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
Drop by our CanWEA Booth!