Cairngorms Nation­al Park Authority

Agenda item 5

Appendix 2

2026/0135/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion	2026/0135/DET Pro­posed moun­tain tobog­gan track and asso­ci­ated struc­tures, build­ings, plat­forms, land­scap­ing and infra­struc­ture works Land 284M East of Cairngorm Moun­tain Glen­more Aviemore
Appraised by	Scott Shanks, Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
Date	11 June 2026 Updated 30 Octo­ber 2026
Checked by	Kirsty North – NatureScot Oper­a­tions Officer
Date	2 Novem­ber 2026

INFORM­A­TION

European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected

1) River Spey SAC (approx­im­ately 800m from devel­op­ment bound­ary) 2) Cairngorm SAC (approx­im­ately 350m from devel­op­ment bound­ary) 3) Cairngorm SPA (approx­im­ately 350m from devel­op­ment bound­ary) 3) Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA (approx­im­ately 2.6km from devel­op­ment boundary)

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)

1) River Spey SAC

• Otter
• Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel (FWPM)
• Sea lamprey
• Atlantic sal­mon

2) Cairngorms SAC

• Alpine and sub­alpine heaths
• High-alti­tude plant com­munit­ies asso­ci­ated with areas of water seepage
• Blanket bog
• Bog wood­land
• Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks
• Cale­do­ni­an forest
• Dry heaths
• Tall herb communities
• Juni­per on heaths of cal­careous grasslands
• Acid peat-stained lakes and ponds,
• Wet heath­land with cross-leaved heath
• Clear-water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic veget­a­tion and poor to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels,
• Hard-water springs depos­it­ing lime
• Dry grass­lands and scrub­lands on chalk or limestone
• Mont­ane acid grasslands
• Plants in crevices on acid rocks
• Acid­ic scree
• Spe­cies-rich grass­lands with mat-grass in upland areas,
• Moun­tain wil­low scrub
• Very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable ​‘quak­ing’ surface
• Otter
• Green shield-moss

3) Cairngorms SPA

• Caper­cail­lie
• Dot­ter­el
• Golden Eagle
• Mer­lin
• Osprey
• Per­eg­rine
• Scot­tish crossbill

4) Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA

• Golden eagle

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 1. 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) Cairngorms SAC

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of Cairngorms SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing feature.

• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Clear-water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic veget­a­tion and poor to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels with­in the site
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the Clear-water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic veget­a­tion and poor to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the Clear-water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic veget­a­tion and poor to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Acid peat-stained lakes and ponds with­in the site
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Acid peat-stained lakes and ponds
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Acid peat-stained lakes and ponds
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Wet heath­land with cross-leaved heath with­in the site
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Wet heath­land with cross-leaved heath
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Wet heath­land with cross-leaved heath
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of European dry heaths with­in the site
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of European dry heaths
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of European dry heaths
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Alpine and Boreal heaths with­in the site
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the Alpine and Boreal heath
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the Alpine and boreal heath
• 2a. Restore the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Moun­tain wil­low scrub with­in the site
• 2b. Restore the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Moun­tain wil­low scrub
• 2c. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Moun­tain wil­low scrub
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Juni­per on heaths or cal­careous grass­lands with­in the site.
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Juni­per on heaths or cal­careous grasslands
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Juni­per on heaths or cal­careous grasslands
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Mont­ane acid grass­lands with­in the site.
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Mont­ane acid grasslands
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Mont­ane acid grasslands
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Dry grass­lands and scrub­lands on chalk or lime­stone with­in the site.
• 2b. Restore the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Dry grass­lands and scrub­lands on chalk or limestone.
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Dry grass­lands and scrub­lands on chalk or limestone
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Spe­cies-rich grass­lands with mat-grass in upland areas with­in the site
• 2b. Restore, the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Spe­cies-rich grass­lands with mat-grass in upland areas
• 2c. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Spe­cies-rich grass­lands with mat-grass in upland areas
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Tall herb com­munit­ies with­in the site
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Tall herb communities
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Tall herb communities
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Blanket bog with­in the site
• 2b. Restore the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Blanket bog
• 2c. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Blanket bog
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable ​‘quak­ing’ sur­face with­in the site
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable ​‘quak­ing’ surface
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable ​‘quak­ing’ surface
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Hard water springs depos­it­ing lime with­in the site
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Hard water springs depos­it­ing lime
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Hard water springs depos­it­ing lime
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of High-alti­tude plant com­munit­ies asso­ci­ated with water seep­age with­in the site
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of High-alti­tude plant com­munit­ies asso­ci­ated with water seepage
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of High-alti­tude plant com­munit­ies asso­ci­ated with water seepage
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Acid­ic scree with­in the site
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Acid­ic scree
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Acid­ic scree
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Plants in crevices on acid rocks with­in the site
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Plants in crevices on acid rocks
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Plants in crevices on acid rocks
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks with­in the site
• 2b. Restore the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks
• 2c. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks
• 2a. Restore the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Cale­do­ni­an forests with­in the site
• 2b. Restore the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Cale­do­ni­an forests
• 2c. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Cale­do­ni­an forests
• 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of Bog wood­land with­in the site
• 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of Bog woodland
• 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of Bog woodland
• 2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site
• 2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food
• 2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site
• 2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of Green shield-moss through­out the site
• 2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Green shield-moss with­in the site
• 2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of Green shield-moss as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 1. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of Cairngorms SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status.

