|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 2013 –
February 2014 Quarterly Report |
Dolphin Impact Monitoring |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 2013 –
February 2014 Quarterly Report |
Dolphin Impact Monitoring |
|
|
|
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
2. Objectives and Methodology 2
2.1. Objectives of the Present Study 2
2.2. Line-transect Vessel Surveys 2
2.2.1 Baseline Survey Data and Data from Impact Monitoring 3
2.3. Photo-Identification 6
2.4. Data Analyses 6
2.4.1. Distribution
pattern analysis 6
2.4.2. Encounter rate analysis 6
2.4.3. Quantitative grid
analysis on habitat use 6
2.4.4. Behavioural
analysis 6
2.4.5. Ranging pattern
analysis 7
3. Results and Discussions 7
3.1. Summary of survey effort and dolphin sightings 7
3.2. Distribution 8
3.3. Encounter rate 9
3.4. Group size 10
3.5. Habitat use 10
3.6. Mother-calf pairs 10
3.7. Activities and associations with fishing boats 10
3.8. Photo-identification work and individual range use 11
4. Conclusions 11
5. References 12
Tables
Table 1 The Dolphin Monitoring Transect Co-Ordinates for
HKBCF Monthly Monitoring 4
Table
2 A Comparison of Total
Sightings Recorded in NEL
and
NWL Areas During Sep – Nov 2011; Dec 2011 –
Jan
2012; Dec 2012- Feb 2013 and Dec 2013 – Feb 2014 8
Table
3 A Comparison of “On Effort”
Sightings Recorded in NEL and
NWL
Combined During Sep – Nov 2011; Dec 2011 –
Jan
2012; Dec 2012- Feb 2013 and Dec 2013 – Feb 2014 8
Table
4 A Comparison of “On Effort”
Sightings Recorded in NEL and
NWL During
Sep – Nov 2011; Dec 2011 –
Jan
2012; Dec 2012- Feb 2013 and Dec 2013 – Feb 2014 9
Table
5 A
Comparison of Encounter Rates* in NEL and NWL Areas
During
Sep – Nov 2011; Dec 2011 – Jan 2012; Dec 2012- Feb 2013
and
Dec 2013 – Feb 2014 9
Table
6 A Comparison of Sightings
Group Size Averages Recorded
in NEL
and NWL Areas During Sep – Nov 2011; Dec 2011 –
Jan
2012; Dec 2012- Feb 2013 and Dec 2013 – Feb 2014 10
Figures
Figure 1. The
North Lantau,
Figure 2 Location of the Transect Lines for
Baseline and Impact
Monitoring during HKBCF (modified to
accommodate HKBCF) 5
Figure 3 Distribution of Sightings Recorded
During Impact Monitoring
Surveys for HKBCF (December 2013) 14
Figure 4 Distribution of Sightings Recorded
During Impact Monitoring
Surveys for HKBCF (January 2014) 15
Figure 5 Distribution of Sightings Recorded
During Impact Monitoring
Surveys for HKBCF (February 2014) 16
Figure 6 Distribution of Sightings Recorded
During Impact Monitoring
Surveys for HKBCF (December 2013 – February
2014) 17
Figure 7. The Location of Dolphin Groups Numbering
5 and Above Individuals
(December
2013 – February 2014) 18
Figure 8 Sighting density SPSE (number of
on-effort sightings per 100
units of survey effort) for December 2013 –
February 2014 19
Figure 9 Dolphin density DPSE (number of
dolphins per 100 units of
survey effort) for December 2013 – February
2014 20
Figure 10 A comparison of dolphin density
DPSE/SPSE
(number of dolphins/sightings per 100 units
of survey effort)
for winter periods December 2012 – February
2013 and
December 2013 – February 2014, highlighting
decrease in habitat use 21
Figure 11. Location of
groups containing mother and calf pairs during
December
2013 – February 2014 22
Figure 12 Activity Budget for Dolphin Behaviour December
2013 – February 2014 23
Figure 13 The Location of Different Behavioural
Activities
December
2013 – February 2014 24
ANNEXES
Annex I Impact Monitoring Survey Schedule and Details (December
2013 – February 2014)
Annex II Impact Monitoring Survey Effort Summary (December 2013 – February
2014)
Annex III Impact Monitoring Sighting Database (December 2013 – February
2014)
Annex IV Photo ID Images (December
2013 – February 2014)
1. Introduction
In
March 2012, construction for the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) began in
Figure 1.
The Hong Kong Boundary Crossing (HKBCF) Reclamation Sites, North Lantau,
Hong Kong (http://www.hzmb.hk/eng/img/overview/about_overview03_p01l.jpg)
The
EM&A Manuals and Environmental Permits (EP) associated with all three
projects have special provision for Chinese white dolphins (CWD) as they occur
regularly in the waters which will be affected by the HZMB development. This report comprises the seventh quarterly (September
– November 2013) summary of data associated with the impact monitoring conducted
for contract HY/2010/02, HKBCF-Reclamation Works. The format of this report follows as closely
as possible the outline provided for the Baseline Monitoring Report. The baseline monitoring was conducted at the
same as this quarter thus three years of quarterly monitoring can be compared
in this report; 2011; 2012 and 2013.
Where appropriate, information from previous reports, data provided by
the Hong Kong Highways Department (HyD) and data from the Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) Marine Mammal Annual Monitoring
reports have also been incorporated[1]
2.
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
2.1.
Objectives of the Present Study
The EM&A Manual for HZMB states that “A dolphin monitoring
programme at North Lantau and West Lantau waters, in particular the dolphin
sighting hotspots (e.g. Brothers Islands) and areas where juveniles have been
sighted (e.g. West Lantau waters), should be set up to verify the predictions
of impacts and to ensure that there are no unforeseen impacts on the dolphin
population during construction phase“.
For HKBCF the study area known as
providing ongoing assessment of the spatial and temporal distribution
patterns and habitat use of CWD during the construction phase of the HKBCF
project.
identifying individual CWD by their natural marks, coloration and
scars for comparison with the baseline data and to assess individual
distribution patterns and habitat use.
comparing impact survey data to that gathered during the baseline
data period so that any changes deemed to be of a significant nature can be
assessed and mitigated appropriately.
The
baseline monitoring report includes distribution analysis, encounter rate
analysis, behavioural analysis, quantitative grid analysis and ranging pattern
analysis. Protocols for data
interpretation and analyses methods were provided in the baseline monitoring
report.
2.2.
