Item11Appendix2HRA20230243DETBikeTracks

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Item 11 Appendix 2 11 August 2023 Ùgh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 11

Appendix 2

2023/0243/DET

Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al ‑copy of 2022/0046/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information

2022/0046/DET, Form­a­tion of moun­tain bike track and related infra­struc­ture, Cairngorm Moun­tain. Cross­ing and next to the Allt a choire chais, which flows into the River Spey SAC approx­im­ately Ikm down­stream, and with­in approx­im­ately 400m (at the closest point) of the Cairngorms SAC and SPA.

Appraised by

Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer (Devel­op­ment Plan­ning and Envir­on­ment­al Advice)

Date

11 March 2022, updated 5 May 2022 fol­low­ing sub­mis­sion of mon­it­or­ing strategy doc­u­ment by CMSL

Checked by

Debbie Greene and Kirsty North, NatureScot

Date

11 March 2022

page 1 of 23

INFORM­A­TION

European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected

1. River Spey SAC
2. Cairngorms SAC
3. Cairngorms SPA’

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)

1. River Spey SAC otter fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel sea lamprey Atlantic salmon
2. Cairngorms SAC Hab­it­ats: acid peat stained lakes and ponds acid­ic scree alpine and sub­alpine heaths blanket bog bog wood­land Cale­do­ni­an forest clear water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic veget­a­tion and poor to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels dry grass­land and scrub­lands on chalk or lime­stone dry heaths hard water springs depos­it­ing lime high alti­tude plant com­munit­ies asso­ci­ated with areas of water seep­age juni­per on heaths or cal­careous grass­lands mont­ane acid grass­lands mont­ane wil­low scrub

¹ The poten­tial for con­nectiv­ity with / indir­ect meta­pop­u­la­tion effects on oth­er caper­cail­lie SPAs in Badenoch and Strath­spey was con­sidered but scoped out due to the loc­a­tion, type and scale of the pro­posed devel­op­ment. If the HRA for the Cairngorms SPA had how­ever con­cluded an adverse effect on site integ­rity, or required mit­ig­a­tion, then all of the caper­cail­lie SPAs in Badenoch and Strath­spey would have been reas­sessed in rela­tion to poten­tial effects on the metapopulation.

page 2 of 23

plants in crevices on acid rocks

plants in crevices on base rocks

spe­cies rich grass­land with mat grass in upland areas

tall herb communities

very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable quak­ing surface

wet heath­land with cross leaved heath

Spe­cies:

green shield moss (Buxbaumia virid­is) otter

1. Cairngorms SPA Breed­ing: caper­cail­lie dot­ter­el golden eagle mer­lin osprey per­eg­rine Scot­tish crossbill

Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests

1. River Spey SAC Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of the River Spey SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b, 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture (and 2^d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel):

2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel through­out the site

2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

2^d. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies and their sup­port­ing habitats

2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey through­out the site

2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing sea lamprey with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of sea lamprey as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon through­out the site

2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon, includ­ing range of genet­ic types, as a viable

page 3 of 23

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.

1. Cairngorms SAC To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained and the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures; and

To ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term: Extent of the hab­it­at on site Dis­tri­bu­tion of the hab­it­at with­in site Struc­ture and func­tion of the hab­it­at Pro­cesses sup­port­ing the hab­it­at Dis­tri­bu­tion of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the hab­it­at Viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies as com­pon­ents of the hab­it­at No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the habitat

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (otter, green shield moss) or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained and the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures; and

To ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term: 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 Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

1. Cairngorms SPA To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies 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 4 of 23

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 5 of 23

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:

What is the plan or project?

Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc) Form­a­tion of three inter­linked moun­tain bike trails and a cable uplift sys­tem in the low­est sec­tion, Cairngorm Moun­tain. Next to the Allt a choire chais, which flows into the River Spey SAC approx­im­ately Ikm down­stream, and with­in approx­im­ately 400m (at the closest point) of the Cairngorms SAC and SPA.

