draft ronald lake bison mitigation, monitoring and …draft ronald lake bison mitigation, monitoring...

Draft Ronald Lake Bison Mitigation, Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project May 2017

Draft Ronald Lake Bison Mitigation, Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project

Teck Resources Limited Page i May 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of Draft Plan .................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.1 Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Document Structure and Nomenclature ........................................................................................ 5

REGULATIONS, APPROVALS AND GUIDELINES .............................................................................. 5

PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 5

3.1 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 6

PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTATION ................................................................................... 7

4.1 Past Engagement .......................................................................................................................... 7

4.2 Future Engagement ...................................................................................................................... 8

FRONTIER PROJECT EFFECTS ......................................................................................................... 8

MITIGATION PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................... 9

6.1 Summary of Planned Mitigations ................................................................................................ 10 6.1.1 Discussion of Planned Mitigations .......................................................................................... 10

6.2 Discussion of Possible Mitigations .............................................................................................. 17

MONITORING PROGRAM .................................................................................................................. 18

7.1 Summary of Bison Monitoring Program ...................................................................................... 18 7.1.1 Discussion of Bison Monitoring Program ................................................................................ 20

7.2 Discussion of Possible Monitoring .............................................................................................. 23

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............................................................................................. 23

8.1 Define the Problem ..................................................................................................................... 26

8.2 Design the Adaptive Management Process ................................................................................ 27 8.2.1 Identify Indicators, Trajectories and Triggers .......................................................................... 31

8.3 Implement the Mitigation, Monitor its Effectiveness and Evaluate the Effectiveness ................. 31 8.3.1 Plan of Action to Respond to Poorer than Predicted Environmental Performance ................ 32

8.4 Adjust the Mitigation as Required ............................................................................................... 33

IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................. 33

9.1 Roles and Responsibilities .......................................................................................................... 33

9.2 Information Management and Reporting .................................................................................... 33

9.3 Change Management .................................................................................................................. 33

9.4 Communication Management ..................................................................................................... 33


Teck Resources Limited Page ii May 2017

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 34

LIST OF TABLES

Table 7.5-1: Mitigation Program Overview ............................................................................................ 11 Table 7.5-2: Monitoring Program Overview .......................................................................................... 19 Table 7.5-3: Adaptive Management Program – Plan-Do-Check-Act .................................................... 28 Table 7.5-4: Adaptive Management Program – Active / Passive .......................................................... 29

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 7.5-1: Home Ranges for the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Based on Radio Telemetry Data and Indigenous Knowledge ........................................................................................................ 2

Figure 7.5-2: Teck Adaptive Management Process ............................................................................... 25 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment I Relevant Approvals Attachment II Considerations for Parks Canada Agency and Alberta Environment and Parks


Teck Resources Limited Page 1 May 2017

INTRODUCTION

Teck Resources Limited (Teck) is the owner and planned operator of the proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (the Project) that is located 110 km north of Fort McMurray on the west side of the Athabasca River. The Project intersects a portion of the home range of the Ronald Lake bison herd (see Figure 7.5-1). The Ronald Lake bison herd is an important cultural and country food resource for Indigenous peoples of the Lower Athabasca Region. Wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) are also federally listed as Threatened under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) because of small population sizes, restricted distribution, and threats from disease outbreaks (COSEWIC 2013). A proposed Recovery Strategy for the Wood Bison (Bison bison athabascae) in Canada has been produced (ECCC 2016). The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)’s most recent assessment of wood bison recommended downgrading their status to Special Concern (COSEWIC 2013); however, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has not yet responded to the recommendation.

Prior to 2011, Ronald Lake bison were considered to be infected with brucellosis (Brucella abortus) and bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) contracted from infected bison in and around Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP), which were known to carry the two diseases (GOA 2011). However, since disease testing was initiated on the Ronald Lake bison herd in 2010 and 2011, no bison have tested positive for brucellosis or tuberculosis from a sample of 73 (GOA 2014). Ball et al. (2016) indicated that testing has only been to a level that can certify whether the diseases within the herds are below 12% prevalence. The absence of positive reactors in the Ronald Lake bison herd is in contrast to bison in WBNP where apparent prevalence of brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis was observed to be approximately 31% and 49%, respectively (Joly and Messier 2004). There is no reason to expect that if the diseases were present in the Ronald Lake bison herd that they would occur at prevalence rates lower than observed in infected subpopulations in WBNP. Therefore, it is likely the Ronald Lake bison herd is free of either of these two diseases.

