Item6Appendix2HRA GlenRoadTrack20220421DET

Cairngorms Item 6 Appendix 2 28 April 2023 Nation­al Park Author­ity Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 6

Appendix 2

2022/0421/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information	2022/0421/DET – Con­struc­tion of 4.83km of forestry track, form­a­tion of passing places & renew­al of bridge.
Appraised by	Kar­en Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
Date	22 March 2023
Checked by	NatureScot
Date	Date of con­sulta­tion response from NatureScot

INFORM­A­TION

European site details
Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected	1) River Spey SAC 2) Mon­adh­liath SAC River Spey — Insh Marshes SPA is with­in 2km of the site, how­ever none of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies were recor­ded on site and the site offers lim­ited hab­it­ats to sup­port qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies. The Insh Marshes SAC is also with­in 2km how­ever effects on otter will be assessed through the River Spey SAC.
Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)	1) River Spey SAC Otter Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel Sea lamprey Atlantic sal­mon 2) Mon­adh­liath SAC Blanket bog

Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests

1) 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 2d 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
	2d. 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 I. 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

2) Mon­adh­liath SAC

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2: To ensure that the integ­rity is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b, 2c:

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

2b) Restore the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the habitat

2c) Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the habitat.

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive I: To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture of the Mon­adh­liath SAC is in favour­able con­di­tion and makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status.

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)	Con­struc­tion of a 4.83 km track for facil­it­at­ing forestry oper­a­tions to the north-north­w­est of New­ton­more. The new track crosses over estate and com­mon graz­ing lands from Glen Road and to the east. The works will be phased to avoid dis­turb­ance to sens­it­ive black grouse leks (no activ­ity an hour before dawn and up to two hours after) and the track has been designed to avoid areas of deep peat. A new bridge is pro­posed over the Allt a Chao­rainn which is part of the River Spey SAC.

STAGE 2:
Is the plan or pro­ject dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation?
No

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) River Spey SAC
Atlantic sal­mon, sea lamprey & fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel: YES LSE	, from short term effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion, espe­cially at the site of the new bridge. Effects such as acci­dent­al sed­i­ment release enter­ing the Allt a Chao­rainn, chan­ging the water qual­ity and poten­tially chan­ging hab­it­ats and the poten­tial for fuels/​oils to enter the watercourse.
Otter: YES LSE	from short term dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion activity.
2) Mon­adh­liath SAC
Blanket bog – NO LSE.	No works will take place with­in the SAC and the SAC is loc­ated approx­im­ately 300 m from the closest point of the devel­op­ment. The pro­posed devel­op­ment is down­stream of the SAC there­fore con­struc­tion is not con­sidered likely to impact on the hydro­logy of the upstream site. The herb­i­vore impact assess­ment sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion sug­gests that the act­ive deer man­age­ment with­in the area is work­ing on redu­cing deer num­bers there­fore it is not con­sidered that the works would cre­ate sig­ni­fic­ant changes in red deer beha­viour (e.g. lead­ing to more activ­ity of deer with the SAC due to dis­turb­ance). Mon­adh­liath SAC is there­fore not con­sidered further.

STAGE 4:
Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives
1) 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 2d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel):
Atlantic Sal­mon & Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mussel
2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic salmon/​Freshwater Pearl Mus­sel through­out the site
	The designs for the new bridge do not include in-stream works so there will be no dir­ect loss of any of the stream bed. As no devel­op­ment will occur with­in the water­course, the cur­rent and poten­tial dis­tri­bu­tion of these spe­cies would not be dir­ectly impacted upon.
	How­ever, there is poten­tial for indir­ect impacts from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies, e.g., sed­i­ment or fuels enter­ing the water­course due to the prox­im­ity of the works to the river. These poten­tial pol­lu­tion events could indir­ectly cause the dis­tri­bu­tion 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).
	The risk of pol­lu­tion events can be mit­ig­ated against through the imple­ment­a­tion of a robust Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan and tim­ing of the works. Due to the poten­tial of spawn­ing sal­mon in this water­course (down­stream of the pro­posed site), con­struc­tion of the bridge should be timed for out with the sal­mon spawn­ing peri­od (Octo­ber – March, inclus­ive). The pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion (Otter Sur­vey, Decem­ber 2021, Atmos), details stand­ard mit­ig­a­tion and the plan should be altered to include site spe­cif­ic mit­ig­a­tion (e.g. fuel stor­age loc­a­tions, details/​proposed loc­a­tions on silt pro­tec­tion meas­ures etc). The pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan should be agreed with the CNPA pri­or to development.
	If the pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted this con­ser­va­tion would be met.
2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon & 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 site would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the watercourse.
	How­ever, pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies would affect sup­port­ing hab­it­ats if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment reach the water­course and cause smoth­er­ing, redu­cing the dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­at suit­able for spawn­ing and juven­ile sal­mon and hab­it­ats suit­able for sup­port­ing FWPM (long term).
	How­ever, 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 & sea trout) would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur with­in the watercourse.

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 the sup­port­ing spe­cies. How­ever, with the imple­ment­a­tion of the mit­ig­a­tion men­tioned in 2b the risk of pol­lu­tion events there­fore the devel­op­ment would not hinder the dis­tri­bu­tion or vital­ity of the host species.

2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon (includ­ing range of genet­ic types) and Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel, as a viable com­pon­ent 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 as a viable com­pon­ent of site. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

Sea Lamprey

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

The cur­rent dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey would not be dir­ectly impacted upon by the devel­op­ment pro­pos­als as no works will take place with­in the water­course. How­ever, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies which could indir­ectly impact upon 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. Due to the lack of dir­ect con­nectiv­ity between the site and the SAC, 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

The cur­rent suit­able hab­it­ats for sup­port­ing sea lamprey will not be dir­ectly impacted upon as no works will take place with­in the water­course. How­ever, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion, such as sed­i­ment to enter the water­course and smooth­er the suit­able spawn­ing grounds (long term) mak­ing it dif­fi­cult for the sea lamprey to find suit­able hab­it­at. Changes to water qual­ity through sus­pen­ded solids or chem­ic­als (tem­por­ary) may lead to a reduc­tion in food avail­ab­il­ity through neg­at­ively impact­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of fish species.

The imple­ment­a­tion of stand­ard pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion meas­ures will reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion enter­ing the water­course there­fore 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.

Otter

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site

The dis­tri­bu­tion of otter may be dis­turbed dur­ing con­struc­tion with the addi­tion of machinery, per­son­nel and light­ing along­side the river dur­ing con­struc­tion of the struc­ture. How­ever, this would be con­sidered tem­por­ary and dis­turb­ance levels would likely return to the cur­rent baseline levels once con­struc­tion has ceased.

An otter rest­ing site was iden­ti­fied approx­im­ately 135 m down­stream of the devel­op­ment site. The rest­ing site was assessed as being non-breed­ing (it is a fairly exposed with no access under­ground). As the iden­ti­fied rest­ing site is more than 30m from the devel­op­ment site bound­ary no dis­turb­ance of this rest­ing fea­tures is con­sidered likely. Suit­able hab­it­at for rest­ing otter was iden­ti­fied around the exist­ing bridge dur­ing the otter sur­vey, although no evid­ence of rest­ing at this loc­a­tion was recor­ded. In order to pre­vent dis­turb­ance, the Spe­cies Pro­tec­tion Plan (Atmos, Otter Sur­vey, Decem­ber 2021) should be imple­men­ted in full, includ­ing a pre- con­struc­tion sur­vey for otter.

If the spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

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

The dis­tri­bu­tion of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter would not be dir­ectly affected. The pol­lu­tion issues iden­ti­fied for the oth­er fresh­wa­ter spe­cies men­tioned, could affect otter prey spe­cies, how­ever the 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 I. 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.

STAGE 5:
Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?
1) River Spey SAC
	If the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures included in the plan­ning applic­a­tion and men­tioned above 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 Spey SAC. The reas­on for the con­di­tions is to avoid pol­lu­tion enter­ing the Allt a Chao­rainn (part of the SAC) and neg­at­ively impact­ing upon the qual­i­fy­ing features.