The ​“Assess­ment of Risks to Adja­cent European sites to inform a Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al” doc­u­ment sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion has been used to inform the HRA for the Cairngorms SAC and SPA. The doc­u­ment is based on under­stand­ing of exist­ing and like­li­hood of poten­tial use of the area by moun­tain bikers, com­bined with expert advice from CMSL and DMBinS. This has been com­bined with pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment and loc­al know­ledge by NatureScot and CNPA to reach con­clu­sions about like­li­hood of effects on the Cairngorms SAC and SPA.

Update May 2022: CNPA and NatureScot worked with CMSL to devise a mon­it­or­ing strategy to address poten­tial effects on the Cairngorms SAC. The mon­it­or­ing strategy meth­od­o­logy was ori­gin­ally pro­posed as a con­di­tion in the ori­gin­al HRA. How­ever on fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion, this was used to cre­ate a mon­it­or­ing strategy doc­u­ment, which was sub­mit­ted by CMSL in May 2022 and is attached to this HRA as Annex II.

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 YES — there is poten­tial for a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the hab­it­ats relied upon by the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies of the River Spey SAC and/​or their food caused by pol­lu­tion from sed­i­ment release affect­ing water qual­ity and smoth­er­ing hab­it­ats dur­ing con­struc­tion of the tracks along­side the Allt a choire chais, which flows dir­ectly into the River Spey SAC approx­im­ately Ikm downstream.

There is NO poten­tial for a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on otter from dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion due to the pro­posed devel­op­ment site being approx­im­ately Ikm upstream and so out­with the dis­turb­ance dis­tance for River Spey SAC otter. This aspect is there­fore not

page 6 of 23

con­sidered further.

1. Cairngorms SAC No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on otter or green shield moss: There will not be any likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects due to dis­turb­ance to otter, as there would be no change to the exist­ing levels or pat­terns of human activ­ity caused by the imple­ment­a­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment at times when otter are act­ive. (Although the Allt a choire chais could in the­ory be used by otter asso­ci­ated with the SAC, the area in which the pro­posed devel­op­ment is situ­ated is well used by people and vehicles on the exist­ing tracks, foot­paths and build­ings, which is likely to deter otter/​any otter using the water­course will be habitu­ated to the exist­ing level of disturbance.)

Green shield moss is a wood­land spe­cies not found where the pro­posed devel­op­ment occurs and there will be no detect­able change to exist­ing levels or pat­terns of human activ­ity in wood­land areas. There­fore no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects will occur for this species.

Likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on hab­it­ats: 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 trails should not alter the hydro­logy of the SAC. The pro­posed tracks are next to exist­ing well used tracks and foot­paths (and buildings).

In rela­tion to indir­ect effects, the ​“Assess­ment of Risks to Adja­cent European sites to inform a Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al” doc­u­ment sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion con­siders the poten­tial for users of the new trails, includ­ing for example more exper­i­enced group mem­bers, to leave the pro­posed trails and take routes with­in the European sites. All poten­tial routes into the European sites from the trails are con­sidered, and for reas­ons stated in that doc­u­ment it is con­cluded that the like­li­hood of this hap­pen­ing var­ies depend­ing on the route. All except one of the routes which the report determ­ines have some degree of risk (ie it is great­er than ​‘none’) are exist­ing paths. Any poten­tial small increase in use of these routes by moun­tain bikes as a con­sequence of this devel­op­ment will not dam­age hab­it­ats with­in the SAC.

There is how­ever one route with a ​‘low’ like­li­hood of use as a con­sequence of this devel­op­ment, which is par­tially off path. More exper­i­enced moun­tain bikers who have used social media or been on a moun­tain bike guide assess­ment course in the vicin­ity may be aware of this route (iden­ti­fied as route 3 in the ​“Assess­ment of Risks to Adja­cent European sites to inform a Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al” doc­u­ment sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion). If they choose to do this route, for example while oth­er mem­bers of their fam­ily group are using the pro­posed moun­tain bike trails, this could increase dam­age to the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats along the off path sec­tion of the route.

Fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion of the effects on hab­it­ats in rela­tion to the con­ser­va­tion object­ives is there­fore required, due to the poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on:

Acid peat stained lakes and ponds

Acid­ic scree

Alpine and sub­alpine heaths

Blanket bog

page 7 of 23

High alti­tude plant com­munit­ies asso­ci­ated with areas of water seepage

Mont­ane acid grasslands

Plants in crevices on acid rocks

Tall herb communities

1. Cairngorms SPA No sig­ni­fic­ant effects are likely either on the sup­port­ing hab­it­ats or through disturbance:

In rela­tion to sup­port­ing hab­it­ats: NO likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects for any of the qual­i­fy­ing interests

There will be no dir­ect effects on the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing SPA spe­cies 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 trails will not alter the hydro­logy of the SPA. The pro­posed trails are next to exist­ing well used tracks and foot­paths (and build­ings), used by Cairngorm Moun­tain staff and con­tract­ors, walk­ers and (in winter) by ski­ers. The new trails would not encour­age people to go off into areas that are not already well used, as the trails are asso­ci­ated with the main car park and build­ings. While there may be some indir­ect effects on hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the SPA spe­cies (as described for the SAC), these are not con­sidered to be at 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 likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects 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 a moun­tain bike trail area 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 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 rid­ing is proposed.

As the trails are com­par­at­ively short and non-tech­nic­al, aimed at the fam­ily mar­ket as intro­duct­ory trails, they are unlikely to be attract­ive to exper­i­enced moun­tain bikers, who are more likely to seek out trail centres such as Glen­liv­et and Lag­gan Wolftrax. (More exper­i­enced moun­tain bikers already using or attrac­ted to the exist­ing paths and tracks in the vicin­ity will con­tin­ue to be so regard­less of the pro­posed development.)

The ​“Assess­ment of Risks to Adja­cent European sites to inform a Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al” doc­u­ment sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion iden­ti­fies a low or low/​medium like­li­hood of some exist­ing routes being used as a res­ult of vis­it­ors to the pro­posed devel­op­ment. How­ever these exist­ing routes are already present and estab­lished. 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: The assess­ment in rela­tion to caper­cail­lie can be

page 8 of 23

found in Annex I, which also con­cludes no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects.

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 The pro­posed devel­op­ment has the poten­tial to pre­vent the con­ser­va­tion object­ives being met for the River Spey SAC. This would occur due to:

• The very high risk of sed­i­ment release enter­ing the Allt a choire chais water­course that flows into the River Spey SAC dur­ing con­struc­tion work, due to prox­im­ity of works along­side the Allt a choire chais. This would affect the water qual­ity relied upon by the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, and poten­tially smoth­er hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies and their food, there­fore affect­ing dis­tri­bu­tion and pop­u­la­tion levels.

How­ever, the Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment (CMS) sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion should address the risk of sed­i­ment release through appro­pri­ate pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion and con­trol meas­ures, such that the pol­lu­tion risk could be min­im­ised. The imple­ment­a­tion of the Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment would need to be secured by con­di­tion, should plan­ning per­mis­sion be granted.

1. Cairngorms SAC The pro­posed devel­op­ment has the poten­tial to pre­vent the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for the Acid peat stained lakes and ponds, Acid­ic scree, Alpine and sub­alpine heaths, Blanket bog, High alti­tude plant com­munit­ies asso­ci­ated with areas of water seep­age, Mont­ane acid grass­lands, Plants in crevices on acid rocks and Tall herb com­munit­ies hab­it­at qual­i­fy­ing interests (see foot­note below) being met for the Cairngorms SAC through use of the off path route iden­ti­fied in the ​“Assess­ment of Risks to Adja­cent European sites to inform a Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al” doc­u­ment sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion as num­ber 3, which, if left unchecked, over time could cause loc­al­ised dam­age and erosion to the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats iden­ti­fied above, caus­ing dis­turb­ance to and adversely affect­ing the extent, dis­tri­bu­tion, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the hab­it­ats as well as the viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies as com­pon­ents of the hab­it­ats, and so caus­ing the con­di­tion and con­tri­bu­tion of the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats to deteriorate.

