Chapter 7 Ornithology Addendum - Partnerships for Renewables

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
7 Ornithology Addendum
7.1 Introduction and overview
7.1.1 The Planning Application and accompanying Environmental Statement (ES) for Louth Canal
Wind Energy Development (“the Development”) was submitted to East Lindsey District Council
(ELDC) on March 2012. The application was for three turbines up to 113.5m to blade tip and
associated infrastructure. Following the submission, Natural England (NE) and the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) registered holding objections to the application over
concerns regarding the potential impacts of the Development on qualifying bird species of the
Humber Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and
Ramsar site situated approximately 3.4km from the Development. NE also advised under the
Regulation 61 of the Conservation Regulations 2010 (“Habitat Regulations”), that ELDC
undertakes an Appropriate Assessment (AA) to assess the implications of the Development on
the site’s conservation objective.
7.1.2 Through further discussions with NE and ELDC, including meetings on 19 th June 2012, it was
concluded that the assessment for golden plover, one of the SPA qualifying species, needed
reassessing due to absent information within the ornithological assessment of the submitted
ES. The need to undertake an AA under the Habitat Regulations was also agreed, with
particular consideration of golden plover. NE requested that more recent population figures
were used within the re-assessment and the AA; these being from Holt et al. (2011) 1 . Further
to this, more detail was requested for the ornithological cumulative assessment in that nonwind
energy developments that have the potential to affect the Humber Estuary SPA features
are included within the assessment.
7.1.3 This Ornithological Addendum report re-assesses the baseline data and potential effects from
the Development on golden plover, using the absent abundance figures from the baseline
surveys. As such this addendum supersedes the assessment for this species as described
within the Chapter 12 of the ES. The re-assessment has led to some mitigation being offered
for golden plover, despite it being for a non-significant effect, and these measures are
described within this document. The ornithological survey methodologies are not repeated
within this addendum report as there is no change from those submitted within Section 12.5 of
the ES. As such, this addendum should be read in conjunction with Chapter 12 of the ES.
7.1.4 Ornithological surveys at Louth Canal began as early as April 2010 at which point a 1 turbine
scheme was under consideration (Initial Feasibility Design as discussed in Chapter 3 of the
ES). Once the viability of a three turbine scheme had been confirmed, consultation with NE
confirmed that a wider study area would be required. Surveys were carried out until November
2011. This is discussed further in Section 12.5 of the ES.
7.1.5 This ornithological addendum also updates and in places supersedes the ornithological
cumulative assessment as presented in Section 12.14 (Chapter 12) of the ES.
7.1.6 A separate report has been produced for the AA which is located in Section 8 of the
Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) for the Development. The AA has been
1 Holt, C.A, Austin, G.E., Calbrade, N.A., Mellan, H.J., Mitchell, C., Stroud, D.A., Wotton, S.R. and Musgrove, A.J. 2011.
Waterbirds in the UK 2009/10: The Wetland Bird Survey. BTO/RSPB/JNCC. Thetford.
October 2012 85 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
produced under the Habitat Regulations to assess the implications of the Development on the
Humber Estuary SPA, Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site. The findings of
the AA are also summarised within this Addendum report.
7.2 Updated Baseline Information
7.2.1 The original ES Ornithological Chapter 12 presents the findings of the ornithological desk
based study and the baseline survey results. These are not fully repeated here; only the
baseline relating to golden plover is presented and completely replaces the baseline presented
within the original ES Chapter. The survey data relating to this species was absent from the
original ES Chapter through an unintentional oversight.
7.2.2 Other minor unintentional errors were also picked up during the review of Chapter 12; these
are detailed first below; then golden plover is considered separately thereafter. Thus, the
sections titled ‘Wintering Birds’ below does not completely supersede this section from the
original ES Chapter, but presents clarification and updates on specific paragraphs.
Wintering Birds
7.2.3 Paragraph 12.6.20 of Chapter 12 describes the Wintering Birds survey results stating ‘On the
assumption that individuals belonging to relevant Humber Estuary SPA/SSSI bird populations
may have been involved in the sightings, twelve species forming the qualifying interest of
Humber Estuary SPA/SSSI (wigeon, teal, pochard, goldeneye, marsh harrier, hen harrier,
golden plover, lapwing, whimbrel, curlew, redshank and greenshank) were recorded during the
baseline studies’. However, from the Table 2 and 3 provided in Appendix 12.1 a total of 13
SPA/SSSI species are listed; excluding whimbrel which was only observed flying over the site
in May and August (outside of the Wintering Birds survey). The species not listed in paragraph
12.6.20 include: gadwall, mallard.
7.2.4 Paragraph 12.6.22 states ‘Teal were recorded foraging along dikes and on small waterbodies
during the winter period (between eight and 214, maximum count in November)’. However this
should be between one and 214.
7.2.5 Paragraph 12.6.25 summarises other target species recorded during the wintering bird
surveys. A maximum of two goldeneye individuals are reported on Louth Canal and ponds
750m NE of the site boundary; this should read ‘a maximum of four individuals’ as detailed in
Table 2 in Appendix 12.1 of the ES. In the same paragraph other target species are detailed
correctly, although there is an omission of other ‘target species’. Target species are qualified in
paragraph 12.5.27 to include 1) species that form the qualifying interest of Humber Estuary
SPA/SSSI, 2) species listed on Annex 1 of EC Directive 79/409/EEC, and 3) species protected
under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). As such, there are a further 19
species which are considered to be ‘target species’, these include: little grebe, cormorant,
pink-footed goose, tufted duck, goosander, marsh harrier, hen harrier, merlin, peregrine, coot,
snipe, greenshank, black-headed gull, common gull, herring gull, greater black-backed gull,
barn owl, fieldfare and redwing. The total numbers observed each winter bird survey for these
species are detailed in Table 2 and 3 provided in Appendix 12.1. All of the above were
observed in low numbers and/or infrequently, apart from mallard with a maximum of 60
individuals recorded, black-headed gull with a maximum of 136 individuals recorded, common
gull with a maximum of 48 individuals recorded, fieldfare with a maximum of 190 individuals
recorded and redwing with a maximum of 33 individuals recorded. Of these, mallard are listed
October 2012 86 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
on the Humber Estuary SPA; however, as with teal and wigeon these sightings were restricted
to waterbodies surrounding the proposed development.
