Wildlife Corridor Camera Trap Study

PREPARED FOR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND LAND TRUST M A R C H 5 TH, 2 0 1 5

By Simon Nhan With the assistance of Brenda Padgham, Rebecca Nissley, Avery Bowron, Deborah Rubnick, Malerie Fleischman, Aaron Wirsing Summary

 Question: What kind of activities are occurring in in the Wildlife Corridor and what is the relationship between the wildlife and human activities?

Case Study  Coyote home range in metropolitan area (Stanley D. Gehrt, et al. 2009)  Urban and rural areas of Chicago  Fragmented habitat lead to increase in home range  In urban areas Coyote used the night to move in urban areas to another part of their home range Summary Continued

 8 Cameras, 3 study sites  All pictures are saved but only pictures with people Camera Date Time Species Location (ft.) Habitat Notes 2 7/30/2014 1337 Mallard ~28.27 ft. from Trail Facing Pond or wildlife were used 2 7/30/2014 1403 Mallard ~92.68 ft. from wetland Facing Pond 2 7/31/2014 1640 People ~297.48 ft. Building Pond and Trail 2 8/4/2014 926 People Pond and Trail 2 9/4/2014 1247 People Pond and Trail  Data retrieved from photos: 2 9/12/2014 818 People Trail 2 9/14/2014 1020 People Trail 2 9/15/2014 1457 people Trail  Camera number 2 9/15/2014 1515 people Trail 2 9/14/2014 1018 people & Dog Trail 2 9/15/2014 1457 people & dog Trail  Date 2 8/11/2014 1145-1153 People & Horse Pond and Trail 2 8/11/2014 1044-1053 people & Horse Pond and Trail 2 8/14/2014 1331 People & Horse Pond and Trail  Time 2 8/14/2014 1231 People & Horse Pond and Trail 2 8/26/2014 843 People & Horse Pond and Trail 2 9/2/2014 956-1212 People & Horse Pond and Trail  2 7/29/2014 2233 Raccoon Facing Pond Species 2 8/24/2014 00_16 Unknown  There have not been any statistical analysis done to this data and the graphs are just another representation of the Data

Process

 After going through all photos and collecting the ones with a subject each photo is named  Name convention Date, time, species i.e 021315_1020_Squirrel(1)

 Inputting the information in Excel  At first, I hand input all relevant data  Later Brenda and Avery suggested writing a script

 Graphs were generated from what I thought were easily comparable i.e. number of species and time of day

Summary Continued

 8 Cameras with 3 study sites

Study Site A

 July 31st, 2014 – September 18th, 2014  Total Encounters: 298  High human use ranging from; strolls, walking dogs, horse riding Encounters Study Site A

People  Camera 1

 Closest Deer

 Trail 95ft Encounter  Wetland 593ft

 Building 156ft Coyote  Most encounters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  112 Encounters Time (Hours)  Human activity: 104 120 100  Coyote: 6 80  Deer: 2 60

Count forCamera 1 20 0 Coyote Deer Human Activity Encounter 65 Study Site A

 Camera 2 Count forCmaera 2 13

 Closest 0 Raccoon Mallard Human Activity Unknown  Trail 28ft Encounter  Wetland 92ft  Building 297ft Unknown  19 Encounters  Raccoon: 1

Raccoon  Mallard: 2  Human Activities: 15 Encounter People  Unknown: 1

Mallard

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (Hours)

Study Site A

 Camera 3 People Encounter  Closest  Trail 27ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  Wetland 384ft Time (Hours)  Building 270ft  Only Human Encounters: 20

Study Site A

Unknown

Raccoon  Camera 4 Blue Heron

 Closest Encounter  Trail 71ft Duck  Wetland 62ft Dragonfly  Building 260ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 Time (Hours)  Encounters 8 4.5

 Dragonfly: 4 4

 3.5 Duck: 1 3  Raccoon: 1 2.5 2  Blue Heron: 1 1.5

CountforCmaera 4 1  Unknown: 1 0.5 0 Dragonfly Duck Raccoon Blue Heron Unknown Encounter Study Site A

People

Deer

 Camera 5 Encounter  Closest Coyote

 Trail 47ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (Hours)  Wetland 311ft  Building 350ft 65  Encounters 65 52  Human Activity: 61

 Coyote: 3 39  Deer: 1

26 Count for Camera Count forCamera 5 13

0 Coyote Deer Human Activity Encounter Study Site A Vole

Squirrel

Raccoon

 Camera 7 Deer Encounter  Closest Coyote  Trail 186ft Bird  Wetland 4ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  Building 171ft Time (Hours)  Encounter 29 65  Bird: 1

 Coyote: 7 52  Deer: 2 39  Raccoon: 3  Squirrel: 11 26

 Vole: 5 Count forCmaera 7 13

0 Bird coyote deer raccoon squirrel vole Encounter Study Site A

People

 Camera 8 Encounter

 Closest Coyote  Trail 6ft  Wetland 431ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324  Building 240ft Time (Hours)  Encounter 45 65  Human activity: 42

52  Coyote: 3

Count for Camera Count forCamera 8 13

0 coyote Human Activity Encounter Study Site A Comparison

120

100 Unknown

Vole 80 Squirrel 60 Raccoon Human+

DetectionCount 40 Dragonfly Deer 20 Coyote 0 birds 8 3 2 5 4 1 7 Cameras Based on Distance From Trail 100% 90% Unknown

80%

70% Vole 60% Squirrel 50% Raccoon 40% Human+ 30% PercentDetection Dragonfly 20% Deer 10% Coyote 0% 8 3 2 5 4 1 7 birds Cameras Ordered by Distance From Trail Study Site B

 September 19th, 2014 – January 20th, 2015  Total Encounters: 163  Cameras 1 and 2 were east of wetlands  Study Sites were recorded based on date that’s why 1 and 2 are grouped with site B  Cameras 3 -8 within wetlands

Study Site B East of Wetland

 Camera 1  Closest  Trail 34ft  Wetland 57ft  Building 171ft

 Encounters 4 Deer

 Human Activity: 2

 Deer: 2 Encounter

People

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (Hours) Study Site B

East of Wetland Unknown

Squirrel

 Camera 2 Encounter Raccoon  Closest People  On Trail 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  Wetland 164ft Time (Hours)  Building 85ft 70  Encounters 73 60  Human Activity: 67

50  Cat:1 40  Raccoon: 1 30  Squirrel:2 CountforCamera 2 20  Unknown: 2 10

0 Cat Human Activity Raccoon Squirrel Unknown Encounter Study Site B Unknown

Squirrel

Raccoon

Opossum  Camera 3 Encounter People  Closest Coyote  No Trail  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Within Wetland Time (Hours)  Building 278.69ft

 Encounter 52 65  Coyote: 7 52  Opossum: 1 39  Raccoon: 8

 Squirrel: 33 26

 Dog: 1 CountforCmaera 3 13  Unknown:2 0 Coyote Opossum Raccoon Squirrel Dog Unknown Encounter Study Site B

Unknown

Raccoon

 Camera 4 Encounter People

 Closest Mouse

 No Trail 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 Time (Hours)  Wetland 29.01ft  Building 347.49ft

 Encounter 7 65

 Human Activity: 2 52

 Cat: 1 39  Mouse: 1 26

 Raccoon: 2 CountforCamera 4 13  Unknown:1 0 Cat Mouse Human Activty Raccoon Unknown Encounter Study Site B

Squirrel

Raccoon

People

 Camera 6 Opossum Encounter  Closest Deer  No Trail Coyote  In Wetland 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 Time (Hours)  Building 319.34ft  Encounter 15 65  Human Activity: 1

52  Coyote: 5 39  Deer: 1  Opossum: 1 26  Raccoon: 1 CountforCamera 6 13  Squirrel: 6 0 Coyote Deer Opossum Human Raccoon Squirrel Activity Encounter Study Site B

 Camera 7 Deer

 Closest Encounter  No Trail  Wetland 29ft  Building 412ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (Hours)  Encounters 3  Deer: 3 Study Site B

Unknown

Squirrel

 Camera 8 Encounter People  Closest Coyote  No Trail  Wetland 29.01ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (Hours)  Building 347.49ft 65  Encounter 9

 Human Activity: 1

 Coyote: 2 39

 Squirrel: 6 26

CountforCamera 8 13

0 Squirrel Coyote Human Activity Encounter Study Area B Comparison

100%

90%

80% Unknown 70% mouse 60% opossum 50% squirrel 40%

raccoon PercentDetections 30% deer 20% coyote 80 10% Human

0% 64 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Unknown

Cameras Based on Distance from Trail mouse 48 opossum squirrel

32 raccoon DetectionCount deer

16 coyote Human

0 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cameras Based on Distance from Trail Study Area C

 January 27th, 2015 – February 24th, 2015  Total Encounters: 49  Next to Meig’s Park, Trail separating study site and park

Study Site C

Raccoon

Encounter

 Camera 1 People  Closest

 Trail 18ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 Time (Hours)  Wetland 17ft  Building 162ft 20  Encounters 6 16