How­ever a con­di­tion requir­ing the imple­ment­a­tion of the Mon­it­or­ing Strategy sub­mit­ted by CMSL on 5 May 2022 (Annex II of this HRA) would reduce the risk of dam­age and erosion to a min­im­al level that would allow the con­ser­va­tion object­ives to be met.

It is pos­sible to con­clude that the con­ser­va­tion object­ives could be met because evid­ence to date in and around the ski area and else­where is that hab­it­at dam­age from recre­ation­al use can be suc­cess­fully con­tained by apply­ing well estab­lished upland path man­age­ment tech­niques. The

page 9 of 23

require­ment for mon­it­or­ing, report­ing and remedi­al action would need to be secured by a con­di­tion, should per­mis­sion be granted.

Map show­ing loc­a­tion of path num­ber 4701 (indic­ated by the red arrow) in the wider landscape

Ford Ford Ford Ford AMT Choire Chais MT AAT SKI CENTRE 6422 Base Sta­tion Day odge WR Shiel­ing $112 Ski Tow Fore Ski Tows 5130 5130 709 Prar­mig­an Sta­tion 5010 6519 Ski Tows Tow Ski 79916 1141 2011 014 NCP 7010 8421 Ski Tow Dav­lodge poma 8100 Cas tow 6200. Car park T‑bar Ski Tow 5101 5120 Ski Tow Fla­caill poma 107 Cairn Gorm 1147 Cas head­wearns Radio Relay Sta­tion CC Fia­caill a Choire Chais 4010 Coire an t‑Sneachde park4020 A744/8 8030 7200 CNP CC ⁴⁴⁄₈ 1150 Shiel­ing Sta­tion 2010 HTWhite Lady 6419 West wall East wall Sron an Aon­aich West Wall poma Ski Tows 6419 203 WR M2 Coire na Ciste CNAC 1032 A18 WR M2 7033 Ptar­mig­an tow 4500 Cas CCL 5010 Link path, Ram­part route 702 CGL FRO CANS 4019 FCS Fla­caill Coire an t‑Sneachda 2021 NOP CANL Coire an Lochain par Sneachda bouf­der­field MW 8030 1099 Windy Col Ford A72/8 CMH 469 A72/8. CNP Pater­fal Ford Ford 1150 Cnap Coire na Spreidhe Ciste Mhear­ad Co Cairns A744/8 CO page 10 of 23

Map show­ing the route of path num­ber 4701, includ­ing start and end points and images from the path RAM­PART PATH — START OF AMBER SUR­VEY SEC­TION 1 RAM­PART PATH — PATH NUM­BER 4701 COIRE AN T‑S­NEACHDA-CAIRNGORM ESTATE Allt Coire an t‑Sneachda Fia­caill Co Cairn Ski Tow Fia­caill a’ Choire Chais RAM­PART PAΤΗ — START OF AMBER SUR­VEY SEC­TION 2 Ski Tows Coire Cas RAM­PART PATH — 1141 1131 1099 RAM­PART PAΤΗ — START OF AMBER SUR­VEY SEC­TION 3 RAM­PART PAΤΗ — START OF AMBER SUR­VEY SEC­TION 4 END OF AMBER SUR­VEY SEC­TION 4 Fig­ure 2 — map show­ing the route of path num­ber 4701, includ­ing start and end points and images from the path

STAGE 5: Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?

1. River Spey SAC Provided the below con­di­tion is applied to plan­ning per­mis­sion (should per­mis­sion be gran­ted) requir­ing the Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment to be imple­men­ted, then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity:

Con­di­tion: The Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion imple­men­ted in full, in par­tic­u­lar the pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion and con­trol meas­ures to pre­vent sed­i­ment enter­ing the Allt a choire chais dur­ing construction.

Reas­on: To ensure pol­lu­tion does not enter the River Spey SAC and so avoid an adverse effect on site integrity.

1. Cairngorms SAC Provided the below con­di­tion is applied to plan­ning per­mis­sion (should per­mis­sion be gran­ted), then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity:

page 11 of 23

Con­di­tion: Unless oth­er­wise agreed in writ­ing with CNPA in con­sulta­tion with NatureScot, annu­al mon­it­or­ing to be car­ried out by Cairngorm Moun­tain Scot­land Lim­ited (or suc­cessor organ­isa­tion) fol­low­ing the meth­od­o­logy set out in the Mon­it­or­ing Strategy for Path 4701 doc­u­ment sub­mit­ted by Cairngorm Moun­tain Scot­land Lim­ited to CNPA on 5 May 2022, and with­in 4 months of mon­it­or­ing tak­ing place, report­ing of mon­it­or­ing res­ults to CNPA and NatureScot in writ­ing; and with any remedi­al action required car­ried out by Cairngorm Moun­tain Scot­land Lim­ited (or suc­cessor organ­isa­tion) as dir­ec­ted by CNPA (in con­sulta­tion with NatureScot).

Reas­on: To ensure dam­age to qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats is min­im­ised and so avoid an adverse effect on site integrity.

page 12 of 23

Annex I — caper­cail­lie assess­ment questions

Cairngorms SPA

2022/0046/DET Cairngorm moun­tain bike trails

The ​“Assess­ment of Risks to Adja­cent European sites to inform a Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al” doc­u­ment sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion has been used to inform the below assess­ment for the caper­cail­lie qual­i­fy­ing interest of Cairngorms SPA. The doc­u­ment is based on under­stand­ing of exist­ing and like­li­hood of poten­tial use of the area by moun­tain bikers, com­bined with expert advice from CMSL and DMBinS. This has been 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 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.

QI. 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.

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

No. The pro­posed devel­op­ment is not likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed devel­op­ment: while a moun­tain bike trail area 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 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 rid­ing is proposed.

As the trails are com­par­at­ively short and non-tech­nic­al, aimed at the fam­ily mar­ket as intro­duct­ory trails, they are unlikely to be attract­ive to exper­i­enced moun­tain bikers, who are more likely to seek out trail centres such as Glen­liv­et and Lag­gan Wolftrax. (More exper­i­enced moun­tain bikers already using or attrac­ted to the exist­ing paths and tracks in the vicin­ity will con­tin­ue to be so regard­less of the pro­posed 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.

No. While in the­ory the caper­cail­lie woods around Glen­more could be accessed by cyc­lists either going from the pro­posed devel­op­ment down the ski road or attempt­ing to fol­low exist­ing paths or routes marked on OS maps, one of these paths does not exist on the ground and the ter­rain would deter people from attempt­ing to go very far (due to the unride­able rough and wet ter­rain). The oth­er route has been closed since 2016 due to a sig­ni­fic­ant land­slide. Riders who make it over the land­slide will find them­selves on exist­ing routes close to the road around the Glen­more area, where sig­ni­fic­ant human activ­ity already occurs. People using the pro­posed fam­ily moun­tain bik­ing devel­op­ment would not be equipped or inclined to cre­ate new off path routes accessed from the pro­posed devel­op­ment. There is no known off path moun­tain bike use between the ski area and Glen­more at present, due to the unsuit­able nature of the ter­rain, and high levels of nat­ur­al sur­veil­lance dis­suad­ing any unau­thor­ised inform­al route con­struc­tion. The tar­get mar­ket of people who would be using the pro­posed trails would not have the skills or equip­ment to ride or create

page 13 of 23

Annex I — caper­cail­lie assess­ment questions

and oth­er pop­u­lar loc­al des­tin­a­tions (eg primary schools). Such paths are likely to be used by visitors.

routes though the sur­round­ing terrain.

If QI & Q2 = No, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here

If QI 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).

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.

If Q4 = No for any woods, con­tin­ue to Q5

N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

page 14 of 23

Annex I — caper­cail­lie assess­ment questions

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 as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

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 as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

page 15 of 23

Annex I — caper­cail­lie assess­ment questions

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 as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

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?