Line-transect Vessel Surveys
The co-ordinates for
the transect lines and layout map were provided by AFCD, however, these have
been modified as the construction works at HKBCF has shortened one of the
transect lines (Table 1; Figure 2). The
study area now incorporates 23 transects (totalling ~111km) which are surveyed
twice per month by boat. Line transect
surveys should be conducted systematically and lines travelled in sequence
(Buckland et al 2001). When the start of a transect line is reached,
“on effort” survey begins. When the
vessel is travelling between transect lines and to and from the study area, it
is deemed to be “off effort”. The
transect line is surveyed at a speed of 7-8 knots (13-15 km/hr). During some periods, tide and current flow in
the study site exceeds 7 knots and thus the vessel travels at the same speed as
the current during these periods. A
minimum of four marine mammal observers (MMOs) are present on each survey,
rotating through four positions; observers (2), data recorder (1) and rest
(1). Rotations occur every 30 minutes or
at the end of dolphin sightings. The
data recorder enters vessel effort, observer effort, weather and sightings
information directly onto the programme Logger[2] and is not part of the observer team. This is not standard line transect survey
procedure, however, the baseline study was conducted this way thus it has been
requested that only two observers be used for impact surveys.
When the boat is travelling along
the transect line (“on effort”), observers search the area in front of the boat
between 90° and 270° abeam (bow being 0°).
When a group of dolphins is sighted, position, bearing and distance data
are recorded immediately onto Logger and, after a short observation, an estimate
is made of group size[3].
This is an “on effort” sighting.
These input parameters are linked to the time-GPS-ships data which are
automatically stored in Logger throughout the survey period. In this manner, information on heading,
position, speed, weather, effort and sightings are stored in an interlinked
database which can be subsequently used in a variety of analytical software
packages.
Once the vessel leaves the
transect line, it is deemed to be “off-effort”.
The dolphins are approached with the purpose of taking high resolution
images. Then the vessel returns to the
transect line at the point of departure and is again “on effort”. If another group of dolphins is seen while
travelling back to the transect line, or when with the first group of dolphins,
the sightings are considered as “opportunistic” and noted accordingly.
2.2.1 Baseline Survey Data
and Data from Impact Monitoring
Data from the baseline was provided by the Highways Department
(January 2013) and data has been reported monthly throughout the impact
monitoring period. For ease of reference, these data have been summarised from
that previously reported and encounter rate calculations are provided (Annex
I).
Figure 2 Location of
the Transect Lines for Baseline and Impact Monitoring during HKBCF (modified to
accommodate HKBCF)
2.3. Photo-identification
When a dolphin(s) is sighted, the vessel
leaves the transect line and slowly approaches the group or individual. Attempts are made to photograph every
individual sighted although close approaches to mother and calf pairs are not
attempted. A digital SLR camera (Nikon
D90) using long lenses (Nikor 80-200mm and fixed length 300mm) are used to
obtain high resolution images. Effort is
made to ensure consistency of image quality, e.g., no shadow and at an angle
perpendicular to the dorsal fin.
Polarising filters are used to minimise glare. In this manner, the best image clarity is
achieved and image sorting and matching is more consistent. Images
are sorted according to clarity and presence/absence of identifying features
(nicks/cuts/deformities/injury/pigmentation).
Only images deemed to be of suitable quality and as containing
sufficient markings for unambiguous identification are included in the
photo-identification catalogue.
2.4.
Data Analyses
2.4.1.
Distribution pattern analysis
Dolphin
sightings data are mapped in the Geographic Information System (GIS) ArcView©
10.1.
2.4.2.
Encounter rate analysis
For
this report, the baseline encounter rates were re-calculated using the revised data
provided (as presented in Annex I) rather than quoting directly from the
baseline report. Calculation followed
the EM&A Manuel methodology (“on-effort” sightings made during favourable
weather and visibility conditions).
2.4.3.
Quantitative grid analysis of habitat use
Quantitative grid
analysis is performed by mapping both sighting and dolphin densities plotted
onto 1kmx1km grid squares. Only “on
effort” sightings made while on a transect line and under favourable conditions
should be included in grid analyses.
These densities are standardised by effort by calculating survey
coverage in each line transect survey to determine the number of times the grid
has been surveyed. Densities are
calculated using the following formulae;
SPSE and DPSE:
SPSE = (S/E x 100)/SA%
DPSE = (D/E x 100)/SA%
Where;
S= total number “on
effort” sightings
D = total number
dolphins from “on effort” sightings
E = total number units
survey effort
SA% = percentage of sea
area
2.4.4.
Behavioural analysis
When
dolphins are sighted during vessel surveys, their behaviour is observed.
Different activities are categorised (i.e. feeding, traveling, surface active,
associated with boats, unknown) and recorded in the sighting data form of
Logger. The sightings form is integrated
with survey effort and positional data and can be subsequently mapped to
examine distribution and behavioural trends.
All sightings data (“on-effort” and “opportunistic”) are used in this
analysis.
2.4.5.
Ranging pattern analysis
Home
ranges for individual dolphins can be calculated using a variety of software
(Worton 1989). In the baseline
monitoring report, the program Animal Movement Analyst Extension, created by
the Alaska Biological Science Centre, USGS was used in conjunction with
ArcView© 3.1 and Spatial Analyst 2.0.
Using the fixed kernel method, kernel density estimates and kernel
density plots are created using all sightings.
In the baseline monitoring, data from other studies and from outside the
baseline monitoring period were used to map individual ranges. It is important to maximize the number of
sightings used as kernel analyses cannot be conducted unless more than 20
independent sightings are made for an individual although it is recommended
that a minimum of 70 resightings are used before kernel analyses has any
accuracy (Wauters et al 2007; Kauhala
and Auttila 2010). AFCD Annual Reports
use a minimum of 15 resightings for kernel analyses (AFCD 2012). To date, too few data on individual dolphins
exist from impact monitoring alone, i.e., 15 or more independent resightings
per individual, to map utilisation densities using the fixed kernel
method. The most resightings for an
individual dolphin in the baseline and impact monitoring period combined is
thirteen (HZMB 054) split across baseline (seven sightings) and impact
monitoring (6 sightings). A comparison
of baseline and impact sightings using kernel analyses will require longer term
data collection.
3.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1.
Summary of survey effort and dolphin sightings
From December
2013 – February 2014, 12 vessel surveys were conducted in NEL and
NWL survey areas (Annex II). A total of
664.9 km of “on-effort” transect lines were conducted, of which 626.8 km were
under favourable conditions (Beaufort 3 or better). Therefore, 94.3% of vessel surveys were
conducted under favorable conditions (Annex III). Only those periods of “on-effort” survey
conducted under favourable conditions were included in quantitative
analyses. During December
2013 – February 2014, 26 groups of dolphins, numbering 107 (min 105:
max 116[4])
individuals, were sighted from the vessel surveys. Of these, 21 groups were “on-effort” and the
remaining five “opportunistic” (Annex IV).
