(IVAR) - Final Report - Strategic Environmental Research and ...

Of course, many other factors contribute to both sides of these simple cost and benefit
computations. For example, the avian radar can sample at night (see Section 6.2.2.9), when
visual sampling methods are inadequate. On the other hand, visual observers can sample in
wooded areas and around large structures that could interfere with radar detections. Human
observers can identify targets to species; the radar cannot. The radar can continuously track
targets in 3D in real time throughout the sampling volume; the human observer cannot. Neither
method is effective at sampling targets during heavy precipitation.
In fall 2008, Osmek et al. (2009) found that avian radar data statistically supported the SEA
strategy of building stormwater ponds with bottom-liners and netting to mitigate the
attractiveness of these sites to hazardous birds. Using 1,000 hrs of radar effort, these results
indicate treated ponds were no more of an attractant, and in some instances less of an attractant,
than mowed grass on the airfield or adjacent wooded areas. These findings help confirm that
SEA need not spend the $5 million to further treat these stormwater ponds with floating covers
as had been suggested.
The relative importance of these different capabilities will vary based on the application:
Identifying targets to species will be important when studying endangered species, while realtime
tracking may be critical in locating travel corridors used by specific groups of birds.
Continuous monitoring can also lead to cost avoidances, such as choosing among potential sites
to locate wind turbines based on long-term bird activity patterns, and streaming track data to
biologists in the field (see Section 6.3.1.4) enabling them to respond to an event as it is
happening and before it become a greater hazard.
Data Management. Many of the same cost and benefit considerations apply to the management
of the data generated by the automated avian radar system and the manual field observers. The
radar data are generated, transmitted, and stored in a ready-to-used digital form 26 , whereas the
manually collected field data may have to be transcribed, augmented with metadata, and
organized into data files or a database. While these data transcription and management tasks
appear menial, they often require the original investigator (or someone of about the same pay
grade) to interpret field notes, identify errors or inconsistencies in the data, etc. Past experience
(Gerry Key, personal communication) has shown that every hour spent in the field recording
observations manually requires at least one additional hour to process the data – thereby
effectively doubling the cost per observation, or conversely, halving the time that can be spent in
the field for a given project budget.
There are also numerous less-tangible benefits of continuous 24/7 data. Because the radar data are
generated and stored in real time, the same data can be used for both immediate applications such
as “sense & alert” (e.g., Section 6.3.1.5) as well as historical (seasonal or yearly) comparisons
(e.g., Section 6.2.2.7). Because they sample day and night, digital avian radars are already
leading to the discovery of activity patterns that were not be apparent otherwise, which in turn has
lead new insights into the activity patterns at military facilities (Klope et al., 2009). Automatically
retaining the radar track data in an organized, queryable database increases the opportunities for
broader spatial and temporal perspectives of bird activity on military lands. Similarly, these
systems can reduce “data loss” – not having the data to make comparison
26 The data generated by the Accipiter® DRP are in binary form, but the tools provided with the system (e.g., the
TVW and TDV) can read these binary files and display them graphically or in numerical tabular form.
259