135 Taylor Road Niagara-On-The-Lake ON L0S 1J0

(905) 937-2992 ashleynorthcotte@hotmail.com

March 19, 2014
Mr. Mike Cadman
Songbird Biologist
Canadian Wildlife Service
867 Lakeshore Road
Burlington, ON
L0S 1J0
Dear Mr. Cadman:
Re: Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, the Northern Rough-winged
Swallow, and the Belted Kingfisher

Please accept this letter as Geospatial Techs formal submission of the Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of
Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, the Northern Rough-winged Swallow, and the Belted Kingfisher Project Progress Report.

The project proposal and progress stages have been completed where the project management phase and final report
and presentation phases will remain ongoing until the end of the project. To date, 35% of the project has been completed,
with a large amount of time allotted for the final phase of the project. There have been 106 actual hours spent working on
the project thus far with a variance of -37 hours. There are 193.5 hours remaining. The project schedule is on time and the
associated deliverables to date have been completed within the estimated time frame. This project began on October 23,
2013 and will be completed by June 13, 2014, costing approximately $30,300.00. The project is currently under budget, as
it has taken Geospatial Tech less time to complete several of the proposed tasks completed.

There have been limited, to no challenges associated with the project and the schedule has not been compromised
as a result. Therefore, Geospatial Tech is confident that this project will be completed on time, by June13, 2014.
Should you require further information, or have any questions regarding the enclosure, please do not hesitate to
contact me at your convenience via email at ashleynorthcotte@hotmail.com. I look forward to receiving feedback
from you.

Kind Regards,




Ashley Northcotte, BA, BEd, OCT
Project Manager, Geospatial Tech
Cc: Kirsten Anderson
AN/ ka


Enclosures: i.) Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, the Northern Rough-
winged Swallow, and the Belted Kingfisher Project Progress Report.


March 19, 2014
i
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Proposal Report
Executive Summary
The Bank Swallow species is currently under assessment to determine whether or not it is at risk in
Canada, creating a need for a current Bank Swallow habitat assessment. The status of the Northern
Rough-winged Swallow and Belted Kingfisher will be assessed in the near future. This project looks at
landscape attributes surrounding 127 pit and quarry sites, optimal habitats for Bank Swallows, Northern
Rough-winged Swallows, and Belted Kingfishers. When the effects of the landscapes on the three bird
species are understood, the decrease in their populations can be mitigated through the implementation
of proper management strategies. The project is proposed by Mike Cadman of the Canadian Wildlife
Service (CWS). The CWS aims to protect natural habitats in order to conserve wildlife (Environment
Canada, 2010). Mike Cadman, a songbird biologist with the CWS, is interested in determining the
reason for the significant population decline of these three bird species. This project is much
anticipated due to the lack of current studies regarding the habitat of these birds. The area of interest is
in Southern Ontario, more specifically Ecoregions 6E and 7E, composed of a variety of different
landscape attributes.
To ensure the success of the project, extensive research on the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged
Swallow, and Belted Kingfisher species, along with their habitat, is necessary to understand the final
results of the study. Data regarding land cover and land use have been collected for assessment. The
centres of the target locations have been determined in preparation of accurately analyzing the
landscape around the sites in the next phase of this project. The creation of a 500m, 1km, and 2km
buffer around each site will be evaluated through undertaking a statistical analysis to determine the
correlation between land cover, land use and the colony size data for the Bank Swallow, Northern
Rough-winged Swallow, and Belted Kingfisher species.
Currently, the project proposal and progress stages have been completed, where the project management
phase and final report and presentation phases will not be completed until the end of the project. To date 35%
of the project has been completed, with a large amount of time allotted for the final phase of the project.
There have been 106 actual hours spent working on the project thus far with a variance of -37 hours. There
are 193.5 hours remaining. The project schedule is on time and the associated deliverables to date have been
completed within the estimated time frame.

The total budget cost for this project to date is $30,300.00 with a contingency of +/- $3,030.00. This budget
has a cost difference of $6,700 from the proposed cost of this project. Therefore, the project is currently under
budget, as it has taken Geospatial Tech less time to complete several of the proposed tasks completed.

There have been limited to no challenges associated with the project and the schedule has not been
compromised as a result. Therefore, Geospatial Tech is confident that this project will be completed on
time and on budget by June13, 2014.



March 19, 2014
ii
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Proposal Report
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Understanding ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Client Overview ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Hypotheses............................................................................................................................ 3
1.2.3 Project Issue .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.4 Project Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.5 Project Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.6 Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Study Location ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 Project Goal and Supporting Objectives ........................................................................................... 5
2.1 Project Goal ......................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Primary Project Objectives .................................................................................................................. 6
3.0 Project Changes to Date.......................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Changes to Project Data ...................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Changes to Project Methodology ....................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Changes to Project Schedule............................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Changes to Project Budget ................................................................................................................ 11
4.0 Project Progress Overview .................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Completion of the Project Tasks to Date .......................................................................................... 13
4.1.1 Project Management ................................................................................................................. 13
4.1.2 Progress Report and Presentation ............................................................................................. 13
4.1.3 Proposal Report and Presentation ............................................................................................. 14
4.1.4 Final Report and Presentation ................................................................................................... 14
5.0 Earned Value Management to date ...................................................................................................... 15
6.0 Work remaining .................................................................................................................................... 16
7.0 Project Changes and Challenges ........................................................................................................... 17
8.0 Closure .................................................................................................................................................. 18
9.0 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 19


