Item6Appendix2HRA20230199DETBalliefurth

Cairngorms Item 6 Appendix 2 8 Decem­ber 2023 Nation­al Park Author­ity Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 6

Appendix 2

2023/0199/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information	2023/0199/DET Erec­tion of 7No. self cater­ing cab­ins, toi­let and shower block, erec­tion of man­agers’ house
Appraised by	Kar­en Ald­ridge – Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer.
Date	22 June 2023
Checked by	NatureScot
Date	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) Craigmore Wood SPA’

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)
1) River Spey SAC	Otter Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel Sea lamprey Atlantic salmon
2) Craigmore Wood 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

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 Kin­veachy Forest SPA and the asso­ci­ated Boat of Garten, Loch Garten, Glen­more and Rothiemurchus woods (woods I, J, K, L, M, N and O on the map). 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. 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

2) 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: 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 a house and gar­age along­side the con­struc­tion of 7 self-cater­ing hol­i­day pods and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture- toi­let block, park­ing loc­ated with­in agri­cul­tur­al land at the set­tle­ment of Boat of Bal­lie­furth, Grant­own on Spey. The pro­posed devel­op­ment is 100 m south of River Spey SAC and 600 m north west of Craigmore Wood SPA.
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)?
River Spey SAC
Otter: YES there will be LSE	short term dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity and then long term dis­turb­ance from activ­ity dur­ing occu­pa­tion of the house/​holiday lets (eg from humans and pets par­tic­u­larly dogs mov­ing around the area).
Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel, Sea Lamprey & Atlantic Sal­mon — YES LSE	from short term effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion, through sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity enter­ing the River Spey and caus­ing pol­lu­tion chan­ging the water quality.
1) Craigmore Wood SPA
Breed­ing caper­cail­lie – Yes LSE:	There is poten­tial for the occu­pants of the pro­posed devel­op­ment (capa­city for 36 people) to recre­ate in the woods, which are con­nec­ted to the site through pub­lic roads and Craigmore wood are known to sup­port breed­ing capercaillie.
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 2d for

page 4 of 12

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).

A pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is recom­men­ded through con­di­tion. The pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan 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).

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 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. With the imple­ment­a­tion of the mit­ig­a­tion men­tioned in 2b the risk of pol­lu­tion events will be reduced 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

page 5 of 12

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. 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 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 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. How­ever the River Spey is sub­ject to access with the Spey­side Way run­ning along­side the river just north of the pro­posed site (it is not dir­ectly adja­cent to the River Spey through the pro­posed site). Giv­en the levels of recre­ation­al access of the River Spey it is likely that any otters with­in this ter­rit­ory are habitu­ated to some levels of human dis­turb­ance and the addi­tion of the form­al­ised camp­site is unlikely to sig­ni­fic­antly change otter beha­viour. 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,

page 6 of 12

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.

1. Craigmore Wood SPA Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site The pro­posed devel­op­ment is not expec­ted to increase any off-path activ­ity through­out the site, there­fore the dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies is not expec­ted to be impacted upon. It is con­sidered likely that this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. See Annex 1 – 11 for full assess­ment. Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies & Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies There will be no impacts on the hab­it­ats asso­ci­ated with the site, with the pro­posed devel­op­ment approx­im­ately 600 m from the nearest point. There­fore it is con­sidered likely that this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies The pro­posed devel­op­ment is unlikely to lead to a sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance on the des­ig­nated spe­cies See assess­ment in Annex I‑II. There­fore, it is con­sidered likely that this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met, the pop­u­la­tion of caper­cail­lie should not be adversely affected there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

page 7 of 12

Annex I 2023/0199/DET Erec­tion of owners/​managers accom­mod­a­tion; erec­tion of 7 self cater­ing cab­ins, shower/​toilet block. Boat of Balliefurth

