Item5Appendix2HRA20200108DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 5 Appendix 2 11/12/2020

AGENDA ITEM 5

APPENDIX 2

2020/0108/DET

HRA

Natura Apprais­al Form

1a. Name of the Natura Site affected & cur­rent status

River Dee SAC

1b. Name of com­pon­ent SSSI if relevant

N/A

1c. European qual­i­fy­ing interest(s) & wheth­er pri­or­ity/non-pri­or­ity

River Dee SAC Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel (Mar­gar­i­ti­fera mar­gar­i­ti­fera) Otter (Lut­ra lut­ra) Atlantic sal­mon (Salmo salar)

1^d. Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests

River Dee SAC

Otter (Lut­ra lutra)

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted below), or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained and the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures; and to ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term:

• 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 • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as viable com­pon­ent of the site

Atlantic sal­mon (Salmo salar)

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted below), or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained and the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures; and to ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term:

• 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 • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies, includ­ing range of genet­ic types, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel (Mar­gar­i­ti­fera margaritifera)

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted below), or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained and the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures; and to ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term:

• 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 • Dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host species

Pro­pos­al Details

2a. Pro­pos­al Title

2020/0108/DET Con­struc­tion of a new single car­riage­way road and form­a­tion of access and erec­tion of bridge, Gairn­shiel. A939 Deeside – Tomin­toul road.

2b. Date con­sulta­tion sent 28/04/2020 2c. Date con­sulta­tion received 28/04/2020 2^d. Name of con­sul­tee Hay­ley Wiswell (Con­ser­va­tion Officer) 2^e. Name of com­pet­ent author­ity CNPA 2f. Type of case Applic­a­tion for full plan­ning per­mis­sion 2g. Details of pro­posed oper­a­tion To replace the old Gairn­shiel bridge with an altern­at­ive bridge in a new loc­a­tion down­stream and new road layout

APPRAIS­AL IN RELA­TION TO REG­U­LA­TION 48

3a. Is the oper­a­tion dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary to con­ser­va­tion man­age­ment of the site? YES/NO If YES give details:

No.

If yes and it can be demon­strated that the ele­ments in 3b have been applied to all the interest fea­tures in a fully assessed and agreed man­age­ment plan then con­sent can be issued but rationale must be provided, includ­ing ref­er­ence to man­age­ment object­ives. If no, or if site has sev­er­al European qual­i­fy­ing interests and oper­a­tion is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary to the man­age­ment of all of these then pro­ceed to 3b.

3b. Is the oper­a­tion likely to have sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the qual­i­fy­ing interest? Con­sider each qual­i­fy­ing interest in rela­tion to the con­ser­va­tion objectives.

i) indic­ate which fea­ture of interest could be affected by the pro­posed oper­a­tion and briefly in what way; if none provide a brief jus­ti­fic­a­tion and then pro­ceed to v), oth­er­wise con­tin­ue: ii) refer to oth­er plans/​projects with sim­il­ar effects/​other rel­ev­ant evid­ence; iii) con­sider scale, longev­ity, and revers­ib­il­ity of effects; iv) con­sider wheth­er pro­pos­al con­trib­utes to cumu­lat­ive or incre­ment­al impacts with oth­er pro­jects com­peted, under­way or pro­posed; v) give Yes/​No con­clu­sion for each interest.

i) River Dee SAC: qual­i­fy­ing interests that could be affected are otter, fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel and Atlantic salmon

ii) N/A

iii) The pro­pos­al is with­in a short sec­tion of the River Gairn, at Gairn­shiel. Pro­pos­als are per­man­ent, there­fore any ongo­ing oper­a­tion­al impacts would be per­man­ent. Con­struc­tion impacts would be temporary.

iv) N/A

v) The pro­pos­al is likely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on:

Otter: yes Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel: yes Atlantic sal­mon: yes

If yes, or in cases of doubt, pro­ceed to 3c. If poten­tial sig­ni­fic­ant effects can eas­ily be avoided, go straight to 4 and record modi­fic­a­tions required. If no for all fea­tures, a con­sent or non-objec­tion response can be giv­en and recor­ded under 6 (although if there are oth­er fea­tures of nation­al interest only, the effect on these should be con­sidered separately).