3) Cairngorms SPA

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (Caper­cail­lie, Dot­ter­el, Golden eagle, Mer­lin, Osprey, Per­eg­rine, and Scot­tish cross­bill) 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:

• 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

3) Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of Golden eagle 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:

• 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

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:

What is the plan or project?

Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc) Pro­posed devel­op­ment is for a moun­tain tobog­gan track and asso­ci­ated struc­tures, build­ings, plat­forms, land­scap­ing and infra­struc­ture works at land close to the Cairngorm Moun­tain Ski Centre near Glen­more, Aviemore The tobog­gan track will be accessed by visitors/​users via an entrance build­ing that will be built close to exist­ing buildings/​car park. The tobog­gan track ascends next to an exist­ing ski tow infra­struc­ture and then des­cends down the slope on a raised mono-rail secured into the ground by ground anchors. The pos­i­tion­ing of the route can be adjusted/​micro-sited to avoid hab­it­ats on site. An emer­gency access ATV track is pro­posed next to the ski tow. A fairly busy path cur­rently goes through the devel­op­ment site up the slope from the ski centre. A water­course All­ta’ Choire Chais runs close to exist­ing ski centre infra­struc­ture, down­hill of the devel­op­ment. A CEMP has been provided with the proposal.

STAGE 2:

Is the plan or pro­ject dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation?

1) River Spey SAC

No, this devel­op­ment is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

2) Cairngorms SAC

No, this devel­op­ment is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

3) Cairngorms SPA

No, this devel­op­ment is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

4) Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA

No, this devel­op­ment is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

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

Otter: Yes, LSE from short term indir­ect effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity through poten­tial changes to water qual­ity and impacts on prey spe­cies. How­ever, there will not be any likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects from dis­turb­ance as there would be no change to the exist­ing levels or pat­terns of human activ­ity caused by the imple­ment­a­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment when otter would be act­ive. While the Allt a’ Choire Chais could poten­tially be used by otter asso­ci­ated with the SAC, the Ski Centre area between the devel­op­ment and the water­course is well used by people and vehicles which is likely to deter otter, and any otter that are using the water­course will be habitu­ated to the exist­ing level of disturbance.

Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel: YES, LSE from short term indir­ect effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion includ­ing sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity that could smoth­er FWPM pop­u­la­tions down­stream of the site. Pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion work such as fuel spillages could also enter the water­course and impact FWPM and host spe­cies (sal­monids).