Golden Plover
7.2.6 Golden plover are cited on The Humber Estuary European SPA and Ramsar site for their overwintering
populations of 30,709 individuals representing 12.3% of the population in Great
Britain 1996/7 - 2000/1. NE have advised that the mean abundance figure for the Humber
Estuary SPA population of golden plover as stated in Holt et al. 2011 1 (the latest British Trust
for Ornithology (BTO) Wetland Birds Survey (WeBS) results, for 2009/10) is used for the
assessment. As such, this figure of 48,653 individuals has been used within this addendum
report and assessment. The British national index for golden plover fell sharply in 2009/10,
returning the species to a level similar to that during the early 1990’s 1 . The counted monthly
maximum of 150,337 birds in November, as stated in Holt et al. (2011) 1 , was 19% lower than
the peak total noted in 2008/09. This peak count in 2009/10 of 150,337 birds means that the
Humber Estuary mean count represents 32% of the population in Great Britain in that year.
Wintering Birds
7.2.7 Paragraph 12.6.23 states ‘Golden plover were recorded on agricultural fields surrounding the
site primarily in passage (spring and autumn). Up to six were recorded in late March and up to
180 in early April 2010, though there were no sightings at all during spring 2011. For the
distribution of these sightings, see Appendix 12.1; Figure 12.5)’. Firstly, these spring sightings
were in 2011 not 2010, and there were no observations in spring 2010. Secondly and more
importantly, golden plover were stated to be recorded in autumn, however, further data was not
stated in the ES, although numbers observed during autumn were detailed in Appendix 12.1
within Table 2 and 3, and were shown on Figure 12.5.
7.2.8 The following text and data supersedes the baseline text and data presented for golden plover
within the original ES Chapter.
7.2.9 Golden plover were recorded on agricultural fields surrounding the site primarily in passage
(spring and autumn), with just one sighting in mid-winter (of two individuals on 8 January
2011). In spring 2011, up to six were recorded in late March and up to 180 in early April
approximately 615 m from the nearest turbine (T1).(see Table 2 and 3 in Appendix 12.1 and
Figure 12.13 which updates the original Figure 12.5 of the ES).
7.2.10 Sightings were much more regular during September-October for both 2010 and 2011 (of up to
460 in September 2010, up to 699 in September 2011, up to 67 in October 2010 and up to 44
in October 2011; as detailed in Appendix 12.1 within Table 2 and 3). These numbers do not
represent single flock sizes; they are the total numbers observed during a single visit. Although
every effort was made to ensure that no double counting occurred due to the size of the site, it
is possible that flocks moved fields during the count. The largest flocks observed in 2010 at
322 and 205 birds in September were observed approximately 620 m and 350 m, respectively,
from the nearest turbine (T1 and T2, respectively). The largest of flocks in 2011 at 534 and
248 birds in September were observed approximately 300 m from the nearest turbine (T1); as
shown on Figure 12.13.
7.2.11 Smaller flocks were observed closer (less than 300 m) to the turbines and associated
infrastructure ranging between 33 and two birds (as shown on Figure 12.13).
October 2012 87 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
7.2.12 Up to 26 were also present into early November 2010 and up to 31 present into early
November 2011, but these flocks were not observed going to ground within the study areas; as
such are not shown on Figure 12.5 or listed in Table 2 or 3 in Appendix 12.1 of the original
ES.
Flight activity
7.2.13 A total of 48 flights of golden plover with a maximum flock of up to 176 birds (with a mean flock
size was 36.1) were recorded during the total of 234 hours of flight activity observations
undertaken, 32 of these within potential rotor-sweep height (see Appendix 12.1). As such
these 32 flights were used within the collision risk modelling (i.e. within the turbine swept area;
height band 20 – 130 m). Figures 12.9 and 12.10 of the original ES shows these flights; 23 of
which were in autumn and 9 in spring.
7.2.14 Flight activity observations showed that golden plover flew over the proposed turbine locations
predominantly during winter and passage as shown in Table 1 below (also see Appendix
12.1; Figures 12.9 & 12.10 and Table 12.4 of the original ES).
Table 1 – Summary of flight information recorded at the proposed site for Golden Plover
Species
Golden
plover
Overall
number
of flights
Flock
size
Mean
flock
size
Percentage of flights
recorded within each flight
height band
130m
48 1-176 36.1 27 70 3
Season/ Months
observed
September-March
7.2.15 The following data in Table 2 has been used in the Collision Risk Modelling the golden plover
as described in Section 12.5 Chapter 12 of the ES.
Table 2 - Data used in Collision Risk Modelling for Golden Plover
Species
No of
Flights
Area C
Total flight
time at
rotor
height
(Sec)
No of
Flights
Area D
Total flight
time at
rotor
height
(Sec)
Seasonal presence
Golden plover 770 39419 329 28951 Winter & passage
7.3 Design Mitigation
7.3.1 Through a detailed, constraints led, multidisciplinary design process (see Chapter 3 of the
original ES), the proposed Development infrastructure has been located so as to avoid the
most sensitive ornithological areas on the site where possible, away from sensitive habitats
and within the area of more intense farming activity. Target species have been recorded flying
across the whole survey area, with a bias in activity for wildfowl towards the Louth Canal. As
part of the design evolution of the Development T1 was moved away from the Louth Canal, as
described in Chapter 3 and shown in Figure 3.2 of the original ES.
October 2012 88 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
7.4 Updated Assessment
7.4.1 Although recorded data for some species, including some listed on the SPA/SSSI, have been
updated as part of this SEI in terms of numbers present during the wintering bird surveys, only
the updated figures concerning golden plover are substantial and require re-assessing.
7.4.2 Although mallard and teal were observed in high numbers (maximum count in one day being
60 and 214, respectively) both were observed away from the proposed development within the
waterbodies. Furthermore, the flights associated with these species were predominantly
concentrated over Louth Canal to the east of the development. As such, the potential effects
for these species during construction and operation of the development remain negligible and
not significant, as described in Chapter 12 and summarised in Table 12.11.
7.4.3 The follows sections supersede the ‘Assessment’ sections for golden plover of the original ES
Chapter.
Golden Plover: Construction-related Impacts
Habitat Loss
7.4.4 The total land-take by the development would result in the loss of a very small area (2.11ha) of
available habitat, primarily agricultural fields. As such, a negligible amount of land will be lost
from the construction of the proposed Development in terms of land available to the very highly
sensitive golden plover (sensitivity is very high as golden plover are cited on the Humber
Estuary SPA and Ramsar site; see Table 12.7 and paragraph 12.5.30 to 12.5.37 of the original
ES for assessment criteria).
7.4.5 As such, the magnitude and the overall effect of habitat loss on the golden plover is negligible
and not significant.
Disturbance
7.4.6 There is the potential for birds to be disturbed and displaced from an area during construction
works due to the disturbance caused by machinery movement and noise, and the presence of
human activities.
7.4.7 There is the potential for an indirect effect on golden plover recorded foraging and using the
development area. Golden plover were recorded within fields in which construction is
proposed. The largest flock observed at any one time, being 534 birds observed in September
2011 to the south of Turbine 2 (T2) (see Figure 12.5), were recorded approximately 300 m
from the nearest construction area. Similarly, the other large flocks (322 and 205 birds, see
Figure 12.5) observed to the west and east of the Development were approximately 350 m
from the nearest construction works (being T2 to the west and the underground cable to the
east, see Figure 12.5).
7.4.8 Smaller flocks were observed both closer to the proposed construction works and further away.
Flocks ranging from two to 67 were observed within 200 m of proposed construction activities.
However, the results from the wintering bird counts, suggests that golden plover were recorded
in largest numbers within the larger fields within the study area. As such, it would appear that
larger flocks move around and utilise the larger fields within the study area and surrounding
fields, which is probably dictated by the state of arable field present at the time. Golden plover
prefer open, short vegetation (less than 10cm), often being stubbles in autumn and winter,
which provide an abundance of soil and ground-surface invertebrates, including earthworms,
October 2012 89 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
leatherjackets, beetles and spiders (Kirby et al., 2000) 2 . The majority of the construction
activities are either restricted to smaller enclosed fields or are situated on the edge of the
larger more open fields.
7.4.9 There are limited published studies looking at the effects of construction activities on wintering
golden plover. Studies have however been published on breeding golden plover and
disturbances through construction and human disturbances. A study by Pearce-Higgins et al.
(2012) 3 found no significant effect on breeding golden plover during wind farm construction.
Furthermore, a study looking at the effects of recreational disturbance found no evidence that
golden plover avoid disturbed areas where visitor pressure was doubled, or that nest location,
clutch survival or chick growth rates were reduced close to a footpath (Pearce-Higgins et al.
2007) 4 .
7.4.10 Construction activities are considered to be short term and will be restricted to a maximum of
one year. Based on the records showing the larger flocks of golden plover being restricted to
the larger more open fields and all being 300m or greater from the construction of the
development, it is therefore concluded that the magnitude of the disturbance effect on the
features of the Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar site recorded to be foraging and/or moving
within the Development area is considered to be minor adverse and therefore not
significant.
Operational Impacts
Displacement
7.4.11 There is a potential for an effect of displacement on golden plover from using the arable fields
for foraging and roosting once the turbines are operational. As mentioned above the largest
and majority of the flocks were however observed over 300m from the proposed turbine
locations.
7.4.12 Limited studies have been published on the effects of operational wind farms on wintering
golden plover. A study by Hötker et al. (2006) 5 in which 22 wind farm sites were monitored
(predominantly in Germany) six sites showed a minimum disturbance distance for wintering
golden plover of 50m, nine sites a minimum distance of 150m, four sites a minimum distance
of 250m, two sites a minimum distance of 350m and one site a minimum distance of 850m.
The latter should be considered as an abnormality probably due to site specifics, such as no
suitable alternative habitat within 850m. Including the abnormality of 850m the mean minimal
distance of displacement is 135m and the median is 175m.
7.4.13 A recent RSPB study has reported partial displacement of breeding golden plover around wind
turbines, with a reduction in the likelihood of occurrence within 200m of turbines (Pearce-
2 Kirby, J., Drewitt, A., Chivers, L. and Saunders, R. 2000. Key habitat attributes for birds and bird assemblages in England.
English Nature Research Reports. Part 1. No. 359. English Nature.
3 Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Douse, A. and Langstone, R.H.W. 2012. Greater impacts of wind farms on bird populations
during construction than subsequent operation: results of a multi-site and multi-species analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49,
386-394.
4 Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Finney, S.K., Yalden, D.W. and Langstone, R.H.W. 2007. Testing the effects of recreational disturbance
on two upland breeding waders. Ibis, 149 (Suppl. 1), 45-55.
5 Hötker, H., Thomsen, K.-M. & H. Jeromin (2006): Impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of renewable energy sources: the
example of birds and bats - facts, gaps in knowledge, demands for further research, and ornithological guidelines for the
development of renewable energy exploitation. Michael-Otto-Institut im NABU, Bergenhusen.
October 2012 90 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
Higgins, 2008) 6 . These distances are consistent with a study a Haverigg Wind Farm in the
Furness District of Cumbria, on the north shore of the River Duddon Estuary SPA. This study
has recorded golden plover within 225m of the operational turbines (WYG Environment,
2012) 7 .
7.4.14 Furthermore, in the same study by Hötker et al. (2006) 5 wintering golden plover showed
significant signs of habituation of wind farms (meaning they moved closer to the turbines in the
years post construction) at three out of four studied wind farm sites.
7.4.15 A recent study at Out Newton Wind Farm in East Yorkshire, 3.5 km from the Humber Flats,
Marshes and Coast SPA, has shown no effect of disturbance to turbines on the number of
golden plover flights (McLoughlin et al. 2012) 8 . Out Newton Wind Farm has been operational
since 2002 and comprises seven 1.3MW, 80m to blade tip, turbines. Two winters have been
surveyed since the wind farm has become operational. The results indicate a weak (but
significant) effect in the opposite direction to that expected; i.e. more flights were observed
closer to the turbines.
7.4.16 Breeding golden plover have been shown to be even less displaced by operational wind farms.
Douglas et al. (2011) 9 showed that there was little change in the distribution and abundance at
Beinn Tharsuinn wind farm in Scotland; in fact they showed a relatively marked increase from
0.8 pairs per km² to 1.4 pairs per km² on the wind farm site between the two years. Of
particular note was an increase from four to nine plover territories within 500m of turbines.
Fielding and Haworth (2012) 10 also found no evidence of declines in golden plover breeding
attempts at the Farr wind farm in Scotland, or in the spatial pattern of territories either with
respect to each other or the turbines over the five year monitoring (2006 to 2011).
7.4.17 Based on the current literature available for wintering golden plover it would appear that
displacement distances do not occur readily over 250m from wind farms. Furthermore, as
discussed above, larger displacement distances observed at wind farm sites are likely to be
highly influenced by the suitable available habitat in the surrounding area.
7.4.18 The larger flocks observed within the study area were all recorded 300m or greater from the
proposed turbines. This includes the flock of 534 birds which represents a flock size above the
1% threshold for assessing the need for an Appropriate Assessment for the Humber Estuary
European SPA (using Holt et al. 2011 1 mean count between 2005/06 to 2009/10 of 48,653
birds). This flock of 534 was recorded approximately 300m south of the T2 location in
September 2011. However, as discussed above displacement would appear unlikely at
distances over 250m. Furthermore, as discussed above displacement distances are likely to be
exaggerated if there is a lack of suitable habitat within the surrounding area. This is not the
case for this development; large arable fields are numerous within the surrounding area of the
development. Furthermore, the crop rotations and arable farming practises appear to be similar
6 Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H.W and Bright, J.A. 2008. Assessing the cumulative impacts of wind farms on
peatland birds: a case study of golden plover in Scotland. Mires and Peat 4, article 1
7 WYG Environment. 2012. HMP Haverigg Wind Fram Bird Disturbance / Displacement Report 2012. WYG.
8 McLoughlin, E., Grant, M., Zisman, S. and Bullman, R. 2012. Winter flight activity of golden plover at operational wind farms.
