Peatland ACTION - Assessing herbivore impact for Peatland ACTION applications

         

Peatland ACTION projects are developed and delivered across Scotland typically on blanket bog or lowland raised bog habitats. Following restoration, rewetted peatlands with low herbivore pressure respond quicker due to more rapid vegetation recovery. Conversely, higher herbivore pressure has the potential to compromise the ecological recovery and result in the project objectives not being achieved.

Herbivore pressure is assessed within the context of habitat condition assessments. Deer and/or livestock densities are used as a guide to inform the likelihood of impacts on a project site and inform the potential risk they pose to restoration. Cumulative impact of all herbivores must be considered across a project area. For example, applicants who are also within AECS must provide a grazing calendar where stocking is above the sustainable grazing level. Applications are unlikely to be supported where there is limited or insufficient data available as the potential risk cannot be assessed. For sites where restoration will and have taken place, the recommended sustainable grazing levels^a on blanket bog and raised bog is less than 0.02 Livestock Units^b (LUs)/Ha/Yr. 

For Peatland ACTION applications, applicants must submit information pertinent to the restoration area, to demonstrate the current grazing pressure is within the sustainable levels (0.00-0.02 LUs/Ha/Yr). Herbivore Impact Assessments (HIA) are now compulsory for all Peatland ACTION applications. Additional supporting information may include: livestock units, deer densities, Deer Management Group (DMG)/Deer Management Plans (DMP), etc. 

Table 1 outlines the key considerations which will inform our assessment of the risk. Peatland ACTION encourages applications which fall within the low, low-moderate risk category of Table 1. If, on balance, the overall risk is deemed to be moderate to high, then NatureScot is unlikely to fund the project. Ultimately, this approach will allow Peatland ACTION to make informed and consistent decisions on the risk that herbivores pose to all proposed restoration applications. 

HIA method requirements

• HIAs are now compulsory for all Peatland ACTION applications for the 2026-27 application round (September 2026) and onwards. The currently accepted HIA methodologies* are Wild Deer Best Practice and the MacDonald (1998).
• We require the minimum number of survey plots; 
  • 10-20 Ha: 10 plots
  • 21-50 Ha: 20 plots; 
  • 51-200 Ha: 30 plots; 
  • 201+ Ha: additional 10 plots for every 100 ha (300 Ha: 40 plots; 400 Ha: 50 plots, etc.) 
• HIA surveys must be undertaken during the most appropriate season, namely late winter/early spring. This is timed before new growth begins, to clearly observe winter browsing impacts on peatland vegetation, and early vegetation emergence during early spring. Note: we recognise this will be not feasible for applications to be submitted for September 2026.
• Where a sample plot result returns as ‘not applicable’ or shrubs/heather ‘not present’, list palatable species** which are present and the extent to which they are browsed, provide general observations of habitat condition and herbivore use, or repeat survey until a plot with that species is located.
• Include a spatial data geopackage for use in QGIS as part of your application. Photos will not require submission but may be requested at a later stage. 
• Provide PDF maps of grazing and trampling HIA results. Ensure that plot numbers are included on the maps. Example maps of how HIA data should be displayed and additional information, such as seasonal or preferred habitat use.

