Results of Bat Monitoring 29 Wind Farm Sites in Ontario and Manitoba

Results of Bat Monitoring20 Wind Farm Sites in Ontario and Manitoba

Results of Bat Monitoring20 Wind Farm Sites in Ontario and Manitoba

David E. Stephenson & Andrew G. Ryckman

Natural Resource Solutions Inc.CanWEA 2007

David E. Stephenson & Andrew G. Ryckman

Natural Resource Solutions Inc.CanWEA 2007

OverviewOverview

• Introduction• Overview of Approaches • Bat Monitoring

Locations• Lessons Learned

IntroductionIntroduction

• NRSI started bat monitoring for wind power projects in 2003

• Approaches and techniques varied• Refinement of guidelines (e.g. 2007

Bat Monitoring Guidelines by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources)

• Focused monitoring in summer/fall 2007 at numerous project sites in southern & central Ontario, and southern Manitoba

Bat Monitoring DevicesBat Monitoring Devices

Acoustic/Ultrasonic Devices• One of the most common

techniques • Relies on detecting high

frequency ‘calls’ & translating them into audible sounds/sonograms

Nightvision Devices• Generation 2+ low-light

enhancing devices

Marine Surveillance Radar• 3D flight trajectory analysis

(direction, altitude, speed & changes)

Bat Monitoring LocationsBat Monitoring Locations

Acoustic Monitoring:• 29 separate wind farm projects in

southern/central Ontario, and southern Manitoba (approx. 1400MW)

• 72 monitoring stations, 14,600km of transects

• Approximately 6400 monitoring hours• Approximately 13 terabytes of data

Radar Monitoring• 3 separate wind farm projects along

Great Lakes shoreline and central Ontario (approx. 250MW)

• 11 monitoring stations• Approximately 80 monitoring nights

Data Volume & StorageData Volume & Storage

• Bat monitoring is very data-heavy (terabytes of data)

• Not uncommon to record 10,000 targets per night with radar

• Full 8 hr night of nightvision data can be as much as 60GB

• Straight recording of 8hrs of acoustic data = 4GB, time expansion calls could yield >10,000 call files per night

• Ability to store data with un-manned devices balanced with power consumption

Number of DevicesNumber of Devices

• Multiple stations and multiple nights require numerous devices

• Availability and cost of devices can be prohibitive

• Staff time to handle, review and analyze data can be equal to the actual monitoring time

Problems with Power (in the field)Problems with Power (in the field)

• Remote locations and un-manned devices create power problems

• Power considerations must be balanced with data storage & duration of monitoring

Installation of Acoustic Devices at HeightInstallation of Acoustic Devices at Height

• Recommendations for installing devices at 30m• Acceptability of using met towers varies• Installation of devices on lattice versus mast towers• Interference from met devices• Avoidance of insect interference

Interference & NoiseInterference & Noise

• ‘Clutter’ from acoustic recordings influences effectiveness of monitoring & analysis time

• Insect noise is a big issue with ground-based acoustic monitoring, & radar monitoring

• Possible interference between met tower equipment and devices

Landowners, Predators and Random ActsLandowners, Predators and Random Acts

• Landowners may or may not want to ‘host’ monitoring

• Safety is always a consideration given nocturnal monitoring

• Don’t discount random acts

Lessons Learned - SummaryLessons Learned - Summary

• Improved results can be achieved with integrated use of devices & techniques• Bat monitoring is very data-heavy (terabytes of data)• Data collection & analysis are time consuming• Numerous devices are required• The ability to power remote field devices is a critical consideration• Acoustic devices installed on met towers needn’t be costly and can provide valuable data• Landowners and staff must be kept informed• We’re still learning

• Keep an eye out for geologists and have plenty of iced tea!

For More Information:For More Information:

Contact:David Stephenson

Natural Resource Solutions Inc519-725-2227

stephenson@nrsi.on.ca

Drop by our CanWEA Booth!