Sea lamprey: Yes, LSE from short term indir­ect effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity includ­ing impacts on exist­ing hab­it­at and water qual­ity through release of sed­i­ment mobil­ised from the slopes dur­ing con­struc­tion works, or pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­ity such as fuel spills.

Atlantic sal­mon: Yes, LSE from short term indir­ect effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity includ­ing impacts on exist­ing hab­it­at and water qual­ity through release of mobil­ised sed­i­ment dur­ing con­struc­tion works that could smoth­er Atlantic sal­mon spawn­ing gravels down­stream of the site, or pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­ity such as fuel spills.

2) Cairngorms SAC

All hab­it­ats: No LSE. There will be no dir­ect effects on the SAC hab­it­ats or those hab­it­ats sup­port­ing SAC spe­cies, due to the type and loc­a­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment, the dis­tance between the devel­op­ment and the SAC and the topo­graphy mean­ing that the tobog­gan track and related infra­struc­ture should not alter the hydro­logy of the SAC. Access to the tobog­gan track for riders will be from close to the exist­ing ski centre build­ings and riders will be returned to the same area, there­fore there should be no sig­ni­fic­ant increase in recre­ation­al access to the SAC that might cause tramp­ling of sens­it­ive hab­it­ats. There­fore, as no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects have been iden­ti­fied, all of the hab­it­at fea­tures of the SAC have been removed from fur­ther consideration.

Otter: Yes, LSE from short term indir­ect effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity through poten­tial changes to water qual­ity and impacts on prey spe­cies. How­ever, there will not be any likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects from dis­turb­ance as there would be no change to the exist­ing levels or pat­terns of human activ­ity caused by the imple­ment­a­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment when otter would be act­ive. While the Allt a’ Choire Chais could poten­tially be used by otter asso­ci­ated with the SAC, the Ski Centre area between the devel­op­ment and the water­course is well used by people and vehicles which is likely to deter otter, and any otter that are using the water­course will be habitu­ated to the exist­ing level of dis­turb­ance. There­fore, dis­turb­ance impacts on otter have been removed from fur­ther consideration.

Green shield-moss: No LSE. This is a wood­land spe­cies, and no suit­able wood­land hab­it­at will be dir­ectly or indir­ectly impacted as a res­ult of this devel­op­ment, and there­fore this qual­i­fy­ing interest has been removed from fur­ther consideration.

3) Cairngorms SPA

All Spe­cies: No LSE. No sig­ni­fic­ant effects are likely either on sup­port­ing hab­it­ats or through dis­turb­ance to qual­i­fy­ing interests. There will be no dir­ect effects on sup­port­ing hab­it­ats for qual­i­fy­ing interests of the SPA due to the type and loc­a­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment, the dis­tance between the devel­op­ment and the SPA, and the topo­graphy, mean­ing that the pro­posed devel­op­ment and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture will not alter the hydro­logy of the SPA. The pro­posed tobog­gan track is loc­ated next to the exist­ing build­ings, car­park, tracks and ski infra­struc­ture used by staff, vis­it­ors, walk­ers, cyc­lists and ski­ers (in winter). Access to the tobog­gan track for riders will be from close to the exist­ing build­ings, and riders will be returned to the same area, there­fore there should not be a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in recre­ation­al access to the SPA that might cause an increase in dis­turb­ance in areas that are not already well used. While there may be some indir­ect effects on hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the SPA spe­cies, these are not con­sidered to be of a scale that would have a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the qual­i­fy­ing interests of the SPA. In rela­tion to human activ­ity and poten­tial dis­turb­ance: No LSE for any of the qual­i­fy­ing interests. The pro­posed devel­op­ment is not likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed devel­op­ment: while the tobog­gan track would intro­duce a new form of activ­ity to the imme­di­ate area, it would occur close to a con­tained area already well used by people year round for walk­ing and/​or ski­ing, as well as staff and vehicle activ­ity asso­ci­ated with works at the ski­ing and oth­er infra­struc­ture for Cairngorm Moun­tain. The tem­por­al pat­tern of use would not change, as no light­ing for night-time use is pro­posed. So, there would be no detect­able change to exist­ing pat­terns of use of paths and tracks in the wider area, includ­ing the SPA as a res­ult of the pro­posed devel­op­ment. Addi­tion­al assess­ment for caper­cail­lie: A detailed assess­ment has been under­taken in rela­tion to caper­cail­lie (see Annex I and II), which also con­cludes no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects. There­fore, as there are no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects iden­ti­fied, the SPA is not con­sidered further.

4) Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA

Golden eagle: No, LSE. As detailed above for the Cairngorm SPA, there will be no dir­ect effects on sup­port­ing hab­it­at for golden eagle with­in the SPA. While the devel­op­ment is with­in poten­tial for­aging range of breed­ing golden eagle from the SPA, the loc­a­tion and type of devel­op­ment will not res­ult in a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in human activ­ity and poten­tial dis­turb­ance in areas that are not already well used by staff, vis­it­ors, walk­ers and ski­ers in prox­im­ity to the exist­ing build­ings, car­park and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture. Access to the tobog­gan track for riders will be from close to the exist­ing build­ings, and riders will be returned to the same area, there­fore there will not be a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in recre­ation­al access to the SPA or areas around the SPA as a res­ult of this devel­op­ment that might res­ult in increased dis­turb­ance in areas that are not already well used. While there may be some indir­ect effects on hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the SPA spe­cies, these are not con­sidered to be of a scale that would have a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the qual­i­fy­ing interest of the SPA. Dis­cus­sion with Isla Gra­ham (CNPA Rap­tor Con­ser­va­tion Officer) in June 2026 con­firmed that there is a low occu­pancy of golden eagle in the area around the Cairngorms ski centre devel­op­ment and for­aging golden eagle are likely to avoid the areas close to high levels of human activ­ity. There­fore, there is unlikely to be a sig­ni­fic­ant effect from poten­tial dis­turb­ance to for­aging golden eagle dur­ing the con­struc­tion phase or oper­a­tion­al phase. There­fore, as there are no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects iden­ti­fied, the SPA is 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):

2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel through­out the site No works are pro­posed with­in the Alt Mor (part of the River Spey SAC), so there will be no dir­ect loss of suit­able hab­it­at for these spe­cies with­in the SAC. There­fore, the cur­rent and poten­tial dis­tri­bu­tion of these spe­cies would not be dir­ectly affected. How­ever, there is poten­tial for indir­ect impacts from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies, e.g., mobil­ised sed­i­ments, oils or fuel enter­ing the Allt a’ Choire Chais trib­u­tary of the Allt Mor (and River Spey), which is approx­im­ately 60m from the devel­op­ment site. The devel­op­ment is approx­im­ately 850m upstream of the con­flu­ence with the Allt Mor. Pol­lu­tion events could indir­ectly cause the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel 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 spawn­ing salmon/​juveniles and hab­it­ats suit­able for sup­port­ing FWPM (long term). A Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan (PPP) is recom­men­ded through con­di­tion. The PPP should include stand­ard good prac­tice, such as not stor­ing oil with­in 10m of a water­course and a detailed sed­i­ment man­age­ment to pre­vent mobil­ised sed­i­ment enter­ing the water­course. Guid­ance for Pol­lu­tion Doc­u­ments should be referred to and imple­men­ted on site (i.e. GPP2, GPP5, GPP8, GPP21, GPP22¹) If a pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted — this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met. If a pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic Sal­mon and 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 water­course. How­ever, pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies on this site could poten­tially affect sup­port­ing hab­it­ats if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment reach the SAC and cause smoth­er­ing of hab­it­ats, redu­cing the dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­at suit­able for sal­mon spawn­ing and juven­ile sal­mon, and hab­it­ats suit­able for FWPM (long term). 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 and oth­er sal­monids) would not be dir­ectly affected, as no work will be under­taken with­in the River Spey SAC. 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 FWPM host spe­cies. 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. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic Sal­mon (includ­ing a range of genet­ic types) and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel as viable com­pon­ents 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 or FWPM as viable com­pon­ents of site. How­ever, the pro­posed devel­op­ment will not have an impact on the genet­ic types of sal­mon. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey through­out the site The cur­rent dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey would not be dir­ectly impacted by the devel­op­ment pro­pos­als as no works will take place with­in the River Spey SAC. How­ever, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies to enter the Allt Mor trib­u­tary of the River Spey SAC via the Allt a’ Choire Chais water­course, which could indir­ectly affect 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 Hab­it­ats sup­port­ing sea lamprey will not be dir­ectly impacted as no works will take place with­in the water­course. How­ever, there is poten­tial for indir­ect effects from pol­lu­tion or sed­i­ment enter­ing the water­course that could smooth­er poten­tial sea lamprey spawn­ing grounds (long term). Changes to water qual­ity through sus­pen­ded solids or chem­ic­als (tem­por­ary) may lead to a reduc­tion in food avail­ab­il­ity through neg­at­ively impact­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of prey fish spe­cies. The imple­ment­a­tion of stand­ard pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion meas­ures in a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan will reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion enter­ing the water­course, so that 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.

