Item8Appendix2HRA20230357DETDeesideWay

Cairngorms Item 8 Appendix 2 10 Novem­ber 2023 Nation­al Park Author­ity Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 8

Appendix 2

2023/0357/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information	2023/0357/DET Con­struc­tion of new link footpath/​cycle route.
Appraised by	Kar­en Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
Date	20 Octo­ber 2023
Checked by	NatureScot
Date	Date of con­sulta­tion response from NatureScot

INFORM­A­TION

European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected

1) River Dee SAC 2) Bal­loch­buie SAC 3) Bal­loch­buie SPA

The devel­op­ment is with­in the Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA how­ever the pro­posed site con­tains unsuit­able hab­it­ats for golden eagle there­fore this des­ig­nated site has been scoped out.

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)

1) River Dee SAC

Atlantic sal­mon

Fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel

Otter

2) Bal­loch­buie SAC (*pri­or­ity habitats)

Blanket bog*

Bog wood­land*

Cale­do­ni­an Forest*

Dry heaths

Plants in crevices on acid rocks

Plants in crevice’s on base rich rocks

Wet heath­land with cross-leaved heath

Otter

3) Bal­loch­buie SPA

Caper­cail­lie; breeding

Scot­tish cross­bill; breeding

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

2) Bal­loch­buie SAC

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats (see above) 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 hab­it­ats that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term:

-Extent of the hab­it­at on site

-Dis­tri­bu­tion of the hab­it­at with­in site

-Struc­ture and func­tion of the habitat

-Pro­cesses sup­port­ing the habitat

-Dis­tri­bu­tion of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the habitat

-Viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies as com­pon­ents of the habitat

-No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the habitat

AND

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (otter) 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:

-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

2) Bal­loch­buie SPA

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

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 a viable com­pon­ent of the site

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1: What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)	Pro­posed new path/​cycleway sec­tion which is part of a long term goal to link Brae­mar to the Deeside Way. This sec­tion had pre­vi­ous plan­ning per­mis­sion (2018/0375/DET) but has under­gone a design change due to build­ab­il­ity issues. The pre­vi­ous approved HRA con­cluded that the site integ­rity for River Dee SAC, Bal­loch­buie SAC & Bal­loch­buie SPA would not be adversely effected by the pre­vi­ous pro­pos­al. The route main­tains a 2m width and will involve some bench­ing and the new route has been altered to be con­struc­ted closer to the A93. Oth­er alter­a­tions to the design include utl­ising clear­ing in the trees to avoid the need for any tree felling. Drain­age pro­pos­als remain the same, with a pro­posed v‑shaped (turfed) drain­age chan­nel to man­age run off with cul­verts. None of the cul­verts will dis­charge dir­ectly into any exist­ing water courses and will be aimed to dif­fuse out over vegetation.
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). Giv­en the prox­im­ity of the pro­posed path from the River Dee and the con­nectiv­ity through run off and the trib­u­tary to the west of the pro­pos­al, there is poten­tial for short term effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion, e.g. sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion chan­ging the water quality.

Otter: YES LSE from short term dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion and then poten­tially long term dis­turb­ance from recre­ation­al activ­ity. Indir­ect impacts such as pol­lu­tion events in the sur­round­ing water envir­on­ment (River Dee and trib­u­tar­ies) could impact upon otter population.

2) Bal­loch­buie SAC

Cale­do­ni­an forest — Yes LSE. Although no tree remov­al is pro­posed, the works will include work­ing with­in close prox­im­ity to exist­ing trees and may include work­ing with­in root protection

zones, which could dam­age mature trees and there­fore impact upon the woodland.

Blanket bog, wet heath­land, — Yes LSE. There is poten­tial for blanket bog, wet heath to be present with­in the pro­posed work­ing area and some hab­it­ats may be lost as a dir­ect res­ult of con­struc­tion. Addi­tion­ally, there may be indir­ect impacts through the required drain­age e.g. chan­ging the hydro­lo­gic­al con­nectiv­ity of the site.

Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks & plants in crevices on acid rocks — Yes LSE. The site is known to sup­port rare and scarce lichen spe­cies, espe­cially on boulders through the site. There is the poten­tial to des­troy these hab­it­ats by mov­ing boulders to make way for the path.

Dry heath & bog wood­land — No LSE. It is not thought that either of these hab­it­at types will be dis­turbed or sig­ni­fic­antly damaged.

