University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Using geospatial technology to establish marsh bird monitoring sites for a pilot study in Maine in accordance with the North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol

(USC Thesis Other)

Using geospatial technology to establish marsh bird monitoring sites for a pilot study in Maine in accordance with the North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Using Geospatial Technology to Establish Marsh Bird Monitoring Sites for a Pilot Study
in Maine in Accordance with the North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol

by

Shannon Kristine Prescott

A Thesis Presented to the
Faculty of the USC Graduate School
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
(Geographic Information Science and Technology)

August 2017

Copyright ® 2017 by Shannon Kristine Prescott

I dedicate this document to my husband Seamus Walsh and to my parents Calvin and Wilma
Prescott for their constant support, patience and understanding.

iii
Table of Contents

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Secretive Marsh Birds ..........................................................................................................1
1.2 Motivation ............................................................................................................................5
1.3 Thesis Organization .............................................................................................................8
Chapter 2 Background and Literature Review.............................................................................. 10
2.1 Secretive Marsh Birds ........................................................................................................10
2.2 North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Survey ...............................................................11
2.3 Mapping Suitable Habitat ..................................................................................................12
2.4 Ground Truthing ................................................................................................................14
2.5 Data Management and Mobile Applications .....................................................................15
Chapter 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 16
3.1 Sampling Design ................................................................................................................16
3.2 Mobile applications ............................................................................................................21
3.3 Data Sources ......................................................................................................................23
Chapter 4 Results .......................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Survey sampling scheme and database ..............................................................................25
4.2 Beta test and ground truthing .............................................................................................31
4.3 Mobile Application ............................................................................................................36
Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 39
5.1 Development of Maine Marsh Bird Protocol .....................................................................39
5.2 Future Work .......................................................................................................................42
5.3 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................43
References ..................................................................................................................................... 44
Appendix A: NWI Wetlands and Deepwater Map Code Diagram ............................................... 48
iv

List of Figures
Figure 1 An example of a secretive marsh bird that is easily hidden in thick vegetation habitats:
the American coot ........................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2 Map of Maine showing 15 bioregions used as Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) and the
random survey points for 2018 ....................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 Beta survey site in Moscow, Maine ............................................................................... 15
Figure 4 Flowchart showing two-stage design used to select survey sites ................................... 17
Figure 5 Geo-referenced photo taken in Gorham, ME for ground truthing.................................. 20
Figure 6 Global Mapper workspace with geo-referenced photography included ......................... 20
Figure 7 Menu that appears in Global Mapper Mobile................................................................. 22
Figure 8 Map display created in Global Mapper 18 with random sites generated using two-stage
clustering ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 9 Map created in Global Mapper showing randomly selected survey sites and the 20 sites
selected for ground truthing .......................................................................................................... 27
Figure 10 Map display created in Global Mapper showing NWI and World Street Map views of
selected wetland location .............................................................................................................. 29
Figure 11 Map display created in Global Mapper showing NAIP color imagery of a selected
wetland location (1 m resolution) ................................................................................................. 30
Figure 12 Photograph showing washed out road that prevented access to one survey site .......... 33
Figure 13 Photograph showing Fryeburg, ME wood road used to access another survey site..... 33
Figure 14 Photograph showing road to survey site in Bethel, ME that was not accessible without
a four-wheel drive vehicle ............................................................................................................ 34
v
Figure 15 Photograph showing the vegetation at the Fryeburg, ME survey site .......................... 34
Figure 16 Aroostook Highway survey site ................................................................................... 35
Figure 17 Screenshot showing Global Mapper Mobile application on an IPhone ....................... 37
Figure 18 Page where attributes can be added or edited in Global Mapper mobile app .............. 38
Figure 19 Photograph showing road issues that could make a site inaccessible .......................... 40
vi

List of Tables
Table 1 Maine species of marsh birds ............................................................................................. 3
Table 2 Species of marsh birds of primary concern in Maine ........................................................ 7
Table 3 Birds that use areas of salt marshes based on characteristics in the Gulf of Maine .......... 8
Table 4 Data sources used to delineate areas of suitable habitat for secretive marsh birds ......... 24
Table 5 Summary of ground truthing results for 20 sample sites ................................................ 32

vii
Acknowledgements

I am grateful to my thesis advisor, Dr. John P. Wilson for his unwavering support and
understanding and for the direction I needed. I am grateful to my committee members, Dr. Su Jin
Lee and Dr. Travis Longcore for their suggestions and advice and I am grateful to my other
faculty who gave me assistance when I needed it. I would like to thank Danielle D’Auria for her
continuous support and suggestions. I am grateful for the data provided to me by the Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Maine Office of GIS.

viii

List of Abbreviations
BBS Breeding bird survey
DEP Department of Environmental Protection
GIS Geographic information system
GMMP Global Mapper Mobile Package files
MDIFW Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
MEGIS Maine Office of GIS
NAD North American Datum
NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program
NAMBMP North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Program
NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
NED National Elevation Dataset
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NHDP National Hydrography Dataset Plus
NLCD National Land Cover Database
NWI National Wetland Inventory
PSU Primary sampling unit
SSU Secondary sampling unit
US United States
USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service
VFRBD Virtual field reference database

ix

Abstract
Interest in marsh birds has increased in recent years due to their role as indicator species of
wetland health, which is exacerbated by their declining numbers. Marsh birds are secretive,
hiding in thick marsh vegetation and infrequently emitting sound, making it hard to locate their
habitat and determine their distribution and numbers. Previous studies to monitor marsh birds
have been conducted to determine effective conservation and management methods. The North
American Marsh Bird Monitoring Program (NAMBMP) estimates changes in breeding marsh
bird abundance at different temporal and spatial scales across the country. Consistent with this
approach, a pilot program, including a survey sampling scheme, database, and mobile application
was developed using biological and environmental data specific to the state of Maine. This was
achieved using the Esri Catalog of GIS Applications and the Blue Marble Geographics GIS
Application: Global Mapper and projection management tool: the Geographic Calculator.
Biogeographical data were captured, stored, and analyzed. A two-stage cluster sampling
approach was used to identify potential breeding habitat for secretive marsh birds from which
sites to survey were identified. These data were converted via taxonomies and unit conversions
to correlate to the regional and national scale standards of the NAMBMP. Twenty of the survey
sites were selected and field surveys were conducted to verify the accuracy of the points. In
2018, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) will use the resulting
database and mobile application to complete the Maine section of the NAMBMP.

1

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Secretive Marsh Birds
There has been increased interest in secretive marsh birds in recent years due to their
reflection of the health of wetlands that are in decline (Conway and Gibbs 2001). Marsh birds are
secretive, hiding in thick marsh vegetation (Figure 1) and only making sounds when necessary.
They live in areas that are not easily accessible to humans. This makes them very hard to locate
and once located, to identify the species of marsh bird.

