Item8Appendix2HRA20240036DETSedimentTrapKingussie

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 8 Appendix 2 09/08/2024

Agenda Item 8

Appendix 2

2024/0036/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion	2024/0036/DET – Con­struc­tion of sed­i­ment trap for flood alle­vi­ation works (in retrospect)
Appraised by	Kar­en Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
Date	13 May 2024
Checked by	NatureScot
Date	17 July 2024

page 1 of 6

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

page 2 of 6

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.

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 sed­i­ment trap, as part of flood alle­vi­ation works which were con­struc­ted and com­pleted under applic­a­tion 2016/0011/DET. This applic­a­tion is in ret­ro­spect and the works were com­pleted in com­pli­ance with SEPA Engin­eer­ing Per­mit CAR/S/5004899.
An HRA for 2016/0011/DET was con­duc­ted and approved in 2016, which con­cluded there was no adverse effect on the site integ­rity of the River Spey SAC.

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: YES there will be Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect (LSE) from short term effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion, through sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity enter­ing the Allt Mhor and caus­ing pol­lu­tion, poten­tially chan­ging the water qual­ity down­stream (River Spey SAC)
Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel (FWPM) & Sea Lamprey: No LSE. FWPM and sea lamprey have not been recor­ded in the Allt Mhor or River Gyn­ack there­fore it is con­sidered that there will be no sig­ni­fic­ant impact on either of these qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies. These spe­cies are not con­sidered further.
Otter: YES LSE from short term dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion activity.

STAGE 4:

Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives
1. River Spey SAC
2. To ensure that the integ­rity of River Spey SAC is restored by meet­ing objectives

page 4 of 6

2a, 2b and 2c
2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon through­out the site
Pol­lu­tion from sed­i­ment release could indir­ectly cause the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon 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, the Con­struc­tion Envir­on­ment­al Man­age­ment Plan includes mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures such as silt traps and over pump­ing that reduced the risk of pol­lu­tion there­fore safe­guard­ing any pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon. With the applic­a­tion of the mit­ig­a­tion, there would be no adverse impacts on the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would not be undermined.
2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food
The pro­posed devel­op­ment (sed­i­ment trap) includes meas­ures which may impact upon the sed­i­ment load­ing of the river in the lower reaches which may in turn lead to the improve­ment of any poten­tial spawn­ing hab­it­ats. The reg­u­lar clear­ing of the sed­i­ment load­ing, pri­or to the con­struc­tion of the flood alle­vi­ation scheme has likely had a det­ri­ment­al impact on spawn­ing hab­it­ats. If the sed­i­ment trans­port­a­tion con­tin­ues as it was pri­or to con­struc­tion, the hab­it­at dis­turb­ance will remain the same. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would not be undermined.
2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon, includ­ing range of genet­ic types, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site
As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives will not be under­mined, 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 not be undermined.
2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site
Signs of otter have been recor­ded with­in the pro­posed devel­op­ment area dur­ing pre­vi­ous sur­veys and it is widely accep­ted that otter are using the Alt Mor and con­nect­ing water­ways, but it is con­sidered that any dis­turb­ance to the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter would be tem­por­ary dur­ing the works. The sub­mit­ted CEMP, included pro­vi­sion for pre-con­struc­tion eco­lo­gic­al sur­veys and tool­box talks to be delivered to con­struc­tion staff, detail­ing the meas­ures to take if an otter (or oth­er pro­tec­ted spe­cies) was dis­covered. There­fore, 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 per­man­ently dis­turbed. The pol­lu­tion issues iden­ti­fied for 2c for Atlantic sal­mon could affect their 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.

page 5 of 6

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.
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 be met.

STAGE 5:

Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?
Yes, it can be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity.

page 6 of 6