Item5Appendix2HRA20220305DETNethyHousing

Cairngorms Item 5 Appendix 2 11 August 2023 Nation­al Park Author­ity Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 5

Appendix 2

2022/0305/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

| Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al | 2022/0305/DET Erec­tion of 21 dwell­ings. | inform­a­tion | | Appraised by | Kar­en Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer | Date | 20 April 2023 | Checked by | NatureScot | Date | Date of con­sulta­tion response from NatureScot

page 1 of 13

INFORM­A­TION European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected 1) River Spey SAC 2) Aber­nethy Forest SPA 3) Craigmore Wood SPA

The Cairngorms SAC is approx­im­ately 395 m from the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, how­ever no con­nectiv­ity is con­sidered between the SAC qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures and the fea­tures found with­in the devel­op­ment site.

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)

1) River Spey SAC Otter Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel Sea lamprey Atlantic salmon

2) Aber­nethy Forest SPA Breed­ing: caper­cail­lie dot­ter­el golden eagle mer­lin osprey per­eg­rine Scot­tish crossbill

3) Craigmore Wood SPA Breed­ing Capercaillie.

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

page 2 of 13

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. Main­tain 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

2) Aber­nethy Forest SPA

3) Craigmore Wood 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: • 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 13

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1: What is the plan or project?

Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)

Con­struc­tion of 21 houses of a mix of detached and semi- detached 2 and bed­room houses. The devel­op­ment will include asso­ci­ated mains ser­vices and roads infra­struc­ture and is loc­ated on Sta­tion Road, Nethybridge.

Ground clear­ance includ­ing remov­al of exist­ing scrub will be required to pre­pare the devel­op­ment site. The devel­op­ment site is imme­di­ately adja­cent to the River Nethy, which is part of the River Spey SAC and the site is sep­ar­ated from the River Nethy via Sta­tion Road. There is no obvi­ous hydro­lo­gic­al link between the devel­op­ment site and the River Nethy.

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

No

STAGE 3: Is the plan or pro­ject (either alone or in-com­bin­a­tion with oth­er plans or pro­jects) likely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the site(s)?

1) River Spey SAC Atlantic salmon/​Sea Lamprey/​Freshwater Pearl Mus­sel: YES LSE from short term effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion, through poten­tial pol­lu­tion events such as sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity or spillages of oils/​fuels on or around the site entrance, enter­ing River Nethy and caus­ing pol­lu­tion chan­ging the water qual­ity, part of the River Spey SAC.

Otter: YES LSE from short term dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity and then long term dis­turb­ance from activ­ity dur­ing occu­pa­tion of the houses (e.g. from humans and pets par­tic­u­larly dogs mov­ing around the area).

2) Aber­nethy Forest SPA Dot­ter­el, golden eagle, mer­lin, osprey, per­eg­rine and Scot­tish cross­bill: NO LSE. No suit­able breed­ing hab­it­ats for these qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies are found with­in the devel­op­ment site or with­in dis­turb­ance dis­tances. The site is imme­di­ately adja­cent to hous­ing and com­mer­cial prop­er­ties and the cur­rent use of the site includes reg­u­lar pub­lic access along the Spey­side Way.

Caper­cail­lie: YES LSE. There will be no dir­ect impacts on the SPA hab­it­ats, with the devel­op­ment being approx­im­ately 530 m from the nearest point of the SPA. How­ever, there will

page 4 of 13

be indir­ect effects on breed­ing caper­cail­lie due the increase of people poten­tially access­ing Aber­nethy Forest SPA, which is eas­ily access­ible from the devel­op­ment site through the Spey­side Way.

3) Craigmore Wood SPA Caper­cail­lie: YES LSE. There will be no dir­ect impacts on the SPA hab­it­ats, with the devel­op­ment being approx­im­ately Ikm from the nearest point of the SPA. How­ever, there will be indir­ect effects on breed­ing caper­cail­lie due the increase of people poten­tially access­ing Craigmore Wood SPA, which is access­ible from the devel­op­ment site.

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):

Atlantic Sal­mon & Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mussel

2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic salmon/​Freshwater Pearl Mus­sel through­out the site

The cur­rent and poten­tial dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon or FWPM with­in the site would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the water­course. How­ever, pol­lu­tion from nearby con­struc­tion activ­it­ies (e.g. sed­i­ment, fuels or oils) could indir­ectly cause the dis­tri­bu­tion to change due to changes in water qual­ity (tem­por­ary) and, if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment reach the water­course, through smoth­er­ing of hab­it­ats which are used by sal­mon for spawning/​juveniles and hab­it­ats suit­able for sup­port­ing FWPM (long term).

How­ever, due to the lack of dir­ect hydro­lo­gic­al con­nectiv­ity between the devel­op­ment and the SAC hab­it­ats mean that the risk of pol­lu­tion can be man­aged. A pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is recom­men­ded. Mit­ig­a­tion should include stand­ard good prac­tice, such as main­tain­ing a min­im­um 50 m buf­fer for stor­ing chemicals/​concrete wash out or any oth­er poten­tial pol­lut­ing activ­ity (SEPA WAT-SG-75). Oth­er rel­ev­ant Guid­ance for Pol­lu­tion Doc­u­ments should also be referred to and imple­men­ted on site (i.e. GPP5, GPP8, GPP21, GPP22) If a pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted — this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon & Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

The cur­rent and poten­tial res­tor­a­tion of the dis­tri­bu­tion of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM with­in the 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).

page 5 of 13

How­ever, mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures iden­ti­fied for 2b above would reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion reach­ing the water­course to a min­im­al level and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would 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 & 2c, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies to indir­ectly affect the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing these spe­cies which may in turn lead to a change in dis­tri­bu­tion or in change in health of the sup­port­ing spe­cies. How­ever with the imple­ment­a­tion of the mit­ig­a­tion men­tioned in 2b the risk of pol­lu­tion events there­fore the devel­op­ment would not hinder the dis­tri­bu­tion or vital­ity of the host species.

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 as a viable com­pon­ent of site. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

Sea Lamprey

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

The cur­rent dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey would not be dir­ectly impacted upon by the devel­op­ment pro­pos­als as no works will take place with­in the water­course. 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. Due to the lack of dir­ect con­nectiv­ity between the site and the SAC, a pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan detail­ing stand­ard good prac­tice con­struc­tion activ­ity will reduce the risk of acci­dent­al pol­lu­tion and there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

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

The cur­rent suit­able hab­it­ats for sup­port­ing sea lamprey will not be dir­ectly impacted upon as no works will take place with­in the 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 stand­ard pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion meas­ures will reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion enter­ing the water­course there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

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

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives for sea lamprey can be met through the implementation

page 6 of 13

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

The dis­tri­bu­tion of otter with­in the site may be dir­ectly affected in the long term through dis­turb­ance caused by increased human activ­ity, par­tic­u­larly off-lead dog walk­ing, shift­ing the pop­u­la­tion away from the River Nethy. (This effect would be revers­ible should dis­turb­ance cease.). How­ever the devel­op­ment site is with­in an already heav­ily dis­turbed area and there­fore it is pos­sible that any otter which use the River Nethy have become habitu­ated to the noise and pres­ence of dogs.

An otter rest­ing site was iden­ti­fied approx­im­ately 100 m down­stream of the devel­op­ment site. The rest­ing site was assessed as being non-breed­ing (it is a fairly exposed with no access under­ground). As the iden­ti­fied rest­ing site is more than 30m from the devel­op­ment site bound­ary and is shiel­ded from view of the devel­op­ment through ripari­an veget­a­tion, includ­ing mature trees. No dis­turb­ance of this rest­ing fea­tures is con­sidered likely.

There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

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

The dis­tri­bu­tion of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter would not be dir­ectly affected. The pol­lu­tion issues iden­ti­fied for the oth­er fresh­wa­ter spe­cies men­tioned, could affect otter prey spe­cies, how­ever the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures would reduce the risk of this occur­ring to a min­im­al level and so the con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

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.

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

As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives would be met, 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.

2) Aber­nethy Forest SPA

Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies and Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

There will be no dir­ect or indir­ect effects on the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing caper­cail­lie due to the loc­a­tion of the devel­op­ment site in rela­tion to the SPA (>500m). There­fore, these conservation

page 7 of 13

object­ives should be met.

No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

The assess­ment in Annex I res­ults in a con­clu­sion that there will not be any sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of caper­cail­lie, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site

As there should not be sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies, the dis­tri­bu­tion of caper­cail­lie should be unaf­fected and there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met, this con­ser­va­tion object­ives should be unaf­fected by the pro­posed development.

