Barn Swallow Decline Final Report212222

Barn Swallow Decline
Photo Credit: Charles W. B
Created By:
Final Report
Matt Reaume - Project Manager

Ian Feagan - GIS Analyst
Date: June 14, 2015
June 17th, 2015

Mr. Mike Cadman
Songbird Biologist
Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment Canada
867 Lakeshore Road
Burlington, ON,
L7R 4A6
Dear Mr. Cadman,
Re: Barn Swallow Decline Formal Report
Please accept this letter as Northern Geospatial Solutions Formal submission of the Final Report for Barn Swallow
Decline in the Guelph Area for the Canadian Wildlife Service.
The GIS and Northern Geospatial Solutions Company consists of team members, Ian Feagan and Matt Reaume who
is acting as project manager. This report consists of the following sections; a project overview; a summary of the data
used during the project; a methodology describing the steps needed to complete the remaining Barn Swallow site
correlation analysis; the results of the correlation analysis for Site 02 (Cedarcreek Farms) and Site 03 (Colwyn Farm);
a brief discussion of the results, challenges that have been encountered and recommendations. After the completion
of the Barn Swallow Decline project, the final budget has resulted in $31,267.10.
Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed documents, please contact me at your convenience at (226)345-2440 or at mkreaume9@gmail.com. Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your comments and
suggestions.
Kindest Regards,
Matt Reaume, BES.

Project Manager
GIS GM Certificate Candidate
Niagara College
MR/
Enclosures;
1) Hardcopy
a) Formal Report entitled Barn Swallow Decline
Cc: Ian Feagan, Janet Finlay
5 Taylor Rd Niagara-on-the-Lake ON L0S 1J0

226-345-2440 mkreaume9@gmail.com
Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Final Report
Executive Summary
Hirundo rustica (Barn Swallow) is one of the most common and widespread of the land bird
species; however, in recent decades an inexplicable and significant decline in the Barn Swallow
population has been observed in Ontario. In recent years, as more farms in Ontario have been
converted to single crop agribusinesses and traditional barns have been replaced by modern
structures, the Barn Swallow has lost much of its favoured foraging grounds and nesting locations.
Despite the Barn Swallows reputation as being highly adaptable to human modified rural
landscapes, the Ontario population has steadily decreased (Government of Canada, Species at
Risk, 2014).
The primary goal of this project was to analyze the land-use intensity at 250m, 500m, and 1km
intervals at Barn Swallow nesting sites; along with population data to determine if there is a
relationship between land-use intensity and nesting productivity of the observed colonies. This
report will focus on two nesting sites of Barn Swallows throughout Wellington County located in
Southern Ontario, Canada. A methodology was created in order for the Canadian Wildlife Service
to continue the analysis regarding the remaining 19 sites.
The findings state that no correlation exists between land-use intensity and Barn Swallow
productivity for Site 02 (Cedarcreek Farms) and Site 03 (Colwyn Farm). Using, the methodology
provided by Northern Geospatial Solutions, the Canadian Wildlife Service will be able to continue
the project using the same methods and procedures for the remaining 19 Barn Swallow observation
sites.
The project lasted until June 17, 2015 with 370 working hours invested over a 162 day span, with
a total budget value of $31,267. Northern Geospatial Solutions is confident in their ability to
provide excellent customer satisfaction by producing a high standard of cartographic maps and
analysis regarding the project goals and objectives.

Final Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1.1
Client Overview ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1.2
Project Issue .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1.3
Literature Review...................................................................................................... 2
1.1.4
Project Goal .............................................................................................................. 5
1.1.5
Primary Objectives.................................................................................................... 5
1.1.6
Project Benefits ......................................................................................................... 6
1.1.7
Proposed Study Location .......................................................................................... 6
2.0 Summary of Data ............................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Barn Swallow Colony Location Data............................................................................... 8
2.2 South Western Ontario Orthophotography (SWOOP) Data ............................................ 8
2.3 Barn Swallow Colony Population Data ........................................................................... 8
2.4 Habitat Intensification Classification ............................................................................... 8
2.5 Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) Version 1.2 Data....... 9
2.6 Client-Supplied Land-Use Type Classifications .............................................................. 9
3.0 Project Resources ............................................................................................................. 11
4.0 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Create 2014_BarnSwallow Geodatabase .................................................................... 12
4.2 Create Domain for the Geodatabase............................................................................... 13
4.3 Create and Populate Point Feature Classes .................................................................... 14
4.4 Create and Populate Polygon Feature Classes ............................................................... 15
4.5 Create 2012_BarnSwallow Geodatabase .................................................................... 21
4.6 Create Buffer Model to Populate 2012 and 2014 Geodatabases .................................... 22
4.7 Create Clip Model to Populate the 2014 Geodatabase ................................................... 24
4.8 Create Land-Use Clip Models for 2012 Geodatabase .................................................... 28
4.9 Populate SOLRIS Feature Datasets................................................................................ 32
4.10 Assign Land-Use Intensity Score for Each Buffered Interval........................................ 33
4.11 Export Populated Land-Use Feature Classes for Analysis............................................. 35
4.12 Weighted Total Area of Each Land-Use Type ............................................................... 37
4.13 Creation of the Formal Map Layouts ............................................................................. 38
5.0 Cartographic Map Layout Results ................................................................................. 38
6.0 Project Results/Findings .................................................................................................. 39
6.1 Correlation Results of Land-Use Intensity and Barn Swallow
Population ............... 39
7.0 Discussion.......................................................................................................................... 42
8.0 Project Limitations .......................................................................................................... 42

Final Report
Table of Contents - Continued

9.0 Project Challenges ........................................................................................................... 44
10.0 Summary of Project Schedule......................................................................................... 45
10.1 Final Project Schedule .................................................................................................... 45
10.2 Final Total Hours Based on Major Tasks....................................................................... 46
11.0 Summary of Project Budget ............................................................................................ 46
11.1 Final Project Budget ....................................................................................................... 47
11.2 Final Total Cost Based on Major Tasks ......................................................................... 47
11.3 Final Project Budget Overall .......................................................................................... 48
12.0 Overall Project Earned Value Management Assessment (EVM)................................ 48
13.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 49
14.0 Closure .............................................................................................................................. 50
15.0 Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................ 51
16.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 52
17.0 Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 54
18.0 Imagery Sources ............................................................................................................... 54
Appendices
APPENDIX A
Terms of Reference
APPENDIX B
Project Overview Statement (POS)
APPENDIX C
Study Teams Resumes
APPENDIX D
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and Gantt Chart
APPENDIX E
Data Tables Provided by Canadian Wildlife Service
APPENDIX F
2014 Map Book

Final Report
List of Figures
Figure 1: Distribution of Barn Swallows in North America (Cornel Lab of Orthinology, 2015). . 3
Figure 2: Proposed Study Location Highlighted in Yellow Around the City of Guelph. .............. 7
Figure 3: Barn Swallow Study Field Map of Flanigans Barns (Canadian Wildlife Service, 2014)
....................................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4: Creation of Feature Datasets in 2014_BarnSwallow.gdb ............................................. 12
Figure 5: Land_Use_Types_2014 Domain Properties/Site 02 Database Properties. ................... 13
Figure 6: Import of Barn_Site_Populations csv into ArcMap ...................................................... 14
Figure 7: Export of a Selected Site ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 8: Creation of Polygon Feature Class to House Digitized Land-Use Type Data. ............. 16
Figure 9: Field Creation Dialogue Box for Site_02_Land_Use_Type Feature Class ............... 17
Figure 10: Activation of the Editor Toolbar ................................................................................. 18
Figure 11: Selections Made to Initiate the Digitization of Land Use. .......................................... 19
Figure 12: Site 02 Cedarcreek Farms, After Digitization of Land Use. ....................................... 20
Figure 13: Site_02_Land_Use_Type Polygon Feature Class Attribute Table type) .................... 21
Figure 14: Create Buffer Model to Populate 2012 and 2014 Geodatabase .................................. 22
Figure 15: Create Buffer Model Parameters ................................................................................. 23
Figure 16: Result of Buffer Model Parameters ............................................................................. 23
Figure 17: Change the Output Name in the Buffer Model ........................................................... 24
Figure 18: Create Clip Model to Populate 2014 Geodatabase ...................................................... 25
Figure 19: Create Clip Model Parameters for 2014 Geodatabase ................................................ 26
Figure 20: Result of Clip Model Parameters for 2014 Geodatabase ............................................ 27
Figure 21: Change the Output Name in the Clip Model for the 2014 Geodatabase ..................... 28
Figure 22: Create Clip Model to Populate 2012 Geodatabase ...................................................... 29
Figure 23: Create Clip Model Parameters for the 2012 Geodatabase .......................................... 30
Figure 24: Result of Clip Model Parameters for 2012 Geodatabase ............................................ 31
Figure 25: Change the Output Name in the Clip Model (Agricultural_Crops) for the 2012
Geodatabase .................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 26: Import SOLRIS data into 2014 geodatabase ............................................................... 33
Figure 27: Select by Attributes Query showing the processing of selecting records to be given a
land use intensity value. ................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 28: Text output of Site 02 Landuse Type (250m) ............................................................. 35
Figure 29: Text Import Wizard selections for importing the txt. file feature class exports .......... 36
Figure 30: Screen capture of Excel Worksheet used to calculate the Aereal Sum Intensity Score
....................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 31: Relationship between Land-use Intensity and Barn Swallow Population ................... 39
Figure 32: Site 02, Cedarcreek Farms Comparison (2012 - 2014) ............................................... 40
Figure 33: Site 03, Colwyn Farm Comparison (2012 - 2014) ...................................................... 41