Of the 26 sightings, 25 groups were
located in NWL and 1 in NEL. The
baseline report, conducted during September-November 2011, notes a total of 44
groups, 34 of which occurred in NWL and 10 in NEL. The baseline surveys were conducted outside
the winter period, however, single surveys were conducted for an advanced
monitoring period during Dec2011- Jan 2012.
Although these surveys only lasted two months, it is still useful to add
them to this comparison so that a temporal perspective from a time prior to the
onset of the HZMB project might be gained.
During December 2011 – Jan 2012, six and three groups were recorded in NWL
and NEL, respectively. For period December
2012- February 2013, a total of 50 groups were sighted, 38 of which were
located in NWL and 12 in NEL. There are differences between the number of
sightings made during baseline compared to winter 2012-13 and 2013-14. For both NEL and NWL, the number of groups during
baseline was less than that recorded during winter 2012-13, but more than that
recorded during the following winter of 2013-14[5] (Table
2). Maps depicting location of sightings
which have not been corrected for effort or survey track length are included as
Figs. 3;4;5;6.
Table 2. A Comparison of Total Sightings Recorded in
NEL and NWL Areas During Sep – Nov 2011; Dec 2011 – Jan 2012; Dec 2012- Feb
2013 and Dec 2013 – Feb 2014
|
Monitoring Period |
Total Dolphin Sighting in NWL |
Total Dolphin Sighting in NEL |
|
Number of Groups |
Number of Groups |
|
|
Dec
2011 – Jan 2012* (Advanced
Monitoring) |
6 |
3 |
|
Sep –
Nov 2011 (Baseline
Monitoring) |
34 |
10 |
|
Dec
2012 – Feb 2013 (HKBCF
Fourth Quarter) |
38 |
12 |
|
Dec
2013 – Feb 2014 (HKBCF
Eighth Quarter) |
25 |
1 |
*
Survey conducted once per month
As per the EM&A manual, only “on effort” sightings can be used for
some analyses therefore the combined number of “on effort” sightings for the three
periods baseline, winter 2012-13 and winter 2013-14 were compared (as the
advanced monitoring period in winter 2011-12 only covered two months and had
half the number of surveys, the number of on effort sightings are tabled for
reference and will be used in quantitative effort calculations later). From baseline to the following two winter
periods[6], there is a
decrease in absolute numbers of on effort sightings recorded. No correction for effort is made with these
numbers, this is calculated in section 3.3.
Table 3.
A Comparison of “On Effort” Sightings Recorded in NEL and NWL Combined During
Sep – Nov 2011; Dec 2011 – Jan 2012; Dec 2012- Feb 2013 and Dec 2013 – Feb
2014.
|
Monitoring
Period |
Groups
of Dolphin sighted in NEL and NWL |
|
Dec 2011 – Jan 2012* (Advanced Monitoring) |
9 |
|
Sep – Nov 2011 (Baseline Monitoring) |
44 |
|
Dec 2012 – Feb 2013 (HKBCF Fourth Quarter) |
34 |
|
Dec 2013 – Feb 2014 (HKBCF Eighth Quarter) |
21 |
* Survey conducted once per month
3.2.
Distribution
During
the baseline survey, ~77% of all on effort sightings were made in NWL. During the winter periods 2011-12, 2012-13
and 2013-14, 66%, 85% and 95% of all sightings were made in NWL,
respectively. There is a general trend
of an increasing proportion of on effort sightings occurring in NWL during the winter
period from advanced monitoring to date, however, if the baseline proportion is
included, the trend is not consistent.
It has been previously documented that a seasonal trend in dolphin
occurrence occurs in the waters of NEL and NWL, therefore, it is perhaps more
useful to consider trends across like-seasons. Again, there is no correction for effort in
these observations (Table 4). All of the
sightings, except one, cluster around the northern section of NWL and are
either within or adjacent to the Sha Chau Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park
(SCLKCMP). Since 1995, this area has
been consistently highlighted as important to some, but not all, of the
dolphins which frequent Hong Kong waters.
A single sighting occurred at the north eastern corner of the airport
platform, again, this area has been shown to be an area of high use in the past
but usage has been declining since the mid 2000’s and has been related to the
increasing number of high speed ferries that depart from here (Fig. 6).
Table 4.
A Comparison of “On Effort” Sightings Recorded in NEL and NWL During Sep
– Nov 2011; Dec 2011 – Jan 2012; Dec 2012- Feb 2013 and Dec 2013 – Feb 2014.
|
Monitoring Period |
No. of Dolphin Groups sighted in NWL |
No. of Dolphin Groups sighted in NEL |
|
Dec 2011 – Jan 2012* (Advanced Monitoring) |
6 |
3 |
|
Sep – Nov 2011 (Baseline Monitoring) |
34 |
10 |
|
Dec 2012 – Feb 2013 (HKBCF Fourth Quarter) |
29 |
5 |
|
Dec 2013 – Feb 2014 (HKBCF Eighth Quarter) |
20 |
1 |
* Survey conducted once per month
3.3.
Encounter rate
As
the survey periods have different transect lengths, variation in sightings
occurrence was quantified by correcting for the different amount of effort
(number and distance of transect lines surveyed, i.e., km spent “on-effort”),
to obtain an encounter rate. The
baseline study (Sep-Nov 2011) reports that a total of 545.6km[7] of
survey effort was conducted under favourable conditions in the NEL and NWL
survey areas. In NEL, there has been a
decrease in encounter rates over the three winter periods 2011-12, 2012-13 and
2013-14, however, the baseline period (Sept – Nov 2013) has a higher encounter
rate than the previous winter period.
These data indicate a decreasing trend in encounter rate in NEL over the
winter period but does not account for trends during other seasonal
periods. In NWL, there is no consistent
trend, as encounter rate increases during the first winter (2012-13) of impact
monitoring compared to advanced monitoring (winter 2011-12) and then decreases again
in winter 2013-14. The baseline
monitoring encounter rate is the highest calculated but it is noted this is
from a different season compared to this quarter (Table 5).
Table
5. A Comparison of Encounter Rates*
in NEL and NWL Areas During Sep –
Nov 2011; Dec 2011 – Jan 2012; Dec 2012- Feb 2013 and Dec 2013 – Feb 2014.
|
Monitoring Period |
Encounter Rate NEL |
Encounter Rate NWL (*) |
|
Dec 2011 – Jan 2012* (Advanced Monitoring) |
4.6 |
6.1 |
|
Sep – Nov 2011 (Baseline Monitoring) |
5.4 |
9.5 |
|
Dec 2012 – Feb 2013 (HKBCF Fourth Quarter) |
2.3 |
6.6 |
|
Dec 2013 – Feb 2014 (HKBCF Eighth Quarter) |
0.5 |
4.8 |
* Survey conducted once
per month
The AFCD Annual Reports describe variation
in spatial distribution between areas and between seasons in NEL and NWL. For the last sixteen years, it is reported
that overall annual encounter rate
for NEL varies between 1.6 and 6.2 and the annual
encounter rate for NWL varies between 5.8 and 17.0. Both the encounter rates for NEL and NWL for this
quarter (Dec 2013- Feb 2014) are lower than the yearly average. Historically,
there have been both up and down movements within yearly encounter rate limits, however, the general trend in yearly
encounter rate for dolphins in all areas of Hong Kong is that of significant
decline over the last decade and prior to new development projects in the
Lantau area (AFCD 2013). The known
decline in the population, on top of the highly variable encounter rate noted
historically, makes it problematic to discern any additional influence
individual projects, such as HKBCF and others, may have on the dolphin
population encounter rate. As the impact
of the work at HKBCF extends in addition to new dredging and other projects
being initiated in both NEL and NWL, it is likely that all activities have had
a cumulative effect on overall encounter rates.
3.4.
Group size
During
Dec 2013- Feb 2014, group size of all sightings varied from 1 to 13 individuals
with an average of 4.2 in NWL and 1 in NEL.
For baseline monitoring, the NWL average group size was 4.5 and the NEL
average group size was 3.5. For the winter
periods 2011-12 and 2012-13, the NWL average group sizes were 2 and 3.6,
respectively, and in NEL, for the same two periods, they were 4.3 and 2.8,
respectively (Table 6). The group size
in NEL over the winter period since 2011 shows a decrease. The group size in NWL for the same seasons is
variable. A map depicting group size
distribution shows that almost half of all groups seen had more than five
individuals. The largest group (n=13)
contained one calf (Fig. 7).
Table
6. A Comparison of Sightings Group Size Averages Recorded in Sep – Nov
2011; Dec 2011 – Jan 2012; Dec 2012- Feb 2013 and Dec 2013 – Feb 2014.
|
Monitoring Period |
Average
Group Size (NWL) |
Average
Group Size (NEL) |
|
|
Dec 2011 – Jan 2012* (Advanced Monitoring) |
2 |
4.3 |
|
|
Sep – Nov 2011 (Baseline Monitoring) |
4.5 |
3.5 |
|
|
Dec 2012 – Feb 2013 (HKBCF Fourth Quarter) |
3.6 |
2.8 |
|
|
Dec 2013 – Feb 2014 (HKBCF Eighth Quarter) |
4.2 |
1 |
|
As encounter rate and group size are both subject to variation, the
use of other more powerful analyses may be more appropriate to discern
differences over the shorter term, such as multi-variate analyses (Taylor et al 2007). In the last quarterly report a methodology
was proposed for such modelling. Both habitat
and environmental data for the NEL and NWL regions are required and, to date,
all information from the 2011 advanced and baseline period (Dec 2011 – Jan
2012) and impact monitoring (March 2012 – Dec 2012) have been reformatted and
entered into the model database. EPD
have informed this project that the remaining EPD environmental data from 2013 (to
compete the year impact survey period Mar 2012 – Feb 2013) will be made
available as soon as it has been verified by EPD internal auditing processes[8].
3.5.
Habitat use
Quantitative
grid analyses indicates that the most often frequented areas in NWL were the
SCLKCMP, the western limit of NWL and one area to the north of the Hong Kong
International Airport (HKIA) platform
(Figs. 8; 9). This is the same pattern
as was observed in the last quarter and highlights areas of high density as has
been published previously in the AFCD Annual Reports and the baseline
monitoring report. These areas of high
use have been consistent in the long term and continue to be so. When compared to the grid analyses from Dec
2012 – Feb 2013 (Fig 10) it is noted that the previously recorded areas of high
density located to the east of HKBCF and to the north of the Link Road Project
are absent. The general trend in the
last few quarters has been for these area closest to two ongoing HZMB construction
sites being less frequented by dolphins, with the exception of the area to the
north of HKBCF.
3.6.
Mother-calf pairs
Ten
of the groups sighted contained mother and calf pairs. All groups were sighted in NWL (Fig. 11). Calves comprised 10.3% of all dolphins
sighted, higher than that reported in the last two quarterly reports (6.7% and 2.5%,
respectively). Several of the new born
calves from the last quarter have been sighted consistently in NWL this quarter
as well as older (nearing year old) calves.
3.7.
Activities
Of
the 26 groups sighted (using all sightings), eight (31%) were engaged in
feeding activities which is less than the frequency noted last quarter; eight
(31%) were travelling which is a marked increase from last quarter; six (23%)
were feeding/travelling/surface active which is similar to the last quarter;
two (8%) were milling (other) and it was not possible to define the behavior of
two (8%) groups. Feeding and travelling
were the predominant activities during daylight hours in Dec 2013 – Feb 2014 (Fig.
12). In NWL, feeding occurred most often
at east SCLKCMP and the western limits of NWL.
(Fig. 13).
3.8.
Photo-identification work
The photo-identification catalogue was
regularly updated and re-sightings of dolphins previously identified were
recorded. The project specific
photo-identification catalogue for the impact monitoring period is presented in
Annex VI. Not all dolphins sighted have
sufficient scarring, injury or pigmentation uniqueness to be unambiguously
identified. During the baseline survey, 96 individuals were noted in the NEL,
NWL and WL areas. Of these, 57 were
noted in the NEL and NWL area. No new
dolphins which have been identified in the last quarter are from the baseline
study and the catalogue no stands at 107 individuals. There are 13 dolphins which have been sighted
six or more times, seven of which are known from the AFCD catalogue (HZMB 002
[WL111]; HZMB 011 [EL01]; HZMB 041 [NL24]; HZMB 044 [NL98]; HZMB 051 [NL213]; HZMB
054 [CH34]; HZMB 098 [NL104]). Two of
these well known individuals were not seen during the baseline study (HZMB 002
AND HZMB 044). When both baseline and impact
monitoring data is pulled, HZMB 54 has been seen the most in 14 different
sighting groups. HZMB 002 has been sighted 11 times; HZMB
044 and HZMB 041 have been
sighted nine times and HZMB 011 has been sighted eight times. Even when pooled with baseline data, the
highest number of re-sightings is 14 (HZMB 054) and this does not consider
independence of sightings, a critical assumption in kernel analyses. (Annex VI; Table1).