Little is known about the population status of several secretive marsh bird species (Lor
and Malecki 2002), because of the inconsistency of survey methodology that is being used
Figure 1 An example of a secretive marsh bird that is easily hidden in thick vegetation habitats:
the American coot

2
throughout the country and the lack of coverage of wetland habitat (Eddleman et al. 1988;
Shriver et al 2004; Conway 2008). In 1998, the North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Program
(NAMBMP) was created. The program estimates change in breeding marsh bird abundance at
different temporal and spatial scales across the country (Ribic et al. 1999). It was set up to study
the use of call-broadcast surveys of secretive marsh birds. In this study, a pilot program, based
on the NAMBMP, including a survey sampling scheme and database, and mobile application has
been developed using biological and environmental data specific to the state of Maine that will
be implemented by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) in 2018.
Spatial and geographical data were captured, stored, and analyzed using specific
Geographic Information Systems (GIS); ArcGIS 10.3 and Global Mapper v18; LiDAR data were
obtained from The National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP). These tools and data were
used to determine sampling sites in wetland complexes for Maine marsh bird species (Table 1)
using spatially derived habitat metrics (Johnson et al. 2009). Layers created in ArcGIS and
Global Mapper were used to locate and map potential breeding habitat for secretive marsh birds
in Maine using a two-stage cluster sampling approach for identifying survey sites (Johnson et al.
2009). MDIFW will likely recruit seasonal workers and volunteers to routinely monitor the
identified habitat for the presence of the marsh birds listed in Table 1 using the sampling scheme
that is developed in this study. The ability to access the sampling sites by vehicle, boat or by foot
was a determining factor in choosing the locations to monitor. Unlike many survey protocols that
are randomly or evenly distributed; marsh bird monitoring required wetland identification, so
that survey sites chosen were guaranteed to be in marsh bird habitat (Bart 2006).
Using remote imagery, GIS, and state and landowner information (Figure 2), habitat
suitability analysis was used to identify and prioritize survey sites that had the potential to

3
include high value habitats supporting rare and focal marsh nesting birds. The species are
considered “focal” based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) definition as a
Table 1 Maine species of marsh birds
Common Name

American bittern
Least bittern
Great blue heron
Cattle egret
Green heron
Black-crowned night-heron
Yellow-crowned night heron
Glossy ibis
American black duck
Osprey
Common gallinule
Black-bellied plover
Semipalmated plover
American oystercatcher
Greater yellowlegs
Lesser yellowlegs
Willet
Spotted sandpiper
Semipalmated sandpiper
Least sandpiper
Belted kingfisher
Marsh wren
Sedge wren
Nelsons sharp-tailed sparrow
Saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow
Seaside sparrow
Swamp sparrow
Red-winged blackbird
American coot
Yellow rail
Sora
Virginia rail
Pied-billed
GrebeWilson’s Snipe
Black Tern

Scientific Name

Botaurus lentiginosus
Ixobrychus exilis
Ardea herodias
Bubulcus ibis
Butorides virescens
Nycticorax nycticorax
Nyctanassa violacea
Plegadis falcinellus
Anas rubripes
Pandion haliaetus
Gallinula galeata
Pluvialis squatarola
Charadrius semipalmatus
Haematopus palliatus
Tringa melanoleuca
Tringa flavipes
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Actitis macularia
Calidris pusilla
Calridris minutilla
Ceryle alcyon
Cisthorus palustris
Cistothorus platensis
Ammodramus nelsoni subvirgatus
Ammodramus caudacutus caudacut
Ammodramus maritima
Melospiza georgiana
Adelaius phoeniceus
Fulica Americana
Coturnicops noveboracensis
Porzana carolina
Rallus limicola
Podilymbus podiceps
Gallinago delicata
Chlidonias niger

4

Figure 2 Map of Maine showing 15 bioregions used as Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) and the
random survey points for 2018

5

specific group of species, protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that have special
management challenges due to many distinct factors. These factors include “at least one of the
following five characteristics: (1) high conservation need; (2) representative of a broader group
of species sharing the same or similar conservation needs; (3) high level of current program
effort; (4) potential to stimulate partnerships; and (5) high likelihood that factors affecting status
can realistically be addressed” (USFWS 2005; 2008). To make sure the results of this project can
be rolled up to the regional and national scales, a random sampling was performed.
Starting in 2018, permanent and seasonal workers and volunteers for MDIFW will collect
data on secretive marsh birds at sites identified by the created sampling protocol, maps and
database resulting from this study. By conducting these surveys at the sites determined in this
study, a better understanding of marsh bird species distribution, abundance and habitat selection
will be discovered and it will be easier to determine where restoration efforts are needed. The
information that is collected will be used to obtain a better understanding of the state of the
emergent wetlands in Maine and of the marsh birds that are living there. By following the
NAMBMP, the information will also transfer easily into the national database and contribute to
results at the regional and national scales (Ribic et al. 1999). The working goals of this pilot
study were to: (1) locate potential breeding habitats for secretive marsh birds in Maine using GIS
and remote sensing; and (2) apply a two-stage cluster sampling approach to identify the survey
sites for the pilot study that will be conducted in Maine using the NAMBMP as a template.
1.2 Motivation
A wetland is “land where an excess of water is the dominant factor determining the
nature of soil development and the types of animals and plant communities living at the soil

6
surface. It spans a continuum of environments where terrestrial and aquatic systems integrate”
(Cowardin et al. 1979). An emergent wetland falls under the category of Palustrine:
All non-tidal wetlands that are substantially covered with emergent vegetation--
trees, shrubs, moss, etc. Most bogs, swamps, floodplains and marshes fall in this
system, which also includes small bodies of open water (< 20 acres), as well as
playas, mudflats and saltpans that may be devoid of vegetation much of the time.
Water chemistry is normally fresh but may range to brackish and saline in
semiarid and arid climates (Cowardin et al. 1979, p. 10).

In North America, there has been a sharp decline in emergent wetland habitat (Cowardin et al.
1979; Dahl 2006).
Wetlands in Maine are one of the most productive avian habitats (Gibbs et al. 1991).
These areas are declining at an alarming rate due to human activities including agriculture,
silviculture and other forms of development (Gibbs et al. 1991). Secretive marsh birds, which are
also in decline, are dependent on these areas due to their grass-like plants and tall grasses for
nesting, breeding and feeding areas (Bystrak 1981; Eddleman et al. 1988). They live in areas
with dense emergent vegetation and are not very vocal (Shriver et al. 2004); creating small
clusters that cannot provide statistically significant results on marsh bird trends (Bart and Earnst
2002; Conway and Gibbs 2011). Despite their dwindling numbers, no specific monitoring
protocol was set up for secretive marsh birds in emergent marshes until the NAMBMP (Conway
and Gibbs 2011). The Breeding Bird Survey has data on some marsh bird species but not all
species or the emergent marshes where they live are included (Bystrak 1981; Gibbs et al. 1991;
North American Breeding Bird Survey 2011). Over the past 20 years, several states have worked
to adopt the NAMBMP to learn more about the status of marsh birds. All species of bird that
select marshes for habitat are considered marsh birds (Conway 2008), although the specific
species that are of concern or protected may vary by state and/or region (Table 2).

7
Table 2 Species of marsh birds of primary concern in Maine

The trends in marsh bird numbers need to be studied for many reasons. Marsh birds are
considered indicator species of the health and integrity of emergent wetlands and when they
return to an abandoned area it can be considered a restoration success (Conway 2008). Marsh
birds are valued by both bird watchers and hunters and bring income into states (Shriver et al.
2004; Steidl, Conway, and Litt 2013). Several marsh bird species are either listed as threatened
or endangered in Maine (Table 2) (Shriver et al. 2004). This is partially due to the polluting of
wetlands and the invasion of non-native plant species into emergent wetlands (Klaas, Ohlendorf,
and Cromartie 1980; Eddleman et al. 1988; Gibbs, Melvin, and Reid 1992; Conway and Gibbs
2001). The probability of marsh birds to choose a specific wetland based on its habitat
characteristic has rarely been studied (Conway and Gibbs 2005; Conway and Nadeau 2006) and
what is known about the relationships linking specific bird species to specific habitats has been
summarized (Table 3) (Shriver et al. 2004). The key environmental features of wetlands that
make them optimal habitat for marsh birds need to be identified and protected from the effects of
Common Name Scientific Name

King Rails
Clapper Rails
Virginia Rails
Soras
Black Rails
Yellow Rails
American Bitterns
Least Bitterns
Pied-billed Grebes
Limpkins
American Coots
Purple Gallinules
Common Moorhens

Rallus elegans
Rallus longirostris
Rallus limicola
Porzana Carolina
Laterallus jamaicensis
Coturnicops noveboracensis
Botaurus lentiginosus
Ixobrychus exilis
Podilymbus podiceps
Aramus guarauna
Fulica Americana
Porphyrula martinica
Gallinula chloropus

8
human disturbance and climate change (Gibbs et al. 1991). Once high value marsh bird habitat
has been identified, it can be monitored and protected.
Table 3 Birds that use areas of salt marshes based on characteristics in the Gulf of Maine
Nest in high marsh and feed in high and
low marsh
saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow
nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow
willet
American black duck

Nest in maritime shrub transition zone,
feed in marsh
common yellowthroat
yellow warbler
eastern kingbird
gray catbird
common grackle

Nest in cattail or Phragmites
swamp sparrow
marsh wren
Virginia rail
red-winged blackbird

Nest on offshore islands, feed in salt
marsh
great egret
snowy egret
glossy ibis
great blue heron
common tern

Nest on beaches, feed in salt marshes,
beaches, mudflats
least tern
piping plover

Feed in salt marshes during migration
semipalmated sandpiper
least sandpiper
short-billed dowitcher
greater yellowlegs
lesser yellowlegs
eastern meadowlark
northern harrier

Winter in salt marshes
snow bunting
snowy owl

Use tidal creeks, bays and mudflats
red-breasted merganser
osprey
great blue heron
common loon
semipalmated plover
gulls

Nest in cavities or nest boxes, feed in salt
marsh
tree swallow

1.3 Thesis Organization
The remainder of this thesis consists of four chapters. The next chapter reviews the
NAMBMP, the state of marsh bird habitat in Maine and how data are being managed in Maine to

9
correlate with the NAMBMP. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the methodology behind the
creation of the GIS applications created for the MDIFW to support a pilot program in Maine for
implementing the NAMBMP. It includes how sites for the program were selected and reviews
the data sources that were necessary to complete the project. Chapter 4 presents the resulting
database, and mobile application showing the survey sites chosen based on optimum habitat
locations and ground truthing results of randomly selected survey sites. Chapter 5 reviews the
significance of the results and suggests options for future research.

10
Chapter 2 Background and Literature Review
Surveying wetland species, such as secretive marsh birds, can help managers to
determine the quality of Maine’s ecosystems, preserve its biodiversity and maintain its
recreational value. For this to be successfully completed, there must be a cohesive methodology
that can be understood by both professionals and volunteers. The following chapter reviews the
origins of the database and protocol created for the Maine secretive marsh bird survey that will
be conducted in 2018.
2.1 Secretive Marsh Birds
The focus of this thesis is a group of water bird species that select thick, emergent
wetland habitat for their breeding area; this group includes bitterns, rails, gallinules, grebe and
snipe (Ribic et al. 1999). They live in habitat that is hard to access and hardly every emit any
calls so they are considered secretive in nature (Eddleman et al. 1988; Ribic et al. 1999; Conway
and Gibbs 2005). Their choice of wetland for habitat has put their numbers in peril (Eddleman et
al. 1988; Ribic et al. 1999; Velos et al. 2013) due to threats created by development, industrial
and agricultural pollution, invasive species and human recreational and sport activities (Gibbs et
al. 1992; Lor and Malecki 2002; Dahl 2006). Many species of marsh bird are declining and some
have been listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern in many states including Maine
(Hierl et al. 2007). Traditional survey methods for avian species are not effective for marsh birds
due to their secretive behavior (Johnson et al. 2009). New more efficient protocols need to be
developed. Conservation efforts are being researched to determine effective conservation and
habitat management protocols (Johnson et al. 2009).

11
2.2 North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Survey
The North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Program began in 1999 as an outcome of
the marsh bird workshop hosted at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in 1998 (Ribic et al.
1999). The outcome of this workshop was a marsh bird monitoring protocol for targeted species
of marsh bird including those found in Maine (Table 1). The program began due to the lack of
knowledge about the state of secretive marsh birds created by inconsistent survey methods used
across the country and the small amount of significant data that was accumulated from broad
scale monitoring efforts including the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). The Patuxent group decided
on a long-term monitoring approach that covered management and research issues (Ribic et al.
1999) that included fieldwork and database design. This program estimates changes in breeding
marsh bird abundance at different spatiotemporal scales across the country (Ribic et al. 1999;
Conway and Nadeau 2006; Conway 2008). Marsh bird vocalizations are broadcast to improve
detection (Conway and Gibbs 2005; Conway and Nadeau 2006). The national program requires
that marsh habitats are predetermined so that habitat which is suitable for marsh birds are the
only areas selectable when random points are generated (Conway and Timmermans 2005). The
Maine pilot program is based on the five objectives of the NAMBMP (Conway 2008):
1. Document presence and distribution of marsh birds in a specific area.
2. Compare the density of secretive marsh birds in wetland areas.
3. Discover trends in populations of marsh birds at the regional or local level.
4. Set up management plans and evaluate efforts.
5. Document the habitat types currently in use by marsh birds and conditions that
affect abundance of marsh birds.

12
Using these objectives, the Maine pilot program data will transfer seamlessly into the national
database and become part of the national effort to monitor secretive marsh birds. The result of
the North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Program will be the cumulation of accurate
estimates of regional, national and continental population trends (Conway 2008).
To date over 190 partners are involved in the program, including National Wildlife
Refuges and other protected land areas, and state and federal agencies.
2.3 Mapping Suitable Habitat
Cowardin et al. (1979) describes a system by which wetland scientists created a universal
system to characterize wetlands. It uses as a hierarchal approach (Appendix A) and is the
standard used for this thesis project.
To determine areas of suitable habitat for secretive marsh bird species in Maine, a
mapping database was constructed. The database for this research was created using GIS, remote
sensing and spatial analysis techniques; these techniques have successfully been used in the past
to create marsh bird monitoring databases (Zhang et al. 1997; Cedfelt, Watzin, and Richardson
2000; Lyon 2001; de Leeuw et al 2002; Host et al. 2005; Miller and Rogan 2007). All existing
information was compiled and digitized into GIS data layers including historical aerial
photographs, total area of existing wetland maps from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI),
the National Land Cover Database (NLCD), the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), and
other GIS data obtained from MDIFW. The USGS set up the NWI database using aerial photos
that are classified into systems, subsystems, and classes based on the observed wetland
characteristics at each site from the air and on-the-ground (USFWS 2011; NWI 2015). These
NWI wetland classes were chosen based on preferred habitat and breeding area of secretive
marsh birds (Longcore and Ringelman 1980; Wilen and Bates 1995; USFWS 2006; Conway

13
2008). Aerial photos and LiDAR from Google Earth and NAIP and elevation data from NED
were used to delineate watersheds and create elevation and flow models using Digital Elevation
Models (DEMs) (Maidment, Morehouse, and Friese 2002). All data sets were designated as
North American Datum (NAD) 1983, Zone 19. The produced geodatabase and mobile
applications included wetland inventory, biological and monitoring data sets. The use of many
different sources of data made it easier to select optimum survey points based on suitable habitat
and accessibility.
The NAMBMP (Conway 2008) recommends focusing survey attention on marshes that
could support a breeding pair. The points should not be chosen only in areas where marsh birds
are known to exist and should not be based on presence or abundance as this could lead to a
biased sampling design. All areas of emergent wetland and scrub-shrub wetlands should be
considered (Longcore et al. 2006). Surveys were conducted in all types of emergent marshes
including freshwater, brackish, and salt marshes that are >0.5 ha in total area. Survey points on
ponds should be located where emergent and upland meet or where open water and emergent
meet (Conway 2008). Some of the survey points will be easier to access by boat, some by
vehicle and some by foot. Permanent and semi-permanent wetlands and seasonal wetlands are
included. The survey sites will be visited at least three times during the year (Conway 2008). The
dates chosen for surveying should consider seasonal changes in water level and vegetation that
could make access to the sites difficult. The survey points were selected using a random
sampling method so the points chosen would be both accurate statistically and accessible
logistically and could be combined into the national database (Johnson et al. 2009). Marsh bird
surveys will be conducted in May and June. In southern Maine, each route will be surveyed once
in each survey window (May 1-14, May 15-31 and June 1-15). In northern Maine, the survey