Final Report
List of Figures - Continued

Figure 34: Limitation of Land-Use Field Maps vs. SOLRIS Data ............................................... 43
Figure 35: Major Tasks Total Hours Breakdown ......................................................................... 46
Figure 36: Major Tasks Budget Breakdown ................................................................................. 47
Figure 37: Earned Value Management Chart ............................................................................... 49
List of Tables
Table 1: Description of Project Resources.................................................................................... 11
Table 2: Final Project Schedule Breakdown ................................................................................. 45
Table 3: Final Budget Breakdown ................................................................................................ 47
Table 4: Total Budget w/ HST ..................................................................................................... 48
Table 5: Earned Value Management Cost .................................................................................... 48

Final Report
1.0 Introduction
Included below is a brief introduction to the following project components; the Canadian Wildlife
Service as an organization; the projects primary issue; a literature review examining past works
pertaining to Barn Swallows (and other aerial insectivores); a discussion of the project objectives;
benefits and study area. A strong understanding of these aforementioned components is needed
for successful completion of this project. For more information, please refer to the original Terms
of Reference provided by the client in Appendix A.
1.1 Project Overview

1.1.1 Client Overview
The Canadian Wildlife Service is a sub-branch of Environment Canada. The Canadian Wildlife
Service focuses its efforts on managing endangered and significant wildlife populations, along
with their habitats to ensure their conservation and protection for years to come. The Canadian
Wildlife Service has many partnerships with not for profit conservation groups and volunteers to
monitor and record migratory bird sightings to better understand species of interest. The Canadian
Wildlife Service is also instrumental in internationally coordinated efforts to maintain the diversity
and abundance of all North American Birds; specifically, their role with the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative (Environment Canada. 2013. North American Bird Conservation Initiative
(NABCI).
1.1.2 Project Issue
Throughout Ontario, the population of Barn Swallows (Hirundo Rustica) has decreased
significantly, at a rate of 2.9% per year from 1970-2009 (Salvadori, Cadman, Homer et.al, 2011).
The reason for this decline is unknown at present; however, as more research is conducted on Barn
Swallow populations in Ontario and other aerial insectivores world-wide, several factors have been
identified that lead to decreases in observed populations. Habitat suitability, availability of prey,
along with increases in predation and anthropogenic disturbances have been identified as key
contributing factors that cumulatively affect Barn Swallow populations in a negative manner.
(Nebel, Mills, McCracken et.al, 2010)

Final Report
Habitat loss is believed to be a primary contributor to the decrease in bird populations worldwide.
However, due to the broad range, varied life history and population structure of aerial insectivores,
some researchers have hypothesized that the decline in this guild is likely correlated to changes in
prey phenology and abundance. Availability of flying insects that are the primary food source for
aerial insectivores is closely related to land-use and management practices. These multi-trophic
effects are indicative of a broad-scale ecosystem change, which make the inter relations of the
aforementioned issues especially important to understand. (Nebel, Mills, McCracken et.al, 2010)
Hirundo rustica is designated by COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada) as a threatened species. The Barn Swallows most current status (as of May 2011) is A2b.
This status, according to COSEWIC is defined as An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected
reduction in total number of mature individuals (greater than or equal to 30%) over the last 10
years or 3 generations, whichever is the longest, where the reduction or its causes may not have
ceased, may not be understood or may be irreversible. (Committee on the Endangered Status of
Wildlife in Canada, 2011).
1.1.3 Literature Review
The Barn Swallow is one of the most widely distributed and abundant swallows in the world. The
Barn Swallow breeds throughout most of North America, Europe and Asia, wintering in southern
Africa and South America (Brown and Brown, 1999). Barn Swallows can be identified by a steel
blue back, wings and tail accented by orangey underparts. The blue crown and face contrast with
the cinnamon colored forehead and throat, along with white spots under the tail that can be difficult
to see except in flight. When perched, the swallow appears cone shaped, broad shouldered with
pointed wings and a deep forked tail (All About Birds, n.d.).
Staying true to their name, they build their nests almost exclusively on human-made structures.
This swallow tends to find its habitat in open or semi-open land, farms, fields, marshes, lakes and
may occur in any kind of open or partly open terrain. They can often be found breeding around
farms, buildings, towns, fields and barns (Audubon, n.d.). Due to anthropogenic industrialization,
the Swallow population has expanded throughout North America because of man-made structures
used for nesting. The Barn Swallow typically breeds in lowlands and foothills with nearby open
areas and water.
Swallows have adopted humans as neighbours; now it is very rare to see a Barn Swallow nest in
locations that are naturally occurring, such as cliff faces, caves or trees. (Audubon, n.d.). Figure 1
illustrates the Barn Swallows distribution throughout the Americas.

Final Report
Figure 1: Distribution of Barn Swallows in North America (Cornel Lab of Orthinology, 2015).
The Barn Swallow typically breeds between the months of May and August depending upon the
location. During the beginning stages of the breeding season, the male swallow attracts a female
bird by spreading its tail and singing while circling high above the nest (Brown and Brown, 1999).
Both birds cooperate to construct a cup-shaped nest, usually made of mud and bird saliva, while
the male bird defends a territory from other swallows. Usually 3 to 7 eggs are produced, which are
coloured white and spotted with brown. The incubation process is between 13 to 17 days and once
the young are born they leave the nest about 18-23 days after hatching, with approximately 1 to 2
broods occurring each year. The number of broods varies based on a number of factors such as
regional climate, food availability and bird health. (Audubon, n.d.)
A study conducted in 2011 titled, Barn Swallow Populations in Wellington County 2008 2010
by Antonio Salvadori, Mike Cadman, Kyle Horner and Lauren Rae, discussed the current situation
facing the Barn Swallow in Southern Ontario. According to their report, Barn Swallow population
size and reproductive output at 15 sites in the county was decreasing. All of the sites in Wellington
County were in agricultural areas that had buildings surrounded by fields. It became evident that
older barns housed more Barn Swallows as opposed to newer barns due to the type of materials

Final Report
and dimensions present with new construction. Results indicated colony size varied among the 15
sites, as well as the reproductive success of Barn Swallows.
This study concluded that populations within the 15 sites remained stable, but also gained insight
into activities that may negatively affect the population. Some activities that may negatively affect
the population are loss or degradation of suitable breeding sites, deliberate nest destruction by
property owners, cats, and heterospecific competition for nesting locations. Other factors possibly
affecting Barn Swallow number in Ontario could be the type of agricultural land-use, along with
the aforementioned effect of modernization of barns where the swallows tend to reside (Salvadori,
Cadman, Horner et.al, 2011).
Barn Swallows are notorious for constructing their nests in open barns and in open agricultural
areas. It is no secret that this species has been in decline over the past few decades, declining at a
rate of 2.9% per year from 1970-2009 (Salvadori, Cadman, Horner et.al, 2011). Birds nests are
often destroyed when old buildings in rural areas are demolished or fall down. In addition, farms
tend to modernize, where many old barns that offered easy access to the birds are being replaced
by large metal sheds with tight-fitting doors and no windows (Ontario Government, 2015). Along
with modernization of barns, agricultural land-use practices have also been modernized.
In conclusion, modern farming is a primary factor causing the decrease in Barn Swallow
productivity over the past few decades. A study in Switzerland documented the reproductive
benefits of livestock farming in association with the quality of nesting sites and foraging grounds
for Barn Swallows. The productivity of Barn Swallows depends on the characteristics of the
micro and the macrohabitat. Since changes in farming systems, grazing patterns and landscape
heterogeneity may have different effects on micro and macro habitats respectively, they affect
productivity of declining bird species in a complex way. The study concluded to find that farms
with livestock produced habitat which enabled a significant increase of 1.6 chicks in brood
productivity annually (Gruebler, Korner-Nievergelt, Hirschheydt, 2010)

