My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/01/2006 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2006
>
05/01/2006 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2014 4:04:38 PM
Creation date
4/17/2014 1:44:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
05/01/2006
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
121
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Video - surveillance 2005 — Peltier Island colony: <br />As already mentioned, the substantially smaller colony size placed restrictions on <br />where and how cameras were to be installed. Furthermore, the process of installing cameras <br />into individual trees, rather than clustered in a single tree, necessitated a longer period of <br />disturbance. Video evidence suggests that of the 14 nests monitored, four may have suffered <br />negatively as a result of human disturbance; most likely from exposure of the eggs while the <br />parents were off the nest. <br />The primary compromise to video surveillance, due to the small colony size, was the <br />need for longer than optimal video shot distances. Ideally, a camera would be situated within <br />10 -15 feet of a nest. Given the configuration of the landscape, the orientation of occupied <br />nests, and the structure of the surrounding trees, shots exceeding 30 feet were necessary. <br />Although high focal length lenses were used, the video situation was suboptimal. Big lenses <br />require more light than smaller lenses; this decreased camera sensitivity. Tree motion was <br />greatly amplified. And, more foliage obstructed the view of the camera. Despite these <br />compromises, some camera evidence suggested that raccoon predation had occurred; though <br />no direct evidence was collected. Note: a large amount of video data remain to be reviewed. <br />Tree flashing survey 2005 — Peltier Island colony: <br />Overall, the performance of the flashing as implemented was disappointing. <br />Attempted climbs by raccoons were documented by scratches in the painted flashing. Table <br />3 summarizes the results of a survey of 128 flashed trees. <br />Total # <br />flashed trees <br />surveyed <br /># surveyed <br />trees with <br />raccoon <br />scratches <br />% of total <br />with raccoon <br />scratches <br /># of trees <br />breeched by <br />raccoons <br />% of <br />scratched <br />trees <br />breeched by <br />raccoons <br />% of total # <br />of flashed <br />trees <br />breeched by <br />raccoons <br />128 <br />45 <br />35% <br />28 <br />62% <br />22% <br />Table 3: <br />This summary of a survey of flashed trees at Peltier Island heronry shows that raccoons were able to cross the <br />flashing a majority of the time. Not shown is the nest activity of the trees with breeched flashing or near those with <br />breeched flashing. <br />12 <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.