4.
CONCLUSION
The data from Dec 2013 – Feb 2014 shows some
consistencies with the baseline data (conducted during a different season) and
with the same periods in Winter 2011-12 and 2012-13. Habitat use, group size and behavioural
trends all fall within those reported in AFCD Long Term Monitoring reports. The quarterly encounter rates for both NEL and
NWL is lower than that reported for annual
rates published previously and the
seasonal trend for these two areas is of a declining encounter rate. Density distribution maps depicted key areas
of frequent use within NWL, in particular, SCLKMP, and NEL at the northern edge
of the airport platform, however, previously important areas to the east of
HKBCF construction site and to the north of the Link Road construction area at
NWL have not been frequented by dolphins this quarter. There has been a high resighting rate of
calves, compared to previous months.
The
decreases in encounter rates in both NEL and NWL is noted. HKBCF monthly reporting notes that the
conditions of EM&A Manuel have been consistently upheld and that all measures
published to minimise disturbance to dolphins remain in place. Although it is likely that the increase in
HKBCF activities is having an effect on dolphin encounter rates in NEL, it is
also noted that other HZMB projects have increased activities over the last
quarter. In addition, extensive dredging
has been on going in NEL and also in parts of NWL. Further, new projects have been initiated
along the airport platform area. The
modelling proposed herein will provide insight to specific areas of habitat use
and density change which cannot be assigned to environmental variation. At this stage when there is an ongoing and
increasing number of activities occurring in the dolphins habitat, other analyses
may also be useful. These may include extending
the area of impact survey areas, e.g., to south of Lantau, to assess if
dolphins habitat use has shifted within Hong Kong waters. A cumulative analysis may also provide a
better understanding of what the potentially greatest impacts are and what the
summary of these effects may be on the dolphins. It is noted, however, that a significant
decline in the dolphin population throughout the last ten years and prior to
construction commencement has been established by AFCD (2013). All analyses must take into account this long
term trend the cause of which has not yet been quantified.
References
Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) 2012. Annual Marne Mammal Monitoring Programme April 2011-March 2012. )
The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Government of the Hong
Kong SAR.
Buckland,
S., Burnham, K., Laake, J., Borchers, D. and Thomas, L. 2001. Introduction to
Distance Sampling. Oxford University
Press.
Connor,
R. Mann, J., Tyack, P. and Whitehead, H. 1998. Social Evolution in Toothed
Whales. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
13, 228-232
Gillespie, D., Leaper,
R., Gordon, J. and Macleod, K. 2010. An integrated data collection system for line
transect surveys. J. Cetacean
Res. Manage. 11(3): 217–227.
Kauhala, K. & Auttila, M. 2010:
Estimating habitat selection of badgers - a test between different methods. - Folia
Zoologica 59: 16-25.
Taylor,
B., Martinez, M, Gerodette, T., Barlow, J and Hrovat, Y. 2007.
Lessons from Monitoring Trends in Abundance of Marine Mammals. Marine
Mammal Science 23(1):157-175.
Wauters, L., Preatoni, D., Molinari, A. and
Tosi, G. 2007. Radio-tracking squirrels: Performance of home range density and
linkage estimators with small range and sample size. Ecological Modelling
202(10):333-44
Worton,
B. 1989. Kernel Methods for Estimating
Utilization Distribution in Home Range Studies. Ecology 70(I):164-8
Figure 3 Distribution of Sightings Recorded During Impact Monitoring
Surveys for HKBCF (December 2013)
Figure 4 Distribution of Sightings Recorded
During Impact Monitoring Surveys for HKBCF (January 2014)
Figure 5 Distribution of Sightings Recorded During Impact Monitoring
Surveys for HKBCF (February 2014)
Figure 6. Distribution of Sightings Recorded During Impact Monitoring
Surveys for HKBCF (December 2013 – February 2014)
Figure 7.
The Location of Dolphin Groups Numbering 5 and Above Individuals (December 2013 – February 2014)
Figure 8. Sighting density SPSE (number of on-effort sightings per
100 units of survey effort) for December 2013 – February 2014
Figure 9. Dolphin density DPSE (number of dolphins per 100 units of
survey effort) for December 2013 – February 2014.
Figure 10. A comparison of dolphin density DPSE/SPSE (number of
dolphins/sightings per 100 units of survey effort) for winter periods December
2012 – February 2013 and December 2013 – February 2014, highlighting decrease
in habitat use.
Figure 11. Location of groups containing mother and calf
pairs during December
2013 – February 2014.
Figure 12. Activity
Budget for Dolphin Behaviour December 2013 – February 2014.
Figure 13.