March 19, 2014
iii
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Proposal Report

List of Tables
Table 1: Project Data ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 2: WBS for 3 Bird Species Research..................................................................................................... 7
Table 3: WBS for Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 8
Table 4: WBS for Condensing Data to Study Area ........................................................................................ 8
Table 5: WBS to Determine Centre of Pit Sites ............................................................................................. 8
Table 6: WBS for Map Creation .................................................................................................................... 9
Table 7: Project Task Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 9
Table 8: Project Budget ............................................................................................................................... 11
Table 9: Total Budget .................................................................................................................................. 12
Table 10: Budget Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 15
Table 11: Deliverables Remaining to Complete .......................................................................................... 16

List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Time it has taken to Complete Each Task to Date ....................................................................... 10
Figure 3: Cost for Each Task ........................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 4: Chart of Completed Project Tasks ................................................................................................ 13
Figure 5: Locating the Centre of the Pit Sites ............................................................................................. 14
Figure 6: Earned Value Over Time Report .................................................................................................. 16

List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference .......................................................................................................... 21
Appendix 2: Gantt Chart ......................................................................................................................... 24



March 19, 2014
1
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

1.0 Introduction

The Government of Canada classifies species at risk as being; extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of
special concern (Government of Canada, 2013). The Bank Swallow is currently under assessment to
determine whether or not it is at risk in Canada. The status of the Northern Rough-winged Swallow
and Belted Kingfisher are to be assessed in the near future. Mike Cadman of the Canadian Wildlife
Service is interested in assessing the long-term population decline of these three species to understand
the reasoning behind this decrease.
The following will discuss the background of each of these species and their habitat, the Client who
administered the project, along with the issue that will be solved by the successful completion of the
study. This section also discusses why this study has been developed, how the project will be beneficial,
and illustrates the scope of the project.
1.1 Background

The Bank Swallow (BANS) is a migratory, highly social insectivore, nesting in colonies ranging from 3 to
2,000 burrows (Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, 2013). It travels to South America for the
winter months, returning to Canada for breeding season around the beginning of May (Ontario Stone,
Sand and Gravel Association, 2013). During this time, Bank Swallow individuals choose their colony site,
followed by burrow site, based on previous year breeding success (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2011).
These sites are usually located in sand and gravel pits, and vertical banks along rivers, streams and lakes
(Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2011).
Like the Bank Swallow, the Northern Rough-winged Swallow (NRSW) is also an insectivore (De Jong,
Northern Rough-winged Swallow, 2014). This species is able to fly at very low elevations, allowing it to
catch insects close to the surface of the water (De Jong, 2010). The Northern Rough-winged Swallow will
nest in burrows or crevices in vertical surfaces, such as banks, gorges, and manmade structures,
preferring to nest near water. This bird species will also nest in open areas (De Jong, Northern Rough-
winged Swallow, 2014).
The Belted Kingfisher (BEKI) is a medium-sized, stocky bird with an overall slate colour and white chest
with a distinctive long, solid bill (Seattle Audubon Society, 2014). Female Kingfishers are more colourful
than their male counter parts, with an additional rust coloured belt below their slate breast band
(Bezener, 2000). They are often found along shorelines and wetlands, perching on extended branches in
order to observe their prey, which are predominately small fish (Bezener, 2000). Belted Kingfishers nest
in burrows along sandy banks, built during the breeding season, by both the male and female species
(Seattle Audubon Society, 2014). The pair of kingfishers will take turns excavating the nest burrow,
using their bill on the exposed sandbank and their feet get rid of material in the tunnel (Bezener, 2000).


March 19, 2014
2
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

Aggregate sites, which include sand and gravel materials, are in a high demand within Ontario; Canadas
most industrialized and populated province (Yundt & Messerschmidt, 1979). Since Southern Ontario has
a higher rate of development, it has the greatest demand for aggregate, an essential raw material used
in the construction industry (Yundt & Messerschmidt, 1979).
The Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, and Belted Kingfisher make use of surrounding
resources for building their nests, and may choose small banks or extraction areas within a pit or quarry
as their habitat (Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, 2013). Excavation or construction during
the spring and summer months can greatly affect the Bank Swallow and Belted Kingfisher populations,
along with their breeding and nesting rituals (Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, 2013). The
Northern Rough-winged Swallow is able to adapt to environments disturbed by humans, therefore their
population status is not a concern (De Jong, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, 2014). Suitable nesting
banks for the Belted Kingfisher is a limiting factor in their distribution, therefore, water quality and
nesting sites should be preserved for the successful reproduction of the Belted Kingfisher species
(Seattle Audubon Society, 2014).
1.2 Project Understanding

The following statements describe the client that has requested the project be studied, the company the
client is employed under, and the issue that will be solved following the completion of this project.
1.2.1 Client Overview

The CWS, a sector of Environment Canada, aims to protect natural habitats in order to conserve wildlife
(Environment Canada, 2010). The conservation of wildlife has the potential to increase species diversity.
The main focus of the CWS is areas of most substantial habitat loss (Environment Canada, 2010). The
decline of migratory bird species has become of major concern to Environment Canada, therefore the
CWS has been monitoring the status of these birds (Evrionment Canada, 2013). The CWS develops
annual regulatory proposals in order to collaborate with international associates to help protect
migratory birds. The development of these proposals is a joined effort between the CWS, provincial and
territorial governments of Canada, and various non-governmental organizations (Evrionment Canada,
2013).
Mr. Mike Cadman is a songbird biologist with the CWS and will serve as our client for the purposes of
this project. Mike received his MSc from the University of Toronto for his research on American
Oystercatchers (The Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club, 2011). He is actively involved in several bird
monitoring programs throughout Ontario, such as the Forest bird Monitoring Program, Eastern
Loggerhead Shrike Recovery Team, and Canadas Marsh Monitoring Program (The Ottawa Field-
Naturalists' Club, 2011). He also initiated and coordinated the Ontario Rare Breeding Bird Program
which resulted in the Ontario Birds at Risk publication (The Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club, 2011). Mike
organizes Wildlife Watchers, where volunteers participate in wildlife monitoring tasks, and manages the
Guelph Christmas Bird Count (The Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club, 2011).


March 19, 2014
3
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

Mikes most notable and well known accomplishment was acting as coordinator and lead editor of the
first and second versions of the Atlas of the Breeding birds of Ontario, published in 1987 and 2007 (The
Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club, 2011). Mike currently contributes to the conservation of bird
populations and their habitats, alongside several organizations such as the Society of Canadian
Ornithologists, Environment Canadas national land bird committee, Bird Studies Canada, and the
Ontario Partners in Flight Working Group (The Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club, 2011). Previously, he has
been the chair for National Recovery Teams for Arcadian Flycatcher, Hooded Warbler, Henslows
Sparrow, and Eastern Loggerhead Shrike (The Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club, 2011). Mike has also been
recognized by the Ottawa Field-Naturalist Club for his knowledge of bird understanding, bird
distributions and habitat requirements and has made an honorary member (The Ottawa Field-
Naturalists' Club, 2011).
1.2.2 Hypotheses

The outcome of this project will be used to validate the following hypotheses, developed by Mr. Mike
Cadman of the Canadian Wildlife Service:
We expect that more natural (and wetter) open habitats are going to produce more flying
insects for the swallows to eat, and hypothesize that birds will not nest (or nest in smaller
numbers) in pits surrounded by habitat that produces few insects. Were hypothesizing that
Kingfishers need a source of fish near their nesting site, so may be constrained by different
needs, so may inhabit pits with different landscape attributes than the swallows do
(Cadman, 2014).

1.2.3 Project Issue

Throughout many parts of the world, Bank Swallow populations are in a steady decline, with an
estimated drop of over 95 percent in Ontario alone since 1970 (Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel
Association, 2013). The populations of the Northern Rough-winged Swallow and Belted Kingfisher
species are also experiencing a decline. The cause of these declines has not yet been determined,
however, a shift in landscape is being investigated as a potential contributor to the loss of habitat for the
species (Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, 2013). A detailed account of the project Terms of
Reference can be found in Appendix 2.
The Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, and Belted Kingfisher have an affinity for nesting in
the vertical banks of pits and quarries near streams and rivers (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2011). It is
essential to determine whether the type of site (pit or quarry), the nature of the landscape surrounding
these sites, or the geographic location of the site will affect the likelihood of these species to nest at that
site.


March 19, 2014
4
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

1.2.4 Project Purpose

There are limited recent studies on the status of the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher populations. As a result of declining population numbers, there is great interest in
understanding the factors contributing to this decline. The purpose of this project is to determine the
effects of land use, land cover, and topology on Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, and
Belted Kingfisher habitats. When this understanding is established, management strategies can be
implemented in order to protect the populations and habitats of these species.
1.2.5 Project Benefits

This project will be beneficial because it will determine how the landscape and geographic location of
the pit and quarry sites affect the likelihood of the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, and
Belted Kingfisher to nest in these locations. This information will allow for the creation of new
management strategies to aid in the fabrication and conservation of suitable Bank Swallow, Northern
Rough-winged Swallow, and Belted Kingfisher habitats. In turn, this information can be provided to the
public to achieve a joined conservation effort.
1.2.6 Literature Review

A thesis project was done by Mary J. Barczak, titled Habitat Quality and Assessing Risks to Avian
Biodiversity. This thesis assessed biodiversity decline in bird habitats due to the effects of landscape
change (Baeczak, 1996). A biodiversity risk model was established to predict the effects of landscape
change on biodiversity. The model measured change in habitat abundance, as well as change in species
richness (Baeczak, 1996). It was determined that bird species that nest in foliage, tree trunks, on the
ground, migrate, and are very particular in their nesting sites, are at high risk due to landscape change
(Baeczak, 1996).
Considering this study, the biodiversity of the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, and
Belted Kingfisher species may be at risk due to landscape change. The Bank Swallow migrates to South
America, only nest in vertical banks, and residential areas are deemed unacceptable for the Bank
Swallows to reside (Baeczak, 1996).
1.3 Study Location

The study area consists of 2 Ecoregions that comprise southern Ontario; Ecoregions 6E, and 7E (Figure 1). The
symbols in Figure 1 are the 121 pit sites that will be assessed for this study. Notice that 6 of these sites have
been removed. These sites were not located within the boundary of the Southern Ontario Land Resource
Information System (SOLRIS), therefore they were omitted from the study. The ALPS IDs for the removed
points are; 615921, 616221, 614981, 20558, 4386, and 14649.


March 19, 2014
5
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report


Figure 1: Map of Study Area
These Ecoregions consist of many different types of land cover. Land cover is the feature that actually covers
the grounds surface (Natural Resources Canada, 2008). The land cover associated with Ecoregions 6E, and 7E
were obtained using the SOLRIS data and are; open cliff and talus, alvar, shoreline, open shoreline, open sand
barren and dune, treed sand barren and dune, open tall grass prairie, tall grass savannah, tall grass woodland,
forest, coniferous forest, deciduous forest, mixed forest, hedge rows, swamp, fen, bog, marsh, and open
water. These Ecoregions are also composed of different land uses. Land use is the purpose the land itself
poses (Natural Resources Canada, 2008). The study areas is composed of several types of land use, also
acquired from the SOLRIS data, and are; plantations that consist of cultivated trees, transportation, extraction,
and pervious and impervious built-up area.
2.0 Project Goal and Supporting Objectives

The following statements outline the overall goal of this project, as well as the objectives necessary to
achieve the project goal.


March 19, 2014
6
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

2.1 Project Goal

To develop a better understanding of the attributes of pit and quarry sites that are used and not used by
the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, and Belted Kingfisher. This information will be
useful for generating management strategies in the creation of pits and quarries, as well as habitat
conservation.
2.2 Primary Project Objectives

In order to reach the project progress to date, there have been several primary project objectives
completed in order to assure the success of this project.
The first objective completed was to locate the pit and quarry sites with the following attributes
attached to the point feature class; Alps ID, Ecoregion, UTM Zone, Easting, Northing, Site type and the
BANS, NRSW and BEKI total nest numbers. The centre of each of these pit sites were determined using
orthoimagrey of the study area and remote sensing image interpretation skills. These objectives were
completed on time and under budget.
Secondly, the attributes of the landscape within 500m, 1km, and 2km from the pit and quarry sites must
be determined. These distances will be established using buffers around each of the target sites. These
attributes include the amount of forest cover, wetland cover, open water, agricultural land, and
development using the SOLRIS data acquired. This objective was completed on time and under budget,
however, the direct insect populations are not available. Therefore, it is to be assumed that more
natural, open habitats will be more likely to produce more flying insects for the birds to eat, therefore
fewer or no birds will nest in pits surrounded by habitat that produces few insects.
Once the locations of the pit sites and the landscape attributes are determined, a map, using ArcMap, is
to be produced. This map will display the location of the pit sites, as well as the significant variables of
the landscape, along with 500m, 1km, and 2km buffers around each of the sites, to be accomplished by
April 30, 2014.
The information acquired from the map will then be statistically analyzed by June 1, 2014. This
information will then be examined to determine whether there are significant differences among the
attributes between each of the sites, to be finalized by June 13, 2014.
3.0 Project Changes to Date
The following outlines the changes that have been made to the project thus far.
3.1 Changes to Project Data
Data for the project has remained the same since the proposal, except for the addition of orthoimagrey.
Orthoimagrey was necessary in order to locate the centre of each pit site in the study area.



March 19, 2014
7
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

Table 1: Project Data
Resource Type Resource Name Description/Function/Source Cost
Data
Pit Locations
Supplied by Client for pit site location
entrances
N/A
Colony Size
Supplied by Client for bird
populations
N/A
Land Use
Classification
From the Southern Ontario Land
Resource Information System
(S.O.L.R.I.S) for land use classification
N/A
Ecological Land
Classification (ELC)
of Ontario
Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources for Eco region boundaries
N/A
Provinces and
Territories -
Cartographic
Boundary File
From Statistics Canada for the
Ontario boundary
N/A
GeoBase
Orthoimage 2005-
2010
From GeoBase to find pit centres N/A

3.2 Changes to Project Methodology
Methodology for the project has not changed since the project proposal, in regards to what must be
completed, however the proposed time for these tasks have been revised. Research on the Bank
Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, and Belted Kingfisher has been completed. The time to
complete this task has been revised in Table 2.
Table 2: WBS for 3 Bird Species Research

Variance
Proposed Start Date October 28, 2013
N/A
Proposed End Date November 15, 2013
N/A
Proposed Time 10 Hours
2 Hours
Actual Time 8 Hours
Proposed Cost $750.00
$150.00
Actual Cost $600.00

It was estimated that collecting and reviewing land cover, land use, and topology data would be time
consuming, however accessing and reviewing SOLRIS data was not as time consuming as originally
estimated. Table 3 shows the revised time and cost for this task.


March 19, 2014
8
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

Table 3: WBS for Data Collection

Variance
Proposed Start Date January 14, 2014
N/A
Proposed End Date January 30, 2014
N/A
Proposed Time 30 Hours
10 Hours
Actual Time 20 Hours
Proposed Cost $2,250.00
$750.00
Actual Cost $1,500.00

The only data that needed to be clipped to the study are was the pit site locations. The SOLRIS data did
not need to be clipped; therefore this task required less time to complete than anticipated (Table 4).
Table 4: WBS for Condensing Data to Study Area

Variance
Proposed Start Date February 3, 2014
N/A
Proposed End Date February 7, 2014
N/A
Proposed Time 10 Hours
2 Hours
Actual Time 8 Hours
Proposed Cost $750.00
$150.00
Actual Cost $600.00

The pits and quarries were noticeable in the acquired panchromatic orthoimagrey, therefore it was not
a lengthy process to locate the centre of each of the pit sites (Table 5).
Table 5: WBS to Determine Centre of Pit Sites

Variance
Proposed Start Date February 24, 2014
N/A
Proposed End Date February 28, 2014
N/A
Proposed Time 15 Hours
7 Hours
Actual Time 8 Hours
Proposed Cost $1,125.00
$525.00
Actual Cost $600.00

The final task completed prior to the project proposal report was the creation of the map containing
land cover, land use, topography, and pit site data in ArcMap. This was completed early in order to show
an effective map in the progress report presentation (Table 6).


March 19, 2014
9
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

Table 6: WBS for Map Creation

Variance
Proposed Start Date April 21, 2014
52 Days
Actual Start Date March 1, 2014
Proposed End Date April 25, 2014
55 Days
Actual End Date March 2, 2014
Proposed Time 30 Hours
18 Hours
Actual Time 2 Hours
Proposed Cost $2,250.00
$2,100.00
Actual Cost $150.00

3.3 Changes to Project Schedule
The following is the revised project schedule for the completed sections in the project management,
proposal and progress stages of the project (Table 7).
Table 7: Project Task Schedule
Task Start Date End Date Proposed
Time
Actual
Time
Variance
Project
Management
October 23, 2013 June 13, 2014 20 Hours 14 Hours 6 hours
Client Meeting October 23, 2013 May 28, 2014 2 Hours
2 Hours 0 Hours
Advisor Meeting January 6, 2014 June9, 2014 6 Hours
6 Hours 0 Hours
Bi-Weekly
Progress Report
January 13, 2014 June 9 ,2014 12 Hours 6 Hours 6 Hours
Proposal Report
and Presentation
October 23, 2014 December 3, 2014 36 Hours
32 Hours 4 Hours
Project Overview
Statement
October 23, 2013 October 23, 2013 2 Hours 2 Hours 0 Hours
Research Three
Bird Species and
Habitats
October 23, 2013
November 15,
2013
10 Hours 8 Hours 2 Hours
Create and
Present Project
Proposal
November 26,
2013
December 3, 2013 4 Hours 4 Hours 0 Hours
Write Project
Proposal Report
November 19,2013
December 10,
2013
20 Hours 18 Hours 2 Hours
Progress Report
and Presentation
January 14, 2014 March 28, 2014
88 Hours 54 Hours 34 Hours
Collect and January 14, 2014 January 30, 2014 30 Hours 20 Hours 10 hours


March 19, 2014
10
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

Review Land
Cover, Land Use,
and Topography
Data
Condense Data to
Study Area
February 3, 2014 February 7, 2014 10 Hours
8 Hours 2 Hours
Determine Centre
of Pit Sites
February 24, 2014 March 28, 2014 15 Hours 8 Hours 7 Hours
Write Progress
Report
March 10, 2014 March 21, 2014 25 Hours
14 Hours 11 Hours
Progress Report
Presentation
March 4, 2014 March 28, 2014 8 Hours 4 Hours 4 Hours
Total 144 Hours
100
Hours
44 Hours

Figure 2 displays the revised project schedule.

Figure 2: Time it has taken to Complete Each Task to Date
It is important to note that the final report and presentation phase as not commenced, therefore the
scheduled time has not been changed from the predicted time in the project proposal and are subject to
change. Of the tasks which have already been completed, the progress report and presentation was the
most time consuming. As expected, the final report and presentation phase will likely require the most
amount of time to complete.
52.5
36
88
204
Project Schedule Time (Hours)
Project Management
Project Report and
Presentation
Progress Report and
Presentation
Final Report and
Presentation


March 19, 2014
11
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

3.4 Changes to Project Budget

This project budget has been prepared for learning purposes and that in no way is the client expected
to incur these proposed costs. The value of this project is being donated to the client/ client
organization by the student consultants, Niagara College, and the advisory staff
Table 8 displays the revised budget for the project. The cost of the final report and presentation phase is
subject to change, as it has not yet been completed.
Table 8: Project Budget
Task Estimated Cost Actual Cost Variance
Project Management $4,700.00 $3,745.00 $2,695.00
Client Meeting $1,050.00 $1,050.00 $0.00
Advisor Meeting $1,700.00 $850.00 $850.00
Bi-Weekly Progress Report $230.00 $115.00 $115.00
Administrative $1,730.00 $1,730.00 $1,730.00
Proposal Report and Presentation $6,150.00 $5,850.00 $300.00
Project Overview Statement $150.00 $150.00 $0.00
Research Three Bird Species and Habitats $750.00 $600.00 $150.00
Create and Present Project Proposal $3,750.00 $3,750.00 $0.00
Write Project Proposal Report $1,500.00 $1,350.00 $150.00
Progress Report and Presentation $6,600.00 $4,050.00 $2,550.00
Collect and Review Land Cover, Land Use,
and Topography Data
$2,250.00
$1,500.00 $750.00
Condense Data to Study Area $750.00
$600.00 $150.00
Determine Centre of Pit Sites $1,125.00
$600.00 $525.00
Progress Report $1,875.00 $1,050.00 $825.00
Progress Report Presentation $600.00 $300.00 $300.00
Final Report and Presentation $15,300.00 $13,200.00 $2,100.00
Create a Map Containing Land Cover, Land
Use, Topography, and Pit Site Data in
ArcMap
$2,250.00
$150.00 $2,100.00
Generate Buffers With a 500 m, 1 km and 2
km Radius Around Each of the Pit Sites
$600.00 $600.00 $0.00
Assessment of the Correlation Between
Land Cover, Land Use, Topography, and the
Population of the Bank Swallow, Northern
Rough-winged Swallow, and Belted
Kingfisher Species
$5,250.00 $5,250.00 $0.00


March 19, 2014
12
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

Produce a Written Report Presenting
Findings
$6,000.00 $6,000.00 $0.00
Final Report Presentation $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $0.00
Total $32,800.00 $26,845.00 $5,955.00
HST (13%) $37,000.00 $30,334.00 $6,666.00

Figure 3 shows the breakdown regarding how much each of the tasks will cost in order to complete the
project.

Figure 3: Cost for Each Task
As estimated in the project proposal, the final report and presentation phase will require a larger
amount of the allocated budget than the other project phases.
The taxes must be included in the budget in order to generate the total cost of the project. There is a
10% contingency on the total budget, meaning that if the final cost of the project is over or under by this
number, it still qualifies as being on budget (Table 9).
Table 9: Total Budget
Total (Including HST) Contingency
$30,300.00 +/- $3,030.00

$3,745.00
$5,850.00
$4,050.00
$13,200.00
Tasks Costs ($)
Project Management
Project Report and
Presentation
Progress Report and
Presentation
Final Report and Presentation


March 19, 2014
13
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

4.0 Project Progress Overview

The following is an overview of the progress of the project to date, which includes the completion of the
major tasks for the project.

4.1 Completion of the Project Tasks to Date

Figure 4 displays each individual major task phases throughout the project. It outlines


Figure 4: Chart of Completed Project Tasks
4.1.1 Project Management
There has been one client meeting has been completed thus far on October 23
rd
. There have been 6
meetings with Janet Finlay, the project advisor, which have taken place bi-weekly. There have also been
6 bi-weekly project progress reports completed to date. The project management phase is 36%
complete (Figure 4).
4.1.2 Progress Report and Presentation
The first step of this phase was to complete the project overview statement (POS). Following the POS,
the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, and Belted Kingfisher were researched. The project
proposal was then written and presented, completing the proposal report and presentation phase
(Figure 4).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Project
Management
Proposal Report
and Presentation
Progress Report
and Presentation
Final Report and
Presentation
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

Task
Completion of Project Tasks
Percent Remaining
Percent Completed


March 19, 2014
14
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

4.1.3 Proposal Report and Presentation
Collecting and reviewing land cover, land use and topography data has been completed. The land cover
and land use data utilized is SOLRIS data. This information has also been condensed to the study area.
Since the SOLRIS data only covers Southern Ontario, 6 pit site locations were eliminated from the study,
as they were not covered by the SOLORIS data. Orthoimagery was gathered from Geobase. This imagery
was used to locate the centre of the pit sites (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Locating the Centre of the Pit Sites

Also during this phase, the progress report and progress report presentation were completed. The
project proposal and report aspect of this project is now 100% complete (Figure 4).
4.1.4 Final Report and Presentation
The final report and presentation has not yet commenced (Figure 4).


