Item 5 Appendix2 HRA 20250109DET NMU Aviemore and Carrbridge

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

2025/0109/DET

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information Form­a­tion of 3m wide 9km long segreg­ated NMU route/​path. Land Between Aviemore and Car­rbridge, PH22 And PH23.

Appraised by Scott Shanks, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer

Date 07 July 2025

Checked by Kirsty North, NatureScot Oper­a­tions Officer – Cent­ral Highland

Date 04 August 2025

page 1 of 34

INFORM­A­TION European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected 1) Loch Vaa SPA 2) River Spey SAC 3) Kin­veachy Forest SPA ¹,² 4) Cairngorms SPA ¹,³ 5) Aber­nethy Forest SPA¹ 6) Craigmore Wood SPA¹ 7) Anagach Woods SPA¹

It is recog­nised that effects on caper­cail­lie at any one of the Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie SPAs or asso­ci­ated wood­lands shown on the map in Annex I has the poten­tial to affect the wider caper­cail­lie meta­pop­u­la­tion of Badenoch and Strath­spey. While oth­er caper­cail­lie SPAs are con­sidered in this HRA, atten­tion has been focused in this HRA on the caper­cail­lie woods likely to be used reg­u­larly for recre­ation by users of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, which in this case is Kin­veachy Forest SPA (includ­ing Wood I‑Kinveachy Forest) (see Annex2– Detailed Caper­cail­lie Assessment).

² Ele­ments of the pro­posed devel­op­ment are also with­in 975m of the Kin­veachy Forest SAC, which is des­ig­nated for Cale­do­ni­an forest and bog wood­land. How­ever, it is con­sidered that there is no con­nectiv­ity between these hab­it­at qual­i­fy­ing interests of this SAC and the pro­ject site, and so this site has been scoped out of fur­ther consideration.

³ Ele­ments of the pro­posed devel­op­ment are with­in 3.1 km of the Cairngorms SAC, which is des­ig­nated for Alpine and sub­alpine heaths, High-alti­tude plant com­munit­ies asso­ci­ated with areas of water seep­age, Blanket bog, Bog wood­land, Green shield-moss, Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks, Cale­do­ni­an forest, Dry heaths, Tall herb com­munit­ies, Juni­per on heaths of cal­careous grass­lands, Otter, 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, and Very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable ​‘quak­ing’ sur­face. How­ever, it is con­sidered that there is no con­nectiv­ity between the hab­it­at qual­i­fy­ing interests of this SAC and the pro­ject site, and so this site has been scoped out of fur­ther consideration.

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s) 1) Loch Vaa SPA Slavo­ni­an grebe (breed­ing)

2) River Spey SAC Otter Atlantic sal­mon Sea lamprey Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel (FWPM)

page 2 of 34

3) Kin­veachy Forest SPA Caper­cail­lie (breed­ing) Scot­tish crossbill

4) Cairngorms SPA Golden eagle Dot­ter­el Mer­lin Per­eg­rine Scot­tish cross­bill Osprey Capercaillie

5) Aber­nethy Forest SPA Scot­tish cross­bill Osprey Capercaillie

6) Craigmore Wood SPA Caper­cail­lie (breed­ing)

7) Anagach Woods SPA Caper­cail­lie (breed­ing)

Ele­ments of the pro­posed devel­op­ment are with­in 975m of the Kin­veachy Forest SAC, which is des­ig­nated for Cale­do­ni­an forest and bog wood­land. How­ever, it is con­sidered that there is no con­nectiv­ity between the qual­i­fy­ing interests of this SAC and the pro­ject site, and so this site has been scoped out.

Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests

I) Loch Vaa SPA

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies: Slavo­ni­an Grebe (breed­ing) 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

page 3 of 34

2) 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.

3) Kin­veachy Forest SPA

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (Caper­cail­lie (breed­ing) 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

page 4 of 34

• 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

4) Cairngorms SPA

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

5) Aber­nethy Forest SPA

• To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies: Caper­cail­lie, Osprey, 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

6) Craigmore Wood SPA

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies: Caper­cail­lie (breed­ing) 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

7) Anagach Woods SPA

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies: Caper­cail­lie (breed­ing), 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:

page 5 of 34

• 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

page 6 of 34

APPRAIS­AL STAGE 1: What is the plan or project?

Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc) The Aviemore to Car­rbridge Non-Motor­ised User Route (ACN­MU) scheme intends to provide an NMU link between the two set­tle­ments of Aviemore and Car­rbridge. The Pro­posed Scheme largely fol­lows along the B9152, A95 and B9153 roads. The Pro­posed Scheme passes close to sev­er­al European des­ig­nated site for nature con­ser­va­tion. There is no pro­gramme for the works at present and the con­struc­tion com­mence­ment date is cur­rently not known.

STAGE 2: Is the plan or pro­ject dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation?

1) Loch Vaa SPA No, this pro­ject is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

2) River Spey SAC No, this pro­ject is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

3) Kin­veachy Forest SPA No, this pro­ject is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

4) Cairngorms SPA No, this pro­ject is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

5) Aber­nethy Forest SPA No, this pro­ject is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

6) Craigmore Wood SPA No, this pro­ject is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

7) Anagach Woods SPA No, this pro­ject is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

page 7 of 34

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) Loch Vaa SPA (less than 50m from development)

Slavo­ni­an grebe (breed­ing): Yes, there will be an LSE, due to dis­turb­ance to breed­ing Slavo­ni­an grebe dur­ing con­struc­tion phase, and oper­a­tion­al phase, and as a res­ult of poten­tial impacts on hab­it­at dur­ing con­struc­tion. There will be sim­il­ar impacts at Avie­lochan where breed­ing Slavo­ni­an Grebe have likely con­nectiv­ity with the Loch Vaa SPA population.

2) River Spey SAC (with­in 750m)

Otter: Yes, there will be an LSE, due to hab­it­at degrad­a­tion dur­ing con­struc­tion and poten­tial dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion. Atlantic sal­mon: Yes, there will be an LSE, due to hab­it­at degrad­a­tion and dis­turb­ance to spawn­ing dur­ing con­struc­tion. Sea lamprey: Yes, there will be an LSE, due to hab­it­at degrad­a­tion dur­ing con­struc­tion. Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel: Yes, there will be an LSE, due to hab­it­at degrad­a­tion dur­ing construction.

(The River Spey flows south to north, to the east of the pro­posed NMU route, with the River Dul­nain, one of its trib­u­tar­ies flow­ing through Car­rbridge to the north of the route. The River Spey SAC is approx­im­ately 730 m north and 920 m to the east of the pro­posed route at the closest points. The route crosses three trib­u­tar­ies of the River Spey: Feith Mhor at OSGR NH90992134, East­er Aviemore Burn at OSGR: NH39771428 and an unnamed small water­course at OSGR NH89881459. There­fore, there is a hydro­lo­gic­al con­nec­tion between the route and the SAC)

3) Kin­veachy Forest SPA (with­in 1km – how­ever Kin­veachy caper­cail­lie wood I includes sup­port­ing hab­it­at with­in 300m of the development)

Caper­cail­lie (breed­ing): Yes, there will be an LSE. The caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA is part of the wider Strath­spey meta­pop­u­la­tion that has con­nectiv­ity to the neigh­bour­ing caper­cail­lie SPAs (Aber­nethy Forest SPA, Anagach Woods SPA, Cairngorms SPA, Craigmore Wood SPA and Kin­veachy Forest SPA) and caper­cail­lie wood­lands (see Annex1). There will be a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on this qual­i­fy­ing interest due to loss of sup­port­ing hab­it­at, dis­turb­ance dur­ing the con­struc­tion phase and the dis­turb­ance dur­ing the oper­a­tion­al phase. Scot­tish cross­bill: Yes, there will be an LSE. There is likely con­nectiv­ity between the SPA and sup­port­ing non-des­ig­nated wood­land hab­it­at close to and with­in the pro­posed devel­op­ment bound­ary. Due to dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion work, and poten­tially dur­ing operation.