Throughout the Project regulatory process, Teck has maintained that the authority responsible for Ronald Lake bison herd management is the Minister of Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), as set out in the Wildlife Act (RSA 2000, c W-10). As the responsible authority, AEP has undertaken the following actions to date, as per their responsibility under the Alberta Wildlife Act and Canada SARA:

• After certifying prevalence of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis below 12%, AEP has implemented protection from hunting (except for subsistence by persons who hold a constitutional right to do so in this area) under the Wildlife Regulation, Alberta Regulation 143/97.

• AEP has initiated a cooperative management planning process for the herd with Indigenous groups; however, a cooperative management plan for the Ronald Lake bison herd is not yet available.

Figure 7.5-1: Home Ranges for the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Based on Radio Telemetry Data and Indigenous Knowledge

Mc Clelland Lake

Atha

basc

a Rive

r

LakeClaire

Richardson LakeMigratory Bird

Sanctuary

Birch MountainsWildland

Provincial Park

Wood Buffalo National ParkRichardson RiverDunes Wildland

Athabasca DunesProvincial Park

Maybelle RiverWildland

Marguerite RiverWildland

T109R 15W4 R 14 R 13 R 12 R 11 R 9R 10 R 8 R 7 R 6 R 5

T95

T96

T97

T98

T99

T100

T101

T102

T103

T104

T105

T106

T107

T108

T110

Acknowledgements: Base Data: AltaLIS.100% Minimum Convex Polygon and 95% and 80% Utilizations Distributions Based on Ronald Lake Bison Herd Telemetry Data2013 - 2017. Teck's Ronald Lake Bison Study Area Based on Winter Radio-Collar Data (2013/2014), Athabasca Chipewyan First Nationand Mikisew Creek First Nation Traditional Knowledge

³

Population-Level 100% MCP (2013-2017)Population-Level 95% UD (2013-2017)Population-Level 80% UD (2013-2017)Bison Winter Stud y AreaProject Disturbance AreaTownsh ipWaterc ourseWaterbod yNational ParkProv inc ial Park

(Original page size: 8.5X11)Author: PT Checked: XX

Frontier Projec t – Joint R ev iew Panel Inform ation R equests

0 5 10 15 20

KILOMETR ESUTM Zone 12 NAD 831:600,000

File ID: XX-XDate: 20170502



Based on the updated effects assessment, (see the response to JRP IR 7.5[c]), it appears that in order for AEP to maintain the disease-free status of the Ronald Lake bison herd, input and participation from Parks Canada Agency (PCA) in WBNP will be needed. The bison disease issue in WBNP is one of the most complex issues facing PCA (Reynolds 2006). Additionally, Alberta has long recognized that the key issue regarding the management of wild bison in Alberta is the risk of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis spreading from infected animals in and around WBNP to healthy wild bison (Mitchell and Gates 2002). With other healthy wild herds in Alberta (e.g., Hay-Zama), AEP manages the risk of spreading bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis to domestic livestock and free-ranging wood bison through bison-free management zones (GOA 2011). A bison-free management zone may provide a temporary solution until a long-term solution can be applied to WBNP. Existing bison-free management zones are on provincial Crown lands; however, for the Ronald Lake bison herd, the bison-free management zone would have to be in WBNP (on federal lands) to avoid potential detrimental effects to the Ronald Lake herd.

The 2010 WBNP Management Plan indicates that they will “develop and implement a disease containment strategy by 2012.” As well, PCA (Parks Canada 2017) recently has indicated that:

The governments of Canada, Alberta and the Northwest Territories are committed to work with Indigenous groups to support recovery of the Wood Bison, including the identification, development and implementation of preferred disease management options with the dual long-term objective of removing the risk to the livestock sector

Teck is supportive of collaborative government actions to identify, develop and implement disease management to prevent the spread of disease from WBNP. Such actions would be consistent with the proposed Recovery Strategy for the Wood Bison (Bison bison athabascae) in Canada (ECCC 2016).

The Joint Review Panel (JRP) for the Project requested a Ronald Lake bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan with a focus on mitigation measures to prevent the Ronald Lake bison from contacting diseased bison in WBNP (see Section 1.1). However, the mitigation required to prevent the spread of disease is outside Teck’s authority. Consequently, the main body of this document is limited to the mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management that is within Teck’s authority to implement. These mitigation measures are those to which Teck has already committed and that Teck expects would become part of the anticipated Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) approval for the Project. Possible additional mitigation measures that Teck is willing to support but that would require the lead or at least participation of other entities, such as the Government of Alberta and PCA, are also provided in the main body of this document.

Attachment II of this document identifies actions that will reduce key threats to the Ronald Lake bison herd, including the transmission of brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis, and provides examples of similar interventions that have been successful elsewhere to show that the threats can be managed. These actions, which are within the authority of AEP and/or PCA to implement, are purposefully separate from the mitigation that Teck has the authority to undertake.

1.1 Purpose of Draft Plan

This draft Ronald Lake bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan has been developed to address the information requested in JRP information request (IR) 7.5, which requested the following information:



• the mitigation measures to prevent the Ronald Lake bison from contacting diseased bison in WBNP

• any mitigation measures for disease prevention that are not dependent on genetic differentiation or biophysical barriers

• the likelihood of success of these measures (reference existing studies), how these measures would be monitored and additional adaptive management actions that could be taken if mitigation measures are not successful

• the specific measures that Teck would take to improve the condition of reclaimed wetlands should they prove to be less suitable for bison than natural wetlands

• how Teck will address the time lag in developing reclaimed habitats and the effects of such a lag on bison distribution and abundance

• how Teck plans to incorporate information that will be provided by the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team and how this might affect mitigation/monitoring strategies

• how the mitigation measures align with the proposed Recovery Strategy for the Wood Bison (Bison bison athabascae) in Canada (ECCC 2016)

1.1.1 Limitations

Future iterations of the plan contained herein will rely on outcomes of the JRP Report, the Decision Statement, future stages of Project planning and feedback from Indigenous communities and stakeholders. Teck envisions the path forward to finalize this plan would involve the steps listed below, which are not necessarily sequential. The final form of this plan might be modified as an outcome of these steps:

• Receive a JRP Report and Minister’s Decision Statement following the JRP Hearing.

• Receive an Alberta EPEA approval with conditions.

• Understand the current state of relevant provincial and federal regulations and relevant guidelines to be addressed in the plan.

• Continue engaging with interested regulators, Indigenous communities and stakeholders to develop more clarity around the indicators, metrics and thresholds or objectives to be used to evaluate mitigation effectiveness.

• Finalize plan details in light of future stages of Project planning and engineering, including technical, environmental and commercial details. In some cases, preconstruction monitoring results might be required to finalize a mitigation plan.

• Review final plan with regulators, Indigenous communities and stakeholders prior to finalization and submission to appropriate regulators as an anticipated condition of an EPEA approval.



1.2 Document Structure and Nomenclature

This draft Ronald Lake bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan follows a structure that is organized as follows:

• Section 2 provides an overview of regulations, approvals and guidelines and Attachment I will include copies of relevant documentation in the future

• Section 3 provides the goals and objectives associated with the plan

• Section 4 discusses Project effects

• Section 5 discusses the development and consultation for the plan

• Section 6 identifies the mitigation program adopted by Teck. Possible additional mitigation measures that Teck is willing to support but that would require the lead or at least participation of other entities, such as the Government of Alberta and PCA, are also provided in Section 6.

• Section 7 discusses a conceptual monitoring program. Possible additional monitoring that Teck is willing to support but that would require the lead or at least participation of other entities, such as the Government of Alberta and PCA, are also provided in Section 6.