14
dates will be (May 15-31, June 1-15, and June 15-30). The visits should be separated by 10 days
(Conway 2008). The replication of the survey will ensure that marsh bird calls are broadcast
during the different species peak-response periods (Lor 2002) and doing these three times
determines species presence or absence within 90% certainty (Gibbs and Melvin 1993). Surveys
should be conducted in the morning (30 minutes to or three hours after sunrise) or the evening
(three hours to or 30 minutes after sunset) (Gibbs and Melvin 1993). SSU’s on the same route
should be visited on the same day and in the same order. If there is bad weather, the surveying
will be cancelled and all SSUs will be done on another day (Conway 2011).
2.4 Ground Truthing
Ground truthing was conducted to verify that the database set up using GIS and remote
sensing could accurately select sites for secretive marsh bird monitoring. To verify the reliability
of the NWI GIS datasets, a Garmin GPS was used to visit the coordinates and make site-specific
observations, the coordinates are recorded and geo-referenced photography is taken (Figure 3).
These photos are gathered into a virtual field reference database (VFRDB) (Wang and Christiano
2005). This VFRDB becomes a benchmark to record changes in the wetlands over time. The
photos are reviewed and compared with the description of the existing classification for each
wetland to check the accuracy of the existing classification. Verification of every random point
chosen for this project was not practical so a set of 20 randomly chosen points were checked and
verified for accuracy (Lyon 2001; Skidmore et al. 1997). Ground surveys will reveal the state of
the emergent wetlands in Maine and the marsh birds that are living there. Very few studies have
been conducted on the probability of marsh birds to choose a specific wetland based on the
habitat characteristics (Shriver et al. 2004). If these characteristics are compiled in an accessible
geodatabase, it will be easier to determine where restoration efforts are needed and provide

15
information to support the management of wetlands in Maine. Volunteers will follow the safest
and easiest routes to the survey areas by following maps created in ArcGIS and Global Mapper.

Figure 3 Beta survey site in Moscow, Maine
2.5 Data Management and Mobile Applications
The data that were created in this thesis allows managers and volunteers to create, sort
and edit survey points. To do this in the field, there must be adequate Internet service and
software that can be accessed and edited in a web browser on either a tablet, laptop or cellphone
with Internet access. The database was created using GIS, remote sensing and spatial analysis
techniques; these techniques have successfully been used in the past to create marsh bird
monitoring databases (Cedfelt, Watzin, and Richardson 2000). Most of the state of Maine does
not have internet access or cell phone coverage available, so data must be collected using paper
datasheets and entered into the database when Internet service is available.

16
Chapter 3 Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology that was used to create the sampling plan for the
MDIFW to support a pilot program in Maine for implementing the NAMBMP. The description
of the methodology is broken up into two parts. The first part focuses on how sites for the
program were selected, and the second reviews the data sources and how they were used to
complete the project.
3.1 Sampling Design
The sampling area chosen was breeding habitat of marsh birds identified using Global
Mapper and ArcGIS. The NWI (NWI 2015; USFWS 2011) was used to select wetland areas in
Maine for survey sites and NAIP was used for preliminary ground truthing and 20 randomly
selected survey points were visited in person to verify the accuracy of wetland identification and
access. The survey points were selected using a random sampling method so the points chosen
would be both accurate statistically and accessible logistically, such that they could be added into
the national database (Johnson et al. 2009).
Cluster sampling was chosen as the sampling method for this research. Cluster sampling occurs
when a group of locations are selected first and then sample points are determined in each
location. A two-stage cluster sample was used to select the sampling sites (Figure 4). Separate
selection criteria were utilized for each size of sampling unit. The primary sampling units (PSUs)
consisted of specific eco-regions in Maine (Figure 2), found in the BIOPHY shapefile on the
Maine Office of GIS (MEGIS). Fifteen regions are delineated based on biophysical data. Within
these PSUs, secondary sampling units (SSUs) were chosen at random from specified wetland
types obtained from the NWI which was also obtained from the MEGIS website. For secretive

17
marsh bird habitats, the wetland systems chosen were Palustrine, Lacustrine and Estuarine. In the
Palustrine system, classes of SS (scrub-shrub) and FO (forested) and EM (emergent) were
chosen. In Lacustrine, the subsystem of Littoral (2) and class of EM (emergent) was chosen. In
Estuarine, the subsystem of Littoral (2) and class of EM (Emergent) was chosen. These NWI
wetland classes were chosen based on preferred habitat and breeding area of secretive marsh
birds (Conway 2008; Wilen and Bates 1995). Wetland size and classification was determined in
Global Mapper using the information tool and the metadata for each layer and each individual
wetland was assigned to one of five size classes (>0.5ha to ≤5 ha, >5 to 10 ha, >10 to 20 ha, >20
to 30 ha, and 30 ha). Survey site areas were chosen from the identified SSUs using stratified
random sampling to ensure that there was equal representation of different sizes of wetlands and
specific habitat area requirements were covered (Conway 2008).

Figure 4 Flowchart showing two-stage design used to select survey sites
The Blue Marble Geographics line of products including Global Mapper, an open source



18
GIS application, was used to randomly select survey points in the state of Maine. The Maine
NWI shapefile was downloaded from MEGIS into ArcGIS to separate out the correct wetland
types of Palustrine, Lacustrine and Estuarine. It was then loaded into Global Mapper along with
the BIO-PHY shapefile from MEGIS. In Global Mapper using the digitizer tool, the BIO-PHY
regions layer was selected and using the right click function, the “SPLIT-Split into Separate
Layers Based on Description/Attribute” option was used to select the attribute value of Name
from the drop-down menu. This created a separate layer for each eco-region. Each layer was
individually selected and then right clicking on the map to open the digitizer menu options, the
Crop/Combine/Split Functions and Cut Selected Areas from all overlapping areas were selected
to separate the identified wetlands based on eco-region. After the wetlands were separated by
eco-region, they were again selected with the digitizer tool and Create Randomly Distributed
Points within the Selected Areas Feature(s) was chosen. Survey points were selected from areas
where the marshland met open water or upland to provide easier access to sites, shorter travel
time between survey points and minimum disturbance to vegetation (Conway and Timmermans
2005). The minimum distance between points was set at 400 m to minimize the chances of
double counting the same birds (Conway 2008). The number of points per wetland was based on
the size of the wetland. This ensured that the area was surveyed evenly. Wetlands that are < 10
ha in size received one point, >10 and ≤ 20 ha received two, > 20 and ≤ 30 ha received three
points, > 30 and ≤ 40 ha received four points and >40 and ≤ 50 received five randomly selected
points. Large areas of open water (i.e. > 50 ha) were excluded because they are not used by the
species that are being sampled (Conway 2008). All wetland locations found in each PSU were
included in the set from which the random points were selected. If there were < 10 locations,
they will all be sampled (Johnson et al. 2009). If > 10 wetland locations occurred in a PSU, 10

19
were randomly selected from those listed as accessible. A secondary list of sites in each chosen
PSU was created if initially chosen locations are found to be inaccessible by car, kayak or foot,
land ownership changed from public to private making it inaccessible or the habitat became
unsuitable to be surveyed. After the map showing the sample sites was created, it was saved as a
Global Mapper workspace.
The Global Mapper workspace was reloaded into Global Mapper and the naip_2013.kml
was loaded to view aerial photography of the sites. This was used for preliminary ground
truthing to see if the areas were wetland areas. Based on this information some sample points
were removed and new random points were generated. Specific sample points were chosen and
ground truthing was performed at those locations by travelling to the locations and physically
verifying the existence of the specific wetland type at the location.
Ground truthing was conducted to verify that the database set up using GIS and remote
sensing could accurately select sites for secretive marsh bird monitoring. A Garmin GPS was
used to navigate to the exact sampling locations to ground check (ground truth) locations and
verify accuracy (Ribic 2006) where site surveys would be conducted. Geo-referenced
photography was taken with a Samsung Note 3 and an IPhone 6s plus (Figure 5). These photos
were gathered into a VFRDB (Wang and Christiano 2005).
This VFRDB will be used to record changes in the wetlands over time as more surveys
are completed. The photographs were reviewed and compared with the description of the
existing classification for each wetland based on NWI to check the accuracy of the existing
classification. Verification of every random point chosen for the project was not practical so a set
of 20 randomly chosen points were verified for accuracy (Lyon 2001; Skidmore et al. 1997).
This georeferenced photography was added to the Global Mapper workspace (Figure 6).