4) Cairngorms SPA (approx. 3.1km)

Golden eagle: No LSE, the pro­posed devel­op­ment is approx­im­ately 3.1 km from the SPA and the hab­it­ats involved are not suit­able for for­aging or nest­ing Golden Eagle, and so this qual­i­fy­ing interest has been scoped out from fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion. Dot­ter­el: No LSE, the pro­posed devel­op­ment is approx­im­ately 3.1 km from the SPA and the hab­it­ats involved are not suit­able for Dot­ter­el, and so this qual­i­fy­ing interest has been scoped

page 8 of 34

out from fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion. Mer­lin: No LSE, the pro­posed devel­op­ment is approx­im­ately 3.1 km from the SPA and the hab­it­ats impacted are not suit­able for Mer­lin, and so this qual­i­fy­ing interest has been scoped out from fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion. Per­eg­rine: No LSE, the pro­posed devel­op­ment is approx­im­ately 3.1 km from the SPA, so no dir­ect impact on hab­it­at with­in the SPA, and this spe­cies has a large range which is unlikely to be impacted by this devel­op­ment, and so this qual­i­fy­ing interest has been scoped out from fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion. Scot­tish cross­bill: No, LSE. While the Scot­tish Cross­bill pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA is likely part of a wider meta­pop­u­la­tion that has con­nectiv­ity with Scot­tish Cross­bill pop­u­la­tions in neigh­bour­ing SPAs, it is con­sidered that breed­ing cross­bills with­in this site would not be depend­ent on for­aging hab­it­ats more than 3.1 km from nest sites with­in this SPA. Osprey: Yes, there will be an LSE. Suit­able for­aging hab­it­ats (Loch Vaa and Avie­lochan) dir­ectly adja­cent to the pro­posed devel­op­ment could be used by for­aging Osprey from the Cairngorms SPA, and there may be short-term dis­turb­ance from con­struc­tion activ­ity. Caper­cail­lie: Yes, there will be an LSE. The caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA is part of the wider Strath­spey meta­pop­u­la­tion that has con­nectiv­ity to the neigh­bour­ing caper­cail­lie SPAs (Aber­nethy Forest SPA, Anagach Woods SPA, Cairngorms SPA, Craigmore Wood SPA and Kin­veachy Forest SPA) and caper­cail­lie wood­lands (see Annex1).

5) Aber­nethy Forest SPA (approx. 3.8km)

Scot­tish cross­bill: No, LSE. While the Scot­tish Cross­bill pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA is likely part of a wider meta­pop­u­la­tion that has con­nectiv­ity with Scot­tish Cross­bill pop­u­la­tions in neigh­bour­ing SPAs, it is con­sidered that breed­ing cross­bills with­in this site would not be depend­ent on for­aging hab­it­ats more than 3.8 km from nest sites with­in this SPA. Osprey: Yes, there will be an LSE. Suit­able for­aging hab­it­ats (Loch Vaa and Avie­lochan) dir­ectly adja­cent to the pro­posed devel­op­ment could be used by for­aging Osprey from the Aber­nethy Forest SPA, and there may be a short-term dis­turb­ance from con­struc­tion activ­ity. Caper­cail­lie: Yes, there will be an LSE. The caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA is part of the wider Strath­spey meta­pop­u­la­tion that has con­nectiv­ity to the neigh­bour­ing caper­cail­lie SPAs (Aber­nethy Forest SPA, Anagach Woods SPA, Cairngorms SPA, Craigmore Wood SPA and Kin­veachy Forest SPA) and caper­cail­lie wood­lands (see Annex1).

6) Craigmore Wood SPA (approx.10km)

Caper­cail­lie (breed­ing): Yes, there will be an LSE. The caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA is part of the wider Strath­spey meta­pop­u­la­tion that has con­nectiv­ity to the neigh­bour­ing caper­cail­lie SPAs (Aber­nethy Forest SPA, Anagach Woods SPA, Cairngorms SPA, Craigmore Wood SPA and Kin­veachy Forest SPA) and caper­cail­lie wood­lands (see Annex1).

page 9 of 34

7) Anagach Woods SPA (approx. 13.8km)

Caper­cail­lie (breed­ing): Yes, there will be an LSE. The caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA is part of the wider Strath­spey meta­pop­u­la­tion that has con­nectiv­ity to the neigh­bour­ing caper­cail­lie SPAs (Aber­nethy Forest SPA, Anagach Woods SPA, Cairngorms SPA, Craigmore Wood SPA and Kin­veachy Forest SPA) and caper­cail­lie wood­lands (see Annex1).