3c. Apprais­al of the implic­a­tions for the site in view of the site’s con­ser­va­tion objectives.

i) Describe for each European qual­i­fy­ing interest the poten­tial impacts of the pro­posed oper­a­tion detail­ing which aspects of the pro­pos­al could impact upon them and their con­ser­va­tion object­ives ii) Eval­u­ate the sig­ni­fic­ance of the poten­tial impacts, e.g. wheth­er short/​long term, revers­ible or irre­vers­ible, and in rela­tion to the proportion/​importance of the interest affected, and the over­all effect on the site¿s con­ser­va­tion object­ives. Record if any inform­a­tion or spe­cial­ist advice has been obtained. iii) In the light of the apprais­al, ascer­tain wheth­er the pro­pos­al will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the site for the qual­i­fy­ing interests. If SAC and/​or SPA and/​or Ram­sar site give sep­ar­ate con­clu­sions. If con­di­tions or modi­fic­a­tions are required, pro­ceed to 4.

River Dee SAC : Con­ser­va­tion objectives

Otter (Lut­ra lutra)

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained and the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures; and to ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term:

• Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site – con­struc­tion could lead to dis­turb­ance of indi­vidu­als, tem­por­ar­ily dis­pla­cing them from exist­ing feed­ing areas/​commuting routes • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies — con­struc­tion would lead to dis­turb­ance of hab­it­at, res­ult­ing in tem­por­ary loss of exist­ing feed­ing areas/​commuting routes • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies con­struc­tion would lead to dis­turb­ance of hab­it­at, res­ult­ing in tem­por­ary loss of exist­ing feed­ing areas/​commuting routes. Pol­lu­tion and silta­tion from con­struc­tion or pol­lu­tion events dur­ing con­struc­tion could res­ult in dam­age to sup­port­ing pro­cesses (for­aging hab­it­at) which sup­port otter. • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies — con­struc­tion could lead to dis­turb­ance of indi­vidu­als, tem­por­ar­ily dis­pla­cing them from exist­ing feed­ing areas/​commuting routes. Without mit­ig­a­tion, con­struc­tion could res­ult in dir­ect dis­turb­ance, injury or death to otter. • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as viable com­pon­ent of the site — con­struc­tion could lead to dis­turb­ance of indi­vidu­als, tem­por­ar­ily dis­pla­cing them from exist­ing feed­ing areas/​commuting routes which could affect rela­tion­ships between indi­vidu­als, poten­tially res­ult­ing in loc­al impacts on breeding

An otter sur­vey has been con­duc­ted as part of the applic­a­tion and no indic­a­tion was found that otter are breed­ing with­in the site bound­ary or with­in 200m. Signs of otter were found on

the River Gairn with­in the red line bound­ary which indic­ated that otter are for­aging and com­mut­ing along this sec­tion of the river.

No detailed mit­ig­a­tion has been pro­posed with regard to otter that would allow the con­ser­va­tion object­ives of the site to be met, there­fore there could be an adverse effect on site integrity.

Atlantic sal­mon (Salmo salar)

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained and the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures; and to ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term:

• Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site – pol­lu­tion (fuel leaks) and silta­tion events could lead to pois­on­ing and/​or suf­foc­a­tion of fish (juven­ile fish are par­tic­u­larly vul­ner­able) and there­fore chan­ging the dis­tri­bu­tion of fish in the river by dis­pla­cing some fish or caus­ing loc­al fish deaths. Silta­tion events could smoth­er sal­mon redds and juven­ile hab­it­at, res­ult­ing in loc­al loss of hab­it­at. Machinery enter­ing the river could dam­age key hab­it­at, res­ult­ing in loc­al hab­it­at loss and asso­ci­ated dis­place­ment of fish from the loc­al area. • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies – Silta­tion and pol­lu­tion (fuel leak) events could smoth­er sal­mon redds and juven­ile hab­it­at, res­ult­ing in loc­al loss of hab­it­at. Machinery enter­ing the river could dam­age key hab­it­at, res­ult­ing in loc­al hab­it­at loss. • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies Silta­tion events and machinery enter­ing and cross­ing the river could smoth­er sal­mon redds and juven­ile hab­it­at, res­ult­ing in loc­al loss of hab­it­at that allow fish to breed in the river. • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies – pol­lu­tion events, silta­tion and machinery enter­ing and cross­ing the river could all dir­ectly dis­turb indi­vidu­al fish. • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies, includ­ing range of genet­ic types, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site — the dis­turb­ance and hab­it­at loss detailed above could reduce the suc­cess rate of breed­ing in this part of the River Gairn, affect­ing the genet­ic viab­il­ity of the loc­al pop­u­la­tion, and sub­sequently the River Dee population.

No detailed sur­vey of poten­tial fish hab­it­at has been provided. The River Gairn is known to be import­ant as a breed­ing area for sal­mon and is used by juven­ile fish. Without sur­vey work the impact on this spe­cies can­not be fully under­stood and mit­ig­ated for.

No detailed mit­ig­a­tion has been pro­posed with regard to fish that would allow the con­ser­va­tion object­ives of the site to be met, there­fore there could be an adverse effect on site integrity.

Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel (Mar­gar­i­ti­fera margaritifera)

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained and the site

makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures; and to ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term:

• Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site — pol­lu­tion and silta­tion events could lead to suf­foc­a­tion of mus­sels and there­fore chan­ging the dis­tri­bu­tion of mus­sels in the river by caus­ing loc­al­ised deaths. Silta­tion events could smoth­er mus­sel beds, res­ult­ing in loc­al loss of beds. Fuel leaks enter­ing the river could pois­on and kill mus­sels. Machinery enter­ing the river could dam­age mus­sel beds, res­ult­ing in loc­al hab­it­at loss and asso­ci­ated loss of mus­sels from loc­al area. • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies — Silta­tion events could smoth­er mus­sel beds, res­ult­ing in loc­al loss of beds. Machinery enter­ing the river could dam­age mus­sel beds and suit­able hab­it­at res­ult­ing in loc­al hab­it­at loss. • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies Silta­tion events could smoth­er mus­sel beds, res­ult­ing in loc­al loss of beds and suit­able hab­it­at. Machinery enter­ing the river could dam­age mus­sel beds and suit­able hab­it­at res­ult­ing in loc­al hab­it­at loss. • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies – dis­turb­ance could occur through smoth­er­ing by silta­tion, pois­on­ing from fuel leaks, dir­ect impacts from machinery or tramp­ling by vis­it­ors and con­struc­tion per­son­nel. • Dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies – dis­tri­bu­tion of sal­mon could be impacted through dir­ect dis­turb­ance or through suffocation/​poisoning from pol­lu­tion events. Silta­tion could smoth­er sal­mon redds or suf­foc­ate juven­ile fish. Machinery could trample redds or juven­ile hab­it­at. • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies — Silta­tion could smoth­er sal­mon redds or suf­foc­ate juven­ile fish. Machinery could trample redds or juven­ile habitat.

No detailed sur­vey for fresh water pearl mus­sel beds has been provided. An assess­ment of river hab­it­at has been provided as part of an eco­lo­gic­al apprais­al and this con­siders that hab­it­at with­in the red line bound­ary and upstream and down­stream of the pro­pos­als to be suit­able for sup­port­ing fresh water pearl mus­sel beds. The mussel’s host, Atlantic sal­mon, is known to use this river.