SNH Sharing Good Practice: Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. RPS presentation slides.
9 Douglas, D.J.T., Bellamy, P.E and PearceHiggins, J.W. 2011. Changes in the abundance and distribution of upland breeding
birds at an operational wind farm. Bird Study 58, 37-43
10 Fielding, A.H. and Haworth, P.F. 2012. Farr windfarm – Monitoring of Breeding Golden Plover 2006 to 2011. Haworth
Conservation.
October 2012 91 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
within at least a 1km distance surrounding the development (personnel communication with
landowners).
7.4.19 As a result of these findings, the displacement effects on golden plover, due to the proposed
three turbine operation, are predicted to be minor adverse at most and not significant.
Nevertheless, due to the potential for effects on 1% of the Humber Estuary SPA population an
Appropriate Assessment has been produced for this species (see Section 7). Golden plover
specific habitat management proposals have been designed to enhance the surrounding area
for foraging and roosting golden plover and are discussed in the following Section 7.6.
Collision Risk
7.4.20 Collision risk modelling undertaken for a number of species which were recorded flying within
the flight activity area at heights corresponding to the height of the proposed turbine rotors
remains as reported within the ES, paragraph 12.8.36 to 12.8.41. The results of the collision
risk modelling have not changed for golden plover. Nevertheless, golden plover have been
reassessed within this addendum report for completeness.
7.4.21 The result of the collision risk modelling assuming an avoidance rate of 98% for golden plover
is as described in Table 12.8 in Chapter 12. The collision risk for the total area (Area C plus
Area D, as shown in Figure 12.1 of the ES) for golden plover was predicted to be 7.1 birds per
year (98% avoidance rate). The collision risk model for golden plover and is provided in
Appendix 12.2 of the ES.
7.4.22 The potential scale and significance of the predicted collision risk impact is determined by
considering whether the impact of the collisions would result in an increase of more than 1% of
natural mortality either within the SPA/Ramsar population.
7.4.23 As discussed above, NE requested that the up-to-date figures for the Humber Estuary SPA
population as recorded in Holt et al. (2011) 1 are used within the assessment. As such, the SPA
population, annual mortality and 1% increase in annual mortality threshold for golden plover
(as previously stated in Table 12.9 in Chapter 12) has been updated.
7.4.24 Natural mortality of golden plover within the SPA/Ramsar population is approximately 18,975
birds and therefore to result in a 1% increase, the proposed Development would need to result
in 190 collisions per year. The predicted collision rate of 7.1 birds per year is 0.037% increase
in the natural mortality rate (i.e. the predicted collision rate is considerably lower than the 1%
threshold). Comparison of the collision rate and the updated natural mortality is shown in Table
3 below.
Table 3 Comparison of Collision Risk, Population Size and Natural Mortality Rates for
golden plover
Species
SPA
Population
Natural
Mortality
Rate
Annual
mortality
(Birds)
1% increase in
annual mortality
threshold
Collision Risk
(Fatalities per
year)
Significance of
effect
Golden
plover
48,653 39.0% 18,975 190 7.115 Not significant
7.4.25 Furthermore, it is worth adding to this addendum that there are no published records of golden
plover colliding with operational turbines in the UK. Furthermore, Hötker et al. (2006) 5
evaluated 127 wind farms in ten European countries and only found two golden plover
collisions in Germany, one in the Netherlands and one in Sweden.
October 2012 92 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
7.4.26 The overall potential impact from the operation of the turbines on golden plover in terms of
collision risk is thus considered negligible and not significant (no change from original
assessment, see paragraph 12.8.41, Chapter 12.
Decommissioning
7.4.27 The effects predicted for decommissioning have not changed from the predictions within the
original ES text, in that they are considered to be similar to those identified for construction.
7.4.28 Due to the predicted life-span of the wind turbine (25 years) it is not possible to predict
decommissioning effects accurately as species population status, abundance and distribution
could change over a 25 year period. To comply with current legislation it would be necessary to
undertake further bird surveys prior to decommissioning works to ensure no significant effects
on species arise. Additionally, legislation may also change within this timeframe and this will
need to be taken into consideration at the time of decommissioning.
7.4.29 It is assumed however that the very limited areas of habitat lost to the wind energy
development infrastructure on construction would be reinstated at the time of
decommissioning, i.e. a reversal of the original habitat loss effects (which are considered to be
negligible and not significant). Disturbance effects due to decommissioning of the
infrastructure and the reinstatement of habitats would likely to be similar to those identified for
construction, therefore, they are predicted to be minor / moderate adverse at most and not
significant.
7.5 Habitat Regulations Assessment Test for Significance and Appropriate
Assessment
7.5.1 The results from the collision risk analysis for bird species features of the Humber Estuary SPA
and Ramsar site, including the updated golden plover assessment as shown above, showed in
paragraphs 12.8.36 to 12.8.41 that the proposed development will not result in a significant
effect in terms of the requirements of Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2010 ('The Habitats Regulations’). However, due to the omission of the
autumn golden plover flocks from the original assessment paragraph 12.9.1 of the original ES
states ‘All other potential effects associated with the construction, operation and decommission
of the proposed Development were also considered to be not significant. As such, the planning
authority as the competent authority for the Habitats Regulations Assessment may grant
planning consent for the proposed development in accordance with the regulations’.
7.5.2 NE requested that an Appropriate Assessment (AA) is conducted for golden plover, as the
largest flock recorded in late September 2011 of 534 birds represents over 1% of the SPA
population of 48,653 birds (Holt et al. 2011) 1 . The presence of more than 1% of the SPA
population within the study area automatically triggers the requirement of an AA, through the
Test for Significance as there is a potential for a significant effect. The AA is located in Section
8 of the SEI.
7.6 Mitigation Measures
7.6.1 Paragraph 12.10.1, Chapter 12 of the original ES, states ‘The potential effects of the proposed
Development on birds are considered to be not significant, apart from the potential
displacement effect on SPA birds using the site for foraging and roosting. The displacement
effect to SPA birds using the site is considered to be moderate adverse and thus significant.
October 2012 93 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
However, as stated within the assessment the surrounding land and habitats provide ample
area for these species to inhabit, if displaced, with no predicted effects on their survival.’
However, the displacement effect to the SPA birds using the site was considered earlier to be
negligible and not significant, as stated in paragraph 12.8.29, therefore an inconsistency
with the latter paragraph.
