Item6Appendix2HRA20220270DETDulichCourtGOS

Cairngorms Item 6 Appendix 2 09 June 2023 Nation­al Park Author­ity Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 6

Appendix 2

2022/0270/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information
Appraised by
Date
Checked by
Date

2022/0270/DET – Erec­tion of 19 houses — change of 10 con­sen­ted prop­er­ties — see descrip­tion below.
A pre­vi­ous HRA was con­duc­ted for 2015/0394/DET 10 afford­able houses & 2016/0060/DET — 43 house and flat plots.
Kar­en Ald­ridge — Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
19 April 2023
NatureScot
Date of con­sulta­tion response from NatureScot

page 1 of 12

INFORM­A­TION

European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected

1) River Spey SAC 2) Anagach Woods SPA’

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)

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

2) Anagach Woods SPA Caper­cail­lie — breeding

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

1 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 II has the poten­tial to affect the wider caper­cail­lie meta­pop­u­la­tion of Badenoch and Strath­spey. Atten­tion has been focused in this HRA on the woods likely to be used reg­u­larly for recre­ation by users of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, which in this case are Anagach SPA. Oth­er caper­cail­lie SPAs and woods were con­sidered dur­ing the ini­tial phase of the assess­ment (see Annex I ques­tion 3) but detect­able effects were ruled out, so they have not been included in this HRA. If how­ever the HRA had 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 12

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

2) Anagach Woods 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:

• 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

page 3 of 12

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)

Con­struc­tion of 19 semi-detached and link-detached houses in a change to the pre­vi­ously con­sen­ted 10 large, detached houses. Con­struc­tion is cur­rently ongo­ing on site and the site has been cleared. The pro­pos­als include the re-design of a SuDS (which has still to be agreed). The River Spey SAC is approx­im­ately 2km down­stream and is con­nec­ted through the Kylin­tra Burn, which runs through the site. Anagach Wood SPA is approx­im­ately I km east of the site.

The pre­vi­ous HRA con­duc­ted in July 2016 con­cluded that the there was no adverse impacts on the River Spey SAC or Anagach Woods SPA. As there have been sev­er­al changes (increase in occu­pancy, change of SuDS loc­a­tion) to the devel­op­ment since the pro­duc­tion of the HRA, a fur­ther assess­ment has been con­duc­ted to assess the impacts of these changes on the des­ig­nated sites.

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.

The Kylin­tra Burn, feeds dir­ectly into the River Spey SAC and runs through the site. Any pol­lu­tion events involving the burn could res­ult in neg­at­ive impacts for the des­ig­nated spe­cies from short term effects such as sed­i­ment released enter­ing the water­course and caus­ing pol­lu­tion chan­ging the water quality.

Otter: Yes LSE. Evid­ence of otter has pre­vi­ously been recor­ded along the Kylin­tra Burn, sug­gest­ing that the water­course is used by commuting/​foraging otters. No suit­able rest­ing sites were iden­ti­fied. There is poten­tial for the ongo­ing con­struc­tion to dis­turb otter (short term) and poten­tial for long term dis­turb­ance from activ­ity dur­ing occu­pa­tion of the houses (e.g. from humans and pets par­tic­u­larly dogs mov­ing around the area).

2) Anagach SPA

page 4 of 12

Caper­cail­lie – Yes poten­tial LSE: from increased human activ­ity by the addi­tion of the occu­pants from the pro­posed development.

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 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, no con­struc­tion ele­ments are pro­posed with­in 10 m of the Kylin­tra there­fore the risk of pol­lu­tion can be man­aged onsite. The cur­rent site is oper­at­ing under a Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment (approved under 2016/0060/DET) which includes pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plans, as long as the site con­tin­ues to oper­ate under this approved doc­u­ment 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).

How­ever, mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures 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

page 5 of 12

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, main­tain­ing a buf­fer from the water­course and ALL con­struc­tion activ­it­ies would allow this con­ser­va­tion object­ive to 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 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

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

page 6 of 12

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) Anagach SPA

Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site:

The dis­tri­bu­tion of caper­cail­lie with­in the site will not be affected as addi­tion­al use of woods (described in Annex I‑II) is not likely to res­ult in addi­tion­al off path activ­ity, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies; struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species:

There will be no effect on the struc­ture, func­tion or sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing caper­cail­lie as a res­ult of the pro­posed devel­op­ment, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

See Annex I‑II for detailed assess­ment. In sum­mary, there would be no addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie over and above what is already occur­ring through use of exist­ing routes in caper­cail­lie woods A, B, D & H. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive can be met.

Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site:

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met, the pop­u­la­tion of caper­cail­lie should not be affected and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

STAGE 5:

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

Provided the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures included in plan­ning applic­a­tion 2016/0060/DET & 2019/0353/DET are con­tin­ued for the con­struc­tion of 2022/0270/DET and a min­im­um buf­fer of 10 m is main­tained dur­ing ALL con­struc­tion activ­it­ies — then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for the River Spey SAC will be met.

page 7 of 12

ANNEX I Caper­cail­lie Assess­ment. 2022/0270/DET Con­struc­tion of 19 houses.

QI. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed development/​associated settlement?	No.
QI: 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.