Table 1 – Peatland ACTION herbivore impact assessment matrix

Assessment criteria	Very low risk	Low risk	Medium risk	High risk
Deer densityc	0-2/km2	>2-5/km2	>5-10/km2	>10/km2
Livestock grazingd	0.00 LUs/Ha/Yr	<0.02 LUs/Ha/Yr   Or, if in AECS/BPS/LFASS: <0.075 LUs/Ha/Yr	>0.02 LUs/Ha/Yr    Or, if in AECS/BPS/LFASS: >0.075 LUs/Ha/Yr	>0.075 LUs/Ha/Yr and not in AECS/BPS/LFASS
NatureScot Local Team consultation (WMO, Area, PAO)	Supportive statement	Supportive statement	Supportive statement but with concerns raised	Unsupportive statement and/or concerns raised
Landholding part of DMG or has a Section 7/DMP in place?	Part of DMG and evidence of managing levels to below the required density. DMP in place. Section 7 not required.	Part of DMG which is actively managed with evidence of a commitment to effectively controlling numbers to the levels required, supported by evidence of a history of reducing deer numbers. DMP in place Section 7 not required	Part of DMG which is actively managed, however no evidence of effectively controlling numbers to the levels required.  DMP in place Section 7 (activee)	Part of DMG which is not actively managed and no evidence of effectively controlling numbers to the levels required.    Or not part of DMG and/or no DMP and no evidence of effective management. Section 7 (inactive)
Population density target	Commitment to maintain target density of <10km2 in the longer term	Commitment to achieve target density of <10/km2 within a realistic timeframe (i.e. within one year following restoration).	Commitment to maintain target density to 10/km2.	Commitment to increase target density to 10/km2 or higher.
Population density trend	Demonstrable and sustained downward trend, or very low levels being maintained	Demonstrable downward trend.	Sustained trend to maintain levels at, or around, 10/km2.	Upward trend, or a commitment to maintain levels at, or above, 10/km2.
Herbivore Impact Assessment (HIA)f Must be provided where available	All the HIA points are Low	Majority or all the HIA points are Low, Low-Moderate.	Majority or all the HIA points are Moderate, or Moderate-High. Where no survey data is available, an HIA will be required as part of the application.	Majority or all the HIA points Moderate, Moderate-High, or any High.  Where no survey data is available, an HIA will be required as part of the application.

 

Table 2 - Peatland ACTION herbivore impact data requirements

Data	Compulsory/ optional	Dataset	Purpose + data requirements	Data requirements
Herbivore Impact Assessment (HIA)	Compulsory	Spatial data geopackage for use in QGIS.   Separate PDF maps for grazing and trampling results (with plots numbered on map).	HIA survey results to indicate level of trampling and grazing impacts across the restoration area.	Compulsory Minimum survey points required; 10-20 Ha: 10 plots; 21-50 Ha: 20 plots; 51-200 Ha: 30 plots; 201+ Ha: additional 10 plots for every 100 ha (300 Ha: 40 plots; 400 Ha: 50 plots, etc.)    Use comments column to provide a description of overall impacts, as well as observations on usage patterns and management activities (including conditions between points) For example, burning, tracking corridors, feeding stations.
Population (deer) density / population modelling	Compulsory	Number/km2	Provide indicative deer density within the estate.	Ensure data inform deer population modelling is the most recent and up to date. Describe how much of this area deer have access to i.e. the open range area only where herbivores are not excluded by fences etc. it is worth speaking to stalkers and deer managers to best capture the local knowledge.
Deer Management Group (DMG)Plan/HIA	Optional (could help to support High risk application)	DMG dataset	Indicates levels/trajectory of trampling and grazing impacts within the DMG	This information should be sought, but may not always be available.  If the information is not available, this should be clearly stated at PDSS Milestone 1 and Application stages.
Estate and DMG population models and/or density trajectories.	Optional (could help to support High risk application)	Estate and DMG datasets	Demonstrate trajectories of density (past and future) within the estate and DMG.	This information should be sought, but may not always be available. If it is not available, this should be clearly stated in the application form.    Describe what the current deer density (deer/km2) is on the area to be restored? Is the count/density based on an actual deer count (if yes, what year) or an estimate? Where available, please detail annual count numbers or outline trends over a 5-year period up until the most recent count, as per Table 3
Movement and distribution	Optional (could help to support High risk application)	PDF map and geopackage for use in QGIS.	Show herbivore movement patterns and congregation areas within the restoration site.	Additional local information, such as herbivore movement patterns, key areas where animals congregate, such as winter or summer grazings, will be helpful to include for context to understand habitat use by herbivores and how this has been considered in relation to the restoration proposals. Differentiate winter/summer or stags/hinds usage (if known). Use arrows to indicate tracking corridors if known (as per example map).  Plot any feeding stations within the site. This information should be sought but may not always be available.  If the information is not available, this should be clearly stated in the application form.

 

Table 3 - Annual count numbers 

Year	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026
Count Type Heli/foot/drone/estimate
Total deer
Deer/km2