QI. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed development/​associated settlement?	Yes in rela­tion to access routes closest to the development.
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.	Craigmore Wood (Fig­ure 1, H) is loc­ated approx­im­ately 600 m from the pro­posed camp­site loc­a­tion, with two forestry tracks provid­ing access into the wood­land approx­im­ately 0.35 km to the north­east and 0.7 km to the south­w­est of the access point of the pro­posed devel­op­ment on the B970. Neither of these access points have form­al­ised park­ing and there is no form­al­ised ped­es­tri­an access along the B970 to these entry points. It is con­sidered that cur­rently these tracks will be used by the nearby prop­er­ties and likely from oth­er loc­als for recre­ation such as dog walk­ing and cyc­ling. Giv­en the prox­im­ity to the camp­site, it is likely that at least some vis­it­ors will use these access points and the net­work of tracks with­in the wood­land for sim­il­ar recre­ation. Assum­ing that the pro­posed site is at full occu­pancy all year round (four people in each of the sev­en pods and eight people resid­ing with­in the domest­ic dwell­ing) that is an addi­tion­al 36 people in the area, which is cur­rently sparsely occupied.
Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated settlement?	No. Des­pite the rel­at­ively short dis­tance, access from the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, would involve a 0.35 km walk along the B970 (to the nearest access into the wood­land) with no form­al ped­es­tri­an access. The wider Craigmore Wood is also eas­ily access­ible from the south at Nethy­bridge, which includes form­al­ised walks and pro­vi­sion for car park­ing. Addi­tion­ally, the pro­posed camp­site allows for easy access onto the Spey­side Way. It is pos­sible to con­sider that vis­it­ors to the area would either enjoy the Spey­side Way or seek out form­al­ised routes with park­ing options (e.g. wood­land walks around Nethy­bridge or 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.
If QI & Q2 = No, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here
If QI or Q2 = Yes, con­tin­ue to Q3

page 8 of 12

Q3. Which caper­cail­lie woods are likely to be used reg­u­larly for recre­ation by users of the devel­op­ment site at detect­able levels? (list all)	Giv­en the prox­im­ity to the devel­op­ment Craigmore Wood, is con­sidered likely to be used for recre­ation by users of this devel­op­ment but not con­sidered that it would be reg­u­lar use. Vis­it­ors to the area are likely to vis­it oth­er woods in the area asso­ci­ated with tour­ist amen­it­ies, such as Anagach Woods SPA (Fig­ure I, D)) and per­haps even Rothiemurchus (Fig­ure 1, M & N) and Glen­more (Fig­ure 1, O) which are pop­u­lar loc­a­tions with vis­it­ors to the area. It is con­sidered unlikely that all the pro­posed vis­it­ors to this devel­op­ment would all go to the same place at the same time. There­fore, any effects of the num­ber of vis­it­ors to the wood­lands would be dis­persed and not con­sidered a detect­able change to the exist­ing levels (con­sist­ing of cur­rent pop­u­la­tion of Grant­own, Nethy­bridge and Aviemore using the sites).
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?	No off path recre­ation­al activ­it­ies are expec­ted. Vis­it­ors to estab­lished ​‘camp­sites’ are con­sidered more likely to stick to estab­lished paths/​tracks.
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 already estab­lished loc­a­tions for recreation?	Yes. Craigmore Wood has a level of activ­ity, espe­cially around the form­al­ised routes at Nethy Bridge. The access point to Craigmore Wood, to the north­east of the devel­op­ment cur­rently serves as access for a res­id­en­tial prop­erty. It is con­sidered that the oth­er woods such as Anagach Woods and Rothiemurchus would be sub­ject to heav­ier more fre­quent activ­ity, giv­en there
Q5: This is included because if users of the devel­op­ment site are likely to access previously

page 9 of 12

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.	prox­im­ity to lar­ger settlements.
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)	No. It is likely that people stay­ing in the pro­posed site will under­take sim­il­ar activ­it­ies to exist­ing users. There is no reas­on to assume that vis­it­ors to the devel­op­ment will recre­ate at earli­er or later times than what is cur­rently exist­ing with­in the woodland.
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.	No info is known on wheth­er the pro­posed camp­ing pods will allow dogs, how­ever giv­en the lack of form­al­ised ped­es­tri­an access and the cur­rent loc­a­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment (large open field with space for dog walk­ing) it is reas­on­able to think that any early morning/​late even­ing dog walks will take place with­in the imme­di­ate vicin­ity of the pro­posed development.
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	No the poten­tial level of use would not sig­ni­fic­antly increase the over­all levels of recreation.

page 10 of 12

increase over­all levels of recre­ation­al use?	Although Grant­own on Spey is geo­graph­ic­ally closer to the pro­posed site, Craigmore Wood is accessed dir­ectly from Nethy­bridge, there­fore it would make sense that the major­ity of loc­al res­id­ents using Craigmore for recre­ation are from Nethybridge.
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%.	Based on the HRA for the LDP in 2020 the pop­u­la­tion for Nethy Bridge was estim­ated at 747 people with the pop­u­la­tion pre­dicted to increase to 766 in 2024 and reduce to 751 in 2029 (based on the num­ber of hous­ing sites alloc­ated with­in the LDP and pre­dicted pop­u­la­tion changes). Assum­ing that the hol­i­day accom­mod­a­tion and res­id­en­tial prop­erty are occu­pied all year round there would be an addi­tion­al 36 people in the loc­al area. This would be an increase of approx­im­ately 4% of the pop­u­la­tion asso­ci­ated with Nethy­bridge. Giv­en that the hol­i­day prop­er­ties are likely to be skewed to the asso­ci­ated tour­ist sea­sons, there are likely to be peri­ods when they are not fully occupied.
If Q4‑7 = No for al I woods, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here
If Q4, 5, 6 and/​or 7 = Yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed
Con­clu­sion: Is mit­ig­a­tion needed as a con­sequence of this devel­op­ment site in rela­tion to each wood lis­ted at Q3?	No. No mit­ig­a­tion is required.
Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed:	N/A

page 11 of 12

Annex II. Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie woods map (con­sidered wood­lands high­lighted in blue) A North Grant­own B Castle Grant & Mid Port C Tom an Aird Anagach Woods D [Anagach Woods SPA ] E Slo­chd F North Carr-Bridge G Drochan & Dru­muil­lie Craigmore Woods H [ Craigmore Woods SPA] J K [ Kin­veachy Forest Kin­veachy Forest SPA] Loch Vaa Garten Woods Aber­nethy Forest SPA ] L Forest Lodge M North Rothiemurchus [ Cairngorms SPA] N South Rothiemurchus UNTAINS O Glen­more P Inshriach Q Uath Lochans area Own An Hen­can­ton 910 Auch A Chaleach 000 Gam 17 Lyn­chat 10 KIN­GUSSIE 701 New­lan­more Glen Markie Gler Manchver Dong Onge Dhal Lag­gan Grith­ie Bal­go­man A86 Drum­quish Full­wan bor­ra­ciu Ladge Guya Ded­ivd And 627 Lmz­aak Lidge Tromie Cam né me Advie Upper Dor­raid Auchraal­lin Leftoch A95 Glaschol Geag Lath 575 Cotta Camerd A B Delle C Mains of Dalvey Dru­min *430 Glenli Shen­vil Auch­brick Bone Dreggle Cem Gas-sho Grondale Amer Glen­beg 471 D Achmathemet GRANT­OWN- ON-SPEY Spe A938 Danale Crag­gan Bridge Con­gash A939 HELS OF CHOM­DALE Aver Dis­allery Strat A 547 Lath Cam Tom­ra­voulin Duthi F Sinchd A9 Skye of Cam Lynen­era 702 Aschnar­row Queypan af Chase Lochan­hully H Spi Invor­laid­ina E Car­bridger 40 495 Gaome Bridge of Wethy Bridge D Brown Spey­side Way Clash­noir Frieso Can­tin­et Crapedtown Cul­lach­ie 14 Brchtele Milon Dai­na­hait­nach Grol Ke Lat­tach 565 Lodge Endka­chr 501 Tomin­toul Col­lege of Scalan Lod­der His Boat of Beir­an eachy Cavt All Loray J Barten emathy Forest 578 Avi­alachan Aun­dorach Tore Hi) Tul­loch Forest Dot­back auro Sarche Mhan Delmahe Deloth Stge Cari Wind­hor­ach Auchi­goor­ish Eracs of Aber­netty AUR­REK Da Lath A939 792 Blairmamar­row The Secach 18 Ghan MV Aviemore 447 M idge Anal Om Thee Par Chark 200 The Fol­char Alvie Ο Sac­re A Saxdte Nothiem sine 511 Гастуйте Byn­ack Spey­barik Cute Funicu­lar 1009 Kin­craig Inver Hox D Elrig Fat­war Mive 2 721 A9Aten Feshiebridge CAIRN GORM Fart Bal­nest 108 Inshriach CAIRNGORM Forest Grehla бол A Cuban 200 W Bro­eriach 1184 1205 Cho­maraig 4110 MOUN­TAINS Drick Saor 1206-> BEN MAC­DUI Gen Fesh­ie Amun 1049 Gro 1871 Gen Orde Derry Den Mar Cairn Toul 900 907 Doon Birinc 190 Db10 1017 1200 Delay The Devia Unaih Am cam né Feen­ange GE Far­maruh 702 711 Om Стар Cod Edera Www GON CAIRNGORMS The Branch Forest of Glenагол NATION­AL PARK Grow Chare (073 Cock Bridgo Colm Castle Detadanaph Can­garff Tomah 704 600 Can Lea Se under

1. Blown Cou HV Sluchd Leshandh an 1002 Danh Choche 1121 BEN AVON Ganv Lae­ge 1173 Cam Ec 900 5 000 M Έχεις στι C Ay Kilo­met­ers Mial DETV Bel­nait Dusche S Main­iof BEINN A BHUIRD

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