Item6Appendix2HRALogieColdstone20230295DET

Cairngorms Item 6 Appendix 2 26 Janu­ary 2024 Nation­al Park Author­ity Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 6

Appendix 2

2023/0295/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

	2023/0295/DET
Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information	Erec­tion of farm shop / café / staff accom­mod­a­tion and shed and install­a­tion of free stand­ing sol­ar pan­els and asso­ci­ated works
Appraised by	Kar­en Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
Date	15 Septem­ber 2023
Checked by	NatureScot
Date	21 Decem­ber 2023

page 1 of 6

INFORM­A­TION

European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected

1) River Dee SAC

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)

1) River Dee SAC Atlantic sal­mon Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel otter

Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests

1) River Dee SAC Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of River Dee SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures (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

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 Dee SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able conservation

page 2 of 6

status

page 3 of 6

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)
Con­struc­tion of a farm shop/​café, sol­ar pan­els and asso­ci­ated works, includ­ing plant­ing of fresh pro­duce to sell with­in the farm shop.
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 Dee SAC

Atlantic sal­mon & Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel: YES Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect (LSE). There is poten­tial for silt or fuels enter­ing the water­course dur­ing con­struc­tion which may adversely impact on these spe­cies down­stream of the site. Poten­tial short-term effects could rise from the changes in water qual­ity or longer term impacts from smoth­er­ing of any suit­able breed­ing hab­it­ats down­stream of the works.

Otter: No LSE. Although otter are recor­ded using the Logie Burn, no rest­ing sites were iden­ti­fied with­in 30m from the pro­posed devel­op­ment. Giv­en the built ele­ments of the pro­pos­al are fur­thest away from the burn and that the ripari­an hab­it­ats (trees) are to be unaltered by the pro­pos­al, it is not con­sidered likely that any dis­turb­ance from the activ­ity around the farm shop would lead to dis­turb­ance of foraging/​commuting otters. Otter are not con­sidered further.

STAGE 4:

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

I River Dee SAC

1. To ensure that the integ­rity of River Dee SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b and 2c (and 2^d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel)

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon through­out the site The cur­rent and poten­tial dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon with­in the site would not be directly

page 4 of 6

affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the water­course. How­ever, pol­lu­tion from sed­i­ment release 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 used by sal­mon for spawn­ing and juven­iles (long term).

How­ever, mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures such as a site-spe­cif­ic pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan (to be secured by con­di­tion) mean that the risk of pol­lu­tion can be reduced to a min­im­al level, so that the con­ser­va­tion object­ive could still be met. The pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan should include detailed meas­ures to pro­tect the Logie Burn from the release of sed­i­ments or oth­er pol­lut­ants and adhere to good prac­tice guid­ance meas­ures’. If the mit­ig­a­tion is agreed and fully imple­men­ted before con­struc­tion com­mences, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

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

The cur­rent and poten­tial res­tor­a­tion of the dis­tri­bu­tion of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon with­in the site would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the water­course. How­ever, as dis­cussed above, pol­lu­tion from sed­i­ment release would affect sup­port­ing hab­it­ats and if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment reach the water­course it could cause smoth­er­ing, redu­cing the dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­at suit­able for spawn­ing and juven­iles (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.

2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon, includ­ing range of genet­ic types, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for Atlantic sal­mon with the mit­ig­a­tion included in the pro­pos­al, 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.

2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel through­out the site

The cur­rent and poten­tial dis­tri­bu­tion 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).

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.

2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

The cur­rent and poten­tial res­tor­a­tion of the dis­tri­bu­tion of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing with­in the site

1 Guid­ance for Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion (GPP) doc­u­ments | Net­Regs | Envir­on­ment­al guid­ance for your busi­ness in North­ern Ire­land & Scotland

page 5 of 6

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) 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.

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive I. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of the River Dee 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?

) A Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan (PPP) should be secured by con­di­tion. The PPP 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 not be under­mined and there­fore there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity for the River Dee SAC.

Reas­on — to pro­tect the water envir­on­ment (& River Dee SAC) from pol­lu­tion events caused dur­ing construction.

page 6 of 6