March 19, 2014
15
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

5.0 Earned Value Management to date
Table 10 outlines the budget analysis for the project, as of March 20, 2014.

Table 10: Budget Analysis
Name Formula Value Comment
Budget At Completion BAC $23,871.84 Cumulative PV for the whole project
Cost Variance CV = EV - AC $2,250.00 Project is under budget
Schedule Variance SV = EV PV -$1,422.25
Project is behind schedule, since the
time it would take to complete each
task was overestimated
Cost Performance Index CPI = EV/AC 1.325 Project is under budget
To-Complete
Performance Index
TCPI = (BAC EV)/(BAC
AC)
0.867 Project is efficient
Schedule Performance
Index
SPI = EV/PV 0.866
Project is behind schedule, since the
time it would take to complete each
task was overestimated
Estimated At
Completion
EAC = BAC/CPI
$18,016.48

Less than estimated total budget
Estimate To Complete ETC = EAC AC $11,084.90 Remaining cost
Variances At
Completion
VAC = BAC - EAC $5,855.36 Under budget

The total budget when the project is completed is estimated to be about $23,800.00. As of this date, the
project is $2,250.00 under budget. The schedule variance is negative, demonstrating that the project is
behind schedule. This is only because the time to complete each of the tasks was severely over
estimated; however, the project is actually on schedule. Since the cost performance index is above 1,
the project is under budget. The to-complete performance index is less than 1, therefore the project is
efficient. The schedule performance index is less than 1, indicating that the project is behind schedule.
As noted earlier, this is because the time to complete each of the tasks was overestimated. The
estimated cost at completion is $18,000.00, which is much less than the current estimated total budget.
The estimate to complete is $11,000.00, which is indicative of the remaining cost. Therefore, the
variances at completion are estimated to be $5,900.00, meaning that overall, the project will be under
budget.


March 19, 2014
16
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

Figure 6 reiterates the budget analysis in a graph.

Figure 6: Earned Value over Time Report
At the beginning of the project, the planned value exceeded the earned value (Figure 6), indicating that
the project was ahead of schedule. In the new year, the earned value exceeded the planned value
(Figure 6), meaning that the project was behind schedule. However, the project is not actually behind
schedule, this error is due to the fact that the time it would take to complete each task was severely
overcalculated. Throughout the project, the actual cost has always been lower than the earned value
(Figure 6). This indicates that the project is, and will likely continue to remain, under budget.
6.0 Work remaining
Table 11 outlines the remaining deliverables left to complete for the final report and presentation phase
of the project.
Table 11: Deliverables Remaining to Complete
Deliverable Task Target End Date
Deliverable 3.2
Generate Buffers around each
Pit Site (500m, 1km, 2km)
April 25
th

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Q4 Q1
2013 2014
C
o
s
t

Earned Value Over Time Report
Earned Value Planned Value AC


March 19, 2014
17
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

Deliverable 3.3
Assessment of the Correlation
between Land Cover, Land Use
and Population of the Three Bird
Species
May 16
th

Deliverable 3.4 Produce Final Written Report May 30
th

Deliverable 3.5 Final Report Presentation June
Deliverable 3.6 Submit Final Written Report June 13
th


These deliverables will be completed in the final phases of the project which starts with generating
three buffers for each of the pit sites; 500 metres, 1 kilometre and 2 kilometres from the centre of the
pit sites. This task has a projected end date of April 25
th
. Upon completion of this task, the assessment of
the correlation between land cover, land use and population/colony size can be commenced. This task
has a target end date of May 16
th
, as this portion of the project is projected to take the longest amount
of time in order to develop a thorough and accurate assessment of the land use and land cover that is
within each of the buffers around the pit sites. This also includes generating appropriate map layouts to
support our analysis.
Once these tasks have been completed, producing the final written report can take place. This task will
consist of gathering all the tasks which have been completed throughout the scope of this project and
reporting on the findings. This task has a target end date of May 30
th
which will allow for preparation for
the next task which is the final report presentation which will be taking place in early June.
Upon completing the final report presentation, the final task is submitting our report and findings no
later than the fixed deadline of June 13, 2014.
7.0 Project Changes and Challenges

The development of this project has been progressing with limited to no challenges which hinder the
completion of the project. The time constraint on the project has caused the analysis portion of the
project to be scaled down however, the goal of the project will still be met.



March 19, 2014
18
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

8.0 Closure

Geospatial tech is satisfied with the current status of this project. With SOLRIS data collected, the
progress phase of the project was able to be completed in preparation for the final project phase. The
progress phase tasks, which included collecting the data, condensing to the study area and determining
the centre of the pit sites, brought our project completion to 35%. This signifies the project is on
schedule, as the associated deliverables to date have been completed with 193.5 hours of the project
remaining.
Geospatial Tech does not foresee any challenges in the remaining phase of this project. It is anticipated
that the next deliverable will be the most intensive and most crucial task in contributing to the results of
the project and future conservation management strategies. Geospatial Tech is confident that this
project will be completed on time, and likely under budget, by June13, 2014.


















March 19, 2014
19
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

9.0 Bibliography
Altus Group. (2009). State of the Aggregate Resource in Ontario Study. Toronto: Golder Associates.
Baeczak, M. J. (1996). Habitat Quality and Assessing Risks to Avian Biodiversity. Oregon: Oregon State
University.
Bezener, A. (2000). Birds of Ontario. Edmonton: Lone Pine Publishing.
Cadman, M. (2014, February 25). Songbird Biologist of the Canadian Wildlife Service. (A. Northcotte,
Interviewer)
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (2011). Bank Swallow. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from Birds of North
America: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/414/articles/habitat
De Jong, M. J. (2010). Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx Serripennis). Retrieved January
20, 2014, from Neotropical Birds:
http://neotropical.birds.cornell.edu/portal/species/overview?p_p_spp=525356
De Jong, M. J. (2014). Northern Rough-winged Swallow. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from The Birds of
North America: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/infocenter/i6170id.html
Environment Canada. (2010, April 1). Government of Canada. Retrieved December 7, 2013, from
Environment Canada: http://www.ec.gc.ca/habitat/default.asp?lang=En&n=3B4A50B1-1
Evrionment Canada. (2013, July 8). Government of Canada. Retrieved December 7, 2013, from
Environment Canada: http://www.ec.gc.ca/mbc-com/default.asp?lang=En&n=89ED70C3-1
GeoBase. (2008, October 7). GeoBase Orthoimage 2005-2010. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from
GeoBase: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/imagery/imr/index.html
Government of Canada. (2013, December 3). Species at Risk Public Registry. Retrieved December 8,
2013, from Government of Canada: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/default_e.cfm
Jones, T. Belted Kingfisher Photo. Digital Impakt, St.Catharines.
Morgan, J. (2012, June 1). Waterloo Library. Retrieved December 7, 2013, from University of Waterloo:
http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/digital/SOLRIS.html
Natural Resources Canada. (2008, February 4). Government of Canada. Retrieved December 7, 2013,
from Natural Resources Canada: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography-
boundary/remote-sensing/fundamentals/2035
Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association. (2013, April 26). Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) Fact Sheet.
Mississauga , Ontario, Canada.
Seattle Audubon Society. (2014). Bird Web. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from Belted Kingfisher:
http://birdweb.org/birdweb/bird/belted_kingfisher


March 19, 2014
20
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow,
and Belted Kingfisher
Project Progress Report

The Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club. (2011, June 16). The Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club . Retrieved
December 7, 2013, from OFNC: http://www.ofnc.ca/awards/2011/Cadman.php
Yundt, S. E., & Messerschmidt, B. P. (1979). Mineral Affregate Resource Management in Ontario Canada.
Minerals and the Environment Vol. One, 101-111.


March 19, 2014
21
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, the Northern Rough-winged
Swallow, and the Belted Kingfisher
Project Proposal Report
Project Proposal Report




Appendix 1: Terms of Reference



March 19, 2014
22
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, the Northern Rough-winged
Swallow, and the Belted Kingfisher
Project Proposal Report
Project Proposal Report
Project ID: 201314-23 (for our office use only)
Contact Person & Organization Details
Contact Person Name: Mike Cadman
Title: Songbird Biologist
Telephone: 905-336-6295
Fax: 905-336-6430
Email: Mike.Cadman@ec.gc.ca
Organization Name: Canadian Wildlife Service
Address: 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, ON, L7R 4A6
Website:
Date: October 1, 2013

Bank Swallow Habitat Assessment
Project Details
Project Background
Project Problem/Opportunity: The Bank Swallow is currently under assessment to determine whether or not it is
at risk in Canada, and the Northern Rough-winged Swallow and Belted Kingfisher will likely be assessed in the near
future due to long-term declines. Aggregate extraction sites (pits and quarries) are known to be important to these
species, each of which nests in vertical sand banks. A recent study by CWS and OMNR investigated the use of pits
and quarries by these species. 150 pits and quarries were visited in 2 ecoregions across southern Ontario in
2013. Some sites had all 3 species nesting, but some had only 1 or 2 of them. We would like to know whether
the type of site (pit or quarry), the nature of the landscape around each site, or the geographic location of the
site, affect the likelihood of each of the species nesting in that pit.

Business Goal: A better understanding of the attributes of sites used and not used by each species will be helpful in
developing management strategies for each species and for pits and quarries.
Primary Project Objectives [Provide a list of the project objectives.]
To determine the attributes of the landscape (eg., amount of forest cover, wetland, open water,
agriculture, development) within a 500 m, 1 km and 2 km radius area around all target sites
To develop a profile of the attributes of pits and quarries used by each species
To determine whether there are significant differences among the attributes of sites used by each of the 3
species.
Primary Project Deliverables [Provide a list of the project objectives.]
Data files containing information on the location of each site, and the attributes of the landscape
surrounding each site within 500m, 1 km and 2 km radii.
A report summarizing the attributes of the sites used by each species, and an assessment of whether there
are differences in the attributes of the sites used by each species.
The report should give documentation of methods, results, and references. Documentation should be sufficiently
complete such that the client can duplicate the work in future studies.



March 19, 2014
23
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, the Northern Rough-winged
Swallow, and the Belted Kingfisher
Project Proposal Report
Project Proposal Report
Requirements
Number of students required to
complete the project:
2
Equipment required (if any):
Data required (if any):
SOLRIS (to be provided); pit location data (to be provided); species occurrence
data (to be provided).
Software required (if any): ARC-GIS
Confidentiality None required











March 19, 2014
24
Landscape Attributes and Their Effect on the Use of Sand Pits by the Bank Swallow, the Northern Rough-winged
Swallow, and the Belted Kingfisher
Project Proposal Report
Project Proposal Report






Appendix 2: Gantt Chart