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site Otter have been recor­ded with­in the 1km square adja­cent to the devel­op­ment (1km square con­tains the con­flu­ence of the Allt a’ Choire Chais with the Allt Mor trib­u­tar­ies of the River Spey (Lut­ra lut­ra : Otter | NBN Atlas) The Allt Mor (des­ig­nated part of the River Spey SAC) is approx­im­ately 860m down­stream of the devel­op­ment, there­fore there will not be a dir­ect impact on hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter, or otter prey spe­cies with­in the SAC. The Allt a’ Choire Chais trib­u­tary of the Allt Mor may poten­tially be used by for­aging otter from the River Spey SAC. The closest stretch of the Allt a’ Choire Chais is approx­im­ately 60m from the devel­op­ment site. The devel­op­ment site is with­in the bound­ary of the Cairngorms Ski Centre and next to exist­ing ski-tow infra­struc­ture. Due to the loc­a­tion of the devel­op­ment close to exist­ing build­ings and car park of the ski centre, and the steep mont­ane hab­it­ats with­in the devel­op­ment site it is unlikely that otter from the River Spey SAC would reg­u­larly for­age with­in the devel­op­ment site, and there­fore the pro­posed devel­op­ment at this loc­a­tion is unlikely to res­ult in a sig­ni­fic­ant impact on for­aging otter from the SAC. How­ever, there is poten­tial for indir­ect effects from pol­lu­tion or sed­i­ment enter­ing the water­course that could poten­tially res­ult in changes to water qual­ity that could tem­por­ar­ily lead to a reduc­tion in food avail­ab­il­ity through neg­at­ively impact­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of prey fish spe­cies. The imple­ment­a­tion of stand­ard pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion meas­ures in a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan (as dis­cussed for Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM) will reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion enter­ing the water­course, so that this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food No works are pro­posed with­in or next to the River Spey, so the extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site will be main­tained. The pol­lu­tion issues iden­ti­fied for the fresh­wa­ter spe­cies dis­cussed above, could affect otter prey spe­cies, how­ever the imple­ment­a­tion of pre­vi­ously dis­cussed 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 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. In con­clu­sion, If a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted this will reduce the poten­tial effects to a min­im­al level, so that all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for the River Spey SAC. Note: Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion meas­ures are included in the Con­struc­tion Envir­on­ment­al Man­age­ment Plan (CEMP) that has been sub­mit­ted with this application.

2) Cairngorms SAC

Otter Poten­tial impacts on otter asso­ci­ated with the River Spey SAC (dis­cussed above) are rel­ev­ant here as otter with­in the Cairngorms SAC close to the pro­posed devel­op­ment will be asso­ci­ated with trib­u­tar­ies of the River Spey includ­ing the Allt Mor and Allt a’ Choire Chais.

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site Otter have been recor­ded with­in the 1km square adja­cent to the devel­op­ment (1km square con­tains the con­flu­ence of the Allt a’ Choire Chais with the Allt Mor trib­u­tar­ies of the River Spey (Lut­ra lut­ra : Otter | NBN Atlas) The Allt a’ Choire Chais flows into the Cairngorms SAC approx­im­ately 500m down­stream of the devel­op­ment, there­fore there will not be a dir­ect impact on hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter, or otter prey spe­cies with­in the SAC. The Allt a’ Choire Chais may poten­tially be used by for­aging otter from Cairngorms SAC. The closest stretch of the Allt a’ Choire Chais is approx­im­ately 60m from the devel­op­ment site. The devel­op­ment site is with­in the bound­ary of the Cairngorms Ski Centre and next to exist­ing ski-tow infra­struc­ture. Due to the loc­a­tion of the devel­op­ment close to exist­ing build­ings and car park of the ski centre, and the steep mont­ane hab­it­ats with­in the devel­op­ment site it is unlikely that otter from the River Spey SAC would reg­u­larly for­age with­in the devel­op­ment site, and there­fore the pro­posed devel­op­ment at this loc­a­tion is unlikely to res­ult in a sig­ni­fic­ant impact on for­aging otter from the SAC. How­ever, there is poten­tial for indir­ect effects from pol­lu­tion or sed­i­ment enter­ing the water­course that could poten­tially res­ult in changes to water qual­ity that could tem­por­ar­ily lead to a reduc­tion in food avail­ab­il­ity through neg­at­ively impact­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of prey fish spe­cies. The imple­ment­a­tion of stand­ard pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion meas­ures in a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan (as dis­cussed for Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM) will reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion enter­ing the water­course, so that this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food No works are pro­posed with­in the Cairngorms SAC, so the extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site will be main­tained. The pol­lu­tion issues iden­ti­fied for the fresh­wa­ter spe­cies dis­cussed above, could affect otter prey spe­cies, how­ever the imple­ment­a­tion of pre­vi­ously dis­cussed 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 Cairngorms 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. In con­clu­sion, if a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted this will reduce the poten­tial effects to a min­im­al level, so that all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for the Cairngorms SAC.

STAGE 5:

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

1) River Spey SAC

Yes, Provided the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures below are imple­men­ted, then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there­fore there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity. The mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures that require to be secured by con­di­tion are:

• A Con­struc­tion Meth­od Statement/​Con­struc­tion Man­age­ment Plan which includes site-spe­cif­ic pol­lu­tion-pre­ven­tion meas­ures and a sed­i­ment man­age­ment plan should be pro­duced and agreed with the CNPA pri­or to any works com­men­cing on site and then fully imple­men­ted dur­ing con­struc­tion. The reas­on for this con­di­tion is to pro­tect the water envir­on­ment and River Spey SAC from pol­lu­tion events, sed­i­ment mobil­isa­tion or dis­ease caused dur­ing construction.

Annex 1 Caper­cail­lie Assess­ment: 2026/0135/DET – Cairngorms Tobog­gan Track (Cairngorms SPA)

Note: This doc­u­ment is based on the under­stand­ing of exist­ing and like­li­hood of poten­tial use of the area by users of the above devel­op­ment based on sub­mit­ted doc­u­ment­a­tion, com­bined with pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment and loc­al know­ledge by NatureScot and CNPA to reach con­clu­sions about like­li­hood of effects on the caper­cail­lie qual­i­fy­ing interest of the Cairngorms SPA. The ques­tions below were developed to assess the poten­tial effects of devel­op­ments with­in or near exist­ing set­tle­ments, but are equally applic­able to oth­er situ­ations, as the logic and con­sid­er­a­tions are the same wherever a devel­op­ment is located.

Q1. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed development/​associated set­tle­ment? Q1: This and Q2 are included as screen­ing ques­tions to fil­ter out any devel­op­ments that aren’t likely to have changed levels or pat­terns of recre­ation.

No. The pro­posed devel­op­ment is not likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed devel­op­ment. While a moun­tain tobog­gan track would intro­duce a new form of activ­ity to the imme­di­ate area, it would occur in a con­tained area already well used by people year-round for walk­ing, cyc­ling and/​or ski­ing, as well as staff and vehicle activ­ity asso­ci­ated with works at the ski­ing and oth­er infra­struc­ture for Cairngorm Moun­tain. The tem­por­al pat­tern of use would not change, as no light­ing for night-time use of the tobog­gan track is pro­posed. Access to the tobog­gan track for riders will be from close to the exist­ing ski centre build­ings and the car­park area, and riders will be returned to the same area, there­fore there will be no sig­ni­fic­ant increase in recre­ation­al access to the SPA or asso­ci­ated caper­cail­lie wood­lands as a res­ult of this devel­op­ment. So there would be no detect­able change to exist­ing pat­terns of use of paths and tracks in the wider area, includ­ing the SPA, as a res­ult of the pro­posed development.

Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated set­tle­ment? Q2: This is included to ensure the effect of oth­er­wise small-scale devel­op­ment sites par­tic­u­larly close to caper­cail­lie woods are adequately con­sidered. Evid­ence from set­tle­ments in Strath­spey where houses are adja­cent to wood­lands indic­ates that net­works of inform­al paths and trails have developed with­in the woods link­ing back gar­dens with form­al path net­works and oth­er pop­u­lar loc­al des­tin­a­tions (eg primary schools). Such paths are likely to be used by visitors.

No. caper­cail­lie wood­lands are not sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated set­tle­ment. While the road lead­ing to the Cairngorm Ski Centre and the pro­posed moun­tain tobog­gan track passes through Glen­more Nation­al Nature Reserve and Caper­cail­lie Wood­land O – Glen­more (see map in Annex II), the pro­posed devel­op­ment is over 1.5km away from the caper­cail­lie wood­land and there is no dir­ect con­nec­tion between the tobog­gan track activ­ity and recre­ation­al activ­it­ies with­in Wood O. With­in Glen­more NNR a range of recre­ation­al activ­it­ies such as camp sites and walk­ing trails are offered with­in Glen­more Forest and in the vicin­ity of Loch Mor­lich that are pop­u­lar with vis­it­ors and res­id­ents of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park. Wood O is sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from these devel­op­ments than from the pro­posed tobog­gan track.

If Q1 & Q2 = No, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here If Q1 or Q2 = Yes, con­tin­ue to Q3

Q3. Which caper­cail­lie woods are likely to be used reg­u­larly for recre­ation by users of the devel­op­ment site at detect­able levels? (list all) Q3: This is included to identi­fy which caper­cail­lie woods are likely to be used for recre­ation by users of non-hous­ing devel­op­ment sites at levels that would be detect­able. The answer will be assessed using pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment based on know­ledge of exist­ing pat­terns of recre­ation around set­tle­ments and in the loc­al area, the rel­at­ive appeal of the caper­cail­lie woods con­cerned com­pared to oth­er recre­ation­al oppor­tun­it­ies in the area, the volume of recre­ation­al vis­its likely to be gen­er­ated by the devel­op­ment site, and informed by nation­al sur­vey data (eg on the dis­tances people travel for recre­ation­al vis­its).

N/A

Con­tin­ue to Q4

Q4. Are res­id­ents / users of this devel­op­ment site pre­dicted to under­take any off path recre­ation­al activ­it­ies in any of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3 at detect­able levels? Q4: This is included because any off path recre­ation­al use in caper­cail­lie woods will res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and require mit­ig­a­tion.	N/A

If Q4 = No for any woods, con­tin­ue to Q5 If Q4 = Yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed. Note and con­tin­ue to Q5.

Q5: Are each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3 already estab­lished loc­a­tions for recre­ation? Q5: This is included because if users of the devel­op­ment site are likely to access pre­vi­ously infre­quently-vis­ited caper­cail­lie woods, or parts of these woods, for recre­ation, sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance is likely and mit­ig­a­tion is needed. This will be answered on the basis of pro­fes­sion­al know­ledge.

N/A

If Q5 = No for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed. Note and con­tin­ue to Q6. If Q5 = Yes for any woods, con­tin­ue to Q6

Q6: For each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3, are users of the devel­op­ment site pre­dicted to have dif­fer­ent tem­por­al pat­terns of recre­ation­al use to any exist­ing vis­it­ors, or to under­take a dif­fer­ent pro­file of activ­it­ies? (eg. more dog walk­ing, or early morn­ing use) Q6: This is included because some types of recre­ation are par­tic­u­larly dis­turb­ing to caper­cail­lie; and increased levels of these types of recre­ation will cause sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and require mit­ig­a­tion. This will be answered on the basis of pro­fes­sion­al know­ledge on exist­ing pat­terns of recre­ation­al use and wheth­er each loc­a­tion is suf­fi­ciently close and/​or con­veni­ent in rela­tion to the devel­op­ment site and pat­terns of travel from there, to be used by users of the devel­op­ment for dif­fer­ent recre­ation­al activ­it­ies or at dif­fer­ent times of day. For example, caper­cail­lie woods with safe routes for dogs that are loc­ated close to devel­op­ment sites are likely to be used for early morn­ing &/or after work dog walk­ing.

N/A

If Q6 = yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed. Note and con­tin­ue to Q7 If Q6 = No for any woods, con­tin­ue to Q7

Q7: For each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3, could the pre­dicted level of use by res­id­ents / users of the devel­op­ment site sig­ni­fic­antly increase over­all levels of recre­ation­al use? Q7: This is included because a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in recre­ation­al use could res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie, even in situ­ations where the caper­cail­lie wood is already pop­u­lar for recre­ation, and no changes to cur­rent recre­ation­al pat­terns / activ­it­ies or off path activ­it­ies are pre­dicted. The answer was assessed on the basis of pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment of cur­rent levels of use and wheth­er the increase is likely to be more than approx­im­ately 10%.

N/A

If Q4‑7 = No for all woods, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here If Q4, 5, 6 and/​or 7 = Yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed

Con­clu­sion: Is mit­ig­a­tion needed as a con­sequence of this devel­op­ment site in rela­tion to each wood lis­ted at Q3?	No spe­cif­ic migra­tion is needed in rela­tion to caper­cail­lie as a con­sequence of this development.
Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed:	N/A

Annex II Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie woods map (con­sidered wood­lands high­lighted blue)

A North Grant­own B Castle Grant & Mid Port C Tom an Aird D Anagach Woods E [Anagach Woods SPA] F Slo­chd G North Carr-Bridge H Drochan & Dru­muil­lie I Craigmore Woods J [Craigmore Woods SPA] K Kin­veachy Forest L [Kin­veachy Forest SPA] M Loch Vaa N Garten Woods O [Aber­nethy Forest SPA] P Forest Lodge Q North Rothiemurchus R [Cairngorms SPA] S South Rothiemurchus T Glen­more U Inshriach V Uath Lochans area

Caper­cail­lie wood­land in Badenoch and Strath­spey. Repro­duced by per­mis­sion of Ord­nance Sur­vey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copy­right and data­base right 2018. All rights reserved. Ord­nance Sur­vey Licence num­ber 100040965 Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity © Nature Scot