• Section 8 discusses an adaptive management plan

• Section 9 discusses implementation of the plan

• Attachment II identifies actions that will reduce key threats to the Ronald Lake bison herd, including the transmission of brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis, and provides examples of similar interventions that have been successful elsewhere to show that the threats can be managed by the responsible authorities

Italicized text in sections of the plan indicate future content that is not available for inclusion at this time.

REGULATIONS, APPROVALS AND GUIDELINES

The Regulations, Approvals and Guidelines section of the Ronald Lake bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan will list relevant provincial and federal regulations, guidelines and approval conditions relevant to access management and provide a concordance of how they are addressed in the plan.

Attachment I will include copies of relevant documentation.

PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this draft Ronald Lake bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan is to meet the follow-up and compliance monitoring requirements under Canadian Environment Assessment Act (CEAA). Compliance monitoring verifies whether required mitigation measures were implemented,



while a follow-up program determines the accuracy of the conclusions of the environmental assessment and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures (Operational Policy Statement on Follow-up Programs under CEAA 2011).

3.1 Goals and Objectives

The goals of the draft Ronald Lake bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan deliberately link predicted Project effects to mitigation, mitigation objectives to monitoring, and monitoring results to adaptive management actions. The specific goals and objectives of this plan are to:

• Goal 1: Reduce changes in bison habitat, landscape connectivity and mortality risk by applying mitigation to limit predicted effects.

• Objective 1a: Reduce direct habitat loss.

• Objective 1b: Reduce indirect habitat loss.

• Objective 1c: Reduce change to bison habitat connectivity.

• Objective 1d: Reduce change to bison mortality risk.

• Goal 2: Monitor effectiveness of mitigation designed to reduce direct and indirect habitat loss and changes in landscape connectivity and mortality risk.

• Objective 2a: Document bison recolonization of reclaimed habitats to understand the effectiveness of progressive reclamation.

• Objective 2b: Document bison occurrence, distribution and abundance in lands adjacent to the Project to understand the effectiveness of minimizing sensory disturbance.

• Objective 2c: Document bison use of wildlife underpasses to understand their effectiveness in maintaining landscape connectivity.

• Objective 2d: Conduct compliance audits to confirm that mitigation to limit changes in mortality risk are implemented as planned.

• Objective 2e: Investigate the cause of bison mortality, if any, as a result of contact with Project infrastructure or vehicles.

• Goal 3: Adapt mitigation designed to reduce changes in bison habitat, landscape connectivity and mortality risk, as necessary, based on monitoring outcomes.

• Objective 3a: Adapt mitigation if bison recolonization of reclaimed habitats are not meeting targets.

• Objective 3b: Adapt mitigation to reduce sensory disturbance, as appropriate and possible, based on monitoring outcomes.

• Objective 3c: Adapt mitigation if bison are not using underpasses as predicted.



• Objective 3d: Adapt mitigation if bison mortality as a result of contact with Project infrastructure or vehicles is not meeting targets.

PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTATION

4.1 Past Engagement

Teck has been consulting with Indigenous groups regarding the Project since 2008. Through Indigenous-led traditional land use (TLU) studies and cultural impact assessments (CIAs); third-party technical reviews of regulatory filings; statements of concerns filed with the Alberta Energy Regulator under the Responsible Energy Development Act; and on-going feedback (e.g., meetings, technical workshops, personal conversations and correspondence such as reports, letters and e-mails), Indigenous groups have provided their input on potential Project impacts. Through this consultation, the Ronald Lake bison herd has been identified as the only reliably harvestable herd in the Homeland zones of Indigenous groups (Candler et al. 2013ab). In addition, Indigenous groups identified bison as a “cultural keystone species” (Candler et al. 2013b) thereby rendering effects on the Ronald Lake bison herd as an effect to Indigenous and treaty rights. In response to these concerns, as well as to further understand potential effects to the Ronald Lake bison herd and Indigenous groups traditional use of this resource, Teck has funded the various bison-specific studies led by Indigenous groups listed below. We have incorporated information from the completed study into ongoing Project planning and will continue to do so along with any other pertinent results from the studies that are yet to be completed.

• Sakâw Mostos (Wood Bison): Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Study (completed April 2015) – This report provides information on the Ronald Lake bison herd from traditional experts of the region and Mikisew Cree First Nation’s (MCFN) Indigenous knowledge holders.