Final Report
1.1.4 Project Goal

The Barn Swallow population has experienced very large declines that began in the mid to late
1980s in Canada (Environment Canada, 2014). The species is currently threatened under the
Species at Risk Act (SARA) and under the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC) as of 2011 (COSEWIC, 2011). In order to understand the decline of the
species, increased knowledge of the relationship between land-use change/intensity and nesting
productivity of Barn Swallows must be achieved. The analysis portion of this project will only
focus on Site 02 (Cedarcreek Farms) and Site 03 (Colwyn Farm). A methodology has been
described in detail to carry out the analysis on the remaining colony locations. The findings from
the year 2012 will be used to analyze the most current data to determine if there is a noticeable
change in land-use intensity and nesting productivity over a period of two years (Government of
Canada, 2014, Species at Risk Public Registry).
1.1.5 Primary Objectives
The first objective associated with this project will be to obtain a habitat suitability (land-use
intensity index) classification for Site 02 (Cedar Creek Farms) and Site 03 (Colwyn Farm) that
will be used to assess the 2012 data with the newly created 2014 mapped data. The habitat index
will be used to classify each land type that will be completed by digitizing maps in ArcMap,
displaying the geographic locations of the 21 barn sites, and the land-use intensity within 250m,
500m, and 1km radius from the nest location at each site.
The second objective associated with this project is determining whether land-use intensity change
correlates with change in Barn Swallow nesting productivity for the two aforementioned sites. This
correlation analysis is fundamental to achieving the final outcome of the project, as it provides the
client with an example of what the remaining analysis on the colony locations will produce.
The final objective of this project is to create a methodology that will assist the Canadian Wildlife
Service to continue analysis for the remaining 19 sites. This methodology will help determine the
final outcome of whether there is a significant change between 2012 and 2014 Barn Swallow
nesting populations.

Final Report
1.1.6 Project Benefits

The purpose of this project is to create a geodatabase for 2012 and 2014 and provide a
methodology, so the client can conduct an analysis to determine whether or not there is a
significant correlation between agricultural land-use practices/intensity and the Barn Swallow
breeding productivity based on the most recent data obtained in 2014. An analysis has been
conducted for Site 02 and Site 03, which will serve as a template to help the client analyze the
remaining sites.
If a correlation between land-use intensity and barn swallow breeding productivity can be
observed, the project may provide the evidence necessary to support continued monitoring and
research on broader scales and over extended time periods to facilitate an understanding of the
underlying mechanisms that effect the Barn Swallows in Ontario.
1.1.7 Proposed Study Location
The study area in which Barn Swallow observation and land-use data were collected includes 21
agricultural homesteads and their surrounding properties. The homesteads are located outside of
Guelph, Ontario and are in relatively close proximity to one another. See Figure 2 for a map which
illustrates the study area in relation to southern Ontario cities.

Final Report
Figure 2: Proposed Study Location Highlighted in Yellow Around the City of Guelph.
6/28/2015

Final Report
2.0 Summary of Data

Detailed below are the data supplied by the client or acquired from secondary sources, such as the
Southern Ontario Land Resource System (SOLRIS).
2.1 Barn Swallow Colony Location Data

Location data for each site were provided by the Canadian Wildlife Service. This data was in the
form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet consisting of latitude and longitude coordinates, along with
site names and identification codes. The table provided by the Canadian Wildlife Service can be
seen in Appendix E.
2.2 South Western Ontario Orthophotography (SWOOP) Data

The SWOOP data was obtained via Scholars Geoportal and coordinated/verified with Google
Earth and the hard copy site maps provided by Canadian Wildlife Service.
2.3 Barn Swallow Colony Population Data

The population data was generated by the client, which includes the Barn Swallows productivity
for 18 sites from 2012 and 2014. The data consists of the number of first and second broods before
and after July 1st; total amount of broods; number of first and second broods with fledged (or
banded young); total broods of young and the sum of banded/fledged young per year. The
population data will be used to determine a correlation analysis between land-use intensity and
Barn Swallow productivity for 2012 and compared with the data from 2014. The aforementioned
population data can be seen in Appendix E.
2.4 Habitat Intensification Classification

The Canadian Wildlife Service has provided Northern Geospatial Solutions with a habitat intensity
classification index for individual land-use types surrounding each colony location. The 2012 data
grouped each land-use type in four categories as Agricultural Crops, Agricultural Land-Use,
Common Land Use, and SOLRIS. Using the data provided each land-use type was given an
intensity score that was input in the 2012 and 2014 geodatabase and subsequently used for
analyzing the relationship between land-use intensity and Barn Swallow populations. These
intensity scores have been used to develop a correlation analysis between land-use intensity and
Barn Swallow population numbers for 2012 and 2014. The habitat intensification classification
can be seen in Appendix E.
6/28/2015

Final Report
2.5 Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) Version

1.2 Data
The Southern Ontario Land Resources Information System (SOLRIS) Version 1.2 ESRI GRID
data, released in 2008, is a landscape-level inventory of natural, rural, and urban areas in Southern
Ontario, which covers Wellington County in Guelph, ON. (University of Waterloo, 2008).
SOLRIS was developed to support scale planning initiatives in Southern Ontario. The SOLRIS
inventory is a compilation of data from various sources including topographic maps, aerial
photographs and satellites imagery. By using computer modeling, visual interpretation and field
validation, an inventory for Southern Ontario has been achieved. The SOLRIS data used for the
purpose of this study has a UTM Zone 17 and Zone 18, NAD 83 coordinate system, which was
projected in MNR Lambert Conformal Conic (University of Waterloo, 2008). Shown below are a
total of 23 classes within the SOLRIS inventory.
2. Open Cliff and Talus
5. Shoreline
6. Open Shoreline
10. Open Sand Barren and Dune
20. Open Tallgrass Prairie
21. Tallgrass Savannah
22. Tallgrass Woodland
27. Forest
28. Coniferous Forest
29. Mixed Forest
30. Deciduous Forest
36. Tree Cultivated
37. Hedge Rows
42. Transportation
43. Extraction
44. Built-Up Area Previous

45. Built-Up Area Previous
50. Swamp
55. Fen
59. Bog
63. Marsh
66. Open Water
99. Undifferentiated
2.6 Client-Supplied Land-Use Type Classifications

In addition to the aforementioned SOLRIS Version. 1.2 data, the client supplied orthoimagery
field maps surrounding each colony location. These field maps were used to digitize each
individual polygon in ArcMap 10.2.2, which are housed in the geodatabase referred to as
2014_Geodatabase. An example of the field maps provided by the Canadian Wildlife Service
can be seen in Figure 3, which represents Site 07 - Flanigans Barns.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Soy
Corn
Grassy Hay
Wheat
Horse Pasture
Cattle Pasture
Meadow
Lawn
9. Forest
10. Alfalfa
11. Cereal Crop
12. Houses/Farmstead
13. Goat Pasture
14. Pasture
15. Golf Course
16. Planted Trees
6/28/2015
17. Electrical Box

18. Drive In/Parking
19. Sand/Gravel Pits
20. Housing/Development
21. Grass
22. Old Field
23. Unknown
24. Pond

Final Report
Figure 3: Barn Swallow Study Field Map of Flanigans Barns (Canadian Wildlife Service, 2014)
6/28/2015
10

Final Report
11
3.0 Project Resources

Described below are all of the resources that were required for the completion of this project. A
detailed breakdown is fundamental to the project by describing the type of resource, the name of
each resource, and a brief description of each resource.
Table 1: Description of Project Resources
Resource Type
Personnel
Resource Name
Matt Reaume
Project Manager
Ian Feagan
GIS Analyst
Janet Finlay
Project Advisor
Michael D. Cadman
Client
ArcGIS
Software
Microsoft Office
Google Earth
Hardware
Computers
GIS analysis and organization

programs used for working with
maps and geographic information.
Provided by Niagara College.
Office Suite for desktop applications.
Used for drafting reports and
presentations. Provided by Niagara
College
A virtual globe/Geographical
mapping program. Google
Supplied by Niagara College
Barn Site Colony Locations
Data
Description/Source/Function
Land Use Intensity

Classification
Southern Ontario Land
Resource Information
System (S.O.L.A.R.I.S) Data
South Western Ontario
Orthoimagery Project
(SWOOP)
Barn Swallow Colony
Population
6/28/2015
Supplied in an Excel workbook

(UTM/Lat, Long) by CWS.
Supplied in an Excel workbook by
CWS
Supplied in GDB Feature Class
format by Niagara College
1 km2 raster (J2W File (.j2w)) format
Scholars Geoportal
Supplied in an Excel workbook by
CWS.

Final Report
12
4.0 Methodology
Outlined below is a detailed breakdown of the steps required to complete the final report
deliverables. These steps entail the creation process of the 2014 and 2012 Barn Swallow
geodatabases. SWOOP Orthoimagery was acquired, mosaicked and stored in a geodatabase.
Land-use intensity scores were then assigned to 250m, 500m, and 1km buffered intervals. The
process of building models to automate the buffering and clipping functions is described. The
methodology of exporting the results of the aforementioned processes to a format compatible with
statistical software (.txt) and organization in Microsoft Excel will be detailed.
4.1 Create 2014_BarnSwallow Geodatabase

A geodatabase titled 2014_BarnSwallow was created in ArcCatalog. Feature datasets were then
created for each site ex. Site_01 as seen in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Creation of Feature Datasets in 2014_BarnSwallow.gdb
6/28/2015

Final Report
13
In order to create the 2014_BarnSwallow geodatabase, a file geodatabase was created by right
clicking on the folder, which was used to house the geodatabase. Once the geodatabase had been
created and named accordingly, feature datasets were created by right clicking on the geodatabase
and selecting Feature Dataset as seen in Figure 4. Each Barn Swallow site feature dataset
includes each Barn Swallow site location, land-use types, and buffers at 250m, 500m, and 1km
intervals. The SOLRIS feature datasets include the Barn Swallow sites corresponding land-use
types. It should be noted that only Site_02_SOLRIS and Site_03_SOLRIS are populated with landuse types, and the remaining SOLRIS feature datasets are to be populated accordingly.
4.2 Create Domain for the Geodatabase

After the geodatabase was created a domain was added to ensure data integrity and consistency.
This was accomplished by creating a coded value domain that corresponded to a Microsoft Excel
file (Barn Swallow Habitat Survey Legend 2014.xls) provided by the client, which acts as a legend
for the field maps with coded values that correspond to various land types. For example a field
map with a polygon labeled as 1 corresponds to soy crop, as seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Land_Use_Types_2014 Domain Properties/Site 02 Database Properties.
6/28/2015

Final Report
14
4.3 Create and Populate Point Feature Classes

The client generously provided the coordinates and other descriptive information about each site,
such as site I.D/code, name along with coordinates (See Appendix E). This information was then
combined (in Excel, manually) with 2012 and 2014 colony population data also provided by the
CWS. This combined excel spreadsheet was then saved as a comma separated value (.csv) file
format for importation to an ArcGIS feature class. The excel spreadsheet was brought into ArcMap
and displayed by right clicking on the table and selecting display XY Data. See Figure 6 for a
screen capture of this dialogue box.
Figure 6: Import of Barn_Site_Populations csv into ArcMap
Point feature classes are used for each Barn Swallow site location, which was based off of the
latitude and longitude provided by the client in Appendix E. In order to create the point feature
classes, population data provided by the client in Appendix E was formatted in Microsoft Excel
and combined with an appropriate site naming structure. The Microsoft Excel barn site
spreadsheets were imported to ArcGIS, which were used to create XY data from Eastings and
Northings. Once a layer was created that portrayed all site locations, each site was imported into
its appropriate feature dataset. This was completed by right clicking on the selected layer, ensuring
one location is selected, and selecting Create Layer from Selected Features from the Selection
tab. Upon creating a new individual site location layer, it was then exported into the appropriate
feature dataset, as shown in Figure 7.
6/28/2015

Final Report
15
Figure 7: Export of a Selected Site
4.4 Create and Populate Polygon Feature Classes

The creation process for the land-use types consisted of digitizing land-use types based on the
scanned images for each site location provided by the client, shown in Section 2.5, Figure 3.
Polygon feature classes were created by right clicking on the feature dataset and selecting New,
Feature Class and assigning a proper name to the feature class depending on the site number.
This is shown Figure 8.
6/28/2015

Final Report
16
Figure 8: Creation of Polygon Feature Class to House Digitized Land-Use Type Data.
Once an appropriate naming structure has been assigned to the polygon feature class, for example
Site_02_Land_Use_Type fields can be assigned by clicking the next button and assigning
appropriate field names to the feature class, as shown below. Please note that the domain created
in Section 4.2 has been assigned to the Land_Use_Type field, as seen in Figure 9.
6/28/2015

Final Report
17
Figure 9: Field Creation Dialogue Box for Site_02_Land_Use_Type Feature Class (Note the domain
Land_Use_Types_2014 assigned to the Land_Use_Type short integer field)
In order to digitize the land-use types accurately, SWOOP imagery was imported into its own
geodatabase titled 2014_SWOOP. An appropriate naming structure was assigned each raster
within the geodatabase depending on the location of the SWOOP imagery and the colony locations,
for example site_02_swoop_mosaic covers the area around Site 02 Cedar Creek.
To begin the digitizing process in the 2014_BarnSwallow geodatabase the editor toolbar must
be enabled, which is selected from Customize dropdown menu as shown in Figure 10.
6/28/2015

Final Report
18
Figure 10: Activation of the Editor Toolbar
Once editor is enabled, an editing session can begin by selecting Start Editing, Create Features
and selecting polygon under Construction Tools. These selections are displayed in Figure 11.
6/28/2015

Final Report
19
Figure 11: Selections Made to Initiate the Digitization of Land Use.
Lastly, by accurately matching the field maps provided by the client with the SWOOP imagery,
the final result for Site 02 (Cedarcreek Farms) resembles Figure 11. below as an example, along
with the attribute table for the land-use type feature class shown in Figure 12.
6/28/2015

Final Report
Figure 12: Site 02 Cedarcreek Farms, After Digitization of Land Use.
6/28/2015
20

Final Report
21
Figure 13: Site_02_Land_Use_Type Polygon Feature Class Attribute Table (Note the Land_Use_Type field has a
coded value domain applied to it specifying the specific crop/land use type)
4.5 Create 2012_BarnSwallow Geodatabase

The 2012 geodatabase is used to compare the land-use intensity score at 250m, 500m, and 1km
buffer intervals with the 2014 data. In order to create the 2012_BarnSwallow geodatabase, a file
geodatabase was created by right clicking on the folder used to house the geodatabase. Once the
geodatabase has been created and named accordingly, feature datasets were created by right
clicking on the geodatabase and selecting Feature Dataset as seen in Section 4.1, Figure 4.
The feature datasets are named by each Barn Swallow Site and their land-use types, as either
Agricultural_Crops, Agricultural_Land_Use, Common_Land_Use, and SOLRIS land-use types.
The Barn Swallow Site number feature datasets were populated by copying the 2014 colony
location point feature class, created in Section 4.3, from the 2012 Site number feature datasets,
along with each buffer interval. The land-use type datasets will be populated with feature classes
upon running the models created in Section 4.8 and 4.9.
6/28/2015

Final Report
22
4.6 Create Buffer Model to Populate 2012 and 2014 Geodatabases

In order to populate the 2012 and 2014 Barn Swallow geodatabases with buffers at 250m, 500m,
and 1km intervals, a model was created to increase efficiency. The structure of the model can be
seen in Figure 14, which was created by using Model Builder in ArcGIS.
Figure 14: Create Buffer Model to Populate 2012 and 2014 Geodatabase
The process of running the model can be tedious if parameters are not assigned due to restructuring
the entire model. Parameters are used to increase efficiency, which allow the user to change each
colony location at ease by selecting the drop down arrow once the model is ran. These model
parameters were set for the inputs and the outputs by selecting model > model parameters >
properties tab. In order to add the inputs and outputs, select the + sign and select the fields
accordingly, as seen in Figure 15.
6/28/2015

Final Report
23
Figure 15: Create Buffer Model Parameters
Once the parameters were applied, the P symbol is added to the model structure to ensure
parameters were successfully added, which is done by clicking the check mark to validate the
model, seen in Figure 16.
Figure 16: Result of Buffer Model Parameters
6/28/2015

Final Report
24
To successfully run the model, double click the model and change the site numbers accordingly
for each output, along with the site number land-use type from the drop down arrow as seen in
Figure 17. Ensure the site numbers land-use type is a selectable layer to avoid excessive file path
changing. It should be noted that the file path was changed when switching from the 2012 and
2014 geodatabase, which can be done by right clicking on the model and selecting Edit and
saving it accordingly. Once the model window, seen in Figure 13 on page 21, is shown, doubleclick each output and change the file path in order to avoid excessive file path changing, as the
model has been initially created to store one relative path.
Figure 17: Change the Output Name in the Buffer Model
For the purpose of future analysis regarding the remaining sites, the buffers have already
been created for each of the 2012 and 2014 geodatabases.
4.7 Create Clip Model to Populate the 2014 Geodatabase

Clipping the digitized land-use polygons to each buffer is essential for calculating a final land-use
intensity score for individual sites. In order to populate the 2014 Barn Swallow geodatabase with
clipped land-use types at 250m, 500m, and 1km intervals, a model was created to increase
efficiency. Clipping is done to ensure the digitized land-use types fit inside each of the buffer
interval perimeters. The clipping of the digitized land-use types within a 1 km radius buffer was
required in order for the total area for each land-use intensity category could be obtained. The landuse intensity categories also had to be collected for the 250m and 500m buffers, therefore the
digitized land-use types must also be clipped. The structure of the model can be seen in Figure 18.
6/28/2015

