­ing the water­course, so that this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

No works are pro­posed with­in or next to the River Spey, so the extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site will be maintained.

The pol­lu­tion issues iden­ti­fied for the fresh­wa­ter spe­cies dis­cussed above, could affect otter prey spe­cies, how­ever the imple­ment­a­tion of pre­vi­ously dis­cussed mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures would reduce the risk of this occur­ring to a min­im­al level and so the con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for otter with the mit­ig­a­tion included in the pro­pos­al, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not hinder or pre­vent the main­ten­ance of the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of site, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 1. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of the River Spey SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status.

As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives would be met, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not pre­vent or hinder the con­di­tion or con­ser­va­tion status of the qual­i­fy­ing interests of the SAC, and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

In con­clu­sion, if the tim­ing of works to avoid the key Atlantic spawn­ing peri­od (mid-Octo­ber to end of Feb­ru­ary), and a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted this will reduce the poten­tial effects to a min­im­al level, so that all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for the River Spey SAC.

Note: Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion meas­ures are included in the Con­struc­tion Envir­on­ment­al Man­age­ment Plan (CEMP) that has been sub­mit­ted with this application.

Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (Golden Eagle) or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained; and To ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term:

Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site

The devel­op­ment site is approx­im­ately 5.6km from the Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA, so there will not be a dir­ect impact on hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the golden eagle with­in the SPA. The core for­aging dis­tance for breed­ing Golden Eagle is 6km (up to 9km) (Ref: Assess­ing con­nectiv­ity with spe­cial pro­tec­tion areas.pdf), there­fore, the devel­op­ment is just with­in the core for­aging range of breed­ing Golden Eagle from the SPA. Hab­it­at with­in the devel­op­ment site is suit­able for prey spe­cies includ­ing Moun­tain Hare, how­ever sim­il­ar hab­it­at is wide­spread with­in the Lad­der Hills SAC which sur­rounds the devel­op­ment site and so breed­ing Golden Eagle from the Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA are unlikely to be solely depend­ent upon the devel­op­ment site.

The devel­op­ment will res­ult in the loss of approx­im­ately 0.2ha of moor­land hab­it­at and an increase in human activ­ity with­in the devel­op­ment site dur­ing the sum­mer and autumn, how­ever the devel­op­ment site is between 70m and 550m from the A939 road and next to exist­ing ski-tow infra­struc­ture with­in the foot­print of the Lecht Ski Centre, so there is an exist­ing level of human activ­ity and recre­ation­al dis­turb­ance asso­ci­ated with the devel­op­ment site. Due to the prox­im­ity to exist­ing infra­struc­ture and human activ­ity, the devel­op­ment site is unlikely to be an import­ant for­aging site used by Golden Eagle and there­fore the pro­posed devel­op­ment will not res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant long-term impacts on the dis­tri­bu­tion of Golden Eagle with­in the Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA. There­fore, this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive will be met.

Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

No con­struc­tion activ­ity will occur with­in the Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA, and there­fore there will not be an impact on the dis­tri­bu­tion of extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the Golden Eagle with­in the SPA. There­fore, this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive will be met.

Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

No con­struc­tion activ­ity will occur with­in the Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA, and there­fore there will not be an impact on the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the Golden Eagle with­in the SPA. There­fore, this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive will be met.

No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

As dis­cussed above, the devel­op­ment site is approx­im­ately 5.6km from the Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA, so the devel­op­ment will not res­ult in dir­ect impacts on hab­it­ats with­in the SPA that sup­port breed­ing Golden Eagle. The core for­aging range of breed­ing Golden Eagle is 6km (up to a max of 9km) and so hab­it­ats with­in the devel­op­ment site could be used by for­aging Golden Eagle from the SPA, how­ever sim­il­ar moor­land hab­it­ats are wide­spread with­in the sur­round­ing Lad­der Hills SAC, and there­fore it is con­sidered unlikely that any Golden Eagle would be solely depend­ent on for­aging with­in the devel­op­ment site. The pro­posed devel­op­ment is with­in the bound­ar­ies of the exist­ing Lecht Ski Centre, and with­in 550m of the A939 road (closest edge of devel­op­ment is approx­im­ately 70m from the road), so there is an exist­ing level of human activ­ity in the vicin­ity of the devel­op­ment site. which is likely to inhib­it fre­quent use of the site by Golden Eagle.

Golden Eagle are par­tic­u­larly sens­it­ive to dis­turb­ance with­in 1km of their nests. As this devel­op­ment is more than 5km from the SPA there will not be sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to breed­ing Golden Eagle with­in SPA. There­fore, this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive will be met.

Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for otter with the mit­ig­a­tion included in the pro­pos­al, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not hinder or pre­vent the main­ten­ance of the pop­u­la­tion of Golden Eagle as a viable com­pon­ent of site, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

In con­clu­sion, the devel­op­ment will not res­ult in dir­ect effects or sig­ni­fic­ant indir­ect effects on breed­ing Golden Eagle with­in the Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA, so that all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met.

STAGE 5:

Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?

1) Lad­der Hills SAC

Yes, Provided the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures below are imple­men­ted, then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there­fore there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity.

The mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures that require to be secured by con­di­tion are:

• A min­im­um devel­op­ment buf­fer of 30m from the edge of the Lad­der Hills SAC should be main­tained. With­in this buf­fer zone there should be no devel­op­ment, remov­al of sur­face veget­a­tion, stor­age of excav­ated peat, turves or con­struc­tion mater­i­als, or trampling/​track­ing over blanket bog veget­a­tion with­in this area. These activ­it­ies can res­ult in loss of, or changes to typ­ic­al blanket bog veget­a­tion, increased erosion of peat depos­its, and sub­sequent drain­age of con­nec­ted peat­land hab­it­ats. The reas­on for this meas­ure is to min­im­ise the risk of con­struc­tion phase impacts on hydro­lo­gic­ally con­nec­ted peat­land hab­it­ats with­in the SAC.

2) River Spey SAC

Yes, Provided the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures below are imple­men­ted, then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there­fore there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity.

The mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures that require to be secured by con­di­tion are:

• Tim­ing of the works to avoid the Atlantic sal­mon spawn­ing sea­son (mid-Octo­ber to end of Feb­ru­ary). The reas­on for this con­di­tion is to min­im­ise poten­tial con­struc­tion phase impacts on qual­i­fy­ing interests of the River Spey SAC.
• A Con­struc­tion Meth­od Statement/​Con­struc­tion Man­age­ment Plan which includes site-spe­cif­ic pol­lu­tion-pre­ven­tion meas­ures and a sed­i­ment man­age­ment plan should be pro­duced and agreed with the CNPA pri­or to any works com­men­cing on site and then fully imple­men­ted dur­ing con­struc­tion. The reas­on for this con­di­tion is to pro­tect the water envir­on­ment and River Spey SAC from pol­lu­tion events, sed­i­ment mobil­isa­tion or dis­ease caused dur­ing construction.

3) Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA

Yes, all con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there­fore there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity.