1. Results of Bat Monitoring
20 Wind Farm Sites in
Ontario and Manitoba
David E. Stephenson
& Andrew G. Ryckman
Natural Resource Solutions Inc.
CanWEA 2007

2. Overview
• Introduction
• Overview of Approaches
• Bat Monitoring
Locations
• Lessons Learned

3. Introduction
• 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

4. Bat 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)

5. Bat 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

6. Data 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

7. Number 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

8. 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

9. Installation 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

10. Interference & 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

11. Landowners, 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

12. Lessons 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!

13. For More Information:
Contact:
David Stephenson
Natural Resource Solutions Inc
519-725-2227
stephenson@nrsi.on.ca
Drop by our CanWEA Booth!