Final Report
25
Figure 18: Create Clip Model to Populate 2014 Geodatabase
The process of running the model can be tedious, as previously mentioned, if parameters are not
assigned due to restructuring the entire model. The parameters are used to increase efficiency,
which allow the user to change each buffer interval and land-use type for each site location at ease
by selecting the drop down arrow once the model is ran. These model parameters were set for the
inputs and the outputs by selecting model > model parameters > properties tab. In order to add the
inputs and outputs, select the + sign and select the fields accordingly, as seen in Figure 19.
6/28/2015

Final Report
26
Figure 19: Create Clip Model Parameters for 2014 Geodatabase
model, as seen in Figure 20.
6/28/2015

Final Report
27
Figure 20: Result of Clip Model Parameters for 2014 Geodatabase
To successfully run the model, double click the model and change the site numbers accordingly
from the drop down arrow as seen in Figure 21. Ensure site number land-use type is a selectable
layer, along with each site number buffered interval to avoid excessive file path changing. It should
be noted that the file path was changed when switching from the 2012 and 2014 geodatabase,
which can be done by right clicking on the model and selecting Edit and saving it accordingly.
Once the model window, in Figure 20 is shown, double-click each output and change the file path
in order to avoid excessive file path changing, as the model has been initially created to store one
relative path.
6/28/2015

Final Report
28
Figure 21: Change the Output Name in the Clip Model for the 2014 Geodatabase
For the purpose of future analysis regarding the remaining sites, the clipped land-use types
have already been created for the 2014 geodatabase.
4.8 Create Land-Use Clip Models for 2012 Geodatabase

The feature datasets discussed below include land-use types clipped to each buffered interval,
which is similar to the 2014 geodatabase. The reason for the creation of this model is due to the
structure of the initial 2012 database provided. In order to create a simplified geodatabase, each
land-use type feature dataset category consists of specific land-use types. In order to populate the
Agricultrual_Crops, Agricultural_Land_Use, Common_Land_Use, and the SOLRIS
feature datasets in the 2012_BarnSwallow geodatabase, models have been created for each to
increase efficiency. These models clip the land-use types provided in the
LandUseIndex_CWS_2012 geodatabase to 250m, 500m, and 1km buffers around each colony
location.
As an example of the creation process regarding the model, Agricultural_Crops, has been used
to describe the steps taken for this process. The model structure is seen in Figure 22.
6/28/2015

Final Report
29
Figure 22: Create Clip Model to Populate 2012 Geodatabase
The parameters are used to allow the user to change each buffer interval and land-use type for each
crop type and site buffer interval by selecting the drop down arrow once the model is ran. These
model parameters were set for the inputs and the outputs by selecting model > model parameters
> properties tab. In order to add the inputs and outputs, select the + sign and select the fields
accordingly, as seen in Figure 23.
6/28/2015

Final Report
30
Figure 23: Create Clip Model Parameters for the 2012 Geodatabase
model, as seen in Figure 24.
6/28/2015

Final Report
31
Figure 24: Result of Clip Model Parameters for 2012 Geodatabase
To successfully run the model, double click the model and change the crop type accordingly from
the drop down arrow as seen page in Figure 25. Ensure the land-use types are selectable layers,
which is done by dragging and dropping the land-use types from the LandUseIndex_CWS_2012
geodatabase. Please also ensure the buffers are selectable as well, which is done by dragging and
dropping the buffers from the 2012_BarnSwallow or 2014_BarnSwallow geodatabase. This
will avoid excessive file path changing, enabling the drop down arrow to select the appropriate
layer. In order to change the location of the clip output, rename the crop type and site number in
the 250m, 500m, and 1km outputs. There is no need to change the file path name in the model
structure because these clipped layers will only apply to the 2012 geodatabase.
6/28/2015

Final Report
32
Figure 25: Change the Output Name in the Clip Model (Agricultural_Crops) for the 2012 Geodatabase
Once this process has completed, repeat the steps to run the model in this section for the other
land-use feature datasets in the 2012_BarnSwallow geodatabase.
Please note that the land-use type models for the 2012 geodatabase have only been ran for
Site 02 and Site 03 due to time constraints, and must be ran for the remaining sites in order
to populate the feature datasets within the 2012_BarnSwallow geodatabase.
4.9 Populate SOLRIS Feature Datasets

In order to populate the SOLRIS feature datasets with feature classes, they must be imported from
the 2012 geodatabase 2012_BarnSwallow once created. This is done by right clicking on the
feature dataset and importing multiple feature classes, as seen in Figure 26. The inputs will be the
Site number SOLRIS feature classes within the SOLRIS feature datasets from the
2012_BarnSwallow geodatabase, which is to be populated in Section 4.8 upon running the
SOLRIS model.
6/28/2015

Final Report
33
Figure 26: Import SOLRIS data into 2014 geodatabase
Please note that the SOLRIS feature datasets in the 2014_BarnSwallow geodatabase have
only been populated for Site 02 and Site 03 due to time constraints, and therefore must be
populated by importing from the 2012_BarnSwallow geodatabase.
4.10
Assign Land-Use Intensity Score for Each Buffered Interval
Once all land uses were digitized or supplemented by SOLRIS data, the process of assigning
intensity scores to them could begin. This involved the creation of new fields to contain the
intensity value (1 10) of each land use type for each site. This was accomplished by using the
Select by Attributes function to select the polygons with a specific land use type. See Figure 27
for the query syntax and results.
6/28/2015

Final Report
34
Figure 27: Select by Attributes Query showing the processing of selecting records to be given a land use intensity
value.
Now that the appropriate records are selected, the Intensity_Index field can be populated for
these records by selecting the field heading and selecting Field Calculator, where the appropriate
intensity value is input, in the case of land-use type 2 (corn) the intensity score of three is applied.
6/28/2015

Final Report
35
4.11 Export Populated Land-Use Feature Classes for Analysis

Once the aforementioned steps in the methodology have been completed the data is ready to be
exported to a format compatible with statistical analysis software such as Microsoft Excel.
This process began with the export of feature class attribute tables to text files (.txt) which can be
managed and combined with other feature classes (particularly important for the 2012 data). This
is accomplished by clicking Table Options in the upper right corner of a feature class attribute
table and selecting export, where the output location and format can be specified.
The output (.txt) is comma separated, meaning that each value for every record is delimited from
other values. See Figure 28 for the output of the Site_02_Landuse_250m 2014 feature class.
Figure 28: Text output of Site 02 Landuse Type (250m)
Next, the text files were opened using Microsoft Excel via the text import wizard. The text file
was opened and delimited. The delimiter charter was then set to comma with data type selected
as general. See Figure 29 for screen captures of the import wizard selections.
6/28/2015

Final Report
Figure 29: Text Import Wizard selections for importing the txt. file feature class exports
6/28/2015
36

Final Report
37
The result of this process is an Excel worksheet that can then be used to facilitate the calculation
of land-use intensity scores for each interval at each site. This process was repeated for Site 02 and
Site 03, for 2012 and 2014 land uses at all intervals (250m, 500m and 1km radii). The file folder
structure for organizing the text files and excel files will be provided on the attached data CD.
4.12 Weighted Total Area of Each Land-Use Type

A weighted total (aereal sum) was generated for each site (Site 02 and Site 03). This score was
determined by finding the percentage (as a decimal) that each polygon occupies within the total
buffer interval (250m, 500m and 1km radii). This area value was then multiplied by the polygons
intensity score and summed to produce a single value. This value can be used to evaluate the land
use intensity at a given site and interval which can be compared against other sites.
See Figure 30 for a screen capture depicting the Excel spreadsheet and formula used to calculate
the areal sum value.
Figure 30: Screen capture of Excel Worksheet used to calculate the Aereal Sum Intensity Score (Note the formula
which accounts for each polygons area, as a part of the intervals total area)
6/28/2015

Final Report
38
4.13 Creation of the Formal Map Layouts

As specified in the Terms of Reference (Appendix A), one of the project deliverables involved the
creation of cartographically sound map layouts for each Barn Swallow colony location for the
2014 data. The creation process was completed in Esris ArcMap 10.2.2, which involved
developing a map template and customizing the legend accordingly to each colony locations
surrounding land-use types.
The formal map layouts include 250m, 500m, and 1km radii, which show the land-use types within
the aforementioned buffers. The land-use types are within the 2014_Geodatabase, within
separate feature datasets named by site number. Within these datasets, each buffered interval and
colony location are also included. In order to symbolize the maps accordingly, the Symbology
tab was used to display the land-use intensity and land-use type for each colony location. The
Unique Values, Many Fields option was selected, which included the Land_Use_Type and
Intensity_Index fields used to symbolize the digitized land-use types and SOLRIS data.
In order to ensure the maps can be opened in various locations, the map document properties were
set to Store relative pathnames to data sources. The cartographic features were then added to
each map layout, and the map documents were saved with an appropriate naming. The map layouts
can be seen in Appendix F for each of the 21 sites provided in the 2014_Geodatabase.
Please note Site 01, 21, 22, 23, and 25 are not included in Appendix F because there were no field
maps provided by the Canadian Wildlife Service for 2014, as they are part of the 2012 data.
5.0 Cartographic Map Layout Results