• The Way of the Buffalo (not yet completed) – In this documentary film, MCFN will explain the importance of wood bison to MCFN, its members, and their cultural identity during a Ronald Lake bison hunting expedition.

• MCFN’s Bison Study (not yet completed) - Through this work, MCFN will integrate traditional knowledge into the resource-selection-function models produced by the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team to include habitat factors considered important by MCFN knowledge holders. As well, MCFN will conduct a quantitative analysis of disturbance within the current range of the Ronald Lake bison herd, and in areas the herd is predicted to move to if the Project proceeds.

• Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation’s (ACFN’s) Bison and Caribou Study– Phase 1 (not yet completed) – Through this work, ACFN will collect western science and traditional knowledge / traditional land use information on bison and caribou.

Teck had envisioned bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management as a component of the wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan because the types of activities within our authority to implement are applicable to all wildlife and not specific to bison. Therefore, engagement to date on bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management is described in the draft wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan (see response to JRP IR 7.14).



4.2 Future Engagement

Because Teck had envisioned bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management as a component of the wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan, future engagement on bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management is described in the draft wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan (see the response to JRP IR 7.14).

Management of the Ronald Lake bison herd is under the authority of the Minister of AEP, as set out in the Wildlife Act (RSA 2000, c W-10). The AEP has recently initiated cooperative management of the Ronald Lake bison herd with Indigenous groups. It appears that AEP will require input from PCA to maintain the disease-free status of the Ronald Lake bison herd. Joint planning of this kind is important to the success of an eventual cooperative management plan for the Ronald Lake bison herd. To date, Teck has not been invited to participate in AEP’s management planning initiative; therefore, we have limited opportunity to influence mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plans. Nonetheless, in addition to the future engagement described in the draft wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan (see the response to JRP IR 7.14), Teck will work with the responsible authority to explore possible mitigations for which Teck does not have the authority to implement independently (see Section 6.2).

FRONTIER PROJECT EFFECTS

The Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 11) predicted the following key effects of the Project on wildlife, including bison:

• Change in habitat availability

• Direct habitat loss – At maximum build-out, the Project will result in the physical disturbance of approximately 29,000 ha of natural vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitat. Bison currently occupying the Project development area (PDA) will be progressively displaced from the PDA as the mine develops, and are expected to be displaced into adjacent habitats within the Ronald Lake bison herd current home range.

• Indirect habitat loss – While direct habitat disturbance resulting from the Project will be limited to the Project disturbance area (PDA), sensory disturbance associated with construction and operational activities (i.e., noise, fugitive light, air traffic) can discourage bison from using otherwise suitable habitat adjacent to Project activities, contributing to additional habitat loss.

• Change in landscape connectivity – The connectivity assessment provided in the Project Update concluded that sufficient minimal and low hindrance movement habitat would remain within the regional study area (RSA) during Project development and operations to support on-going movements of wildlife in the RSA, both along the Athabasca River and between the Athabasca River and Birch Mountains. Any animals travelling through the PDA during active life of the mine will be deflected around operations, which could result in a “funneling” of animal movements in some areas (i.e., between the mine and the Athabasca River).

• Change in wildlife mortality risk – Development can lead to increases in direct mortality (e.g., vehicle-wildlife collisions) or can alter factors that lead to increased risk of mortality (e.g., increase hunter access). Sources of potential wildlife mortality risk within the active footprint of the mine (including the access road to the site) are listed below.



• Wildlife-human Interactions:

• vehicle-wildlife collisions

• wildlife interactions with equipment and infrastructure

• wildlife-human conflicts

• Hunter access:

• mitigation for the regional, cumulative effects to bison mortality related to increased access, in particular public access (i.e., people other than Teck employees and contractors) outside Teck’s mineral surface lease (MSL), is beyond the scope of an individual proponent. While Teck has committed to implementing a number of measures to prevent workers from accessing and undertaking recreational pursuits near the Project area to reduce hunting pressure, Teck does not have the authority to manage access outside the MSL; therefore, restrictions on use of areas outside the MSL are not covered further in the draft Ronald Lake bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan.

• mitigation for the regional, cumulative effects to predator-prey dynamics, in particular the restoration of previously disturbed habitat (e.g., linear features), is beyond the scope of an individual proponent. Federal, provincial and industry initiatives are underway and Teck will participate in these initiatives as appropriate. The restoration of linear features is discussed within the Project’s biodiversity management plan (see the JRP IR response 7.15).

• Disease transmission to Ronald Lake bison herd – Mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management that need to be undertaken to manage this threat to the Ronald Lake bison herd are not within Teck’s authority to implement; instead, the authority for wildlife management rests with the Minister of AEP and PCA and is covered in Attachment II of this document.

MITIGATION PROGRAM

A mitigation program has been developed to reduce changes in bison habitat availability, landscape connectivity and mortality risk, as described in Section 5. These mitigation measures are those to which Teck has already committed and that Teck expects would become part of the anticipated EPEA approval for the Project. Possible additional mitigation measures that Teck is willing to support but that would

Goal 1: Reduce changes in bison habitat, landscape connectivity and mortality risk by applying mitigation to limit predicted effects.

• Objective 1a: Reduce direct habitat loss.

• Objective 1b: Reduce indirect habitat loss.

• Objective 1c: Reduce change to bison habitat connectivity.

• Objective 1d: Reduce change to bison mortality risk.



require involvement of other entities, such as the Government of Alberta and/or PCA, are discussed in Section 6.2.

6.1 Summary of Planned Mitigations

A mitigation program has been developed to reduce changes in habitat, landscape connectivity and mortality risk (see Table 7.5-1). The mitigation program is discussed in detail in Section 6.1.1.

6.1.1 Discussion of Planned Mitigations

The following subsections represent mitigation aimed at avoiding, minimizing and restoring Project effects on the Ronald Lake bison herd. The potential for biodiversity offsets is covered in the biodiversity management plan.

6.1.1.1 Reduce Direct Habitat Loss and Changes to Landscape Connectivity

The Project might affect Ronald Lake bison as a result of direct loss of habitat and changes to landscape connectivity. Direct habitat loss results from the physical removal of habitat through site clearing. Changes to landscape connectivity, or movement potential, in a landscape can have an important influence on the abundance and distribution of bison.



Table 7.5-1: Mitigation Program Overview

Potential Project Effects Mitigation Objectives Mitigation

Change in habitat availability

Reduce direct habitat loss • Limit the size of the east side access road right-of-way (ROW) and temporary workspace to the extent practical. • Limit the Athabasca Rive bridge footprint in riparian areas. • Carry out progressive reclamation to reclaim disturbed wildlife habitat as portions of the mine footprint become available. • Develop a weed management plan.

Reduce indirect habitat loss • Implement strategies to reduce noise and light effects, including design considerations (e.g., Frontier Project plant site engineering and aerodrome operation within regulatory and safety constraints).

• Limiting employee and contractor access to identified areas of high-quality habitat adjacent to Project footprint.

Change in landscape connectivity

Reduce change to landscape connectivity

• Carry out progressive reclamation to restore vegetated corridors as portions of the mine footprint become available. • To maintain connectivity between Birch Mountains and Athabasca River:

• coordinate development activities with Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) who acquired the Pierre River Mine oil sands leases formerly held by Shell Canada Limited should CNRL reapply for and develop the Pierre River Mine project

• develop an integrated land management strategy for the Project in consultation with industry, Indigenous stakeholders and the Province

• Provide wildlife passage under both sides of the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island to allow north–south wildlife movement along river banks using crossing design considerations (e.g., bridge height and length) outlined in Clevenger and Huijser (2011) and GOA (2011): • set up educational signage to limit human use of wildlife underpasses • evaluate wing fencing along the approach to crossing passages (at least 2.4 m high for large mammals as per GOA

2011) as part of the crossing structure design • provide appropriate walking substrate along the wildlife underpass • create vegetated buffers adjacent to wildlife underpasses to increase movement opportunities for a variety of species

Change in mortality risk

Reduce bison-human interactions - vehicle–bison collisions

• Implement fly-in/fly-out policy for workers to reduce vehicular traffic volume. • Erect wildlife cautionary signage on access roads. • Foster environmental awareness with speed restrictions on access roads, report Project-related wildlife fatalities. • Provide vegetation maintenance at roadsides (vegetation will be trimmed regularly to discourage roadside foraging and

prevent visual obstruction of wildlife). • Develop seed mixes for roadside reclamation from less palatable species to reduce wildlife attraction to road edges. • Design the road to maximize line of sight.