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

1) Loch Vaa SPA

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies: Slavo­ni­an Grebe (breed­ing) 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.

In the UK most records of Slavo­ni­an grebes are of autumn/​winter migrants, how­ever approx­im­ately 28 pairs breed in the UK each year. Nests are nor­mally built in reed beds, sedge beds or in the semi-sub­merged branches of wil­lows around the edges of small lochs and oth­er water­bod­ies. Up to sev­en pairs of Slavo­ni­an grebes breed at Loch Vaa each year, how­ever num­bers fluc­tu­ate, par­tic­u­larly in years with warm springs and/​summers, which can res­ult in low water levels and sep­ar­a­tion of open water in the deep­er centre of the loch from emer­gent veget­a­tion where the grebes nest around the out­side (https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/site-special-scientific-interest/1065/site-management-statement.pdf).

There is con­nectiv­ity between the pop­u­la­tion of Slavo­ni­an grebes breed­ing at Loch Vaa and those at Avie Lochan, and birds may move between both sites before set­tling down to breed. Dur­ing the breed­ing sea­son the dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site is depend­ent on the extent of nest­ing and for­aging hab­it­ats, water qual­ity and the pres­ence and abund­ance of prey spe­cies. Slavo­ni­an grebes are sens­it­ive to dis­turb­ance with­in 350m of their nests (Ref: Dis­turb­ance Dis­tances in selec­ted Scot­tish Bird Spe­cies – NatureScot Guid­ance | NatureScot). The most recent site con­di­tion mon­it­or­ing (in 2007) of the Slavo­ni­an grebe fea­ture at Loch Vaa SSSI found that it was in unfa­vour­able condition.

Con­struc­tion activ­ity for the NMU route will be under­taken with­in 20m Loch Vaa SPA (~100m from edge of the actu­al loch), and there­fore pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion work could affect water qual­ity with­in the loch and have an impact prey spe­cies or veget­a­tion in the loch. There is also likely to be some increase in noise and visu­al dis­turb­ance as a res­ult of the con­struc­tion work on the NMU route, how­ever this increase is likely to be neg­li­gible, as the con­struc­tion work will be sep­ar­ated from the loch by the busy A95 road and will be at least partly screened by wood­land. Loch Vaa is already well used by walk­ers, swim­mers and paddle-boarders, par­tic­u­larly dur­ing the sum­mer months, which coin­cides with the Slavo­ni­an Grebe breed­ing sea­son. Cur­rent access to Loch Vaa for water-sport activ­it­ies is most likely from the Lag­ganty­gow­an Cemetery. Dur­ing the oper­a­tion phase there is likely to be an increase in access to the site from users of the NMU route. Meas­ures are pro­posed in the Mit­ig­a­tion Sched­ule to mit­ig­ate con­struc­tion phase and operational-

page 10 of 34

phase impacts on the Slavo­ni­an grebes of Loch Vaa SPA. The fol­low­ing rel­ev­ant meas­ures are pro­posed in the Mit­ig­a­tion Schedule:

• Pre-con­struc­tion sur­veys will be under­taken to veri­fy and, where required, update the baseline eco­lo­gic­al conditions.
• An Eco­lo­gic­al Man­age­ment Plan (EMP) includ­ing a Hab­it­at Man­age­ment Plan (HMP) and Spe­cies Pro­tec­tion Plans (SPP) will be pre­pared for the Pro­posed Scheme. This will detail meth­ods to be adop­ted pre-con­struc­tion, dur­ing con­struc­tion and post-con­struc­tion, includ­ing ele­ments such as hab­it­at rein­state­ment and cre­ation, spe­cies and hab­it­at trans­lo­ca­tion, mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures to safe­guard pro­tec­ted spe­cies (includ­ing tim­ing of works and exclu­sion zones) and mon­it­or­ing require­ments (Mit­ig­a­tion ACNMU-E3).
• An Eco­lo­gic­al Clerk of Works (ECoW) will be appoin­ted to ensure that the EMP, HMP and SSP are imple­men­ted and fol­lowed dur­ing pre-con­struc­tion phases, dur­ing con­struc­tion and post-con­struc­tion. (Mit­ig­a­tion ACNMU-E6)
• Con­struc­tion works will take account of sens­it­ive eco­lo­gic­al sea­sons (e.g. breed­ing sea­sons) and the poten­tial impact that the type of con­struc­tion work could have on any pro­tec­ted or pri­or­ity hab­it­at or spe­cies with­in that sea­son (ACN­MU-E7).
• To min­im­ise impacts hab­it­ats and spe­cies, the work­ing area will be kept to the min­im­um neces­sary for con­struc­tion of the Pro­posed Scheme to reduce hab­it­at loss and impacts to pro­tec­ted and pri­or­ity spe­cies and plant and per­son­nel will be con­strained to a pre­scribed work­ing cor­ridor through the use of tem­por­ary bar­ri­ers to min­im­ise the dam­age to hab­it­ats and poten­tial dir­ect mor­tal­ity and dis­turb­ance to anim­als loc­ated with­in and adja­cent to the Pro­posed Scheme work­ing cor­ridor. Park­ing will also be restric­ted to des­ig­nated areas. (mit­ig­a­tions ACN­MU-E9, E10, E39, and E40)
• The use of con­struc­tion light­ing will be in accord­ance with BS5489‑1:2020 Code of Prac­tice for the Design of Road Light­ing and fol­low best avail­able guid­ance on light­ing with regards to pro­tec­ted spe­cies (e.g. Insti­tute of Light­ing Pro­fes­sion­als (2018)). The con­struc­tion light­ing design will take account of the need to avoid illu­min­at­ing sens­it­ive wild­life hab­it­ats in loc­a­tions such as adja­cent to water­courses; along wood­land edges; and, where there is known activ­ity iden­ti­fied through pre-con­struc­tion eco­lo­gic­al sur­veys. Where this is not pos­sible the Con­tract­or will agree any excep­tions with NatureScot (ACN­MU-EII).
• Mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures to avoid or reduce poten­tial effects on sur­face waters will be employed, includ­ing Guid­ance for Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion (GPPs) and Con­struc­tion Industry Research and Inform­a­tion Asso­ci­ation (CIRIA) guid­ance on the con­trol of water pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion sites will be adhered to for the dur­a­tion of the con­struc­tion phase, and appro­pri­ate drain­age and run­off treat­ment (ACN­MU-E14).
• No work­ing or arti­fi­cial light­ing with­in 50m of watercourses/​waterbodies will be under­taken dur­ing the hours of dark­ness, taken to be 30 minutes before sun­set to 30 minutes after sun­rise, unless spe­cific­ally agreed with NatureScot. Should this be unavoid­able, light­ing must be posi­tioned to min­im­ise light spill onto watercourses/​waterbodies and will be sub­ject to ECoW approv­al. The ECoW will mon­it­or rel­ev­ant spe­cies activ­ity upstream and down­stream of the works and may stop site activ­it­ies at any time should they con­sider that the works are hav­ing an impact on a pro­tec­ted spe­cies (ACN­MU-E33).
• Stock fen­cing (a com­bin­a­tion of post and rail, and post and wire) is to be installed along the length of the NMU route. The fen­cing will restrict access to sens­it­ive and pro­tec­ted sites

page 11 of 34

such as Loch Vaa SPA from the devel­op­ment and thus will help reduce impacts of oper­a­tion­al-phase recre­ation­al dis­turb­ance (Mit­ig­a­tion ACN­MU-E40). If these meas­ures are imple­men­ted, they should help to mit­ig­ate effects on the spe­cies to allow this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive to be met.

Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species. Breed­ing Slavo­ni­an grebes are depend­ent on water bod­ies con­tain­ing abund­ant small fish and inver­teb­rates which they feed on. They nest in emer­gent veget­a­tion includ­ing reed beds and sedge beds around the edges of lochs. Loch Vaa and Avie Lochan do not have phys­ic­al con­nectiv­ity, but there is exchange of Slavo­ni­an grebes between these sites before they settle down to nest, there­fore impacts from this devel­op­ment on the dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of sup­port­ing hab­it­ats at Avie Lochan should also be con­sidered (Ref: Advice from Alis­on Philip, RSPB Scot­land Con­ser­va­tion Officer- South High­land). While there will be no con­struc­tion work with­in Loch Vaa SPA or with­in Avie Lochan, and there­fore no loss of hab­it­ats with­in either site, there may be impacts on water qual­ity, hab­it­ats and prey spe­cies from con­struc­tion activ­ity. Loch Vaa and it’s sur­round­ings are cur­rently used for a vari­ety of recre­ation­al activ­it­ies includ­ing swim­ming, paddle board­ing and walk­ing. It’s pos­sible that this devel­op­ment can increase levels of recre­ation­al activ­ity in the vicin­ity of Loch Vaa and Avie Lochan, which could res­ult in neg­at­ive impacts on emer­gent veget­a­tion and as well as increased dis­turb­ance in the oper­a­tion­al phase, and there­fore meas­ures are required to mit­ig­ate these poten­tial impacts on hab­it­ats. Meas­ures dis­cussed above, and detailed in the Mit­ig­a­tion Sched­ule to mit­ig­ate the impacts of this devel­op­ment on the dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Slavo­ni­an grebes include Meas­ures ACN­MU-E3, E6, E9, E10, E14, E33 and E40. If these meas­ures are imple­men­ted, they should help to mit­ig­ate effects on this spe­cies to allow this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive to be met.

Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species. As dis­cussed above Slavo­ni­an grebes at Loch Vaa SPA (and Avie Lochan) are depend­ent on sens­it­ive aquat­ic hab­it­ats. The impacts of pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion phase activ­ity on water qual­ity, veget­a­tion struc­ture and com­pos­i­tion (via tox­ins or increased nutri­ents), and the avail­ab­il­ity and abund­ance of prey spe­cies (small fish and inver­teb­rates) with­in both Loch Vaa and Avie Lochan could have a det­ri­ment­al impact on the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats that sup­port Slavo­ni­an grebes. There­fore, meas­ures are required to mit­ig­ate impacts on the breed­ing Slavo­ni­an grebes dur­ing the con­struc­tion phase and post-con­struc­tion phases of this devel­op­ment. If these meas­ures are imple­men­ted, they should help to mit­ig­ate effects on the spe­cies to allow this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive to be met.

No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species. Without mit­ig­a­tion there is a poten­tial for dis­turb­ance from both con­struc­tion-phase activ­ity and oper­a­tion­al- phase recre­ation­al dis­turb­ance dur­ing the Slavo­ni­an grebe breed­ing sea­son (April to end of August). Breed­ing Slavo­ni­an grebes are sens­it­ive to dis­turb­ance with­in 350m of their nests. There is likely to some increase in noise and visu­al dis­turb­ance as a res­ult of the con­struc­tion work on the NMU route, how­ever the impact of this dis­turb­ance is likely to be fairly minor/​negligible, as the con­struc­tion work will be sep­ar­ated from the loch by the busy A95 road and will be at least partly screened by wood­land at the west­ern edge of Loch Vaa SPA. Tim­ing of works to avoid

page 12 of 34

con­struc­tion activ­ity dur­ing the breed­ing sea­son would reduce the poten­tial risk of con­struc­tion-phase dis­turb­ance. Loch Vaa is well used by walk­ers, swim­mers and water­s­ports enthu­si­asts, par­tic­u­larly dur­ing the sum­mer months, which coin­cides with the Slavo­ni­an grebe breed­ing sea­son. Cur­rent access to Loch Vaa for water-sport activ­it­ies is most likely from the car­park at the Lag­ganty­gow­an Cemetery. An increase in access to Loch Vaa SPA from users of the NMU route is likely dur­ing the oper­a­tion­al phase of the devel­op­ment, and there­fore meas­ures are required to mit­ig­ate dis­turb­ance impacts. Meas­ures dis­cussed above, and detailed in the Mit­ig­a­tion Sched­ule to mit­ig­ate the impacts of this devel­op­ment on the dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Slavo­ni­an grebes include Meas­ures ACN­MU-EI, E3, E6, E7 and E40. Note that in addi­tion to the use of stock fen­cing to restrict access to sens­it­ive sites, it is pro­posed that no benches or seats will be installed close to sens­it­ive sites to dis­cour­age people from stop­ping and then going explor­ing in sur­round­ing hab­it­ats. If these meas­ures are imple­men­ted, they should help to mit­ig­ate the poten­tial effects of dis­turb­ance on this spe­cies to allow this Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive to be met.

Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site. As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for these spe­cies with the mit­ig­a­tion included in the pro­pos­al, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not hinder or pre­vent the main­ten­ance of the pop­u­la­tion of these spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of site.

In con­clu­sion, the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures pro­posed in the applic­a­tion and dis­cussed above reduces the poten­tial effects to a min­im­al level, so that all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for the Loch Vaa SPA.

2) 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 and Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mussel.

2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel through­out the site The cur­rent and poten­tial dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic Sal­mon and FWPM with­in the site would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the River Spey SAC. How­ever, the route will cross at least 3 trib­u­tar­ies of the River Spey which will require works includ­ing the exten­sion of cul­verts, and tem­por­ary cross­ings and tem­por­ary water­course diver­sions. There­fore pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies (e.g. mobil­ised sed­i­ment, fuels or oils) could indir­ectly cause the dis­tri­bu­tion to change of Atlantic Sal­mon and FWPM with­in the River Spey SAC due to tem­por­ary changes in water qual­ity, and, if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment reach the water­course, through smoth­er­ing hab­it­ats sup­port­ing FWPM, or which are used by Atlantic sal­mon for spawn­ing. Sur­veys for fish and FWPM with­in 5 water­courses along the route did not detect any Atlantic Sal­mon or FWPM, and hab­it­ats were unsuit­able for FWPM. How­ever, two water­courses includ­ing the Feith Mhor

page 13 of 34

trib­u­tary of the River Spey were con­sidered to have stretches of hab­it­at suit­able for sal­mon parr. While no Atlantic Sal­mon or FWPM were detec­ted in the water­courses that were sur­veyed, there is a poten­tial for pol­lu­tion to extend fur­ther down­stream into areas that do sup­port Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM.

The Mit­ig­a­tion Sched­ule out­lines a num­ber of meas­ures (EI, E2, E3, E7, E9, E10, E11, E13, E33) that should, if con­di­tioned and prop­erly imple­men­ted reduce the risks of pol­lu­tion impact­ing these spe­cies. These include:

• Pre­par­a­tion of a Con­struc­tion Envir­on­ment Man­age­ment Plan (CEMP) con­tain­ing a Hab­it­at Man­age­ment Plan (HMP) and Spe­cies Pro­tec­tion Plan (SPP) detail­ing meth­ods to be adop­ted pre-con­struc­tion, dur­ing con­struc­tion and post-con­struc­tion to safe­guard pro­tec­ted spe­cies and hab­it­ats and mon­it­or­ing requirements.
• All cul­verts and water­course cross­ings will be sens­it­ively designed and con­struc­ted with ref­er­ence to SEPA’s good prac­tice guides includ­ing: Engin­eer­ing in the Water Envir­on­ment Good Prac­tice Guide: Bank Pro­tec­tion Rivers and Lochs; • Engin­eer­ing in the Water Envir­on­ment: Good Prac­tice Guide — River Cross­ing; and Pos­i­tion State­ment WAT-PS-06 – 02 — Cul­vert­ing of Water­courses – Pos­i­tion State­ment and Sup­port­ing Guidance.
• Restric­tion on the foot­print of con­struc­tion work to the min­im­um pos­sible to reduce impacts on hab­it­ats and spe­cies, and where prac­tic­able, plant and per­son­nel will be con­strained with­in a work­ing cor­ridor to min­im­ise dam­age to hab­it­ats and poten­tial dir­ect mor­tal­ity or dis­turb­ance to spe­cies with­in of adja­cent to the pro­posed scheme.
• Meas­ures to reduce impacts of sed­i­ment or pol­lu­tion on water­courses includ­ing adher­ing to the Guid­ance for Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion (GPP) doc­u­ments (Guid­ance for Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion (GPP) doc­u­ments | Net­Regs | Envir­on­ment­al guid­ance for your busi­ness in North­ern Ire­land & Scot­land) and the Con­struc­tion Industry Research and Inform­a­tion Asso­ci­ation (CIRIA) guid­ance on the con­trol of water pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion sites in the SUDS Manu­al: https://​www​.ciria​.org/​C​I​R​I​A​/​M​e​m​b​e​r​s​h​i​p​s​/​T​h​e​_​S​u​D​S​_​M​a​n​u​a​l​_​C​7​5​3​_​C​h​a​p​t​e​r​s​.aspx. These should be detailed in a site-spe­cif­ic Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan.

If the meas­ures pro­posed in the mit­ig­a­tion sched­ule are 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 site would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the water­course. 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

page 14 of 34

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 water­course. How­ever as dis­cussed in 2b and 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 these host spe­cies. With the imple­ment­a­tion of the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures dis­cussed in 2b the risk of pol­lu­tion events will be reduced there­fore the devel­op­ment would not hinder the dis­tri­bu­tion or vital­ity of the host spe­cies, and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

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 or FWPM as a viable com­pon­ent of site. How­ever, the pro­posed works will not influ­ence the range of genet­ic types of Atlantic Sal­mon with­in the SAC. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be par­tially met.

Sea Lamprey

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey through­out the site. The cur­rent dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey would not be dir­ectly impacted by the pro­posed devel­op­ment as no works will take place with­in the River Spey SAC. How­ever, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies 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 CEMP con­tain­ing a mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures includ­ing a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan detail­ing 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 water­course. 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 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.

page 15 of 34

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. Otters can have very large home ranges of around 32km for males and 20km for females (Otter | NatureScot), and there­fore may for­age con­sid­er­able dis­tances along trib­u­tar­ies of the River Spey SAC, includ­ing the Feith Mhor, where an otter spraint was recor­ded dur­ing sur­vey work for the devel­op­ment. No con­struc­tion work is pro­posed with­in the Rive Spey SAC how­ever the route will cross at least 3 non-des­ig­nated, but con­nec­ted trib­u­tar­ies, which will require works includ­ing the exten­sion of cul­verts, and tem­por­ary cross­ings and tem­por­ary water­course diver­sions. There­fore, dis­turb­ance from con­struc­tion activ­ity (noise, light or vibra­tion) could lead to a change in otter dis­tri­bu­tion and for­aging beha­viour along these trib­u­tar­ies. Pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies (e.g. mobil­ised sed­i­ment, fuels or oils) could impact the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through impacts on hab­it­at qual­ity, prey spe­cies, or dir­ect mor­tal­ity through the bioac­cu­mu­la­tion of tox­ins through prey items that had been exposed to pollution.

If meas­ures pro­posed in the mit­ig­a­tion sched­ule are con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met. These meas­ures include:

• Under­tak­ing pre-con­struc­tion sur­veys to con­firm and update exist­ing bio­lo­gic­al baseline data; and where required obtain­ing and com­ply­ing with require­ments of any pro­tec­ted spe­cies mit­ig­a­tion licences, in respect of the works.
• Pre­par­a­tion of a Con­struc­tion Envir­on­ment Man­age­ment Plan (CEMP) con­tain­ing a Hab­it­at Man­age­ment Plan (HMP) and Spe­cies Pro­tec­tion Plan (SPP) detail­ing meth­ods to be adop­ted pre-con­struc­tion, dur­ing con­struc­tion and post-con­struc­tion to safe­guard pro­tec­ted spe­cies and hab­it­ats and mon­it­or­ing requirements.
• All cul­verts and water­course cross­ings will be sens­it­ively designed and con­struc­ted with ref­er­ence to SEPA’s good prac­tice guides includ­ing: Engin­eer­ing in the Water Envir­on­ment Good Prac­tice Guide: Bank Pro­tec­tion Rivers and Lochs; • Engin­eer­ing in the Water Envir­on­ment: Good Prac­tice Guide — River Cross­ing; and Pos­i­tion State­ment WAT-PS-06 – 02 — Cul­vert­ing of Water­courses – Pos­i­tion State­ment and Sup­port­ing Guidance.
• Restric­tion on the foot­print of con­struc­tion work to the min­im­um pos­sible to reduce impacts on hab­it­ats and spe­cies, and where prac­tic­able, plant and per­son­nel will be con­strained with­in a work­ing cor­ridor to min­im­ise dam­age to hab­it­ats and poten­tial dir­ect mor­tal­ity or dis­turb­ance to spe­cies with­in of adja­cent to the pro­posed scheme.
• Restrict­ing the pro­gram­ming of works to take account of eco­lo­gic­ally sens­it­ive time peri­ods includ­ing breed­ing bird sea­son (March-August inclusive).