Cartographic formal map layouts were produced to illustrate the 21 Barn Swallow colony locations
and their surrounding land-use type for 2014 within a 250m, 500m, and 1km radius, as mentioned
as a key deliverable in the Terms of Reference, Appendix A. These maps for the areas of interest
will help the Canadian Wildlife Service achieve a visualization of the colony locations and their
surrounding land-use types, which can be seen in Appendix F.
6/28/2015

Final Report
39
6.0 Project Results/Findings

6.1 Correlation Results of Land-Use Intensity and Barn Swallow
Population
The findings indicate that there is no significant correlation between land-use intensity and Barn
Swallow population values (total broods of young) when examining both sites together, seen below
in Figure 31.
Relationship between Land-use Intensity

and Barn Swallow Population
7
R2 =0.0077
Intensity Score
6
Y=0.0208x +5.1572
5
4
Site 02, 2012
Site 02, 2014
Site 03, 2012
Site 03, 2014
0
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
Population (Total Broods)

Figure 31: Relationship between Land-use Intensity and Barn Swallow Population
When examining the two sites on an individual basis it is apparent that for Site 02 (Cedarcreek
Farms) there is a very weak correlation between land-use intensity at the different intervals and
Barn Swallow fecundity. That is to say that as the weighted areal sum values increases (the habitat
becomes less intense and more favorable for Barn Swallows) the breeding success of the swallows
increase by 5 chicks. Figure 32 depicts this relationship on the following page.
6/28/2015

Final Report
40
Site 02, Cedarcreek Farms Comparison

(2012 - 2014)
30
Total Broods of Young
250m
500m
2012
2012
20
1000m
2012
2014
2014
2014
R = 0.0714
10
4
Land-Use Intensity Score

Figure 32: Site 02, Cedarcreek Farms Comparison (2012 - 2014)
Alternatively, as the weighted areal sum value decreases or remains stagnant (the habitat becomes
more intense or remains unchanged and less favorable for Barn Swallows), the breeding success
of the swallows decline. This trend can be observed occurring at Site 03 Colwyn Farm, seen on
the following page in Figure 33.
6/28/2015

Final Report
Site 03, Colwyn Farm Comparison

(2012 - 2014)
30
Total Broods of Young
250m
500m
2012
2012
2012
1000m
20
2014
2014
2014
R = 0.0005
10
4
Land-Use Intensity Score

Figure 33: Site 03, Colwyn Farm Comparison (2012 - 2014)
Based on our analysis of the two sites, it would be incorrect to assume that these trends are
universal in nature and would continue to be present given a larger number of data values.
Therefore, based on the aforementioned limitation, no conclusion can be reached regarding
whether or not Barn Swallow population decline is linked to increasing land-use intensity.
6/28/2015
41

Final Report
42
7.0 Discussion
Based on a review of progress made on this study and the analysis performed, no concrete findings
regarding the relationship between land-use intensity and Barn Swallow population decline can be
derived.
The limitations of the geodatabase, being restricted to the analysis of two of the 21 sites, is the
main reason for this inconclusive result. The development of an automated process for the analysis
of all the sites was not possible in the time frame allowed.
The scope of the project was altered to become methodology based as opposed to an
analysis/findings based project. In order to expedite the data migration process from 2012 overall
structure to 2014 site by site structure, an automated script could be authored to meet these data
management requirements.
8.0 Project Limitations

The primary limitation to this project was the accuracy of the SOLRIS land-use classification data.
SOLRIS data was acquired from the 2012 CWS thesis project, provided to us by the project advisor
Janet Finlay. The SOLRIS data was acquired to facilitate an examination of land-use intensity
change between 2012 and 2014.
The SOLRIS land-use classification was overlaid onto the 2014 digitized polygons from the field
maps provided by the client. After careful observation, it was noted that there are land-use
classification discrepancies between the SOLRIS data (2012) and the digitized land-use (2014). It
is possible that the land-use actually did change between these two time frames.
The SOLRIS data has a significant limitation, namely the accuracy of classification. According
to the Ministry of Natural Resources SOLRIS Accuracy Assessment Report No. 2, The overall
accuracy for ecoregion 6E and 7E was 75.6 % + or - 2.8 % and 73.3 % + or - 3.3%, respectively.
The question as to whether the accuracy level is acceptable depends on its intended application.
(Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008).
6/28/2015

Final Report
43
The purpose of SOLRIS data was to fill in the gaps of land-use types that surrounded each Barn
Swallow colony location. As seen in Figure 34 the image on the left displays the land-use type
classification data on top of the SOLRIS data, and the image on the right displays the same area,
including a transparency showing the overlap.
Figure 34: Limitation of Land-Use Field Maps vs. SOLRIS Data
Since the land-use classification data provided by the client was issued in 2014, land cover is
subject to change from the 2008 SOLRIS data acquired. As shown in Figure 33 for Site 02
(Cedarcreek Farms), there appears to be a misclassification regarding swampland and old field
when the images are compared to each other.
The issue stated above would not pose a problem as long as the intensity index was similar in the
overlapping areas. In this case, old field has a land-use intensity score of 8 and swampland has a
land-use intensity score of 7. The difference between the aforementioned overlapping land-use
intensity scores is negligible.
6/28/2015

Final Report
44
However, grassy hay (land-use intensity of 9) appears atop of hedge rows (land-use intensity of
6), which is a significant difference in intensity and thus needs to be accounted for. Overall, the
addition of SOLRIS data has only minor inconveniences associated with implementing it in our
analysis, with benefits far outweighing disadvantages.
9.0 Project Challenges

At the completion of the Barn Swallow Decline thesis project, there were few challenges that have
occurred. There have been issues encountered with generating the project budget analysis using
Microsoft Project, specifically with issues relating to the calculation of performance
measurements. This was resolved through a careful examination of nested, reoccurring events and
the amount of hours that were assigned to each reoccurring event. Ensuring the project did not fall
behind schedule was also a major issue, and was solved by logging hours spent on major tasks and
ensuring major tasks deadlines were completed on time.
These issues were mitigated by continuously learning Microsoft Project to ensure the project did
not fall further behind schedule and over budget. While we were waiting for the population data,
we digitized the land-use polygons and continued to research Barn Swallow habitat, population
productivity, and analyze 2012 reports to ensure the project schedule and budget remained stable.
The 2012 geodatabase did not have a land-use intensity score assigned to each buffered interval
(250m, 500m, 1km), and due to time constraints the Northern Geospatial Team has constructed
more detailed methodology allowing the Canadian Wildlife Service to continue the project.
Other issues with respect to the digitization process involved the legibility of the hardcopy field
maps and the decision to combine adjacent polygons when they were defined as the same land-use
type.
6/28/2015

Final Report
45
10.0 Summary of Project Schedule

The sections below outline the final project schedule with the task name, start date, end date and
time dedicated to complete project on time. This project schedule serves as the final record of time
dedicated to the major components needed to complete the final project by its deadline. Please
refer to the Project Overview Statement (POS) in Appendix B, and the Gantt Chart and Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS) in Appendix D for a more information.
10.1 Final Project Schedule

Table 2 details the projects major tasks by name, along with start date, end date and the time
needed to complete each task. The total amount of time for the completion of the project was 370
hours over a period of 162 days.
Table 2: Final Project Schedule Breakdown
Task Name
Start Date
End Date
Time (Hours)
Project Management
10/30/14
06/12/15
65
Understand the Project
10/30/14
12/05/14
75
Collect Data
10/30/14
12/12/14
19
Assemble Geodatabase
11/26/14
01/12/15
27
Perform GIS Analysis/Summary
12/12/14
06/12/15
184
Total =
370
6/28/2015

Final Report
46
10.2 Final Total Hours Based on Major Tasks

Figure 35 illustrates Table 2 in the form of a pie graph, displaying each major tasks total amount
of hours needed to complete the project, along with the percentage the major task accounts for
regarding the overall project.
Total Hours = 370

Project Management
65, 18%
184, 50%
75, 20%
19, 5%
27, 7%
Collect Data
Peform GIS
Analyst/Summary
Figure 35: Major Tasks Total Hours Breakdown
11.0 Summary of Project Budget

