Item6Appendix2HRA20230267DETDistilleryLaggan

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Item 6 Appendix 2 10 Novem­ber 2023 Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 6

Appendix 2

2023/0267/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion | 2023/0267/DET | Erec­tion of dis­til­lery, 3No. ware­houses, access, | park­ing, offices, bore­holes —-| — - Appraised by | Kar­en Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer Date | 12 Septem­ber Checked by | NatureScot Date | 19 Octo­ber 2023

INFORM­A­TION

European site details —-| — - Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected | | 1) River Spey SAC Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s) | | 1) River Spey SAC | Otter | Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel | Sea lamprey | Atlantic sal­mon 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 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 | 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

APPRAIS­AL —-| — - STAGE 1: What is the plan or pro­ject? | Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc) | Erec­tion of dis­til­lery, office, mar­ket­ing suite, three mat­ur­a­tion ware­houses with asso­ci­ated access, | park­ing, infra­struc­ture and ser­vi­cing at Land 1200M NW Of 9 Forestry Houses, Strath­mash­ie, | Lag­gan. The EIAR has stated that the pro­gramme of works will be planned to min­im­ise the | poten­tial neg­at­ive impacts asso­ci­ated with con­struc­tion activ­it­ies. 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 | | Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel, Sea Lamprey & Atlantic Sal­mon — YES Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant | Effect (LSE) from short term effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion, through sed­i­ment released | dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity enter­ing the River Spey and caus­ing pol­lu­tion chan­ging the water | qual­ity. | Otter: YES there will be LSE short term dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity and then | long term dis­turb­ance from oper­a­tion­al activ­it­ies. 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 2^d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel): | | Atlantic Sal­mon & Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mussel | 2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic salmon/​Freshwater Pearl Mus­sel through­out | the site

The cur­rent and poten­tial dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon or FWPM with­in the site would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the water­course. How­ever, pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies (e.g. sed­i­ment, fuels or oils) 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).

A pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is recom­men­ded through con­di­tion. The pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan should include stand­ard good prac­tice, such as main­tain­ing a min­im­um 50 m buf­fer for stor­ing chemicals/​concrete wash out or any oth­er poten­tial pol­lut­ing activ­ity (SEPA WAT-SG-75). Oth­er rel­ev­ant Guid­ance for Pol­lu­tion Doc­u­ments should also be referred to and imple­men­ted on site (i.e. GPP5, GPP8, GPP21, GPP22) If a pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted — this con­ser­va­tion object­ive 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 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. With the imple­ment­a­tion of the mit­ig­a­tion men­tioned in 2b the risk of pol­lu­tion events will be reduced 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. A pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan detail­ing 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 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 with­in the site may be dir­ectly (dis­turb­ance, hab­it­at loss) or indir­ectly (pol­lu­tion redu­cing prey items) impacted by the pro­posed devel­op­ment. The impact on suit­able ripari­an hab­it­at is lim­ited there­fore loss of hab­it­ats will be neg­li­gible and there is no loss of any iden­ti­fied rest­ing sites. Con­struc­tion activ­it­ies which may lead to dis­turb­ance of otter activ­ity are con­sidered tem­por­ary and giv­en the dis­tance from the edge of the river, it is con­sidered that dis­turb­ance would be lim­ited. Giv­en the dis­tance of the pro­posed devel­op­ment from the river, dis­turb­ance dur­ing oper­a­tion activ­it­ies (e.g. noise, light­ing) is con­sidered unlikely and otters using the River Spey will be accus­tomed to some levels of dis­turb­ance, with prox­im­ity to the road, Spey Dam and access for nearby wind­farms. It is con­sidered that 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.

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 | | A Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment which should include site spe­cif­ic pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion meth­ods | should be secured by con­di­tion. The CMS should be pro­duced and agreed with the CNPA pri­or to | any works com­men­cing on site and then fully imple­men­ted dur­ing con­struc­tion. The con­ser­va­tion | object­ives will be met and there­fore there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity for the | River Spey SAC. | | Reas­on — to pro­tect the water envir­on­ment (& River Spey SAC) from pol­lu­tion events caused | dur­ing construction.