20
Figure 5 Geo-referenced photo taken in Gorham, ME for ground truthing

Figure 6 Global Mapper workspace with geo-referenced photography included

21
3.2 Mobile applications
A mobile application of the database is available on Global Mapper Mobile. This product
is free with a Global Mapper license but you must have an IOS device and Internet access to use
it. It allows for mobile GIS data viewing and provides field collection applications. The files
created are Global Mapper Mobile Package (GMMP) files that can be sent back into Global
Mapper and added to the existing database. Global Mapper Mobile can display the same vector,
raster and elevation data that is supported in Global Mapper. It offers the same digitizing and
drawing tools and allows the assignment of attribute data.
Using the Global Mapper mobile application, volunteers in the field can add attributes,
take geo-referenced pictures, add additional information to existing survey points, and to
navigate to the survey points. Any photos taken from the application will retain the tagged
location in the GMMP file, including any associated photos, when transferred back to the
desktop version of Global Mapper. The application also supports several collection options,
including setting a point at a specific survey location and filling out a pre-configured attribute
form with pick lists, required fields, and other attribute elements. A template layer also can be
created to define the field data collection requirements and then be transferred to the device
within the GMMP file.
The database raster and vector files were converted to GMMP files and then transferred
to the IPhone 6s plus via iTunes. This can also be done through email. The GMMP file
compresses all the layers into a single file that is seen in the menu in Global Mapper Mobile
(Figure 7). When the field work is completed the datafiles can be uploaded into Global Mapper
for further analysis and then exported into any of the supported formats.

22

Figure 7 Menu that appears in Global Mapper Mobile
Global Mapper Mobile will allow the user to search for a specific location or wetland.
They also have a choice of basemap to follow to use as directions to a specific site. Once at the
site that has been chosen for them to survey, they can add in comments on the wetland attribute
table or add additional fields for any marsh birds they identify. They can also see comments on
any other birds that have been identified at that location and when they were made and by whom.
Currently only Ios mobile devices can access the application and volunteers will have access to
the maps wherever they have phone service if they have a Global Mapper account and the Global
Mapper Mobile application downloaded onto their cell phone. The database was created using
GIS, remote sensing and spatial analysis techniques that have successfully been used in the past
to create marsh bird monitoring databases (Cedfelt, Watzin, and Richardson 2000). All existing
information was compiled and digitized into GIS data layers including historical aerial

23
photographs, total area of existing wetland maps from the NWI, and the NAIP. All data sets were
designated as North American Datum (NAD) 1983, Zone 19.
It is not recommended that volunteers use the mobile map while conducting their surveys.
The light pollution and noise that would be created using the cell phone could bias the survey
and potentially alarm or disrupt the marsh birds at the site. Any work done in the application
should be filled in afterward and away from the survey site. In Maine, most of the locations will
not have cell phone service available.
3.3 Data Sources
Data sheets were created to record data and can be used in the future by MDIFW to
create models that provide the probability of marsh birds occupying a specific area based on
habitat variables (MacKenzie et al. 2002, 2003). These models, in turn, can be used to detect
occupancy in the future. The use of ArcGIS, Global Mapper, and the Geographic Calculator in
creating the pilot program’s sampling plan and database will be instrumental in assuring that the
Maine data can flow seamlessly into the national program starting in 2018. The database created
will provide a centralized location where data layers can be viewed and updated, maps can be
created, and links can be obtained to additional resources relating to marsh bird monitoring. The
data that was used for this research was obtained from the MDIFW, ArcGIS Online, and MEGIS
(Table 4). These data were acquired from credible sources and the accuracy of the data was
sufficient to set up the sampling plan and database for the pilot study. Sample sites derived from
the data were ground-truthed to make sure the chosen sites are appropriate for the long-term
project that will be conducted by MDIFW.

24

Table 4 Data sources used to delineate areas of suitable habitat for secretive marsh birds
Data Content Source Format Date Created

Conus
Wetlands
(NWI) codes

World
Imagery

Maine
Geodatabase
(MEGIS)

Northeast
Terrestrial
Habitat
Classificatio
n System

National
Agricultural
Imagery
Program
(NAIP) 2013
Imagery

National Wetland
Identification codes.

World map and
transportation
information

State and county
boundaries plus major
roads and highways of
Maine.

Mapping of ecosystems
and habitats in the New
England area.

Natural and manmade
land cover in the US

http://www.maine.go
v/megis/catalog/

http://www.maine.go
v/megis/

http://www.maine.go
v/megis/catalog/

http://nationalmap.go
v/landcover.html

http://www.maine.go
v/megis/catalog/

Shape
File
Aerial
Photos

Layer
file

Geodata
base

Raster
dataset

Four
band
digital
ortho
imagery

9/11/11

1/16/12

11/4/14

11/16/14

2011

25
Chapter 4 Results
This chapter reports the results of using biological and environmental data specific to the state of
Maine to create a pilot program, including a survey sampling scheme and database, and mobile
application to survey marsh bird habitat. The MDIFW will implement the program that has been
developed from this thesis in 2018.
4.1 Survey sampling scheme and database
Spatial and geographical data gathered from online state and federal sources as well as
from the field successfully determined sampling sites in wetland complexes to survey for
secretive marsh bird species using spatially derived habitat metrics (Johnson et al. 2009). Layers
created in Global Mapper 18 (Figure 8) were successfully used to create maps for locating and
mapping potential breeding habitat for secretive marsh birds in Maine using a two-stage cluster
sampling approach to identify the survey sites (Johnson et al. 2009).
The database stores sampling sites that volunteers will be able to access by vehicle, boat
or by foot (Figure 9). Using ArcGIS, it was possible to separate the optimum wetland habitats,
Palustrine, Lacustrine and Estuarine, for secretive marsh birds from the total file of wetlands in
Maine that was supplied by NWI on MEGIS. Creating a CSV file of the selected wetland sites in
ArcGIS allowed the information to be sorted and then the correct wetlands to be added into
Global Mapper for further analysis. Clipping the wetland files to the BIO-PHY layer in Global
Mapper allowed the wetlands to be further sorted by area. The digitizer function in Global
Mapper allowed for the selection of random survey sites, chosen at the correct minimum distance
between points of 400 m. Each bio-region had > 10 appropriate wetlands so 10 were randomly
selected for surveying and 10 more were randomly chosen as backup locations. The wetland

26

Figure 8 Map display created in Global Mapper 18 with random sites generated using two-stage clustering

27

Figure 9 Map created in Global Mapper showing randomly selected survey sites and the 20 sites
selected for ground truthing

28
locations that were randomly chosen were all < 10 ha in size so each wetland was assigned a
single survey point. Using the Geographic Calculator, the data files created in Global Mapper
were converted from the correct projection and datum for Maine, to the correct projection and
datum for the information to be rolled into the national database.
Based on the beta testing completed in the summer of 2016, a bird biologist will be able
to open the database and choose survey sites for volunteers to visit, add additional information to
already existing sites and send information electronically to volunteers through the mobile
application. Bird biologists will also be able to pull data for analysis and for demonstrations to
receive additional funding for marsh bird research. Volunteers will use the database and mobile
application to access their assigned survey locations. They can use the maps created to access
data on their assigned locations and see what equipment they will need to bring with them to
successfully conduct surveys. The volunteers will be able to add any new data that they acquire
into the mobile application in the field if they have Internet access or into the database when they
return home. Bird biologists may also use the database and mobile application to create data
sheets that the volunteers can manually fill out if they are not tech savvy and then return the
forms so the data can be added into the database.
Shapefiles, raster files and aerial imagery provided the necessary information to create a
database that could accurately predict optimum habitat sites for secretive marsh birds. NWI files
were accurate enough to show where wetlands were historically known to be located (Figure 10),
and ground truthing and NAIP imagery were used to verify that the sample sites chosen were
wetland types used by secretive marsh birds. By draping imagery over elevation and land cover
data it was possible to determine the best way to access the randomly chosen sampling sites
(Figure 11).

29

Figure 10 Map display created in Global Mapper showing NWI and World Street Map views of selected wetland location

30

Figure 11 Map display created in Global Mapper showing NAIP color imagery of a selected wetland location (1 m resolution)

31

4.2 Beta test and ground truthing
Twenty of the randomly selected sites created in Global Mapper were visited to verify the
accuracy of the existence of wetland at the coordinates chosen and accuracy of the NWI wetland
category currently defining the site. In addition, whether or not the location was public land, the
distance from a major road and whether or not additional equipment was required to access the
site were recorded and verified ( Table 5). All the points selected were chosen with the following
criteria: (1) verified wetland, (2) verified accessible by car, and (3) the site was ≤ 50 m from a
serviceable road. Both private and public land was chosen as acceptable sites and a mixture of
the two were included in the beta test. Twelve locations were listed as private and eight were
listed as on public land. Many of the points were within 50 m of a road but many of the roads
were Maine wood roads. These roads were gravel and dirt and not kept up to the standard of a
normal road. Many of them were barely passable and one location was not accessible because the
road had washed out (Figure 12). Other locations that had wood roads were overgrown and not
accessible without a four-wheel drive vehicle (Figure 13 and Figure 14). At these locations, more
walking was required. The wetland descriptions given by the NWI for the beta test sites were
accurate for the sites that could be accessed. For the location in Fryeburg, the NWI classification
was listed as PSS1E-Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Broad Leaved Deciduous-Seasonally
Flooded/Saturated. The plant life at the site agreed with this description (Figure 15). The
coordinates were at the upland edge of the wetland but the vegetation in the wetland agrees with
the NWI and the ground was spongy and saturated.

32

Table 5 Summary of ground truthing results for 20 sample sites

33

Figure 12 Photograph showing washed out road that prevented access to one survey site
Figure 13 Photograph showing Fryeburg, ME wood road used to access another survey site

34

Figure 14 Photograph showing road to survey site in Bethel, ME that was not accessible without
a four-wheel drive vehicle

Figure 15 Photograph showing the vegetation at the Fryeburg, ME survey site

35
Another beta test location located in Aroostook County, ME has the NWI classification
of PSS3BA-Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Broadleaved Evergreen Seasonally Saturated and Temporary
Flooding. A photograph of the survey site revealed that this was correct (Figure 16). This
location was correctly classified but whether it could be a survey site for secretive marsh birds
would have to be researched further by the bird biologist because the habitat was wet but with
little to no emergent vegetation and therefore it may not satisfy the criteria necessary for this
class.

Figure 16 Aroostook Highway survey site
Twenty locations were randomly selected for the beta test from the survey sites chosen in
the Global Mapper database. The coordinates that were given in Global Mapper were used to
create accurate driving instructions in Google Maps to get to the site locations. Five of the 20

36
locations were not accessible by car: two of these were posted as private property, one was due
to a washed-out road and two others were impassible wood roads. The NWI classification for
each of the twenty locations was accurate. Only 7 of the locations has cell phone service so
datasheets would need to be brought to all survey sites done in Maine.
4.3 Mobile Application
Files that were created in Global Mapper were transferred to GMMP files and then
transferred to and from Global Mapper Mobile effectively using the File Sharing function in
iTunes. At beta survey sites in southern Maine where there was cell phone reception, the Global
Mapper Mobile application was accessed (Figure 17) and attribute information was added to one
of the survey sites in the field (Figure 18). This task was completed in the vehicle, away from the
actual survey site. After returning from the field, the modified files were uploaded back into
Global Mapper for further analysis.
The stated objectives were met, as GIS and remote sensing techniques were verified as
accurate in selecting potential breeding habitats for secretive marsh birds in Maine and
converting the data to the national format needed for the NAMBMP. Groundtruthing will also be
necessary to set up the pilot program in Maine.

37

Figure 17 Screenshot showing Global Mapper Mobile application on an IPhone

38

Figure 18 Page where attributes can be added or edited in Global Mapper mobile app

39

Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusions
Secretive marsh birds are an indicator species of the health of Maine’s wetlands. It is important
that a protocol is in place to monitor how these species are doing. It is also important that this
information can be added to that from other states to form a national picture of wetland health.
The North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol (NAMBMP) provides the methods needed
to successfully monitor these species. GIS and remote sensing offer an efficient means to gather
all the collected data from this protocol in one place for consolidation, analysis, and
interpretation.
5.1 Development of Maine Marsh Bird Protocol
For the state of Maine to begin working towards their part of the national survey, a
database had to be created to store the information that would be accumulated and create the
maps needed to find appropriate survey locations. ArcGIS and Global Mapper were selected and
used to capture, store, and analyze data.
The Esri Catalog of GIS Applications was initially used to separate out the correct
wetland types for optimum marsh bird habitat from the complete list of wetlands found in the
Maine NWI shapefile from MEGIS. In ArcGIS, a CSV file was created that held this information
and could be shared with other platforms.
The Blue Marble Geographics platform was selected to do most of the analysis and
provide a mobile application. This is a local company in the state of Maine that was found to be
less expensive and provided products that were easy to use with access to a large variety of
spatial datasets and projection management using the Geographic Calculator library. It has a very

40
large library of data analysis and processing tools. It also offers the ability to share a single
license between many users which will be useful when the actual survey is done.
NAIP was used to provide aerial imagery of the selected sites for initial verification that
they were the proper habitat and NWI was selected to define the wetlands themselves. Using
these tools a database was created that will be used in 2018.
Once the database was complete and survey sites had been selected, the locations were
verified with ground truthing to test the accuracy of the NWI. Based on these results, it was
discovered that out of the 20 sites where groundtruthing was performed, 5 percent were
misclassified and some were not accessible (Figure 19). Due to variables, such as these,
additional backup survey locations will be added in each randomly selected wetland to guarantee
a minimum number of sites will be surveyed.
Figure 19 Photograph showing road issues that could make a site inaccessible

41
Some of the roads that were listed as accessible by car were not. This is something that
must be considered when selecting locations in rural areas of Maine. Some of the roads in
northern Maine are wood roads where you cannot drive faster than 20 mph and what looks like it
would take 30 minutes on a map, could take hours. With the specific time requirements for this
surveying, it will be very important for volunteers to plan their travel time accordingly and leave
room for error. Some of the locations also required a fee to access and passing through a check
point that may not always be manned. With no cell service, it will be very important for accurate
contact information and emergency numbers to be gathered from volunteers before they begin
their surveying, as well as their itineraries and planned routes of travel.
The state of Maine has over five million acres of freshwater wetlands and another
157,500 acres of tidal wetlands, this adds up to over 25 percent of Maine’s land area (Maine
DEP 1996). Due to this state-of-affairs, much of the state must be included in the sampling
universe and assigned to bio-regions to make it more manageable. The bio-regions were further
broken down to include appropriate wetland areas which volunteers could access the said areas
to conduct the surveys. By using the two-stage cluster sampling technique the results were
statistically and logistically efficient and the points were random but balanced across the entire
state. These sites are also easily rolled into the national dataset found at the Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center at https://cals.arizona.edu/research/azfwru/NationalMarshBird/.
The bio-regions and other shapefiles necessary to set up the database were readily
available on the MEGIS website at no cost. Once these locations were selected and verified with
NAIP remotely sensed information, they were further verified in the field to make sure the
locations selected from the database were accessible to volunteers and contained the wetland
type defined by NWI. To make the ground truthing statistically significant, 20 of 160 sites

42
chosen were visited physically and only five of the 20 were not accessible. The results gained
from the ground truthing displayed that the database set up in ArcGIS and Global Mapper using
the recommendations of the NAMBMP could successfully choose optimal locations for the
Maine surveys that will be launched in 2018.
The mobile application that was created in Global Mapper Mobile is an excellent tool if
you have Internet access and cell phone service. It should not be used directly at survey locations
as the sounds and light pollution from the phone may bias the survey results and disrupt the
marsh birds at the location. In the state of Maine, it should be noted that there is no cell phone
service in much of the state and paper forms must be created and brought to the survey sites.
5.2 Future Work
Before the actual survey in 2018 there are a few items that should be addressed. It is
important for MDIFW to decide if they want to use one or the other or both ArcGIS or Blue
Marble Geographics platforms. Choosing one platform would streamline the various work tasks
associated with the databases and mobile applications that accompany the chosen technology
platform. They will also need to purchase whichever software suite they choose and set up
accounts and passwords to allow the volunteers the access what they will need.
Data sheets that correspond with the attribute tables should also be created in case there is
a problem in the field and the volunteers cannot access the mobile data or if they are in an area
where there is no Internet service. Volunteers should be chosen based on their geographic
locations and instructional sessions provided or webinars created to explain how to use the
mobile applications and to conduct the surveys themselves.

43

5.3 Conclusion
Programs that monitor indicator species are very important for discovering conservation
needs, population trends, where wildlife management interventions may be needed and the
effects of human interference. There is also a more urgent need now for monitoring of wetlands
due to the increasing effects of climate change and sea level rise. With the reduction in available
funds for research on wildlife species and wetland health, it is also very important that these
programs are carried out in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. The research
done here has shown that this can be accomplished using geographic information systems and
spatial data.

44

References
Bart, J. 2006. “A sampling plan for the North American marsh bird monitoring program.” U.S.
Geological Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Boise, Idaho.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228693788_A_sampling_plan_for_the_North_A
merican_marsh_bird_monitoring_program(last accessed 28 September 2015).
Bart, J., and S. Earnst. 2002. “Double sampling to estimate density and population trends in
birds.” The Auk 119: 36-45.

Bystrak, D. 1981. “The North American breeding bird survey.” Studies in Avian Biology 6: 34–
41.

Cedfeldt, P., M. Watzin, and B. Richardson. 2000. “Using GIS to identify functionally
significant wetlands in the Northeastern United States.” Environmental Management
26: 13-24.

Conway, C.J. 2008. “Standardized North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocols.” Wildlife
Research Report #2008-01. U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit, Tuscon, AZ, USA.

Conway, C.J., and J.P. Gibbs. 2001. “Factors influencing detection probabilities and the benefits
of callbroadcast surveys for monitoring marsh birds.” Final Report. USGS Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://ag.arizona.edu/research/azfwru/cjc/,
(last accessed 14 August 2015).

---. 2005. “Effectiveness of callbroadcast surveys for monitoring marsh birds.” Auk 122: 26–35.

---. 2011. “Summary of the intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting detection probability of marsh
birds.” Wetlands 31: 403–411.

Conway, C.J., and C.P. Nadeau. 2006. “Development and field-testing of survey methods for a
continental marsh bird monitoring program in North America.” Wildlife Research Report
# 2005-11. USGS Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Tucson,
Arizona. http://ag.arizona.edu/research/azfwru/cjc/, (last accessed 14 August 2015).

Conway, C.J., and S.T.A. Timmermans. 2005. “Progress toward developing field protocols for a
North American marsh bird monitoring program.” Pages 997-1005 in C.J. Ralph and
T.D. Rich, editors. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas:
Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference, 20-24 March
2002, Asilomar, California. Volume 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture General
Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service,
Albany, California.

45

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. “Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.” U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service.

Dahl, T.E. 2006. “Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to
2004.” U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

de Leeuw, J., W.K. Ottichilo, A.G. Toxopeus, and H.H.T. Prins. 2002. “Application of
remote sensing and geographic information systems in wildlife mapping and modelling.”
In Environmental Modeling with GIS and Remote Sensing, ed. A. Skidmore, 121-144.
London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

Eddleman, W.R., F.L. Knopf, B. Meanley, F.A. Reid, and R. Zembal. 1988. “Conservation of
North American rallids.” Wilson Bulletin 100: 458–475.

Gibbs, J.P., and S.M. Melvin. 1993. “Call-response surveys for monitoring breeding
waterbirds.” Journal of Wildlife Management 57(1): 27-34.

Gibbs, J.P., J.R. Longcore, D.G. McAuley, and J. K. Ringelman. 1991. “Use of wetland habitats
by selected nongame water birds in Maine.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and
Wildlife Research Report 9, Washington, D.C., USA.

Gibbs, J.P., S.M. Melvin, and F.A. Reid. 1992. “American Bittern, Botaurus lentiginosus.” In
A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.) The Birds of North America, No. 18. The Academy of Natural
Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

Hierl, L., C.S. Loftin, J.R. Longcore, D.G. McAuley, and D.L. Urban. 2007. “A multivariate
assessment of changes in wetland habitat for waterbirds at Moosehorn National Wildlife
Refuge, Maine, USA.” Wetlands 27(1): 141-152.

Host, G., J. Schuldt, J. Ciborowski, L.B. Johnson, T. Hollenhorst, and C. Richards. 2005. “Use of
GIS and remotely sensed data for a priori identification of reference areas for Great Lakes
coastal ecosystems.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 26(23): 5325-5342.

Johnson, D.H., J.P. Gibbs, M. Herzog, S. Lor, N.D. Niemuth, C.A. Ribic, M. Seamans, T.L.
Shaffer, W.G. Shriver, S.V. Stehman, and W.L. Thompson. 2009. “A sampling design
framework for monitoring secretive marshbirds.” Waterbirds 32: 230-215.
Klaas, E. E., H. M. Ohlendorf, and E. Cromartie. 1980. “Organochlorine residues and shell
thicknesses in eggs of the Clapper Rail, Common Gallinule, Purple Gallinule, and
Limpkin (Class Aves), eastern and southern United States, 1972–74.” Pesticide
Monitoring Journal 14: 90–94.

Longcore, J. R., and J. K. Ringelman. 1980. “Factors affecting waterfowl breeding density and
productivity estimates in the Northeast.” Transactions of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife
Conference 37: 169-181. [852]

46

Longcore, J.R., D.G. McAuley, G.W. Pendelton, C.R. Bennatti, T.M. Mingo, and K.L.
Stromborg. 2006. “Macroinvertebrate abundance, water chemistry, and wetland
characteristics affect use of wetlands by avian species in Maine.” Special Issue of
Hydrobiologia. A.R. Hanson & J.J. Kerekes (eds), Limnology and Aquatic Birds. 567:
143-167.

Lor, S., and R.A. Malecki. 2002. “Call-response surveys to monitor marsh bird population
trends.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 1195-1201.

Lyon, J.G. 2001. “Wetland Landscape Characterization, techniques and applications for
GIS, Remote Sensing and Image Analysis.” Ann Arbor Press.

MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, M.G. Knutson, and A.B. Franklin. 2003.
“Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected
imperfectly.” Ecology 84: 2200-2207.

MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, G.B. Lachman, S. Droege, J.A. Royle, and C.A. Langtimm. 2002.
“Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one.” Ecology
83: 2248-2255.

Maidment D., S. Morehouse, and S. Friese. 2002. “Arc Hydro framework.” In Arc Hydro: GIS
for Water Resources, eds. D. Maidment and D.R. Redlands, 203-208. California: ESRI
Press.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 1996. “Issue Profile, Maine’s Wetlands: Their
Functions and Values.” https://www1.maine.gov/dep/water/wetlands/ipwetfv2.html,
(last accessed March 30, 2017)

Miller, J., and J. Rogan. 2007. “Using GIS and remote sensing for ecological mapping and
monitoring.” In Integration of GIS and Remote Sensing, ed. Victor Mesev, 233-268. John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

North American Breeding Bird Survey. 2011. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/participate/training/
appendixA.html (last accessed 15 August 2015).

NWI. 2015. National Wetlands Inventory. http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/ (last accessed 15
August 2015)

North American Breeding Bird Survey. 2011. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/participate/training/
appendixA.html, (last accessed 15 August 2015).

Ribic, C. 2006. Field Validation of GIS-based Models for Regional and Refuge Bird
Conservation Planning. Final Report, US EPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

47

Ribic, C.A., S. Lewis, S. Melvin, J. Bart, and B. Peterjohn. 1999. “Proceedings of the marsh bird
monitoring workshop.” USFWS/USGS Administrative Report, Denver, CO.

Shriver, W.G., T.P. Hodgman, J.P. Gibbs, and P.D. Vickery. 2004. “Landscape context
influences salt marsh bird diversity and area requirements in New England.” Biological
Conservation 119: 545-553.

Skidmore, A.K., W. Bijker, K. Schmidt. and L. Kumar, 1997. “Use of Remote Sensing and GIS
for Sustainable Land Management.” ITC Journal 3(4): 302-315.

Steidl, R.J., C.J. Conway, and A.R. Litt. 2013. “Power to detect trends in abundance of secretive
marsh birds: effects of species traits and sampling effort.” Journal of Wildlife
Management 77: 445-453.

USFWS. 2005. “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Focal Species Strategy for Migratory
Birds. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia.”
http://www.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=760&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&
cached=true (Last accessed 14 August 2015).

---. 2006. Proceedings of the 2006 Marsh Bird Monitoring Technical Workshop, March 6-8,
2006. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.
http://www.fws.gov/birds/waterbirds/monitoring/marshmonitoring.html (Last
accessed 14 August 2015).
---. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/, (Last accessed 14 August 2015).
---. 2011. CONUS_wet_poly. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Habitat and Resouce
Conservation http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/, (Last accessed 05 June 2016).
Veloz, S.D., N. Nur, L. Salas, D. Jongsomjit, J. Wood, D. Stralberg, and G. Ballard. 2013.
“Modeling climate change impacts on tidal marsh birds: restoration and conservation
planning in the face of uncertainty.” Ecosphere 4: art49.

Wang, Y.Q., and M. Christiano. 2005. “A Protocol of Using High Spatial Resolution Satellite
Imagery to Map Salt Marshes: Toward Long Term Change Detection.” Laboratory for
Terrestrial Remote Sensing (LTRS). Department of Natural Resources Science
University of Rhode Island and National Park Service.

Wilen, B.O., and M.K. Bates. 1995. “The U.S.F.W.S.’s national wetlands inventory
project.’ In Classification and inventory of the world’s wetlands, eds. C.M. Finlayson and
A.G. van der Valk, 153-169. Advances in Vegetation Science 16, Vegetatio Vol 118
Zhang, M., S.L. Ustin, E. Rejmankova, and E.W. Sanderson. 1997. “Monitoring Pacific
Coast salt marshes using remote sensing.” Ecological Applications 7: 1039-1053

48

Appendix A: NWI Wetlands and Deepwater Map Code Diagram

49

NWI Wetlands and Deepwater Map Code Diagram (cont.)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Interest in marsh birds has increased in recent years due to their role as indicator species of wetland health, which is exacerbated by their declining numbers. Marsh birds are secretive, hiding in thick marsh vegetation and infrequently emitting sound, making it hard to locate their habitat and determine their distribution and numbers. Previous studies to monitor marsh birds have been conducted to determine effective conservation and management methods. The North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Program (NAMBMP) estimates changes in breeding marsh bird abundance at different temporal and spatial scales across the country. Consistent with this approach, a pilot program, including a survey sampling scheme, database, and mobile application was developed using biological and environmental data specific to the state of Maine. This was achieved using the Esri Catalog of GIS Applications and the Blue Marble Geographics GIS Application: Global Mapper and projection management tool: the Geographic Calculator. Biogeographical data were captured, stored, and analyzed. A two-stage cluster sampling approach was used to identify potential breeding habitat for secretive marsh birds from which sites to survey were identified. These data were converted via taxonomies and unit conversions to correlate to the regional and national scale standards of the NAMBMP. Twenty of the survey sites were selected and field surveys were conducted to verify the accuracy of the points. In 2018, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) will use the resulting database and mobile application to complete the Maine section of the NAMBMP.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Questioning the cause of calamity: using remotely sensed data to assess successive fire events

PDF

Monitoring parks with inexpensive UAVs: cost benefits analysis for monitoring and maintaining parks facilities

PDF

Using Landsat and a Bayesian hard classifier to study forest change in the Salmon Creek Watershed area from 1972–2013

PDF

Modeling prehistoric paths in Bronze Age Northeast England

PDF

Beach morphodynamic change detection using LiDAR during El Niño periods in Southern California

PDF

Predicting the presence of historic and prehistoric campsites in Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay counties

PDF

Creating a well database and web mapping application: using geographic information systems to manage and monitor groundwater resources in Sonoma County, California

PDF

Spatial and temporal patterns of long-term temperature change in Southern California from 1935 to 2014

PDF

Effect of spatial patterns on sampling design performance in a vegetation map accuracy assessment

PDF

Finding the green in greenspace: an examination of geospatial measures of greenspace for use in exposure studies

PDF

Bringing GIS to a small community water system

PDF

Precision agriculture and GIS: evaluating the use of yield maps combined with LiDAR data

PDF

Using VHSR multispectral imagery and object-based extraction to discover vernal meadows through vegetative persistence at Fort Ord, California

PDF

Using GIS to identify potential dynamic marine protected areas: a case study using shortfin mako shark tagging data in New Zealand

PDF

Applying least cost path analysis to search and rescue data: a case study in Yosemite National Park

PDF

Does the Bay Area have a social center? Delimiting the postmodern urban center of the San Francisco Bay Area

PDF

Use of GIS for analysis of community health worker patient registries from Chongwe district, a rural low-resource setting, in Lusaka Province, Zambia

PDF

Modeling nitrate contamination of groundwater in Mountain Home, Idaho using the DRASTIC method

PDF

Assessing the impact of a web-based GIS application to promote earthquake preparation on the University of Southern California University Park Campus

PDF

Analyzing earthquake casualty risk at census block level: a case study in the Lexington Central Business District, Kentucky

Asset Metadata

Creator Prescott, Shannon Kristine (author)

Core Title Using geospatial technology to establish marsh bird monitoring sites for a pilot study in Maine in accordance with the North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Science

Degree Program Geographic Information Science and Technology

Publication Date 06/02/2017

Defense Date 03/22/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag GIS,Maine,marsh bird,North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol,OAI-PMH Harvest,pilot study

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Wilson, John P. (committee chair), Lee, Su Jin (committee member), Longcore, Travis (committee member)

Creator Email shannonkprescott@gmail.com,skpresco@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-376563

Unique identifier UC11257625

Identifier etd-PrescottSh-5371.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-376563 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PrescottSh-5371.pdf

Dmrecord 376563

Document Type Thesis

Rights Prescott, Shannon Kristine

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA