Testing the efficacy of industrial mitigation measures for caribou in the Arctic

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Mitigation measures are commonly implemented to reduce the negative effects of industrial development on wildlife but are not always evaluated for their efficacy. For example, oil fields in the Arctic typically incorporate design features intended to increase permeability for migratory, barren‐ground caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ), even though there is limited empirical evidence of the effectiveness of some of these features. Given expected increases in energy development in the North American Arctic, we examined whether two mitigation measures commonly used for migratory caribou, elevating pipelines and separating roads and pipelines, were effective at increasing the probability caribou would cross infrastructure. We conducted our investigation on adult female caribou in the Central Arctic Herd of Alaska during summer, analysing movement data from telemetry collars (2015–2020) in conjunction with spatial data on oil field infrastructure. To evaluate whether caribou would cross infrastructure as a function of the mitigation measures, we used non‐linear binomial and step selection models. We found that caribou were more likely to cross a pipeline when the nearest pipeline was elevated (≥1.5 m), a result that supports current mitigation recommendations. We also found that caribou were more likely to cross both a road and pipeline when they were adjacent to one another, as opposed to being spatially separated, a result that contradicts recommended mitigation strategies. Synthesis and applications. As new energy projects are designed and implemented in environments around the globe, it is important to ensure that mitigation efforts for wildlife are scientifically validated for their efficacy. In the North American Arctic, such efforts will be critical for minimizing the impacts of expanding industrial development on migratory caribou and on the human communities that rely on them for subsistence.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.