Outlined below is a breakdown of the cost structure for the implementation and completion of the
project. The hourly rate charged by the Project Manager, Matt Reaume, is $80.00 per hour and the
hourly rate charged by the GIS Analyst, Ian Feagan, is $60.00, which includes all hardware and
software needed for the duration of the project. The Project Advisors hourly rate for Janet Finlay
is $150.00 per hour for consulting services. The subtotal estimated cost is $27,670.00 and the
overall estimated cost with taxes and contingencies is $31,267.
The budget for this project has been prepared for learning purposes only, and in no
way is The Canadian Wildlife Service expected to incur these proposed costs. The value
of this project has been donated to The Canadian Wildlife Service courtesy of GIS_GM
graduate certificate Matt Reaume and Ian Feagan, the GIS department advisory staff,
and Niagara College.
6/28/2015

Final Report
47
11.1 Final Project Budget

Table 3 details the projects major tasks by name, along with the time needed to complete each
task and the estimated cost for each task. The total amount of cost for the project excluding HST
is $27,670.00.
Table 3: Final Budget Breakdown
Task Name
Time (Hours)
Estimated Cost
Project Management
65
$6,130.00
75
$5,450.00
Collect Data
19
$1,330.00
37
$1,880.00
184
$12,880.00
Total =
$27,670.00
11.2 Final Total Cost Based on Major Tasks

Figure 36 below, illustrates each major tasks estimated cost, along with the percentage of the
major task that account for the overall project.
Sub Total = $27,670.00

Project Management
$6,130.00, 22%
$12,880, 46%
$5,450.00, 20%
$1,330, 5%
Collect Data
$1,880, 7%
Figure 36: Major Tasks Budget Breakdown
6/28/2015

Final Report
48
11.3 Final Project Budget Overall

In accordance with standard GIS project service rates, an Ontario Harmonized Sales Tax (H.S.T)
of 13% is included. Table 4 below details the sub-total of the project, along with the HST attached
to the overall cost, which equals $31,267.
Table 4: Total Budget w/ HST
Sub-Total
$27,670.00
13% H.S.T. of the Sub-Total
$3,597.10
Total Budget =
$31,267.10
12.0 Overall Project Earned Value Management Assessment (EVM)

Table 5: Earned Value Management Cost
Performance Measurement
Calculation
Value
NA
$31,267
Cost Variance (CV)
BCWP ACWP
-$4,668.10
Schedule Variance (SV)
BCWP - BCWS
-$8,184.20
Overall Budget
As seen above in Table 5, the projects Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP) is higher than the
Earned Value of Work Performed (BCWP) which results in a negative Cost Variance of
-$4,668.10. This means the project is slightly over budget, based on the work performed to
completion. The Planned Value of Work Schedule (BCWS) is greater in cost than the Earned
Value of Work Performed (BCWP), which can be described with the Schedule Variance (SV) that
indicates a discrepancy of -$8,184.20 meaning the project was slightly behind schedule based on
the work performed to completion. Despite the overall project being behind schedule, Northern
Geospatial Solutions completed the project on time and close to the overall budget. Figure 37
illustrates the Earned Value Management chart.
6/28/2015

Final Report
49
Earned Value Management
$35,000.00
$30,000.00
COST ($)
$25,000.00
ACWP
BCWP
BCWS
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
'14 '14 '14 '15 '15 '15 '15 '15 '15 '15 '15 '15 '15 '15 '15
DATE
Figure 37: Earned Value Management Chart
13.0 Recommendations
Moving forward, the project methodology could be improved by automating the processes
described in the methodology portion of this report, including the ability to export the results of
the methodology to a file format compatible with statistical analysis software. Because the
methodology would be more efficiently executed (if automated), it is more likely a valid
conclusion regarding the relationship between Barn Swallow populations and land-use intensity
could be developed after examining all 21 sites.
6/28/2015

Final Report
50
14.0 Closure
The overall goal of the project was to determine if Barn Swallow populations are affected by
changes in land use intensity. Unfortunately this projects scope was modified to include a detailed
methodology and analysis of two sites opposed to the 21 originally proposed.
The primary deliverables agreed upon for project acceptance include an index of land-use intensity
around each study site at an interval of 250m, 500, and 1km. This index will be based on digitized
SWOOP data and supplemented with SOLRIS data.
Cartographically sound maps depicting 2014 land-use type, intensity and colony location have
been created for each study site using Esris ArcMap.
A correlation analysis on the two sites have been conducted to assist in developing an
understanding and quantification of the relationship that land use and agricultural practices play in
Barn Swallow colony productivity.
Methodology used to complete the aforementioned deliverables has been provided to assist the
client and their staff in recreating the study should they so choose. The projects findings have been
presented via Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, along with a formally structured written report.
The project lasted until June 17, 2015 with a total estimated investment of 370 hours over a 162
day period. The project has a value of $31,267, which includes HST tax.
6/28/2015

Final Report
51
15.0 Acknowledgement
Northern Geospatial Solutions would like to thank the following for their contribution to the
completion of this project:
Mr. Michael Cadman and the Canadian Wildlife Service for allowing
Matt Reaume and Ian Feagan the opportunity to contribute to the Barn
Swallow Decline project.
The Niagara College GIS Department, specifically the GIS

Geospatial Management program instructors, for teaching the
necessary skills needed for the completion of this project.
6/28/2015

Final Report
52
16.0 References
Audubon, Guide to North American Birds, Barn Swallow. No Date. Available at:
http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/barn-swallow
Brown, Charles R. and Mary Bomberger Brown. 1999. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), The Birds
of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved
from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/452
doi:10.2173/bna.452
Committee on the Endangered Status of Wildlife in Canada. (2011). Wildlife Species Search.
Retrieved from [online] URL http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchdetail_e.cfm
Cornell Lab of Ornithology, All About Birds. No Date. Available at:
http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/barn_swallow/id
Environment Canada. (2013). Nature. Retrieved from:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/nature/Default.asp?lang=En&n=C5EDD32E-1
Environment Canada. (2013). North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Retrieved
from [online] URL: http://www.ec.gc.ca/mbc-com/default.asp?lang=En&n=6AB1762A-1
Gruebler, Martin U., Korner-Nievergelt, Franzi., and Hirschheydt, Johann von. 2010. The
reproductive benefits of livestock farming in barn swallows Hiruno rustica: quality of
nest site or foraging habitat. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 1340-1347. Retrieved from
[online] URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01873.x/pdf
Government of Ontario, Species at Risk. 2015. Available at: http://www.ontario.ca/environmentand-energy/species-risk
Government of Canada. (2014). Species at Risk Public Registry. Retrieved from:
https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=1147
National Geographic, Animals. 2015. Available at:
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birding/barn-swallow/
Nebel, S., A. Mills, J. D. McCracken, and P. D. Taylor. 2010. Declines of aerial insectivores in
North America follow a geographic gradient. Avian Conservation and Ecology - cologie
et conservation des oiseaux 5(2): 1. [online] URL: http://www.ace-eco.org/vol5/iss2/art1/
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00391-050201
6/28/2015

Final Report
53
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Science and Information Branch. SOLRIS Technical
Team. 2008. Accuracy Assessment Report 2 : SOLRIS Version 1.2 (April 2008 release).
Peterborough, Ontario: 44p Available at:
http://equinox.uwo.ca/Docfiles/OGDE/SOLRIS/SOLRIS_Accuracy_Version1%202_Apr
il%2008_release%20.PDF
Salvadori, A., Cadman, M., K. Horner and L., Rae. (2011). Barn Swallow Populations in
Wellington County 2008 2010, 29 (1), 2-12. ISSN 0822-3890. [online] URL:
www.ofo.ca/site/download/id/8.
The Ottawa Field Naturalists Club. (2011). Michael D. Cadman - 2010 Honorary Member.
Retrieved from [online] URL: http://www.ofnc.ca/awards/2011/Cadman.php
University of Waterloo. (2008). Geospatial Centre. Southern Ontario Land Resource Information
System (SOLRIS) land use data. Retrieved from [online] URL:
https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/canadian-geospatial-dataresources/ontario/southern-ontario-land-resource-information-system-solris
6/28/2015

Final Report
54
17.0 Data Sources

CanMap Water [Computer File]. Markham ON, DMTI Spatial Inc., 2013. Available: Scholars
GeoPortal <
http://geo2.scholarsportal.info.proxy.library.brocku.ca/#r/search/_queries@=Great%20La
kes;&fields@=;&sort=relevance&limit=entitled> (Accessed November 26, 2014).
CNCTY_3K.MAP [Computer File]. Niagara College, 2014. Available:
<F:\Niagara\Niagara_Geomatics\Term_1\GISC9118_mapping\raw_data\MapInfo 6.5
Data\Namerca\Canada> (Accessed November 29, 2014).
Countries [Computer File]. Esri Canada, 2010. Available:
<F:\Niagara\Niagara_Geomatics\Term_1\GISC9301_arc_gis\raw_textbook_data\Chapter
03\Data\World.gdb>. (Accessed November 26, 2014).
County at 1million [Computer File]. Peterborough ON, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
1983. Available: Scholars GeoPortal
<http://geo2.scholarsportal.info.proxy.library.brocku.ca/#r/tab/browseTab/browse />
(Accessed November 26, 2014).
18.0 Imagery Sources

