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!