Cress Marsh: North East Lincolnshire Council update (Oct 8, 2020)

Hi Jim, I have been keeping a list of species seen at Cress Marsh since we were given access to site during late June / early July 2019. I know that Joy has also been keeping a "life list" for the site.

My list currently contains 116 species of which I have personally seen 75 and is based on information shared by the "regulars", the species list posted on the hide wall and my own sightings. It is as follows:

Arctic Tern
Avocet
Barn Owl
Black Redstart
Black-headed Gull
Black-tailed Godwit
Blackbird
Blackcap
Blue Tit
Bullfinch
Buzzard
Canada Goose
Carrion Crow
Cetti's Warbler
Chaffinch
Chiffchaff
Collared Dove
Common Gull
Common Sandpiper
Coot
Cormorant
Cuckoo
Curlew
Dunlin
Dunnock
Fieldfare
Gadwall
Glaucous Gull
Golden Plover
Goldfinch
Great Black-backed Gull
Great Crested Grebe
Great spotted woodpecker
Great Tit
Great White Egret
Green Sandpiper
Greenfinch
Greenshank
Grey Heron
Grey Partridge
Grey Wagtail
Greylag Goose
Herring Gull
Hobby
House Martin
Jackdaw
Kestrel
Kingfisher
Knot
Lapwing
Lesser Black-backed Gull
Lesser Redpoll
Lesser Whitethroat
Linnet
Little Egret
Little Grebe
Little Gull
Little Ringed Plover
Long-tailed tit
Magpie
Mallard
Marsh Harrier
Meadow Pipit
Mediterranean Gull
Merlin
Mistle Thrush
Moorhen
Mute Swan
Osprey
Oystercatcher
Peregrine
Pheasant
Pied wagtail
Pink-footed Goose
Pochard
Red Kite
Redshank
Reed Bunting
Reed warbler
Ringed Plover
Robin
Rock Dove (Feral Pigeon)
Rook
Ruff
Sand Martin
Sedge Warbler
Shelduck
Shoveler
Skylark
Snipe
Song Thrush
Sparrowhawk
Spoonbill
Spotted flycatcher
Starling
Stock Dove
Stonechat
Swallow
Swift
Teal
Tufted Duck
Water Pipit
Wheatear
Whimbrel
Whinchat
White wagtail
Whitethroat
Widgeon
Willow Warbler
Wood Sandpiper
Woodcock
Woodpigeon
Wren
Yellow Wagtail
Yellow-legged Gull
Yellowhammer

On the subject of a Glossy Ibis, I visited site at first light the morning after the Killingholme sighting just in case it had dropped into Cress Marsh, but alas it had made it's way to Spurn!

This is an extract (March 2018) from the Natural England comment on the application

Natural England will not be providing detailed advice on the overall design of the habitat area.

This is because we understand that the design is by Roger Wardle who has successfully created similar
sites for the Lincolnshire Coastal Grazing Marsh Project which we were a partner in.

Natural England welcomes the fact that public access has been incorporated into the site, but
thought has also been given to ensure that people and dogs do not disturb birds utilising the habitat.

If once the site is functional it is decided that the power lines crossing the site are affecting birds, the
South Humber Gateway Ecology Group will need to consider how to resolve this, for example
through the use of bird deflectors.

Design and Access Statement
Natural England are pleased that the bird hide will be constructed utilising sustainable techniques
with bat roosting spaces and bird nesting opportunities incorporated into the design.

Habitat Management Strategy
Natural England will assist with the refinement of the details within this document and its
subsequent implementation through our place on the South Humber Gateway Ecology Group.

. Management Targets & Monitoring
 These are still to be agreed with the South Humber Gateway Ecology Group. The Council
will be aware that Natural England are currently working closely with the RSPB to suggest
some appropriate bird objectives for the mitigation sites and these will be circulated very
shortly for comment.
 Under objective WG1 there are two varying stocking rates listed for the period April to June.
We assume that these refer to different time periods after construction work on the site has
been completed and so therefore this should be clarified.
 Under objective WG2 it states that an average sward height of 10cm will be maintained in
part through monitoring via visual assessment.
We would instead recommend that measurements are taken as part of the monitoring for improved accuracy.
 Under objective B1 curlew are currently the only bird species listed for monitoring. This will
be corrected when the bird objectives are agreed.