 Human Activity: 5  Raccoon: 1 12

8 CountforCamera 1 4

0 Human Raccoon Encounter

Study Site C

 Camera 3 Squirrel Encounter  Closest  Trail 126ft

 Building 116.78ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (Hours)  Encounters 2  Grey Squirrel: 2

Study Site C

Unknown  Camera 4

 Closest Squirrel  Trail 179ft Encounter Raccoon  Building 151ft

 Encounters 5 Coyote  Coyote: 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  Raccoon: 1 Time (Hours)  Squirrel :1 20  Unknown :1

8 CountforCamera 4 4

0 Coyote Raccoon Squirrel Unknown Encounter Study Site C

Deer

 Camera 5 Encounter Coyote  Closest  Trail 282ft  Building 299ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (Hours)  Encounters 4 20  Coyote: 1 16

 Deer: 3

8 CountforCamera 5 4

0 Coyote Deer Encounter Study Site C Unknown

Squirrel

Raccoon

 Camera 6 Encounter Mouse

 Closest Coyote

 Trail 282ft Chipmunk

 Building 299ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (Hours)  Encounters 22 20  Chipmunk: 1

 Coyote: 5 16

 Mouse: 1 12  Raccoon: 2 8

 Squirrel: 11 CountforCamera 6

 Unknown: 2 4

0 Chipmunk Coyote Mouse Raccoon Squirrel Unknown Encounter Study Site C

Deer

 Camera 7 Encounter

 Closest Coyote  Trail 271ft

 Building 279ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (Hours)  Encounter 7  Coyote: 4 20  Deer: 3

8 CountforCmaera 7 4

0 Coyote Deer Encounter

Study Site C

 Camera 8 Human  Closest Encounter  Trail 20ft

 Wetland 64ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  Building 240ft Time (Hours)  Encounters 3  Human Activity: 3 Study Area C Comparison

100% 90% 80%

Unknown

70% Squirrel 60% Raccoon 50% Mouse 40% Human

30% PercentDetections Deer 20% Coyote 10% 0% Chipmunk 1 8 2 3 4 7 5 6 25 Cameras Ordered by Distance From Trail

Unknown

Squirrel 15 Raccoon Mouse 10

Human DetectionCount Deer 5 Coyote

0 Chipmunk 1 8 2 3 4 7 5 6 Cameras Ordered by Distance from Trail Study Site Comparison

350 • If Camera 2 from site B was removed then the 300 activities in site B and C would be similar

Chipmunk 250 • There seems to be Mouse similar amount of coyote Opossum activity 200 Unknown Vole • Squirrels prefer sites Squirrel with less people 150 Raccoon Human Activity Deer 100 Coyote Birds

0 A B C Study Site Comparison Continued

50 • Sites B and C saw 45 increase wildlife activity with people 40 absent

35 Coyote • Squirrels, Coyotes,

Deer 30 Raccoons and Deer Duck showed the most 25 Raccoon activity when Blue Heron people were absent 20 DetectionCount Squirrel

15 Vole • No dramatic Mouse change in Site A 10 Opossum • Result from the Chipmunk 5 large number of trails 0 Present Not Present Not Present Not A B C Activity Based on if People are Present in Each Study Site Activity Based on Time Detected

 Wildlife is more active when there is a lack of human activity throughout the day

SSA Cam 1 SSA Cam 5

People People

Deer Deer

Encounter Encounter

Coyote Coyote

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 192021222324 Time (Hours) Time (Hours) SSA Cam 7 SSB Cam 3

Vole Unknown

Squirrel Squirrel

Raccoon Raccoon

Deer Opossum

Encounter Encounter

Coyote People

Bird Coyote

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 Time (Hours) Time (Hours)

SSC Cam 6 SSC Cam 7

Unknown

Squirrel Deer

Raccoon

Mouse

Encounter Encounter Coyote Coyote

Chipmunk

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 Time (Hours) Time (Hours) Limitations

 Time of year that each site was studied  Study Site A was observed during the summer to autumn  Study Site B was autumn to winter  Study Site C winter to spring  Duration of each camera was not consistent  Camera Malfunction  There were a couple cameras that broke throughout the project  Some didn’t turn on until dried  Some cameras took 6000+ pictures  Fixed itself

Improvements

 Having more cameras out  Might be more time consuming  As long as details are logged stagger which cameras are checked  Randomize where cameras are placed  Limits how clumped cameras will be  Taking time to record surrounding habitat  Ground cover  Canopy cover  Slope  Etc.

Conclusion

 With the limited data gathered it seems as long as there isn’t human activity wildlife will use the corridor anytime of the day.

 Study Site Cs proximity to the park could be factor for activity

 The middle of the corridor gets significant activity from horses and dogs