N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed:

N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

page 16 of 23

Annex II — mon­it­or­ing strategy document

CAIRNGORM MOUN­TAIN SCOTLAND

Mon­it­or­ing Strategy for Path Num­ber 4701

in rela­tion to plan­ning applic­a­tion 2022/0046/DET, form­a­tion of moun­tain bike track and related infra­struc­ture, Cairngorm Mountain

May 2022

Annex II — mon­it­or­ing strategy document

1. Back­ground As part of ori­gin­al plan­ning per­mis­sion for the funicu­lar rail­way, the oper­at­ors of Cairngorm Moun­tain estate are required to carry out mon­it­or­ing at vari­ous loc­a­tions to record hab­it­at con­di­tion. How­ever this only applies when the funicu­lar is in oper­a­tion. There­fore a mon­it­or­ing strategy is pro­posed for the path iden­ti­fied as hav­ing the poten­tial (albeit low) for increased use as a res­ult of the form­a­tion of moun­tain bike track and related infra­struc­ture at Cairngorm Moun­tain, plan­ning applic­a­tion ref­er­ence 2022/0046/DET. The pro­posed mon­it­or­ing would apply to one path, num­ber 4701 iden­ti­fied in Fig­ures I and 2 below. The pur­pose of the mon­it­or­ing strategy is to avoid an adverse effect on the integ­rity of the Cairngorms Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion (SAC), which the path runs through.

For con­sist­ency and com­par­ab­il­ity, the mon­it­or­ing strategy would use the same meth­od­o­logy as funicu­lar rail­way mon­it­or­ing, known as the AMBER meth­od­o­logy, which was set out in Appendix 3 of the ​“Cairn Gorm Detailed Mon­it­or­ing Scheme for foot­paths” document.

Ford Ford Ford CO Ski Tow Coire na Ciste CNAC West Wall East wall Cairns A744/8 8030 7200 CNP 1150 C Cnap Coire na Spreidhe A72/8. CMH Ciste Mhear­ad Ski Tows T Sron an Aon­aich West Wall poma WR M2 1032 ste tow 7033 Ptar­mig­an tow 040 P AAT 014 7010 8421 Ski Tow Dav­lodge poma Base Sta­tion Day odge 6400 6422 >7020 6419 203 WR M2 AMT Chore Chain AALT SKI CENTRE 6200. Shiel­ing 16011 HTWhite Lady Car park T‑bar Ski Tow 5101 4500 018 NCP 1000 $120 Funicu­lar Rail­way White Lady T‑bar Shiel­ing Sta­tion $112 Ski Tow Fore HT Mi pomaski Tow 6 Coire 5130 Prar­mig­an Sta­tion Ski Tows Tow Ski Ski Tow Fla­caill poma 5130 604 0019 Sum­mit Path Cas tow CCL 5010 CGL CC and MW Cairn Gorm 114417 Cas head­wel­l­airns 04 Radio Relay Sta­tion Fia­caill a’ Choire Chais 4010 Coire an t‑Sneachda parn4020 A Ford Link path, FRO Ram­part route 4702 CANS 402 FCS Fla­caill Coire an t‑Sneachda 2004. 2021 NOP CANL Coire an Lochain pa Sneachda bouf­der­field 1099 Windy Col Fig­ure I — map show­ing loc­a­tion of path num­ber 4701 (indic­ated by the red arrow) in the wider land­scape Pater­fal Annex II — mon­it­or­ing strategy doc­u­ment RAM­PART PATH — START OF AMBER SUR­VEY SEC­TION 1 RAM­PART PATH — START OF AMBER SUR­VEY SEC­TION 2 RAM­PART PATH — PATH NUM­BER 4701 COIRE AN T‑S­NEACHDA-CAIRNGORM ESTATE Allc Coire an t‑Sneachda Fia­caill Co Cairn Ski Tow Fia­caill a’ Choire Chais RAM­PART PATH — START OF AMBER SUR­VEY SEC­TION 3 RAM­PART PAΤΗ — START OF AMBER SUR­VEY SEC­TION 4 END OF AMBER SUR­VEY SEC­TION 4 1141 1131 1099 Ski Tows Coire Cas

Fig­ure 2 — map show­ing the route of path num­ber 4701, includ­ing start and end points and images from the path

1. Pro­posed mon­it­or­ing strategy To ensure dam­age to qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats of the Cairngorms SAC is min­im­ised and so avoid an adverse effect on site integ­rity, the fol­low­ing mon­it­or­ing strategy is proposed:

• Unless oth­er­wise agreed in writ­ing with CNPA in con­sulta­tion with NatureScot, annu­al mon­it­or­ing will be car­ried out by Cairngorm Moun­tain Scot­land Lim­ited (or suc­cessor organ­isa­tion) of path num­ber 4701 shown in fig­ures I and 2 above, fol­low­ing the mod­i­fied AMBER meth­od­o­logy set out in sec­tion 3 below (taken from Appendix 3 of the ​“Cairn Gorm Detailed Mon­it­or­ing Scheme for foot­paths” doc­u­ment), and with­in 4 months of mon­it­or­ing tak­ing place, report­ing of mon­it­or­ing res­ults to CNPA and NatureScot in writ­ing; and with any remedi­al action required car­ried out by Cairngorm Moun­tain Scot­land Lim­ited (or suc­cessor organ­isa­tion) as dir­ec­ted by CNPA (in con­sulta­tion with NatureScot).

1. Mod­i­fied AMBER meth­od­o­logy The below is an extract of the mod­i­fied AMBER meth­od­o­logy from the Cairn Gorm Detailed Mon­it­or­ing Scheme doc­u­ment, which would be used for the pro­posed monitoring:

2

Annex II — mon­it­or­ing strategy doc­u­ment ​“Foot­paths are mon­itored using a mod­i­fied form of the AMBER meth­od­o­logy [Hunt J, Ball R, Baird D, McLeod R, Meighan M (2003) Upland Path Man­age­ment – stand­ards for deliv­er­ing path pro­jects in Scotland’s moun­tains ], a meth­od designed to inform man­agers of the con­di­tion of foot­paths spe­cific­ally with path repair in mind. The mod­i­fied form used in the Mon­it­or­ing Scheme has a mon­it­or­ing remit in mind and there­fore dif­fers in out­look and scope, but may also be used to inform and guide management.

All paths iden­ti­fied for mon­it­or­ing are sur­veyed accord­ing to a pro­gramme, gen­er­ally return­ing every 2 to 5 years. In the inter­im, any reports of prob­lems are invest­ig­ated and dam­age assessed; this could be the res­ult of tramp­ling epis­odes or extreme weath­er events, par­tic­u­larly rainfall.

Oper­a­tion Baseline sur­veys of many of the main paths have been car­ried out, incor­por­at­ing most of the ele­ments of the Amber sur­vey, as lis­ted below. Some meas­ure­ments are made dur­ing the baseline and need not be repeated on each sub­sequent survey:

• Path name and number

• Start loc­a­tion, end location

• Sec­tion num­ber and start location

• Reas­on for change from last section

• Veget­a­tion cov­er around the path section

• Path sur­face material

• Num­ber of paths or braids

• Long gradient

• Cross gradient

The vari­ables which are likely to change as time goes on are meas­ured at each visit:

• Path width, typ­ic­al, max­im­um and minimum

• Eroded depth, typ­ic­al, max­im­um and minimum

• Rough­ness

• Drain­age

• Erosion

• Dynam­ism

• Con­di­tion

• How clear the edge of the path is.

This last meas­ure is addi­tion­al to the Amber sur­vey and oper­ates on the same I to 5 scale as the pre­vi­ous five meas­ures, as shown below:

3

Annex II — mon­it­or­ing strategy document

PATH EDGE VALUE

Edge type

1 No vis­ible path edge; either totally lack­ing in veget­a­tion both on and off path, or veget­a­tion highly dis­con­tinu­ous. 2 Path edge hard to dis­tin­guish; veget­a­tion low and dis­con­tinu­ous 3 Path edges dis­con­tinu­ous with bare ground appar­ent in adja­cent area; veget­a­tion low. May include wholly veget­ated paths and mar­gins. 4 Path edges con­tinu­ous, or nearly so, and well- defined. Edge