7.6.2 Therefore, this has been up-dated within this assessment so that the construction, operation
and decommissioning effects of the SPA species, other than golden plover, remain as stated
negligible and not significant; with golden plover being subject to a minor adverse but not
significant effect for construction disturbance and operational displacement, and a negligible
and not significant effect for habitat loss and collision risk.
7.6.3 Protective measures and mitigation during construction of the Development remain as stated in
paragraph 12.10.3 to 12.10.5 in Chapter 12 of the ES.
Golden Plover – Habitat Management Plan
7.6.4 Although in terms of the EIA Guidance non-significant effects do not require mitigation, here we
consider the habitat management proposed for golden plover to reduce the minor adverse
effects to a negligible level, as such mitigating the minor non-significant effect.
7.6.5 The additional element of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) proposed here aims to provide
suitable habitat for golden plover for the life time of the Development at an appropriate distance
from the Development (outwith any potential displacement distances).
7.6.6 Through consultation with NE and habitat targets set for golden plover within Kirby et al.
(2000) 2 any habitat management area needed to satisfy the following:
• The area should be 600m from the proposed turbines;
• The area should be open with unrestricted views over 200m and with an effective field
size over 10ha; and
• The area should consist of open, short vegetation (less than 10cm) or bare ground.
7.6.7 A further requirement from NE was that the crop rotation and harvesting allows for the
management area to be ‘disturbance free’ during the periods in which golden plover are likely
to be present within the area.
7.6.8 A HMP site selection process was conducted to determine suitable fields which satisfied the
target requirements. NE were then consulted on five land parcels and the most suitable field
was selected and agreed for the HMP specific for golden plover.
7.6.9 The parcel of land selected, as shown in Figure 12.14, is over 600m from the proposed
turbines, it is approximately 29.3ha and has views of over 200m with an approximate size of
600m by 600m (at the widest points). As such, this land parcel satisfies the first two habitat
target requirements.
7.6.10 The current crop rotation on the identified land parcel is similar to those of the surrounding
fields, including the field in which the largest flocks of golden plover were observed. The
current yearly crop rotation in effect is: wheat, oil seed rape, wheat, wheat, peas. The current
crops are generally harvested in September and then the next crop sown soon after, so that an
over winter crop of approximately 3-4inches (7.6-10.2cm).
7.6.11 In comparison the field in which the largest flock of golden plover were observed (the flocks of
534 approximately 300m south of T2, see Figure 12.13), is currently under a rotation of wheat
October 2012 94 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
and oil seed rape continually. Although in the past it has been wheat, barley, oil seed rape over
three years. Similarly, the crop is harvested in August and crops sown in September, ensuring
up to 3 -4inches of over winter crops.
7.6.12 The crop rotations and farming practices of these fields do not appear significantly different to
affect the potential use of golden plover. Further, investigation using aerial photography and
communications with landowners suggested that the large flocks observed in the same place in
September and October 2011 within this field (as shown in Figure 12.13) suggests that the
flocks may have been attracted to a localised depression within this field which held water
through the wetter months in autumn, winter and spring. The landowner of this field has
however confirmed that the field has now been drained, and as such the localised flooding is
less likely to occur. As shown in Figure 12.14 the land parcel selected for the golden plover
habitat management area is adjacent to waterbodies to the west and south.
7.6.13 The crop rotation on the golden plover habitat management area will remain the same as
stated above, being: wheat, oil seed rape, wheat, wheat, peas. A study on the winter field use
and habitat selection of golden plover in northeast Essex showed that golden plovers generally
show greater preference for cereals compared to plough, harrow, grass, stubble, rape,
sugarbeet and potatoes (Mason and MacDonald, 1999) 11 . Another study on arable farmland in
southeast Norfolk showed that cereal crops accounted for up to 70% of all feeding individuals
in direct proportion to the availability of crop types (Gillings et al., 2007) 12 . Other studies within
the UK have shown similar results, that golden plover choose winter cereal (particularly autumn
sown wheat and barley) in preference to other field types (Gregory, 1987) 13 . As such, the crop
rotation of the habitat management area for golden plover appears appropriate for this species,
being wheat dominated.
7.6.14 Many studies have shown that golden plover prefer vegetation height between 8-10cm
(Gregory, 1987 13 ; Mason and MacDonald, 1999 11 ). Autumn sown crops aims to ensure that
over winter crops remain within this height. However, the date of sowing in autumn will be
monitored and will depend on forecasted weather conditions. Warmer conditions in autumn can
cause the crop to grow taller than desired. Harvesting and re-sowing all before the end of the
first week in September will also ensure that the habitat management area is ‘disturbance free’
for the periods in which the largest flocks were observed (as shown in Figure 12.13) and
through into the winter period. As such, the third and fourth target requirements for the habitat
management area are achieved.
7.6.15 Although the flocks of golden plover observed during the baseline surveys within the arable
environment were predominantly using the fields to roost, it is worth noting that the arable
environment can also provide a supplementary food supply, if managed correctly. Winter crops
can provide a habitat for ground-surface invertebrates, such as leatherjackets, beetles and
spiders, compared to bare ground, tilled soils. Studies have also shown that soil invertebrate
abundance is significantly lower in tilled soils (Anderson, 2003 14 ; Brennan et al., 2006 15 ;
11 Mason, C.F. and MacDonald, S.M. 1999. Habitat use by Lapwing and Golden Plover in a largely arable landscape. Bird Study
46, 89-99.
12 Gillings, S., Fuller, R.J. and Sutherland, W.J. 2007. Winter field use and habitat selection by Eurasian Golden Plover Pluvialis
apricaria and Northern Lapwings Vanullus vanellus on arable farmland. Ibis 149, 509-520.
13 Gregory, R.D. 1987. Comparative winter feeding ecology of Lapwings Vanellus vanellus and Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria
on cereals and grasslands in the Lower Derwent Valley, North Yorkshire. Bird Study 34, 244-250.
14 Andersen, A. 2003. Long-term experiments with reduced tillage in spring cereals. II Effects on pests and beneficial insects.
Crop Protection, 22:147-152.
October 2012 95 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
Colman and Crossley, 2003 16 ; Holland, 2004 17 ). In arable land use systems, the change in
habitat structure where vegetation are removed and the subsequent climatic conditions at the
soil surface combine to create an environment beyond tolerance limits of some soil organisms.
Organic inputs such as farmyard manure provide food to soil organisms, and thus can increase
the abundance of soil organisms (including invertebrates). As such, an organic fertilising
regime will be introduced to the management of the land with the aim to increase the soil
invertebrate abundances and as such, provide a supplementary food supply for the roosting
golden plover flocks.
7.6.16 The HMP for golden plover proposed here will apply to the selected land parcel for the lifetime
of the Development, and is likely to be secured through a Section 106 agreement.
7.7 Habitat Enhancement
7.7.1 The habitat enhancement measures proposed in Section 12.11 in Chapter 12 of the ES are
unchanged and remain as described in the chapter.