The Location of Different Behavioural Activities December 2013 – February 2014
Annex I. Impact Monitoring Survey Schedule and Details
(December 2013 – February 2014)
|
Date |
Location of Survey |
No. Sightings ON |
No. Sightings Opp |
Total km "on
effort" |
|
12/19/2013 |
NWL (1-6,21,22) |
4 |
1 |
62.1 |
|
12/21/2013 |
NE and NW Lantau (7-20,23) |
0 |
0 |
46.8 |
|
12/26/2013 |
NWL (1-4, 21,22) |
5 |
1 |
52.7 |
|
12/28/2013 |
NE and NW Lantau (5-20,23) |
1 |
2 |
59.6 |
|
01/06/2014 |
NWL (1-4,21,22) |
5 |
1 |
51.5 |
|
01/07/2014 |
NE and NW Lantau (5-20,23) |
0 |
0 |
59.6 |
|
01/09/2014 |
NE and NW Lantau (5-20,23) |
2 |
0 |
59.2 |
|
01/10/2014 |
NWL (1-4,21,22) |
2 |
0 |
50.0 |
|
02/10/2014 |
NWL (1-7,21,22) |
0 |
0 |
68.0 |
|
02/11/2014 |
NE and NW Lantau (8-20,23) |
0 |
0 |
43.7 |
|
02/17/2014 |
NWL (1-5,21,22) |
2 |
0 |
52.3 |
|
02/20/2014 |
NE and NW Lantau (6-20,23) |
0 |
0 |
59.4 |
|
Total |
21 |
5 |
664.9 |
All
effort in all sea states is listed
Annex II. Impact Monitoring Survey Effort Summary (December
2013 – February 2014)
|
Date |
Area |
Sea State (on effort) |
Effort (km) |
Season |
Vessel |
Type |
|
12/19/2013 |
NWL |
2 |
40.5 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/19/2013 |
NWL |
3 |
21.6 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/21/2013 |
NWL |
2 |
7.9 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/21/2013 |
NWL |
3 |
2.1 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/21/2013 |
NEL |
1 |
8.3 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/21/2013 |
NEL |
2 |
20.9 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/21/2013 |
NEL |
3 |
7.6 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/26/2013 |
NWL |
2 |
35.8 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/26/2013 |
NWL |
3 |
16.9 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/28/2013 |
NWL |
1 |
4.8 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/28/2013 |
NWL |
2 |
11.7 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/28/2013 |
NWL |
3 |
6.9 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/28/2013 |
NEL |
1 |
25 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
12/28/2013 |
NEL |
2 |
11.2 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
01/06/2014 |
NWL |
2 |
27.6 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
01/06/2014 |
NWL |
3 |
23.9 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
01/07/2014 |
NWL |
2 |
10.6 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
01/07/2014 |
NWL |
3 |
12.5 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
01/07/2014 |
NEL |
1 |
1.7 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
01/07/2014 |
NEL |
2 |
33.1 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
01/07/2014 |
NEL |
3 |
1.7 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
01/09/2014 |
NEL |
1 |
20 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
01/09/2014 |
NEL |
2 |
15.5 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
01/09/2014 |
NWL |
2 |
23.7 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
01/10/2014 |
NWL |
2 |
40.6 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
01/10/2014 |
NWL |
3 |
9.4 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
02/10/2014 |
NWL |
1 |
0.3 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
02/10/2014 |
NWL |
2 |
4.9 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
02/10/2014 |
NWL |
3 |
37.8 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
02/10/2014 |
NWL |
4 |
25 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
02/11/2014 |
NWL |
3 |
3.7 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
02/11/2014 |
NWL |
4 |
2.4 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
02/11/2014 |
NEL |
1 |
1.4 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
02/11/2014 |
NEL |
3 |
26.9 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
02/11/2014 |
NEL |
4 |
9.3 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
02/17/2014 |
NWL |
2 |
15.7 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|
Annex II. Impact Monitoring Survey Effort
Summary (December 2013- February 2014) (con) |
|||||||||
|
Date |
Area |
Sea State (on effort) |
Effort (km) |
Season |
Vessel |
Type |
|
||
|
02/17/2014 |
NWL |
3 |
42.3 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|||
|
02/17/2014 |
NWL |
4 |
1.4 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|||
|
02/20/2014 |
NWL |
1 |
0.1 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|||
|
02/20/2014 |
NWL |
3 |
14.7 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|||
|
02/20/2014 |
NEL |
1 |
0.1 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|||
|
02/20/2014 |
NEL |
2 |
11 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|||
|
02/20/2014 |
NEL |
3 |
26.4 |
WINTER |
HKDW |
IMPACT |
|||
Annex III. Impact Monitoring Sighting Database (December
2013 – February 2014)
|
Project |
Contract |
Date |
Sighting No. |
Time |
Group Size |
Area |
Beaufort |
PSD |
Effort |
Type |
Latitude |
Longitude |
Season |
Boat (Assoc) |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
19-Dec-13 |
863 |
12:02 |
5 |
NWL |
2 |
54 |
Opp |
Impact |
22.35220 |
113.8836 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
19-Dec-13 |
864 |
12:34 |
4 |
NWL |
2 |
106 |
On |
Impact |
22.35680 |
113.8884 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
19-Dec-13 |
865 |
13:03 |
4 |
NWL |
2 |
20 |
On |
Impact |
22.37883 |
113.8879 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
19-Dec-13 |
866 |
13:29 |
8 |
NWL |
2 |
73 |
On |
Impact |
22.40230 |
113.8866 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
19-Dec-13 |
867 |
14:44 |
5 |
NWL |
3 |
662 |
On |
Impact |
22.33484 |
113.9076 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
26-Dec-13 |
874 |
9:47 |
3 |
NWL |
2 |
394 |
On |
Impact |
22.34324 |
113.8700 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
26-Dec-13 |
875 |
10:13 |
2 |
NWL |
2 |
NA |
Opp |
Impact |
22.35231 |
113.8748 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
26-Dec-13 |
876 |
10:28 |
5 |
NWL |
2 |
299 |
On |
Impact |
22.36897 |
113.8701 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
26-Dec-13 |
878 |
11:02 |
6 |
NWL |
2 |
30 |
On |
Impact |
22.37073 |
113.8685 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
26-Dec-13 |
879 |
13:44 |
8 |
NWL |
2 |
161 |
On |
Impact |
22.37721 |
113.8873 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
26-Dec-13 |
880 |
14:21 |
1 |
NWL |
2 |
151 |
On |
Impact |
22.37979 |
113.8876 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
28-Dec-13 |
882 |
10:44 |
5 |
NWL |
3 |
332 |
On |
Impact |
22.38444 |
113.9071 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
28-Dec-13 |
883 |
11:03 |
3 |
NWL |
3 |
NA |
Opp |
Impact |
22.38444 |
113.8995 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
28-Dec-13 |
884 |
11:30 |
2 |
NWL |
2 |
NA |
Opp |
Impact |
22.38482 |
113.8923 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
6-Jan-14 |
887 |
9:59 |
3 |
NWL |
3 |
48 |
On |
Impact |
22.36165 |
113.8745 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
6-Jan-14 |
888 |
11:20 |
8 |
NWL |
2 |
81 |
On |
Impact |
22.38225 |
113.8767 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
6-Jan-14 |
890 |
13:35 |
1 |
NWL |
3 |
111 |
On |
Impact |
22.37011 |
113.8913 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
6-Jan-14 |
891 |
14:10 |
1 |
NWL |
2 |
191 |
On |
Impact |
22.37802 |
113.8876 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
6-Jan-14 |
892 |
14:15 |
13 |
NWL |
2 |
173 |
On |
Impact |
22.37895 |
113.8878 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
6-Jan-14 |
893 |
15:20 |
2 |
NWL |
2 |
NA |
Opp |
Impact |
22.40439 |
113.8934 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
9-Jan-14 |
897 |
12:57 |
1 |
NEL |
2 |
NA |
On |
Impact |
22.32890 |
113.9527 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
9-Jan-14 |
898 |
14:34 |
1 |
NWL |
2 |
43 |
On |
Impact |
22.37264 |
113.9085 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
10-Jan-14 |
900 |
11:20 |
4 |
NWL |
2 |
178 |
On |
Impact |
22.40239 |
113.8869 |
Winter |
HT |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
10-Jan-14 |
901 |
11:59 |
2 |
NWL |
2 |
33 |
On |
Impact |
22.36806 |
113.8913 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
17-Feb-14 |
910 |
1:42 |
8 |
NWL |
2 |
50 |
On |
Impact |
22.34384 |
113.8810 |
Winter |
No |
|
HKBCF |
HY/2010/02 |
17-Feb-14 |
911 |
5:04 |
2 |
NWL |
2 |
210 |
On |
Impact |
22.35606 |
113.8884 |
Winter |
No |
.
Annex
IV
March
2012– February 2014
(and
Baseline September – November 2011)
Photo
Identification Information
|
Identification Number |
Baseline Identification Number |
Date (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Sighting Number |
Area Sighted |
|
|
HZMB 118 |
|
2014/01/06 |
890 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 117 |
|
2014/01/06 |
888 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 116 |
|
2013/12/26 |
879 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 115 |
|
2013/12/26 |
879 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 114 |
|
2013/10/24 |
827 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 113 |
|
2013/10/24 |
827 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 112 |
|
2013/10/15 |
815 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB111 |
|
2013/10/15 |
815 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 110 |
|
2013/10/15 |
812 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 108 |
|
2013/08/30 |
780 |
NEL |
|
|
HZMB 107 |
|
2013/08/21 |
770 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 106 |
|
2013/08/21 |
769 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 105 |
|
2013/07/08 |
711 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 104 |
|
2013/07/08 |
711 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 103 |
|
2013/07/08 |
711 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 102 |
|
2013/07/08 |
706 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 101 |
|
2013/07/08 |
706 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 100 |
|
2013/07/08 |
706 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 099 |
|
2013/06/13 |
681 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/06/13 |
680 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 098 |
NL104 |
2014/01/06 |
888 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/11/02 |
849 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/11/02 |
845 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/10/24 |
831 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/07/08 |
711 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/05/24 |
659 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 097 |
|
2013/05/09 |
647 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 096 |
|
2013/04/01 |
621 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 095 |
|
2013/08/30 |
780 |
NEL |
|
|
2013/06/25 |
697 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/06/13 |
682 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/04/01 |
621 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 094 |
|
2014/02/17 |
910 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/06/26 |
703 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/06/25 |
698 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/03/18 |
601 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 093 |
|
2013/05/24 |
657 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/02/21 |
587 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 092 |
|
2013/02/21 |
589 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/02/15 |
581 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 091 |
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 090 |
|
2013/06/25 |
697 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/06/13 |
682 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 089 |
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 088 |
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 087 |
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 086 |
NL242 |
2013/05/09 |
642 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|||
|
2011/10/10 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 085 |
|
2013/06/26 |
703 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 084 |
|
2013/02/14 |
575 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 083 |
NL136 |
2013/12/19 |
863 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/03/28 |
607 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/01/28 |
568 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/01/28 |
564 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 082 |
|
2013/02/21 |
587 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/01/28 |
563 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 081 |
|
2013/01/28 |
559 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/01/28 |
557 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 080 |
|
2013/01/28 |
556 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 079 |
|
2013/01/28 |
556 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 078 |
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/01/08 |
552 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 077 |
|
2013/12/26 |
878 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/07/08 |
706 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/12/11 |
541 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 076 |
|
2013/07/08 |
706 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/12/11 |
541 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 075 |
|
2012/12/06 |
525 |
NEL |
|
|
HZMB 074 |
|
2013/05/09 |
647 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/04/01 |
623 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/04/01 |
621 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/21 |
594 |
NEL |
|||
|
2012/12/10 |
529 |
NEL |
|||
|
2012/12/06 |
525 |
NEL |
|||
|
HZMB 073 |
|
2013/05/09 |
647 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/04/01 |
623 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/04/01 |
621 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/21 |
594 |
NEL |
|||
|
2012/12/10 |
529 |
NEL |
|||
|
2012/12/06 |
525 |
NEL |
|||
|
HZMB 072 |
|
2012/10/24 |
476 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 071 |
|
2012/10/24 |
475 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/10/12 |
466 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 070 |
|
2012/10/24 |
476 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 069 |
|
2013/08/21 |
774 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/07/08 |
711 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/10/24 |
476 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 068 |
|
2013/11/01 |
839 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/10/24 |
476 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 067 |
|
2012/10/24 |
475 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 066 |
NL93 |
2013/01/28 |
559 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/12/11 |
537 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/10/24 |
475 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/10/12 |
466 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 064 |
|
2013/05/09 |
647 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/01/28 |
561 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/10/24 |
475 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/10/12 |
466 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 063 |
|
2013/05/09 |
647 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/10/12 |
466 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 062 |
|
2012/12/06 |
525 |
NEL |
|
|
2012/10/11 |
457 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 060 |
|
2012/09/18 |
447 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 059 |
|
2013/02/21 |
591 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/09/18 |
445 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 057 |
|
2012/09/18 |
440 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 056 |
|
2012/09/18 |
442 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/09/05 |
433 |
NEL |
|||
|
HZMB 055 |
|
2012/09/04 |
425 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 054 |
CH34 |
2014/01/06 |
888 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/11/07 |
854 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/11/02 |
845 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/10/24 |
831 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/08/30 |
780 |
NEL |
|||
|
2013/07/08 |
711 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/09/18 |
448 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/09/05 |
432 |
NEL |
|||
|
2011/11/07 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
2011/11/05 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
2011/11/02 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
2011/11/01 |
Baseline |
NEL |
|||
|
2011/11/01 |
Baseline |
NEL |
|||
|
2011/10/28 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
2011/10/06 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 053 |
|
2012/09/04 |
425 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 052 |
|
2012/09/04 |
423 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 051 |
NL213 |
2013/05/09 |
644 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/04/01 |
622 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/15 |
582 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/15 |
581 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/01/28 |
559 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/01/28 |
556 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/09/04 |
422 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 050 |
|
2014/01/10 |
900 |
NWL |
|
|
2014/01/06 |
888 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/09/04 |
421 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 049 |
|
2012/09/03 |
419 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 048 |
|
2012/09/03 |
419 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 047 |
|
2012/09/03 |
412 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 046 |
|
2012/09/03 |
412 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 045 |
|
2014/02/17 |
910 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/06/13 |
682 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/11/01 |
495 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 044 |
NL98 |
2014/02/17 |
910 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/12/19 |
864 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/11/02 |
845 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/11/01 |
842 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/10/15 |
819 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/05/09 |
648 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/05/09 |
647 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/04/01 |
623 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/04/01 |
621 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/11/01 |
495 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 043 |
|
2012/09/03 |
407 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 042 |
NL260 |
2013/12/19 |
863 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/11/01 |
495 |
NWL |
|||
|
2011/11/07 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 041 |
NL24 |
2014/02/17 |
910 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/11/02 |
845 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/05/09 |
648 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/05/09 |
647 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/04/01 |
623 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/04/01 |
621 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/11/01 |
495 |
NWL |
|||
|
2011/11/06 |
Baseline |
NEL |
|||
|
2011/11/05 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
2011/11/05 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
2011/10/10 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 040 |
|
2014/02/17 |
910 |
NWL |
|
|
2014/01/06 |
893 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/10/15 |
821 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/07/08 |
714 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/07/08 |
711 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/21 |
589 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/11/01 |
493 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 038 |
|
2012/11/01 |
490 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 037 |
|
2012/11/01 |
490 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 036 |
|
2012/09/03 |
407 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/11/01 |
490 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 035 |
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/11/01 |
490 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 034 |
|
2012/11/01 |
493 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 028 |
|
2013/04/01 |
625 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/08/06 |
373 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 027 |
|
2013/12/19 |
863 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/01/28 |
568 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/01/28 |
564 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/06/14 |
299 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 026 |
|
2013/06/25 |
697 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/05/09 |
642 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/01/28 |
561 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/06/13 |
295 |
NEL |
|||
|
HZMB 025 |
|
2013/02/22 |
596 |
NEL |
|
|
2013/02/21 |
591 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/12/06 |
525 |
NEL |
|||
|
2012/10/11 |
457 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/06/13 |
295 |
NEL |
|||
|
HZMB 024 |
|
2013/03/18 |
601 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/06/13 |
295 |
NEL |
|||
|
HZMB 023 |
|
2014/01/06 |
888 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/07/08 |
715 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/07/08 |
711 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/04/01 |
619 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/21 |
589 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/07/10 |
330 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 022 |
|
2014/01/06 |
888 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/10/24 |
827 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/07/08 |
715 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/07/08 |
711 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/04/01 |
619 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/21 |
589 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/15 |
579 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/07/10 |
330 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 021 |
NL37 |
2012/07/10 |
330 |
NWL |
|
|
2011/09/16 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 020 |
|
2012/07/10 |
330 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 019 |
|
2012/07/10 |
330 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 018 |
|
2014/02/17 |
910 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/05/09 |
647 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/21 |
594 |
NEL |
|||
|
2012/12/10 |
529 |
NEL |
|||
|
2012/07/10 |
330 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 017 |
|
2012/07/10 |
330 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 016 |
|
2013/07/08 |
706 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/12/11 |
539 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/09/18 |
446 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/09/04 |
421 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/07/10 |
330 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 015 |
|
2012/07/10 |
330 |
NEL |
|
|
HZMB 014 |
NL176 |
2013/12/26 |
880 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/08/06 |
373 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/06/13 |
295 |
NEL |
|||
|
2011/11/06 |
Baseline |
NEL |
|||
|
2011/11/01 |
Baseline |
NEL |
|||
|
2011/11/01 |
Baseline |
NEL |
|||
|
HZMB 013 |
|
2012/05/28 |
281 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 012 |
|
2012/05/28 |
281 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 011 |
EL01 |
2013/02/22 |
597 |
NEL |
|
|
2013/02/21 |
592 |
NEL |
|||
|
2013/02/14 |
572 |
NEL |
|||
|
2012/11/06 |
517 |
NEL |
|||
|
2012/09/19 |
452 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/03/31 |
261 |
NEL |
|||
|
2011/11/02 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
2011/11/01 |
Baseline |
NEL |
|||
|
HZMB 009 |
|
2012/05/28 |
281 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 008 |
|
2012/05/28 |
281 |
NWL |
|
|
HZMB 007 |
NL246 |
2012/12/10 |
529 |
NEL |
|
|
HZMB 006 |
|
2013/02/21 |
594 |
NEL |
|
|
2012/12/11 |
539 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/11/01 |
495 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/03/29 |
250 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 005 |
|
2013/11/09 |
860 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/11/07 |
858 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/10/15 |
813 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/12/10 |
532 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/08/06 |
374 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/05/28 |
287 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 004 |
|
2012/09/04 |
421 |
NWL |
|
|
2012/03/31 |
262 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 003 |
NL179 |
2014/10/15 |
812 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/06/25 |
697 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/12/10 |
529 |
NEL |
|||
|
2012/03/31 |
261 |
NWL |
|||
|
2011/11/06 |
Baseline |
NEL |
|||
|
2011/09/16 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 002 |
WL111 |
2013/12/26 |
878 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/12/19 |
863 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/11/01 |
839 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/10/15 |
819 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/09/24 |
798 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/14 |
573 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/12/11 |
536 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/12/11 |
535 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/10/12 |
466 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/10/24 |
475 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/05/28 |
281 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/03/29 |
250 |
NWL |
|||
|
HZMB 001 |
WL46 |
2013/08/21 |
771 |
NWL |
|
|
2013/06/13 |
681 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/04/01 |
617 |
NWL |
|||
|
2013/02/14 |
573 |
NWL |
|||
|
2012/03/29 |
250 |
NWL |
|||
|
|
CH98 |
2011/11/02 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|
|
|
NL11 |
2011/11/02 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|
|
2011/11/07 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
|
NL12 |
2011/11/02 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|
|
|
NL33 |
2011/09/23 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|
|
2011/11/01 |
Baseline |
NEL |
|||
|
2011/11/05 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
2011/11/07 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|||
|
|
NL37 |
2011/09/16 |
Baseline |
NWL |
|
|
|
NL46 |
2011/10/28 |
Baseline |
NWL |
[1]http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_mar/con_mar_chi/con_mar_chi_chi/con_mar_chi_chi.html
[2] Logger is purpose built software which automatically collects and stores GPS data and contains a user configurable interface for the manual entry of the data required for line transect and other cetacean research studies (Gillespie et al 2010).
[3] Group size is defined as an aggregation of dolphins within 100m of each other involved in similar behaviour (Connor et al 1998).
[4] During sightings a minimum, maximum and best estimate of group size is noted; the range stated represents the minimum and maximum numbers estimated)
[5] As
the advanced surveys were far fewer during this time, absolute numbers of
groups are not compared but will be incorporated into encounter rate
calculations
[6] Please
note this does not incorporate any seasonal trend in between the winter periods
[7] Updated data set provided April 2013
[8] The
co operation of EPD and other government departments in obtaining these data is
gratefully acknowledged.
