Item9Appendix2HRA20240082DETAccessTrackAndBorrowPitNewtonmore

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 9 Appendix 2 09/08/2024

Agenda Item 9

Appendix 2

2024/0082/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion	2024/0082/DET Widen­ing and works to access track, form­a­tion of hard­stand­ing and bor­row pit (ret­ro­spect­ive)
Appraised by	Kar­en Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
Date	8 July 2024
Checked by	NatureScot
Date	XXX

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 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.

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc) Widen­ing of an access track, by remov­ing encroach­ing veget­a­tion from the edges and the middle of the track, at Far Ralia, near New­ton­more. The applic­a­tion includes the use of an exist­ing ford on the Allt na Feithe Moiré, by con­struc­tion traffic This applic­a­tion is in ret­ro­spect and the works have been com­pleted and bor­row pits used have been rein­stated and reprofiled.
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, Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect (LSE). Although no works are pro­posed with­in the River Spey SAC, the track is hydro­lo­gic­ally con­nec­ted to the SAC bound­ary through sev­er­al trib­u­tar­ies and oth­er water­ways. There is poten­tial for short term effects such as pol­lu­tion, poten­tially chan­ging the water qual­ity down­stream, espe­cially with the increased use of the exist­ing ford (approx­im­ately 800m upstream of the SAC) Otter: No LSE. Although sev­er­al otter rest­ing sites were iden­ti­fied along the vari­ous water­ways, no con­firmed rest­ing sites were recor­ded with­in 30m of the track or bor­row pits. Giv­en that the pro­posed devel­op­ment is short term with a minor foot­print, on an exist­ing track, it is unlikely to have led to a dis­turb­ance of any otter which may reside or com­mute through the area.
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 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 nearby and con­nec­ted water­courses of the Allt na Feithe Moiré and the Milton Burn. Any 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) which may be present down­stream of the applic­a­tion site. A meth­od state­ment for all con­struc­tion traffic using the ford in the Allt na Feithe Moiré has been pro­duced; Water Protection/​Best Prac­tice Guideline Far Ralia River Ford Cross­ing, Akre. Provid­ing this guid­ance is adhered to, and oth­er good prac­tice pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion meas­ures are fol­lowed (e.g. stor­age of fuels etc) dur­ing the con­struc­tion phase, this con­ser­va­tion would not be under­mined. 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 not be under­mined. 2d. 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 there are no pro­posed works with­in the SAC. 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. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would not be under­mined by the devel­op­ment. 2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon (includ­ing range of genet­ic types) and Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site With mit­ig­a­tion, the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives for Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM, are not con­sidered to be under­mined by the devel­op­ment, there­fore it is con­sidered it would not hinder or pre­vent the res­tor­a­tion of the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon as a viable com­pon­ent of site.
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. 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 or at the very least not under­mined, 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 not be undermined.
STAGE 5:
Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?
It can be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity as long as the inform­a­tion provided, par­tic­u­larly the meth­od state­ment ​‘Water Protection/​Best Prac­tice Guideline Far Ralia River Ford Cross­ing’ is imple­men­ted in full dur­ing con­struc­tion to pro­tect the water envir­on­ment and the River Spey SAC down­stream of the construction.