7.7.2 Paragraph 12.11.4 of this section in Chapter 12, however, states ‘The enhancement of the
ditch enabling water to be retained in drier periods will also mitigate for the moderate adverse
effect to SPA species which utilised the water bodies within the site and surrounding area,
such as wigeon and teal’, whereas the effect to SPA species (other than golden plover) should
in fact read negligible and not significant.
7.8 Monitoring
7.8.1 The proposed monitoring regime will remain the same as detailed in Section 12.12 in Chapter
12 of the ES, with the addition of the proposed monitoring for the golden plover habitat
management area described above.
7.8.2 The Vantage Point (VP) Surveys (proposed in the non-breeding and migratory seasons) and
winter transects as described within paragraphs 12.12.2 will be extended to ensure coverage
of the habitat management area. Once constructed and fully operational, monitoring will be
carried out in years 1, 2, 5, and 10. VP surveys will occur at least once a month within these
years, and winter transects will be conducted once a month from September to March. The
survey methodologies for these surveys will follow the methodologies stated within this ES.
7.8.3 Further to this, the crop growth within the HMP area for golden plover will be monitored,
alongside the weather conditions. The aim of this monitoring is to ensure that the desired
vegetation height (8-10cm) for the over wintering period is achieved. During the winter
transects the vegetation height of other fields surrounding the Development will be measured
for comparative purposes. All sources of disturbances and environmental factors which may be
influencing the distribution and behaviour the over-wintering golden plover will be recorded.
7.8.4 The results from monitoring the golden plover management area will be used to determine
whether the habitat managements proposed need adapting to encourage use by golden
plover. Monitoring the Development area and the fields in which large flocks of golden plover
15 Brennan, A., Fortune, T., Bolger, T. 2006. Collembola abundances and assemblage structures in conventionally tilled and
conservation tillage arable systems. Pedobiologia, 50:135-145.
16 Colman, D.C., Crossley, D.A. (2003). Fundamentals of Soil Ecology. Elsevier Science. USA
17 Holland, J.M. (2004). The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 103:1-25.
October 2012 96 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
have been previously recorded will also be analysed with the aim to determine displacement
distance, set against any external variation such as land use.
7.9 Assessment of Residual Effects
7.9.1 Paragraph 12.13.1 of Chapter 12 of the original ES concludes ‘the potential effects of the
proposed Development on birds are considered to be not significant, apart from the potential
displacement effect on SPA birds using the site for foraging and roosting. The displacement
effect to SPA birds using the site is considered to be moderate adverse and thus significant’.
This was inconsistent with the assessment itself as stated in paragraph 12.8.28 which stated
‘the magnitude of impact of operational disturbance on SPA and Ramsar species is therefore
considered to be negligible. The overall impact is therefore considered to be negligible and
not significant’. The latter assessment (in paragraph 12.8.28) was correct in that the effects to
the SPA and Ramsar species were considered to be negligible and not significant.
7.9.2 The assessment on SPA and Ramsar species has been revisited within this addendum and as
stated in paragraph 7.4 above, all species apart from golden plover were considered to be
subject to a negligible effect through displacement by the operation of the development, and as
such the overall effect is not significant.
7.9.3 Golden plover are predicted within this addendum report to receive a minor adverse but not
significant effect during construction disturbance and operational displacement, and
negligible and not significant for habitat loss and collision risk. As stated in paragraph 7.6.4
above although in terms of the EIA Guidance non-significant effects do not require mitigation,
here we consider the habitat management proposed for golden plover to reduce the minor
adverse effects to be negligible and not significant.
7.9.4 All other mitigation and enhancement measures as outlined in the Ornithology Chapter 12 and
Ecology Chapter 11 will enhance breeding and foraging habitats for farmland birds and SSSI
listed species such as reed bunting, reed warbler and sedge warbler, as detailed in Section 7.7
of the original ES. As such, all other residual effects considering the biodiversity gain from the
enhancement measures are considered to be not significant, and any minor or moderate
adverse effect relating to the disturbance associated with the construction and operation of the
proposed Development on these species is considered to be reduced to a negligible level.
7.10 Cumulative Effects
7.10.1 As stated in Section 7.1 of this addendum, NE requested more detail in the ornithological
cumulative assessment. NE requested that non-wind energy (onshore) developments that
have the potential to affect the Humber Estuary SPA features are also considered within the
assessment.
7.10.2 Further consultation with NE identified that the Able Marine Energy Park (AMEP) and Humber
Gateway offshore wind farm developments have the potential to affect golden plover and
habitats utilised for foraging and roosting, and as such should be considered within the
cumulative effects assessment.
7.10.3 The Marine Energy Park (268ha with Deep Water frontage) is being developed for the
manufacturing, commissioning, installation and recycling of offshore wind turbines and also to
produce renewable energy from biomass products. The development of AMEP, east of North
Killingholme, will lie partly within the Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar site.
October 2012 97 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
7.10.4 Humber Gateway offshore wind farm will be located 8km off the East Yorkshire coast, just
north of the mouth of the River Humber. The wind farm will have 73 turbines and together the
turbines will have an installed capacity of up to 219MW.
7.10.5 This section of the addendum report therefore assesses the potential for cumulative effects on
golden plover, considering proposed wind energy developments and the two developments
proposed on the Humber Estuary (as mentioned above) within a 20km radius of the proposed
Louth Canal wind energy development and the Humber Estuary SPA/SSSI as shown in Figure
12.12 of the original ES.
7.10.6 Cumulative effects are generally recognised as effects of the proposed development that
would not have a significant effect on their own, but may be considered to have a significant
effect or a greater significance of effect in combination with other developments.
7.10.7 The cumulative effect concerning the potential collision risk to golden plover with onshore wind
energy development has been considered and assessed within the original ES Chapter 12
Section 12.14. Ornithological assessments regarding golden plover are available for five of
these developments - Burton Pidsea (Estuarine and Coastal Studies 2008a) 18 , Conisholme
extension (Shepherd 2010) 19 , Gayton le Marsh (E3 Ecology 2011) 20 , Newton Marsh (TCI
Renewables 2007) 21 , Saxby Wold (AREC 2011) 22 , Stallingborough (Estuarine and Coastal
Studies 2008b) 23 and The Limes (Arup 2011) 24 . The assessments of collision effects on golden
plover within these are summarised in Table 12.10 of the original ES. When adding together
the predicted fatality rates from the wind energy developments where information is available,
the total collision fatality rate comes to 13.55 golden plovers per annum. No collision risk was
predicted for the Humber Gateway Offshore wind energy development. A single flight of a
golden plover was recorded, although this flight was outwith the rotor height. The calculations
are shown in Table 4 below. Table 4 has been created by SNH and appears in their guidance
note assessing the cumulative impact of onshore wind energy development (SNH, 2012) 25 .