The cur­rent pro­pos­al is for the remov­al of 10 large plots — ori­gin­ally thought to sup­port 50 people and the con­struc­tion of 19 houses, which will, assum­ing full occu­pancy, sup­port 74 occupants.
The whole devel­op­ment once com­pleted will sup­port 245 people, an approx­im­ate increase of 24 occu­pants from the pre­vi­ously assessed design.
The cur­rent estim­ated pop­u­la­tion of Grant­own on Spey is 2,437 (based on 2020 estim­ates²), this is exclud­ing the Dulicht court devel­op­ment. The addi­tion­al 245 people equates to around a 10% increase in the population.
How­ever, as dis­cussed with­in the pre­vi­ous assess­ments, the devel­op­ment is approx­im­ately 800 m from Anagach SPA and it is not con­sidered likely that the occu­pants of these prop­er­ties would adopt sig­ni­fic­antly dif­fer­ent pat­terns of recre­ation than the exist­ing population.

Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated set­tle­ment?

No — Anagach SPA is approx­im­ately 800 m from the devel­op­ment and the woods are eas­ily access­ible from the major­ity of Grant­own on Spey.

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

2 statistics.gov.scot : Pop­u­la­tion Estim­ates Detailed (Cur­rent Geo­graph­ic Bound­ar­ies) page 8 of 12

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

page 9 of 12

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

page 10 of 12

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

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?	As con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance, there is no need for mitigation.
Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed:	N/​a as no mit­ig­a­tion required.

page 11 of 12

Annex II: Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie woods map

A North Grant­own Cam Camh-Bhrat & Mid Port Gomo Gom an Ruadh Adv­in Advie B Castle Grant & Mid Port Cam Cam-na-Ra Upper Upper Dor­raid Auch­na­jal­lin Auch­na­jal­lin Leftoch Leftoch

A95 C Tom an Aird Glaschoil 0 Geag Lath D Anagach Woods 575 Cot­tat­or Camer­ory E [ Anagach Woods SPA ] Slo­chd ABC Mains of Dal­very Dru­min Glen­live Shin­vil Auch­brick Bora Cam Gas-shore Dreggle Uner Glen­beg Grondale 471 D F North Carr-Bridge Bure Actim­ali­ara­met GRANT­OWN- ON-SPEY Spey 190 2 Crag­gan G Drochan & Dru­muil­lie Dasal A938 Bridge bridge Con­gach Dandale Duthit A939 HELS OF CROM­DALE 547 Lath Tomnay­oulin Dal­lery Tover 419 Dim H Craigmore Woods F Skyn Lynem­era 722 Auch­nar­tow Sinchel A9 nf Cant Дедал Lochan­hully Chase [ Craigmore Woods SPA] Invor­laidna Kin­veachy Forest [ Kin­veachy Forest SPA] Loch Vaa Garten Woods [ Aber­nethy Forest SPA ] Forest Lodge North Rothiemurchus E Car­rbridge H Lecity Spir A95 Gaome Bridge of 10 Nethy Bridge Dirha Brown Culfach­ie Sliemerd 14 Dai­na­hait­nach East Grol Ke Lat­tach 5616 Lodge J K L M [ Cairngorms SPA] N South Rothiemurchus OUN­TAINS O Glen­more P Inshriach Own an Q Uath Lochans area 900 A Chateach 000 Cam Lyndhut An KIN­GUSSIE Newlo­timore Boat of Endoch Beirn Gre­sham eachy Cavt Allt Laray J Rarten Forest 678 Avi­alachan Aun­dorach Tore Hi P Tul­loch Forest Lodge Dor­back Surd Auchig­ur­ish Aviemore Moat Water or Anak T Spey­side Way Milon 501 Tomin­toul Cety Suidhe Mhar 04 Delmahe Dan­bath Cau Loge Mad­hor­ach Eraes of Aber­methy BRE Blairmamar­row Farau Qash­nor Cha­p­al­in­an Col­lege of Sodan Gan M60 Lad­der His Liv A939 792 The Secich 718 17 89701 dan M Oeyelache Ante 511 Spay­barik Kino­raig Ag Inver Hoxe D Fushi­abridge Bal­nes Inshriach Forest M idge Crn است Che­star 700 வேர் 200 711 Ge C Co Cales Ово Www Tha Fol­char Ο Sa Gane Fean­inge Nothiem­gin­ur Гастрит Fon­cile 1000 Erig Fat­wa More 1151 721 CAIRN GORM 1088 GLEN ON CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK CAIRNGORM Glen Markkin Glen Ban­stvor Omg Dege Lag­gin Bal­gov­ran A86 Lynk-crack Ledjo Tromie Rutil­wen nar­radu Drum­quish Jerome Lodge Cho­maraig Бл Gre­lu­lan Sw 1400 ひら Chau­cern 1100 900 Santange D 970 +11006 Brooriach 1184 1205 MOUN­TAINS JA Rake 627 Ghen Fesh­ie 1000 BEN MAC­DUI Asuh­ban 1049 Geoch Co 1291 Cen Orde 10 900 My Cairn Toul Gay gawy 1218 100 1007 Dullay The Dev­ilfo است Wmadh BEINN A BHUIRD The Bru­ach Forest of Gleivon S Suchf 1002 Lush­aidh an 1104 Darm Bra­che 1120 BEN AVON Canv LINDE 1479 Cam D 900 000 5 ன்மீகம் Dul Dhing Wars Ges Charm (073 Cock Bridgo Coln Casile Delsalamph Cer­garf Toma 704 600 Canle Sede Bom Co Co Kilo­met­ers Mall Hal­nait Maini of Orith­ie Droche Se

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 12 of 12