3) Aber­nethy Forest SPA

Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies and Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

There will be no dir­ect or indir­ect effects on the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing caper­cail­lie due to the loc­a­tion of the devel­op­ment site in rela­tion to the SPA (>1km). There­fore, these con­ser­va­tion object­ives should be met.

No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

The assess­ment in Annex I res­ults in a con­clu­sion that there will not be any sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of caper­cail­lie, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site

As there should not be sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies, the dis­tri­bu­tion of caper­cail­lie should be unaf­fected and there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met, this con­ser­va­tion object­ives should be unaf­fected by the pro­posed development.

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

1) River Spey SAC

Provided the devel­op­ment of a pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan, which should be agreed with the CNPA pri­or to any devel­op­ment com­men­cing on site, is secured by con­di­tion and imple­men­ted, then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there­fore there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity for the River Spey SAC. Reas­on: To avoid pol­lu­tion reach­ing the River Nethy (part of the SAC).

page 8 of 13

Annex 1: 2022/0305/DET Caper­cail­lie Assess­ment of Aber­nethy Forest SPA & Craigmore Wood SPA

| QI. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to | No. | change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns | There is an exist­ing high level of recre­ation­al (includ­ing walk­ing, run­ning, cyc­ling & dog walk­ing) | of recre­ation around the pro­posed | use by both res­id­ents and vis­it­ors on exist­ing paths such as the Spey­side Way which con­nects the | development/​associated set­tle­ment? | devel­op­ment site and Aber­nethy Forest SPA. Craigmore Wood SPA has sim­il­ar levels and types of | Q1: This and Q2 are included as screen­ing ques­tions to | activ­it­ies and is access­ible from the devel­op­ment through a net­work of exist­ing paths, includ­ing a | fil­ter out any devel­op­ments that aren’t likely to have | path net­work through Craigmore Wood. | changed levels or pat­terns of recre­ation. | Assum­ing full occu­pancy of each of the pro­posed prop­er­ties, this would res­ult in an addi­tion­al 96 | | people resid­ing in Nethy­bridge. The cur­rent estim­ated pop­u­la­tion of Nethy­bridge is 828 (as of | | 2020). The addi­tion­al 96 people equates to around a 11% increase in the pop­u­la­tion. How­ever, it | | is unlikely that all the occu­pants of the devel­op­ment will vis­it Aber­nethy Woods & Craigmore | | Wood SPA and few­er still are likely to ven­ture off the des­ig­nated paths with­in the wood­lands. | Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly | No — Aber­nethy Forest, Craigmore Wood & oth­er non-des­ig­nated wood­lands which may sup­port | more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site | caper­cail­lie, in the wider environs from the devel­op­ment site are eas­ily access­ible from the | than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated | major­ity of the devel­op­ments with­in Nethy­bridge and the neigh­bour­ing vil­lages. | set­tle­ment? | It is not con­sidered that any new inform­al paths with­in either Aber­nethy Forest or Craigmore | Q2: This is included to ensure the effect of oth­er­wise | Wood will be developed due to this devel­op­ment. | 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. |

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 | N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need be used reg­u­larly for recre­ation by users of | for fur­ther assessment.

page 9 of 13

| 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 | N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need | devel­op­ment site pre­dicted to under­take | for fur­ther assess­ment. | 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 If Q4 = Yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed. Note and con­tin­ue to Q5.

| Q5: Are each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3 | N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need | already estab­lished loc­a­tions for recre­ation? | for fur­ther assess­ment. | 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 |

page 10 of 13

basis of pro­fes­sion­al knowledge.

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, | N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need | are users of the devel­op­ment site pre­dicted | for fur­ther assess­ment. | 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. |

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, | N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need | could the pre­dicted level of use by res­id­ents | for fur­ther assess­ment. | / 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 |

page 11 of 13

| 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%. |

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 | As con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance, there is no need for | con­sequence of this devel­op­ment site in | mit­ig­a­tion. | rela­tion to each wood lis­ted at Q3? | | Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed: | N/​a as no mit­ig­a­tion required.

page 12 of 13

Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie woods map

[Image of map would go here]

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

page 13 of 13