7.10.8 This cumulative collision rate of 13.55 is however still significantly less than the 1% increase in
mortality (190 birds per year, see Table 3 above) that would be considered a significant effect
in terms of this assessment or consideration under the requirements of the Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Furthermore, little evidence to date suggests that
golden plover or any other SPA and Ramsar site species are colliding with the operational
turbines sited around the Humber Estuary.
7.10.9 The cumulative residual effects to golden plover being displaced from the Louth Canal site
have been assessed to be negligible and not significant within this assessment. The effect is
considered to be minor adverse without the habitat management area as detailed above.
18 Estuarine and Coastal Studies (on behalf of Aeolian Holderness Ltd) (2008a). Burton Pidsea Windfield: Environmental
Statement; April 2008.
19 Shepherd, K.B. (2010). Conisholme Wind Park proposed extension: unpublished ornithological survey data and preliminary
assessment; November 2010.
20 E3 Ecology (2011). Gayton le Marsh Wind Farm: Volume 2 – ES Assessments; July 2011.
21
TCI Renewables (2007). Wind Turbines at Newton Marsh Sewage Treatment Works: Environmental Statement; November
2007.
22 Arcus Renewable Energy Consulting (AREC) Ltd (2011). Saxby Wold Wind Farm: Environmental Statement, Volume II –
Written Statement; June 2011.
23 Estuarine and Coastal Studies (on behalf of Aeolian Stallingborough Ltd) (2008b). Stallingborough Windfield: Environmental
Statement; July 2008.
24 Arup (on behalf of Countryside Solutions) (2011). The Limes Wind Turbines: Environmental Statement; May 2011.
25 SNH, 2012. Assessing the cumulative impact of onshore wind energy developments. March 2012, SNH.
October 2012 98 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
Equally, all of the other wind energy development assessments studied for this addendum also
stated that the effect of the wind farm specific effects would not be significant, including the
Humber Gateway Offshore, regarding the potential effects of displacement on golden plover.
However, all of the onshore wind farm assessments stated that the effect would be minimal
primarily due to the amount of surrounding similar habitat which could be used by the
displaced birds. Furthermore, peak counts and mean counts were low within the onshore
proposed developments; the largest being at Saxby Wold with a peak count of 380 birds in
2008/09 with a mean count of 17.6 in this same period.
7.10.10 In terms of the potential effects of displacement on the Humber SPA population of golden
plover, whilst some movements of golden plover within arable land surrounding the Humber
has been linked to tidal movements, flocks and movements have been suggested to be
predominantly terrestrial (Allen et al., 2003) 26 . The author of Burton Pidsea wind farm
ornithological assessment concludes that the golden plover observed within the site which is
8km from the Humber SPA are not part of the Humber SPA population, but are part of an
extensive inland feeding and loafing population as described by Mather (1986) 27 . Although the
proposed development and other developments considered here for the cumulative effects are
closer to the Humber SPA, there is a potential that the birds observed foraging and roosting on
arable land within and surrounding these sites are not associated with the SPA population but
are part of the extensive inland feeding population.
7.10.11 Although the loss of habitat and disturbance and displacement for the AMEP is assessed to be
not significant due to the lack of golden plover using the site (only a single bird was recorded at
Killingholme Marshes and Killingholme Pitts), golden plover were found to be using the
compensatory site. The compensatory site has been designed due to the AMEP development
having adverse effect on other bird species of the Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar site by
virtue of displacing them from an existing feeding area. As such, a new area of intertidal
habitat, including areas of mudflat, will be created on existing farmland along the northern bank
of the Humber Estuary at Cherry Cobb Sands to maintain the food resource available to the
bird assemblage. The farmland that is proposed to be developed into intertidal habitat is
currently used by the assemblage for roosting and, to a lesser extent, feeding golden plover.
Surveys for the compensatory area included the farmland and the adjoining foreshore.
7.10.12 Golden plovers were recorded throughout the survey period between August 2010 and March
2011. The numbers present on occasions exceeded the thresholds of both international and
national importance (9,300 and 4,000 respectively (Holt et al., 2011) 1 , with a peak of 11,735
birds recorded on the foreshore in September 2010. Golden plovers largely use the intertidal
area for roosting, as they forage on inland grassland areas. There was only one record of 42
birds roosting on the Compensation Site fields at high tide in October 2010, and none at low
tide. The lack of grassland habitat both on the Compensation Site and in the adjacent fields
probably contributed to the lack of use of the inland fields by golden plover.
7.10.13 The impact during construction on waterbirds in general was assessed to be temporary and of
moderate negative significance. The impact during the operational phase was assessed as
26 Allen, J., Boyes, S., Burdon, D., Cutts, N., Hawthorne, E., Hemingway, K., Javis, S., Jennings, K., Mander, L., Murby, P.,
Proctor, N., Thomson, S. and Waters, R. 2003. The Humber Estuary: A comprehensive review of its nature conservation interest.
English Nature Reports Number 547. English Nature, Peterborough.
27 Mather, J.R. 1986. The Birds of Yorkshire: an account of their historic and present status and distribution. London: Croom
Helm Ltd.
October 2012 99 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
being of minor negative significance for waterbirds (including golden plover) using the arable
farmland behind the existing embankment.
7.10.14 However, overall the intertidal habitat resource would increase by 100 ha through the creation
of the managed realignment. Based on the findings at other similar sites it is therefore
anticipated that wildfowl and waders will feed on this resource in much greater numbers than
those currently recorded on the existing arable farmland, potentially in nationally or
internationally significant numbers. The compensatory site is therefore assessed as having a
positive impact upon the feeding resource for waterbirds of major significance.
7.10.15 As shown in Table 4 below, including the AMEP development and the compensatory site in the
cumulative effects assessment to determine the potential effects upon foraging and roosting
golden plover within arable / farmland habitat, the overall displacement effects are considered
to be minor adverse and not significant.
7.10.16 Based on the evidence and assessment of data above, the overall cumulative impact to the
golden plover is considered to be minor adverse and not significant.
October 2012 100 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
Table 4. Cumulative Impact Assessment Calculation Table for Golden Plover
Cumulative Impact Assessment for Wind Farm: Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
Species
Golden Plover
Designated
Sites(s)
Humber Estuary - SSSI, SPA, SAC &
RAMSAR
Site
Date
Collisions
mortality
(birds per
year)
Displacement
effects
Barrier
effects
Habitat
loss
Number of
turbines
Turbine / Site
Area
Minor Adverse
Effect
The Development 2012
Negligible
(7.1)
Negligible
Residual
Effect (with
HMP)
Negligible Negligible 3 28.6 ha
Burton Pidsea 2007 Low Negligible N/A Negligible 3 Unknown
Gayton le Marsh 2011
Negligible
(1.63)
Negligible N/A Negligible 8 Unknown
Newton Marsh 2007 Negligible Negligible N/A Negligible 2 Unknown
Saxby Wold 2011
Negligible
(4.4)
Negligible Negligible Negligible 18 Unknown
The Limes 2011
Negligible
(0.42)
Negligible N/A Negligible 2 Unknown
ABLE Marine Energy
Park
2011 N/A Negligible N/A Negligible N/A
268ha total site
(predominantly
intertidal)
ABLE Marine Energy
Park – Compensatory
Site
2011 N/A
Minor Adverse
(Farmland)
N/A Negligible N/A
110ha of
farmland
Humber Gateway 2008
Negligible
(zero)
Negligible Negligible N/A 73 Offshore
Cumulative Residual
Effect on Golden
Plover (Σ)
Negligible
(13.55)
Minor
Adverse
(Farmland
Only)
Negligible
Negligible
36
(onshore)
109 in
total
Farmland Only
7.11 Summary
7.11.1 This addendum report to Chapter 12 of the Louth Canal Wind Energy Development ES
submitted March 2012 has reassessed the predicted effects of the proposed Development on
golden plover. The effects of habitat loss and collision risk are predicted to be negligible and
not significant. The effects of disturbance during construction and displacement during
operation were predicted to be minor adverse and not significant. All other effects to other
species recorded within the Development remain as stated within Chapter 12 of the ES.
October 2012 101 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
7.11.2 Habitat management has been proposed for golden plover to ensure suitable habitat during
the autumn and winter is available for this species during the life time of the development at a
distance over and above any potential displacement distance from the proposed
Development. The residual effects regarding disturbance and displacement are therefore
reduced to a negligible level.
7.11.3 The cumulative effects assessment was also re-assessed within this addendum to include
the Humber Gateway offshore wind energy development and the Able Marine Energy Park.
The cumulative effects are considered to be minor adverse for displacement effects, and
negligible for all others.
7.11.4 The updated predicted effects are summarised in Table 5 below.
October 2012 102 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
Table 5 – Updated Summary of Ornithological Effects
Description of
effect
Magnitude
of effect
Significanc
e prior to
mitigation
Mitigation
Magnitude
of residual
effect
Residual
Significance
Offsetting and
enhancement
Construction
Habitat loss
Negligible
on all
species
Not
significant
None required
Negligible
Not
significant
Disturbance
Minor
adverse
effect on
golden
plover
Negligible
effect on all
other SPA/
Ramsar
species
Minor
adverse
effect on
High
sensitivity
species
Minor
adverse
effect on
medium
and low
sensitivity
species
Not
significant
Not
Significant
Not
Significant
Not
significant
Habitat Management
Plan – to provide
suitable foraging and
roosting habitat away
from the construction
area / Development
None required
Vegetation clearance
to be undertaken
outside of bird
breeding season and
maintained short
until commencement
of construction
Vegetation clearance
to be undertaken
outside of bird
breeding season and
maintained short
until commencement
of construction
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Not
significant
Not
significant
Not
significant
Not
significant
Hedgerow
creation and
management
grassland
area.
Managing
grazing and
fencing of
ditch within the
LWS (only) to
keep out
livestock.
Both providing
potential new
habitat for
breeding and
foraging
farmland birds
and some of
the SSSI listed
species.
Operation
Displacement
Minor
adverse
effect on
golden
plover
Negligible
effect on all
other SPA/
Ramsar
species
Negligible
effect on
High
sensitivity
species
Not
significant
Not
significant
Not
significant
Habitat Management
Plan – to provide
suitable foraging and
roosting habitat away
from the
Development
through a crop and
fertilisation regime
on more distant
farmland
None required
None required
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Not
significant
Not
significant
Not
significant
Hedgerow
creation and
management
grassland
area.
Managing
grazing and
fencing ditch
to keep out
livestock.
Both providing
potential new
habitat for
breeding and
foraging
farmland birds
and some of
the SSSI listed
species.
Enhancing
October 2012 103 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
Description of
effect
Magnitude
of effect
Negligible
on all other
species
Significanc
e prior to
mitigation
Not
significant
Mitigation
None required
Magnitude
of residual
effect
Negligible
Residual
Significance
Not
significant
Offsetting and
enhancement
sections of the
ditch (LWS) to
ensure
retention of
water in drier
periods to
provide habitat
for SPA
species
utilising the
site, such as
wigeon and
teal.
Monitoring of
bird
movements
and utilisation
of the site and
the
surrounding
area.
Collision
mortality
Negligible
on all
assessed
species
Not
significant
None required
Negligible
Not
significant
Monitoring
proposed to
determine
collision
events and
flight paths
post
construction.
Decommission
Hedgerow
creation and
management
grassland
area.
Habitat loss
Negligible
on all
species
Not
significant
None required
Negligible
Not
significant
Managing
grazing and
fencing ditch
to keep out
livestock.
Both providing
potential new
habitat for
breeding and
foraging
farmland birds
and some of
the SSSI listed
species.
October 2012 104 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©

Louth Canal Wind Energy Development
Description of
effect
Magnitude
of effect
Significanc
e prior to
mitigation
Mitigation
Magnitude
of residual
effect
Residual
Significance
Offsetting and
enhancement
Minor
adverse
effect on
golden
plover
Negligible
effect on all
SPA/
Ramsar
species
Not
significant
Not
Significant
Habitat Management
Plan – to provide
suitable foraging and
roosting habitat away
from the
Development
through a crop and
fertilisation regime
on more distant
farmland
None required
Negligible
Negligible
Not
significant
Not
significant
Hedgerow
creation and
management
grassland
area.
Managing
grazing and
fencing ditch
to keep out
livestock.
Both providing
potential new
habitat for
breeding and
foraging
farmland birds
and some of
the SSSI listed
species.
Disturbance
Minor
adverse
effect on
High
sensitivity
species
Not
Significant
Decommissioning of
infrastructure to be
undertaken outside
of bird breeding
season over a short
duration.
Negligible
Not
significant
Hedgerow
creation and
management
grassland
area.
Managing
grazing and
fencing ditch
to keep out
livestock.
Both providing
potential new
habitat for
breeding and
foraging
farmland birds
and some of
the SSSI listed
species.
Minor
adverse
effect on
medium
and low
sensitivity
species
Not
significant
Decommissioning of
infrastructure to be
undertaken outside
of bird breeding
season over a short
duration.
Negligible
Not
significant
Hedgerow
creation and
management
grassland
area.
Managing
grazing and
fencing ditch
to keep out
livestock.
Both providing
potential new
habitat for
breeding and
foraging
farmland birds
and some of
the SSSI listed
species.
October 2012 105 Supplementary Environmental Information
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2012 ©