Uh-ohI think I've been spotted!. Robin Dance. Available;
http://robindance.me/2012/06/amazing-baby-bird-pictures.html
A community farm helps usher in the latest era in American food culture. By Lindsay Morris.
Available; http://www.edibleeastend.com/2011/07/08/island-farmers/. (Accessed
November 29, 2014)
Barn Swallow. Charles W. B. Available; http://charleswb.deviantart.com/art/Barn-Swallow196732997
Barn Swallow Study Field Map of Flanigans Barns. Canadian Wildlife Service. (Retrieved
November 5th, 2014)
Chafer Guardian 3600. Chafer Machinery Ltd UK. Available;
http://www.diia.us/chafer.html. (Accessed November 29, 2014)
CWS Logo. Canadian Wildlife Service.
Available; http://www.bsceoc.org/conservation/conservmain.html (Accessed November
29, 2014)
Distribution of Barn Swallow in North America. Brown. Charles R. and Mary Bomberger
Brown. Available; http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/452/articles/introduction
6/28/2015
APPENDIX E
Data Tables Provided by Canadian
Wildlife Service
6/28/2015
Site Locations and Codes
Site ID
Code
Name
Latitude (Decimal Longitude (Decimal

Degrees)
Degrees)
43.711256
-80.353500
*Site 1
CA
Caldwell Farm
Site 2
CF
Cedarcreek Farms
43.769472
-80.215361
Site 3
CO
Colwyn Farm
43.687111
-80.316417
Site 4
DA
Daelin
43.568639
-80.168056
Site 5
FA
Falconfield
43.709836
-80.289278
Site 6
FF
Fieldstone
43.696392
-80.282778
Site 7
FL
Flanigans Barns
43.569222
-80.178806
Site 8
GO
Gordon Hill Farm
43.556278
-80.183750
Site 9
HF
Hills
43.699389
-80.279536
Site 10
HI
Hindmarsh Horse Farm
43.751917
-80.149444
Site 11
JS
Jim and Karin Stevens
43.564944
-80.181306
Site 12
MT
Mac Tavish Farm
43.686278
-80.308778
Site 13
MS
Maple Stone Farm
43.795083
-80.228011
Site 14
MF
Mc Farlands
43.589083
-80.197500
Site 15
MO
Moores Farm
43.738639
-80.195889
Site 16
NE
Nelsons Barn
43.798861
-80.233750
Site 17
R1
Northfield Farm
43.606694
-80.124583
Site 18
OL
Oliver
43.741828
-80.153442
Site 19
OS
Osborne Farm
43.602444
-80.198528
Site 20
JP
Peller
43.664167
-80.285083
*Site 21
S1
Second Over Stables
43.678750
-80.110167
*Site 22
BS
Speers
43.479789
-80.269350
*Site 23
SF
Sunset Farm
43.716444
-80.338750
Site 24
SW
Switzer Farm
43.751778
-80.164361
*Site 25
MG
Terry Martini
43.491533
-80.307344
Site 26
LT
Luigi Tonin
43.533222
-80.161750
* = Land-use and population data not provided for 2014 colony locations
6/28/2015
2014 CWS Land-use Legend
Plot Type
Land-Use Type
Soy
Corn
Grassy Hay
Wheat
Horse Pasture
Cattle Pasture
Meadow
Lawn
Forest
Alfalfa
10
Cereal Crop
11
Houses/Farmstead
12
Goat pasture
13
Pasture
14
Golf course
15
Planted trees
16
Electrical box
17
Drive in/ parking area
18
Sand/ gravel/top soil pits
19
Housing development
20
Grass
21
Old field
22
Unknown
23
Pond
24
6/28/2015
Barn Swallow Population Data
2012 CF
16
Number of
Second
Brood
(After July
1)
4
2014 CF
18
27
17
24
101
2012 CO
19
26
17
25
93
2014 CO
12
10
22
11
20
81
2012 FA
12
16
12
54
2014 FA
11
11
53
2012 FF
23
11
34
18
27
112
2014 FF
18
12
30
15
20
86
2012 FL
18
13
31
15
12
27
111
2014 FL
23
14
37
18
15
33
153
2012 GO
31
37
15
23
89
2014 GO
13
11
49
2012 HF
12
21
17
71
2014 HF
11
18
10
16
70
2012 HI
14
23
12
20
90
2014 HI
15
24
14
23
100
2012 JP
35
22
57
25
13
38
164
2014 JP
26
17
43
14
21
35
160
Year
Farm ID
Number of
First Brood
(Before July
1)
6/28/2015
Total
broods
(C+D)
20
Number of
Number of
first broods
second broods
with fledged
with fledged (or
(or banded
banded young)
young)
14
6
Total
broods of
young
(F+G)
Sum of
banded/fled
ged young
per year
20
90
Barn Swallow Population Data Continued
2012 MF
38
Number of
Second
Brood
(After July
1)
11
2014 MF
19
13
32
14
13
27
127
2012 MO
21
22
12
2014 MO
18
2012 MS
14
18
11
15
64
2014 MS
10
39
2012 NE
16
25
13
21
87
2014 NE
18
10
28
15
23
106
2012 OL
31
32
17
10
27
117
2014 OL
32
16
48
19
21
40
159
2012 OS
39
44
19
25
86
2014 OS
14
23
17
74
2012 R1
35
2014 R1
17
2012 SW
15
21
12
17
70
2014 SW
11
11
22
11
12
23
86
Year
Farm ID
Number of
First Brood
(Before July
1)
6/28/2015
Total
broods
(C+D)
49
Number of
Number of
first broods
second broods
with fledged
with fledged (or
(or banded
banded young)
young)
28
13
Total
broods of
young
(F+G)
Sum of
banded/fledge
d young per
year
41
139
2012/2014 and SOLRIS Land-use Intensity Scores
Class
Agricultural Crops
Agricultural Land-Use
Common Land Use
SOLRIS
Land-use Type
Alfalfa
Clover/Hay
Corn
Crop
Hay/Grass
Oats/Barley
Row Crop
Soy
Wheat
Cow Pasture
Horse Pasture
Meadow
Old Field
Pasture
Farm Stead/Home Stead
Golf Course
Grass
Junk Yard
Lawn
Old Golf Course
Built Up Area
Coniferous Forest
Deciduous Forest
Extraction
Forest
Hedge Row
Marsh
Mixed Forest
Open Water
Plantation Tree Cultivated
Swamp Land
Transportation
* = High Intensity is denoted with small numbers
6/28/2015
Score
4
6
3
4
9
4
4
3
4
10
10
10
8
9
6
9
8
3
6
8
1
4
6
1
5
6
7
5
9
4
7
2
APPENDIX F
2014 Map Book
6/28/2015

Barn Swallow Decline Final Report212222

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barn Swallow Decline Final Report212222

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barn Swallow Decline

Photo Credit: Charles W. B

Matt Reaume - Project Manager

June 17th, 2015

Matt Reaume, BES.

5 Taylor Rd Niagara-on-the-Lake ON L0S 1J0

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Table of Contents - Continued

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

List of Figures - Continued

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

1.1 Project Overview

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

1.1.4 Project Goal

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

1.1.6 Project Benefits

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

2.0 Summary of Data

2.1 Barn Swallow Colony Location Data

2.2 South Western Ontario Orthophotography (SWOOP) Data

2.3 Barn Swallow Colony Population Data

2.4 Habitat Intensification Classification

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

2.5 Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) Version

44. Built-Up Area Previous

2.6 Client-Supplied Land-Use Type Classifications

17. Electrical Box

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

3.0 Project Resources

GIS analysis and organization

Barn Site Colony Locations

Land Use Intensity

Supplied in an Excel workbook

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

4.1 Create 2014_BarnSwallow Geodatabase

Figure 4: Creation of Feature Datasets in 2014_BarnSwallow.gdb

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

4.2 Create Domain for the Geodatabase

Figure 5: Land_Use_Types_2014 Domain Properties/Site 02 Database Properties.

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

4.3 Create and Populate Point Feature Classes

Figure 6: Import of Barn_Site_Populations csv into ArcMap

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Figure 7: Export of a Selected Site

4.4 Create and Populate Polygon Feature Classes

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Figure 10: Activation of the Editor Toolbar

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Figure 11: Selections Made to Initiate the Digitization of Land Use.

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area:

Figure 12: Site 02 Cedarcreek Farms, After Digitization of Land Use.

Barn Swallow Population Decline in the Guelph Area: