Injecting Science into the Conversation About Coal
The Alberta Chapter of The Wildlife Society (ACTWS) is an organization of wildlife scientists, managers, and enthusiasts. We are part of The Wildlife Society, an international organization, which has been influencing the future of wildlife and wild places for the benefit of generations to come for more than 80 years. As a Chapter, we work to implement The Wildlife Society mission in an Alberta context, basing our work on robust science to meet the needs of Alberta wildlife and their habitats. Our chapter’s Conservation Affairs Committee has been involved in many land-use planning and wildlife management discussions over the years. Our role in all these processes, consultations, and multi-stakeholder planning teams is to help inform scientific evidence-based decision-making that contributes to the conservation of Alberta wildlife and their habitats.
The role of science
Scientific information is critical in land-use decision making for several reasons:
1. Recommendations are based on scientific evidence.
When it comes to land-use decisions, peoples’ values and emotions can influence what they see as the path forward. Science is based on evidence, not opinion. The scientific method ensures that objectivity is central to how information is gathered. The ways that scientists ask questions, the methods and analyses they use, and the implications of the results all follow a rigorous and recognized public vetting process. Recommendations based on robust scientific data remove emotion from the equation.
2. Science can provide justification for certain management actions.
Ultimately, land-use decisions are not based on science alone, but scientific information can help provide an explanation as to why a certain course of action is more or less likely to be successful to meet a defined objective.
Wildlife science and coal mining
There are many effects of coal mining on wildlife and there are several scientific papers that attempt to describe them. There are papers about influences on biodiversity, fish, forest structure, animal behaviour, changes in carnivore populations and habitat use, and impacts to migratory birds. Other scientific projects have attempted to measure the success of reclamation efforts and define best management practices to mitigate impacts during mining operations. Science has a role in decision making and what should be considered if coal mining proceeds. All of this science is critical to ensure that mine approvals and operations incorporate techniques that prevent or best mitigate their impacts to Alberta wildlife and their habitats.
Cumulative effects
One of the many influences of coal mining to Alberta’s central and southern east slopes are combined into cumulative effects. The studies of cumulative effects examine the broader landscape and add the effects of all land uses together to create a more complete understanding of the impacts associated with human development and natural ecological processes. For example, a thorough cumulative effects assessment might combine forestry, oil and gas operations, recreational activity, community footprint, and wildfire patterns to define disturbance across the landscape.
Some of our concerns regarding the Grassy Mountain Mine and other proposed coal mines stem from cumulative effects associated with activities on the broader landscape in addition to the obvious industrial development impacts. In particular, we are concerned about the additive influence of recreational activities. For example, trails and other linear features (e.g., roads, seismic lines, etc.) that are used for motorized and non-motorized recreation can alter the behaviour of wildlife, in particular grizzly bears (Farr et al., 2017; Ladle et al., 2018) and wolverines (Stewart et al., 2016; Heim et al., 2017). In several locations along the eastern slopes the linear disturbance is already above principal thresholds for grizzly bear and native trout populations (Farr et al., 2017 and 2018). Research also indicates that it is not only the presence of a road, but the traffic volume, that is important in accurately defining impact (Northrup et al., 2012). These measures are not always integrated into a development’s environmental impact assessment, which brings to question the rigour behind the assessment itself.
Impacts to carnivores
Carnivores, including grizzly bears and wolves, are key species to study when attempting to understand large-scale, long term effects of human development. Large carnivores require large territories and require different food resources throughout the year. Linear disturbances are known to fragment habitats, cause habitat displacement, impair movement potential for wildlife (Chetkiewicz and Boyce 2009; Benz et al. 2016; Prokopenko et al. 2017), and increase grizzly bear mortality (Boulanger and Stenhouse, 2014).
The generation time of the affected species is shorter (on average less than 20 years) than the mine’s operational period and reclamation phase (usually less than 30 years). For example, the learning process from mother to cub is important for bears to understand habitat availability in their home ranges (Nielsen et al. 2013) and how to coexist with human land uses (Morehouse et al. 2016). Individuals that remain after the mine has closed and been reclaimed might not see the mine as habitat, thus it could take several years for them to consider the reclaimed mine as available habitat. Even though reclamation is complete, it may take many more years before it becomes fully functional habitat for the species that lived there prior to the mine’s operation.
Industrial activity can also displace carnivores from important habitats (Cristescu et al., 2016). Grizzly bears displaced from habitat on the mine site may venture on to private land, thus increasing the risk of human-bear conflict on agricultural lands (Northrup et al. 2012). In addition, most human-caused grizzly bear mortalities in Alberta and British Columbia are less than 500 m from a road (Benn and Herrero, 2002; Boulanger and Stenhouse, 2014; McLellan, 2015), or within 200 m of a trail (Benn and Herrero, 2002). These distances apply to both protected areas where firearms are prohibited and public lands where poaching is a risk.
The ACTWS
When formulating an opinion about coal mining along the Eastern Slopes, there is a large volume information to consider. The goal of the ACTWS is to present the science. With over 450 members across Alberta with an array of expertise, we are poised to inject wildlife science into this critical conversation. We participated in the Grassy Mountain public hearing and have written multiple letters to provincial and federal Ministers outlining our concerns supported by science. We also worked with ALCES to conduct a cumulative effects assessment of the Oldman and Bow Watersheds. We host a monthly webinar series that helps researchers share their science more broadly. Stay tuned to our social media channels to register for our upcoming coal mining research webinars this summer and check out our website for more information about our work.
References
Benn, B., and S. Herrero. 2002. Grizzly bear mortality and human access in Banff and Yoho National Parks, 1971-98. Ursus, 13: 213-221.
Benz, R., M. S. Boyce, H. Thurfjell, D. G. Paton, M. Musiani, C. Dormann, and S. Ciuti. 2016. Dispersal ecology informs design of large-scale wildlife corridors. PLoS ONE 11(9): e0162989.
Boulanger, J., and G. B. Stenhouse. 2014. The impact of roads on the demography of grizzly bears in Alberta. PLoS ONE 9(12): e115535.
Chetkiewicz, C.-L. B., and M. S. Boyce. 2009. Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. J. Appl. Ecol. 46:1036–1047.
Cristescu, B., G. B. Stenhouse, and M. S. Boyce. 2016. Large omnivore movements in response to surface mining and mine reclamation. Scientific Reports 6:19177, doi: 10.1038/ srep19177.
Farr, D., Braid, A., Janz, A., Sarchuk, B., Slater, S., Sztaba, A., Barrett, D., Stenhouse, G., Morehouse, A., Wheatley, M. 2017. Ecological response to human activities in southwestern Alberta: Scientific assessment and synthesis. Alberta Environment and Parks, Government of Alberta. ISBN No. 978-1-4601-3540-2.
Farr, D., Braid, A., Slater, S. 2018. Linear disturbances in the Livingstone-Porcupine Hills of Alberta: Review of potential ecological responses. Government of Alberta, Environment and Parks. ISBN No. ISBN 978-1-4601-4033-8.
Heim, N., J. T. Fisher, A. Clevenger, J. Paczkowski, J. Volpe. 2017. Cumulative effects of climate and landscape change drive spatial distribution of Rocky Mountain wolverine (Gulo gulo L.). Ecology and Evolution. 7: 8903-8914.
Ladle, A., T. Avgar, M. Wheatley, G. Stenhouse, S. Nielsen, and M. S. Boyce. 2018. Grizzly bear response to spatio-temporally variable human recreational activity. J. Appl. Ecol. 56:375–386.
McLellan, B. N. 2015. Some mechanisms underlying variation in vital rates of grizzly bears on a multiple use landscape. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 79(5): 749-765.
Morehouse A. T., T. A. Graves, N. Mikle, M.S. Boyce. 2016. Nature vs. nurture: Evidence for social learning of conflict behaviour in grizzly bears. PLoS ONE 11(11): e0165425. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165425
Nielsen, S., A. Shafer, M. S. Boyce, and G. B. Stenhouse. 2013. Does learning or instinct shape habitat selection? PLoS ONE 8(1): e53721.
Northrup, J. M., J. Pitt, T. B. Muhly, G. B. Stenhouse, M. Musiani, and M. S. Boyce. 2012. Vehicle traffic shapes grizzly bear behaviour on a multiple-use landscape. J. Appl. Ecol. 49: 1159–1167.
Prokopenko, C., M. S. Boyce, and T. Avgar. 2017. Characterizing wildlife behavioural responses to roads using integrated step selection analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 54: 470–479.
Stewart, F., N. A. Heim, A. P. Clevenger, J. Paczkowski, J. P. Volpe, and J. T. Fisher. 2016. Wolverine behavior varies spatially with anthropogenic footprint: implications for conservation and inferences about declines. Ecology and Evolution. 6(5): 1493-1503.