f86c1e39-4e33-4962-9a0d-710db823d36b English series series 2026-05-21T12:18:13 MEDIN 3.1.2 biota Bird counts SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary 2026-04-23 revision Bird behaviour SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary 2026-04-23 revision Bird taxonomy-related abundance per unit area of surface SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary 2026-04-23 revision Post-Construction monitoring The Crown Estate Renewable Energy Development Phases 2012-05-15 revision Renewable Energy Lease area The Crown Estate Renewable Energy Development Areas 2012-05-15 revision Species distribution GEMET - INSPIRE themes, version 1.0 2009-07-31 revision SeaVoX Vertical Co-ordinate Coverages 2020-05-21 revision unknown 2011-10-14T00:00:00 2013-03-18T23:59:59 1.0327 1.1424 51.373278 51.473833 TCE-808 Marine Data Exchange 2011-2013, Ecology Consulting, Kentish Flats, Diver Surveys Diver Surveys 2025-05-15T19:33:19 publication English Surveys of the distribution and abundance of red-throated divers at the Kentish Flats wind farm during the pre-construction, construction and post-construction phases of the wind farm have been undertaken over 10 years prior to 2011-12 and have been reported previously. This report presents an analysis of new data sets from surveys completed at Kentish Flats during 2011-12 and 2012-13. The original statistical analysis carried out for the monitoring conducted under the FEPA licence of the effects of the Kentish Flats wind farm on bird populations utilised a BACI (before-after-control-impact) approach. However it was acknowledged in the monitoring reports that this was of relatively low power which meant that no statistically significant effect was identified although a qualitative assessment suggested an avoidance of the site by divers. Evidence has been found of displacement of divers from within the wind farm site, with this effect apparent in all seven years of post-construction monitoring. The 2011-12 and 2012-13 results have confirmed a much reduced diver density within the wind farm, and provided further data to inform the estimation of the magnitude of that displacement. The precise magnitude of the effect is dependent on exactly which comparisons are made and whether account is taken on the variability in diver populations in the wider survey area. However, the analysis presented here suggests a displacement of between 89% (comparing recent densities within and outside the wind farm) and 94% (comparing with previous pre-construction densities). Outside the wind farm the results are less clear. The area within 3km of the wind farm has consistently held lower densities of divers than during the pre-construction period, but there has also been a decline in divers in the survey area generally (and the extent of the control area is insufficient to enable a full BACI analysis to be undertaken, particularly in light of the high variability in numbers in that area between years). The new data from a wider survey area has enabled the geographic extent of the diver displacement to be investigated further. This new analysis suggests that comparison with the pre-construction baseline has over-estimated the displacement effect in these zones (which might be better explained by spatial and/or temporal changes in the wider diver population). The gradient analysis showed no evidence of diver displacement beyond 1km from the wind farm in 2011-12 and in 2012-13. There was some suggestion from the 2008-09 data in particular that the magnitude of the diver displacement may be decreasing through time; divers may be habituating to the presence of the wind turbines. The 2011-12 and 2012-13 data do not however provide support to such a hypothesis of habituation, with no records at all within the wind farm in 2012-13. As noted in the previous reports, the biological importance of diver displacement is not yet clear and needs to be addressed with reference to the context of the wider diver population within the Outer Thames Estuary. It is also important to recognise that the results for this site may not be directly applicable to other wind farm sites given the Kentish Flats wind farm’s relatively small number of turbines and footprint size, and its relatively low importance for divers. It is possible, for example, that divers using a site of greater importance/attractiveness to them may be less likely to be affected by disturbance than those at Kentish Flats. There will be no limitations when published on the Marine Data Exchange otherRestrictions Data Must be used in accordance to the Marine Data Exchange's Terms of Use: https://www.marinedataexchange.co.uk/content/info/terms-of-use otherRestrictions The Crown Estate +44 020 7851 5000 enquiries@thecrownestate.co.uk custodian Ecology Consulting steve.percival@btinternet.com originator The Crown Estate +44 020 7851 5000 enquiries@thecrownestate.co.uk distributor Vattenfall matthew.jeans@vattenfall.com owner asNeeded Delimited Geographic Information System https://www.marinedataexchange.co.uk/details/TCE-808/summary A link to the web service or dataset. https://www.marinedataexchange.co.uk A link to the general host site. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 of 23 November 2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services 2010-12-08T00:00:00 publication Conformity with the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 was either not relevant to this dataset or not a requirement of the Marine Data Exchange for the creation and submission of this dataset; therefore, conformity has not been assessed and cannot be declared False series The survey methodology for 2011-12 and 2012-13 was the same as that followed in the previous three winters (Camphuysen et al. 2004), though with a wider spread of survey transects. In order to obtain data from a wider area around the wind turbines new transects were added to the existing ones and the existing ones were extended. To ensure that the survey could be completed within a single survey day the transect interval was increased from 1km to 2km. The extent of the survey transects and those used previously are shown in Figure 1. As noted before, the previous 1km transect separation, rather than the more usual 2km separation, meant that the potential for double-recording of mobile species such as divers was more likely. The absolute population estimates should therefore be treated with caution as they may over-estimate the actual numbers. However, for the purposes of this analysis it has been assumed that this has not led to any systematic bias in the data set. Vattenfall MDE@vattenfall.com pointOfContact EPSG Geodetic Parameter Registry 2022-11-29 revision WGS 84