Otter — Yes LSE. As with River Dee SAC, there is poten­tial for dis­turb­ance of otter either dir­ectly through con­struc­tion or recre­ation­al activ­it­ies or indir­ectly through pol­lu­tion events into the sur­round­ing water environments.

3) Bal­loch­buie SPA

Caper­cail­lie — Yes LSE. Although the pro­posed site is in an area that is little used by caper­cail­lie there­fore lim­it­ing dir­ect impacts upon the spe­cies, how­ever the foot­path could res­ult in increased dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie through recre­ation­al activities.

Scot­tish Cross­bill — Yes LSE. Scot­tish cross­bill are likely to be present and breed­ing in the wood­land sur­round­ing the pro­posed path. Con­struc­tion dur­ing sens­it­ive breed­ing times (Feb­ru­ary to mid July) could lead to dis­turb­ance of the species.

STAGE 4: Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives

1. River Dee SAC

2. 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)

Atlantic sal­mon

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 affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the SAC. 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).

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 River Dee and sur­round­ing water­courses 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 SAC. 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.

Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mussel

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 SAC. 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 Atlantic sal­mon 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 would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the SAC.

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

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

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 SAC.

How­ever as dis­cussed in 2b & 2c (above), 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 for Atlantic sal­mon 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.

Otter

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site

No up-to-date otter sur­vey inform­a­tion has been sup­plied with the applic­a­tion but the River Dee and sur­round­ing water­courses are known to sup­port otter. A pre­con­struc­tion sur­vey of all suit­able hab­it­at with­in 200m of the pro­posed devel­op­ment should be under­taken, pri­or to any works com­men­cing on site. A spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan should be pro­duced and sub­mit­ted to the CNPA pri­or to works com­men­cing. Giv­en the prox­im­ity of the new pro­posed path to the A93, any otter using the ter­restri­al hab­it­ats with­in the pro­posed devel­op­ment site are likely accus­tomed to a cer­tain level of noise and light dis­turb­ance there­fore simple mit­ig­a­tion lim­it­ing con­struc­tion hours to min­im­ise activ­it­ies which may cause dis­turb­ance dur­ing hours in which otter may be act­ive would pre­vent a change in dis­tri­bu­tion. The recre­ation­al activ­it­ies which the pro­posed devel­op­ment caters for — cyc­ling and walk­ing are unlikely to lead to an increased volume of dis­turb­ance com­pared to the noise of traffic.

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

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

At this time, it is believed that no sup­port­ing hab­it­at will be dir­ectly lost, e.g. holts or oth­er rest­ing sites. Indir­ectly, any pol­lu­tion issues such as those 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 1. 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.

2) Bal­loch­buie SAC

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats (see above) 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 hab­it­ats that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term:

-Extent of the hab­it­at on site

-Dis­tri­bu­tion of the hab­it­at with­in site

-Struc­ture and func­tion of the habitat

-Pro­cesses sup­port­ing the habitat

-Dis­tri­bu­tion of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the habitat

-Viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies as com­pon­ents of the habitat

-No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the habitat

Cale­do­ni­an Forest — The new pro­pos­al does not include the felling of any trees and seeks to devel­op with­in the thin­ner more open sec­tions of the wood­land, there­fore main­tain­ing the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of the hab­it­at on site. How­ever, there is poten­tial for work­ing with­in the root pro­tec­tion zones of the sur­round­ing trees in places, which could indir­ectly lead to dam­age and there­fore loss of trees and frag­ment­a­tion of the hab­it­ats. See Bal­loch­buie SPA assess­ment for the assess­ment for the typ­ic­al spe­cies of the hab­it­at but mit­ig­a­tion is pro­posed to avoid sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to spe­cies using the woodland.

In order to pro­tect the wood­land, a tree pro­tec­tion plan/​arbor­i­cul­tur­al meth­od state­ment should be con­di­tion and imple­men­ted in full, which would meet the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for the Cale­do­ni­an Forest.

Blanket bog & wet heath­land — Blanket bog and wet heath­land are likely to be per­man­ently lost. Approx­im­ately 40m of the pro­posed path will be con­struc­ted over areas of blanket bog/​wet heath which will lead to a loss of approx­im­ately 80m² (40m x 2m wide path). This is not expec­ted to lead to a sig­ni­fic­ant impact on site integ­rity for these hab­it­ats and the pro­posed drain­age will seek to retain the water flow through­out the remain­ing hab­it­ats. There­fore, the conservation

object­ives for blanket bog & wet heath­land would be met.

Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks & plants in crevices on acid rocks — Along the pro­posed route, there are a num­ber of rare and scarce spe­cies found on the boulders and rocks. As per the pre­vi­ous applic­a­tion (2018/0375/DET) a con­struc­tion meth­od state­ment for mov­ing the rocks to retain the sens­it­ive lichen com­munit­ies. The meth­od state­ment should ensure that any boulders moved retain their ori­gin­al ori­ent­a­tion. If the meth­od state­ment is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted fully there will be no adverse impact on these hab­it­ats and the con­ser­va­tion object­ives would be met.

Otter — Impacts on otter are assessed with­in River Dee SAC & mit­ig­a­tion pro­posed mean­ing the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met.

3) Bal­loch­buie SPA

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

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 a viable com­pon­ent of the site

Caper­cail­lie — Although the pro­posed devel­op­ment is in an area which is con­sidered largely unsuit­able for caper­cail­lie there­fore min­im­ising dis­turb­ance, the pro­posed devel­op­ment (path) may lead to increase dis­turb­ance in oth­er areas of the SPA which are used by caper­cail­lie, par­tic­u­larly to the east of the pro­posed devel­op­ment. How­ever, it is not anti­cip­ated that the pat­tern of use for the foot­path (e.g. vis­it­ors in early morning/​evening) will sig­ni­fic­antly change with the pro­posed devel­op­ment. As per the pre­vi­ous applic­a­tion, sig­nage to high­light the import­ance of the site for caper­cail­lie and the recom­mend­a­tion for dogs to stay on a lead and that people stay on the paths should be installed. As per the assess­ment of the SAC, there will be no sig­ni­fic­ant impacts on the sup­port­ing hab­it­ats for capercaillie.

With the imple­ment­a­tion of the mit­ig­a­tion the con­ser­va­tion meas­ures for caper­cail­lie will be met.

Scot­tish Cross­bill — No trees are pro­posed for felling there­fore no sig­ni­fic­ant impacts upon sup­port­ing hab­it­ats are anti­cip­ated. There is the poten­tial for con­struc­tion activ­it­ies to dis­turb any Scot­tish cross­bill who are nest­ing with­in the sur­round­ing trees although evid­ence would sug­gest that cross­bill are not overly sens­it­ive to dis­turb­ance (NatureScot², 2022). In order to pre­vent dis­turb­ance, works are recom­men­ded to com­mence out­with the typ­ic­al breed­ing sea­son for Scot­tish cross­bill (Feb­ru­ary to Mid July). If this is not pos­sible and works must com­mence dur­ing this peri­od, nest­ing bird checks will be required and an appro­pri­ate buf­fer should be imple­men­ted around potential/​confirmed nests. If the pro­posed mit­ig­a­tion is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted no sig­ni­fic­ant impacts on Scot­tish cross­bill, there­fore the con­ser­va­tion object­ives would be met.

2 https://www.nature.scot/doc/disturbance-distances-selected-scottish-bird-species-naturescot-guidance

STAGE 5: Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?

River Dee SAC

It can be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity if the fol­low­ing is con­di­tioned and implemented:

1) A site-spe­cif­ic Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan — detail­ing meth­ods of pro­tect­ing the sur­round­ing water environments.

2) An otter sur­vey and spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan detail­ing res­ults of sur­vey, identi­fy­ing any poten­tial rest sites and mit­ig­a­tion required to pre­vent an adverse impact on otter pop­u­la­tion of the River Dee catchment.

Bal­loch­buie SAC

It can be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity if the fol­low­ing is con­di­tioned and implemented:

3) An arbor­i­cul­tur­al meth­od state­ment for con­struc­tion activ­it­ies close to trees/​tree roots. Meth­od state­ment should include a tree pro­tec­tion plan. A con­struc­tion meth­od state­ment for mov­ing any boulders to pro­tect sens­it­ive lichen communities.

Bal­loch­buie SPA

It can be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity if the fol­low­ing is con­di­tioned and implemented:

4) Install­a­tion of caper­cail­lie sig­nage to advise users to stay on paths and keep dogs on a lead.

5) Works should com­mence out­with the cross­bill breed­ing sea­son (Feb­ru­ary to mid-July). If not, nest­ing birds checks should be under­taken by a suit­ably exper­i­enced eco­lo­gist and appro­pri­ate buf­fers implemented.