A pro­ject to rein­tro­duce fresh water pearl mus­sel to the River Gairn took place in 2005- 2007, includ­ing loc­a­tions with­in the pro­pos­al area. Small num­bers of indi­vidu­als were found to have sur­vived as recently as 2015 but there are some dis­tance down­stream of the pro­pos­al area. Hab­it­at in the Gairn has changed since the rein­trodu­tion attempt and is now con­sidered less suit­able, mak­ing pres­ence of fresh water pearl mus­sel with­in the pro­pos­al area less likely. How­ever any run-off from the site could impact fresh water pearl mus­sels down­stream of the proposal.

No detailed mit­ig­a­tion has been pro­posed with regard to fresh water pearl mus­sel that would allow the con­ser­va­tion object­ives of the site to be met, there­fore there could be an adverse effect on site integrity.

1. Con­di­tions or modi­fic­a­tions required.

Indic­ate conditions/​modifications required to ensure adverse effects are avoided, & reas­ons for these.

An out­line Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment has stated that no works will take place with­in the river and that neces­sary meas­ures will be taken to pre­vent pol­lu­tion of the watercourse.

Assum­ing that there will be no works with­in the water­course, dir­ect impacts on in-stream hab­it­ats will be avoided dur­ing con­struc­tion. A detailed Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment is required to detail meas­ures under­taken to allow works to pro­ceed without enter­ing the river, and how impacts to in-river hab­it­ats through pol­lu­tion (fuel leaks, silta­tion, run-off) will be prevented.

The fol­low­ing inform­a­tion is required as sus­pens­ive plan­ning conditions:

• A detailed Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment will be required as mit­ig­a­tion for any impacts on qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures. • Details of drain­age and run-off cap­ture dur­ing oper­a­tion of the new bridge and road lay­out that pre­vents pol­lu­tion enter­ing the water­course. To fol­low cur­rent SEPA good prac­tice guidelines.

The Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment is required to address the fol­low­ing effects: Dis­turb­ance to sal­mon and otter • • • • Sed­i­ment run-off lead­ing to suf­foc­a­tion of fish and mus­sels and smoth­er­ing of river bed Fuel run-off lead­ing to pois­on­ing of fish, mus­sels and otter Acci­dent­al trap­ping and injury to otter

The Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment must include pres­ence of an Eco­lo­gic­al Clerk of Works to over­see all works beside the river and to check neces­sary pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion meas­ures are in place.

Fur­ther detail on drain­age dur­ing oper­a­tion is required which address the fol­low­ing effects: • Pol­lu­tion of the water­course dur­ing oper­a­tion of bridge and road, lead­ing to pois­on­ing of fish, mus­sels and otter

If for any reas­on con­struc­tion of the pro­pos­al requires works in-stream, all works must stop and a full sur­vey of in-river hab­it­ats will be required: • A detailed fresh­wa­ter eco­logy sur­vey must be provided which includes searches for fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sels and maps the hab­it­ats for sal­mon (high­light­ing the loc­a­tion of any sal­mon redds). The sur­vey must include hab­it­at upstream of the old bridge (to 100m) and down­stream of the pro­posed bridge (to 500m). This will allow the most sens­it­ive hab­it­ats to be mapped and avoided dur­ing construction.

1. Advice sought. Include here details of or clear ref­er­ence to, advice sought from AS, col­leagues etc. If no advice sought give brief reasons/​justification

Records sought of fresh water pearl mus­sel and sal­mon from SNH and Dee Dis­trict Sal­mon Fish­ery Board.

Advice sought from Edwin Third, Oper­a­tions Man­ager at Dee Dis­trict Sal­mon Fish­ery Board

Advice sought from fresh water pearl mus­sel eco­lo­gist Peter Cosgrove.

Response on draft HRA provided by Isla Mar­tin, Oper­a­tions Officer, SNH on 24/06/2020

1. RESPONSE

a) Natura com­ments (for addi­tion­al guid­ance see Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment and Nat­ur­al Her­it­age, sec­tion 8, or the Natura Mod­el Responses (in the Natura Case­work Guid­ance) for all oth­er Natura casework)