This is an extract (March 2018) from the RSPB comment on the application


Natural England and RSPB are currently working together to produce suggested bird targets and objectives
for the South Humber Gateway mitigation sites, which will be reviewed and agreed by the Ecology Group
presently.

Targets are being identified for all relevant SPA species and for individual mitigation sites, as well
as for the entire mitigation area within the North East Lincolnshire part of the South Humber Gateway.

In our view longer term bird monitoring (beyond the suggested five year minimum) will be required for the
proposed Cress Marsh site in order to ensure that the mitigation achieves its purpose in supporting sufficient
numbers of SPA birds to avoid adverse impacts on the SPA.
One key reason for this is that if all of the
relevant/associated development that the mitigation is for is not fully undertaken within five years of the
mitigation site being online, then it will not be possible to ascertain whether bird targets are being met.

This issue will need to be fully considered and addressed by the Ecology Group.

However in anticipation of
those discussions, and for the purpose of this consultation, we would suggest (without prejudice to those
discussions) that as a minimum each mitigation site would be monitored for at least five years from when that
site is fully ‘drawn down’ through the mitigation balance sheet.

We would also recommend that the use of the site by SPA birds is monitored beyond this, and ideally for the
in perpetuity period, to ensure that the site continues to achieve its purpose and aid habitat management
decisions. However, this longer term monitoring could be potentially be undertaken by suitably experienced
volunteers for example either deployed by the council as part of their volunteer programmes or as part of the
BTO WeBS count programme.
Additional comments relevant to site management
We note that consideration has been given in the design and layout of the site to facilitating public access in a
way which attempts to avoid people and dogs causing disturbance to birds using the sites. This is welcome
and an important consideration as we know that this type of recreational disturbance is significantly affecting
SPA birds in some parts of the Humber.
We would therefore recommend, as part of the management strategy,
that if public access is found to be causing significant disturbance to birds once the site is operational, that the
Ecology Group are tasked with identifying appropriate remedial measures (e.g. signage, repair of fencing) for
the management body to implement.
We also note that there are power lines running across part of the proposed site which may pose a collision
risk for some species in bad weather conditions of reduced visibility.
We would therefore recommend that if
these are found to be affecting birds once the site is functional, advice is sought from the South Humber
Gateway Ecology Group on how to address this and implemented as part of the ongoing site management
(e.g. via the use of bird deflectors).

This was the original Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust comment on the application during the planning process


Thank you for consulting the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust on the above application.

We have read the comments made by fellow members of the South Humber Ecology
Group, Natural England and the RSPB, and support their opinions.

We strongly support the overall vision for the strategic mitigation process and the progress that this planning
application signifies.

However, the detail of the Habitat Management Strategy will be crucial in delivering the habitats required to support SPA birds.

The current version presented with this application needs amendment and approval through the South Humber Ecology Group. We would suggest that production of an agreed strategy should be made subject to a condition on approval of this application.

Please see below for more detailed comments on the Habitat Management Strategy:

Paragraph 2.2 specifies that the lead management authority will report directly to the
South Humber Ecology Group, however there is no mention of how often this should be
or the exact nature of what this should include.

Paragraph 4.3 “Creation of wet grassland habitat”
- Examples of what constitutes an ‘appropriate seed mix’ should be provided and agreed with the ecology group.
- We presume that the variation in stocking density should refer to 0.2 livestock units
in year 1, with 0.3 in all subsequent years. This should be amended for clarity.
- Management by cutting of the grassland should refer to the removal of arisings. This
is necessary to keep the fertility low on site and prevent build up of a mulch layer.

Paragraph 4.4 Monitoring
-We would strongly recommend that monitoring is continued beyond the initial 5 year period as it is likely to take longer than this for the habitats to become established on site.
-‘Monitoring can cease if wet grassland habitat is achieved for three consecutive years, provided the management regime remains unchanged.’ We would suggest that
monitoring should be required beyond this period as other factors beyond changes in the management regime may influence habitat development and require management intervention.
- There needs to be a greater level of detail regarding the programme of monitoring
with quadrats (NB not quadrants as stated). This is a large site and so to get a
representative sample of all of the separate hydrological compartments using 1m2
quadrats will require a great number.
- The characteristic wet grassland species that should be aimed for should be listed.
We would also suggest that there should be a greater ambition to achieve a more
diverse grassland sward, perhaps in line with Local Wildlife Site criteria for wetlands.

Paragraph 4.5 states that Target 2 is for “No scrub (including bramble) or trees across
the entirety of the site”. This target is both unachievable and probably undesirable as
some scrub is highly beneficial for many bird species including passage migrants. We
would recommend this is amended to reflect the monitoring target of no more than
5% scrub across the site.

-Again the references to variation in stocking density should refer to 0.2 livestock units
in year 1, with 0.3 in all subsequent years. This should be amended for clarity.

- Management by cutting of the grassland should refer to the removal of arisings. This
is necessary to keep the fertility low on site and prevent build up of a mulch layer.
-We would strongly recommend that monitoring is continued beyond the initial 5 year
period as it is likely to take longer than this for the habitats to become established on
site.
-‘Monitoring can cease if wet grassland habitat is achieved for three consecutive years,
provided the management regime remains unchanged.’ We would suggest that
monitoring should be required beyond this period as other factors beyond changes in
the management regime may influence habitat development and require management
intervention.

- The final bullet point referring to vegetation removal should be amended to include
reference to undertaking this work at the appropriate time of year.
Paragraph 4.6
-The bullet point referring to management cutting of rushes and tall sedges should
include further direction on the timings for when this should take place.

- The second monitoring bullet refers to a visual assessment of scrub, this should be
amended to rushes, tall sedges and reeds.

Objective WG2: The wet grassland will be managed to give a suitable sward for
wading birds throughout the months of August to Marsh
This sentence should be amended to read August to March.
Paragraph 4.7
- Management by cutting of the grassland should refer to the removal of arisings. This is necessary to keep the fertility low on site and prevent build up of a mulch layer.
- ‘The monitoring is to be undertaken annually between July and March’. We would suggest that a more focussed monitoring regime would be preferable as monitoring
visits in for example August and February and likely to produce differing results and may not therefore be comparable.

Paragraph 4.8
-We would query the monitoring proposed for open water. Various depths are
proposed as targets, however the monitoring is to be carried out only by visual
assessment. We would suggest that other methods may also be required.
- We would suggest that monitoring should be required beyond the 3 consecutive year
period as other factors beyond changes in the management regime may influence
habitat development and require management intervention.

Paragraph 4.10
-“When reaching full functionality it supports peak counts of each species identified”.
We would recommend that a list of the target SPA bird species should be provided for
clarity.
- The monitoring refers only to trigger levels for curlew, trigger levels should be agreed
with the ecology group for all of the target species.
- We would suggest that the final bullet point ‘Undertake sward height management
through cutting or grazing’ could be removed as it seems to be a repeat of the previous
action.

Finally whilst we recognise that this plan has been written specifically with regard to the
requirement to provide mitigation for SPA birds, the site already supports other
protected species and has the potential to become more important for these and other
species groups.
These may have conflicting management needs and so we would
recommend that there is recognition within this document that there will need to be
discussion within the ecology group on how to deal with any conflicts of interest.
The outcome of this should be presented either in the Habitat Management Strategy document or there should be a wider environmental management plan to encompass other species such as water voles and badgers which have been noted to use the site.

It would be interesting to see the full 111-species list.

The site is due a glossy ibis