Item9Appendix2HRA20230363DETTrackLaggan

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Item 9 Appendix 2 10 Novem­ber 2023 Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 9

Appendix 2

2023/0363/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAIS­AL | Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion | 2023/0363/DET Con­struc­tion of 634m long ATV track for wood­land man­age­ment | | — -| — -| | Appraised by | Kar­en Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer | | Date | 16 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 Spey SAC | | 2) Mon­adh­liath 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 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 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 approx­im­ately 634m of ATV access track for facil­it­at­ing forestry oper­a­tions. The pro­posed track is approx­im­ately 800m south of Mon­adh­liath SAC and approx­im­ately 1500m north of River Spey SAC. The track will be involve cul­vert­ing the Allt Tar­suinn Beag, which is a trib­u­tary of Markie Burn, which con­nects to the River Spey SAC down­stream of the site. | | 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. Effects such as acci­dent­al sed­i­ment release enter­ing the Allt Tar­suinn Beag (and asso­ci­ated water courses), 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. The pro­posed devel­op­ment is down­stream of the SAC there­fore con­struc­tion is not con­sidered likely to impact on the hydro­logy of the upstream site. Giv­en the pro­posed use of the track, it is not con­sidered that the works would cre­ate sig­ni­fic­ant changes in red deer beha­viour (e.g. lead­ing to more activ­ity of deer with­in the SAC due to dis­turb­ance from use of the track). 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 2^d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel): |

Atlantic Sal­mon & Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mussel

2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic salmon/​Freshwater Pearl Mus­sel through­out the site

No works are pro­posed with­in the River Spey SAC, so there will be no dir­ect loss of any suit­able hab­it­at. As no devel­op­ment will occur with­in the River Spey SAC, 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 upstream of the SAC, either through the con­struc­tion of the water cross­ing on the Allt Tar­suinn Beag or due to con­struc­tion with­in close prox­im­ity of the trib­u­tary. 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).

A pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is recom­men­ded through con­di­tion. The pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan should include stand­ard good prac­tice, such as main­tain­ing a min­im­um 30 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.

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 SAC would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur with­in the SAC.

How­ever, pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies upstream, could poten­tially affect sup­port­ing hab­it­ats if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment reach the SAC 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 the cul­vert will be designed to cur­rent SEPA stand­ards to pre­vent cre­at­ing an obstruc­tion to migrat­ing fish species.

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

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

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 SAC. How­ever, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies upstream of the SAC 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 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 SAC. 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

Con­struc­tion activ­it­ies are approx­im­ately 1500m from the River Spey SAC, how­ever it is con­sidered likely that otter will use trib­u­tar­ies of the River Spey, includ­ing the Markie Burn and Allt Tar­suinn Beag. Giv­en the dis­tance from the River Spey, it is con­sidered unlikely that the works would dis­turb any otters with­in the River Spey SAC bound­ary, how­ever there is poten­tial for otter dis­turb­ance out­with the SAC dur­ing con­struc­tion which may neg­at­ively impact the otter population.

No otter sur­vey inform­a­tion has been sup­plied with the applic­a­tion but the River Spey 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. If appro­pri­ate, a spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan should be pro­duced and sub­mit­ted to the CNPA pri­or to works commencing.

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 the 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) A site spe­cif­ic Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan, 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.

2) A pre-con­struc­tion otter sur­vey should be under­taken and spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan (if applic­able) should be pro­duced and sub­mit­ted to the CNPA pri­or to any works com­men­cing on site.

Should these con­di­tions be secured and imple­men­ted, the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there­fore there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity for the River Spey SAC.