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