Reduce bison-human interactions - interactions with infrastructure

• Create fuel and chemical spill contingency and response plans. • Confirm adequate spill protection for all fuel storage facilities. • Monitor and maintain waste disposal sites, wastewater storage areas and runoff control structures to prevent

contamination of surface waters. • During overburden dewatering, intermittently backslope the sides of drainage ditches to allow for wildlife crossings and to

reduce the potential for entrapment.



Table 7.5-1: Mitigation Program Overview (continued) Potential Project

Effects Mitigation Objectives Mitigation


Reduce bison-human interactions - hunter access

• Construct predator access blocks to deter predator use (i.e., reduce line of sight) on linear features in the PDA that may leave core bison areas susceptible to predation.

• Deactivate roads in the PDA no longer in use. • Implement employee / contractor policies to prohibit hunting within the Project area. • Reduce linear features in the closure landscape. • Reduce width of linear features in the closure landscape.

Reduce the risk of disease transmission to the Ronald Lake bison herd

• Implement progressive reclamation in the PDA to create suitable Ronald Lake bison habitat and reduce the potential of shifting habitat use northward.

• Mitigations associated with reducing hunter and predator access. • Mitigations associated with reducing wildlife human conflict. • Mitigations associated with reducing indirect habitat loss.



6.1.1.1.1 Reduce Direct Habitat Loss

To the extent feasible, the Project has been situated outside of areas identified as having relatively high habitat value, for example, northwest of the Project towards the Birch Mountains. The footprint of the Project has been reduced to the extent feasible through such measures as the backfilling of pits, placing reclamation material stockpiles over mined land, and making best use of existing facilities and infrastructure. For the current Project design, all reasonable steps have been taken to reduce the PDA, which has been reduced by 118 ha from initial design presented in the Integrated Application.

• Teck has committed to the following mitigations to further reduce direct habitat loss and degradation:

• limit the size of the east side access road right-of-way (ROW) and temporary workspace to the extent practical

• limit the Athabasca Rive bridge footprint in riparian areas

• develop a weed management plan

• The primary means of mitigating direct Project effects on Ronald Lake bison habitat will be through progressive reclamation of the landscape with forest vegetation and establishment of wetland areas. The Project’s reclamation plan will aim to reclaim the Project area with a variety of terrain and wetland features such as meadows and grasslands to increase moderate and high quality habitat for wood bison. High- and moderate-suitability Ronald Lake bison winter feeding habitat included as part of the reclamation landscape at closure will include:

• shrubby swamps (SONS wetland class) along drainage features where awned sedge will be included in plantings

• marsh and wet meadow (MONG wetland class) areas associated with the Project waterbodies where awned sedge will be included in plantings

• young deciduous and mixedwood deciduous leading stands including ecosite phases b3 (aspen-white spruce/blueberry), d1 (aspen/low-bush cranberry), d2 (aspen-white spruce/low-bush cranberry), e1 (balsam poplar-aspen/dogwood), e2 (balsam poplar- white spruce/dogwood) and f2 (balsam poplar-white spruce/horsetail)

• young mixedwood white spruce leading stands including ecosite phase d3 (white spruce-aspen/low bush cranberry)

Ronald Lake bison will benefit from the increase in shrubby swamp, marsh and wet meadow based on their habitat preferences. Teck recognizes that there is only limited empirical information from the oil sands region that documents successful reclamation of shrubby swamp, marsh and wet meadow. At least in part, this is because publically available, empirical data on wildlife use of reclaimed oil sands are limited and because reclamation is relatively new, having only been carried out for a decade or two in the oil sands. However, the lack of a broader base of experience in the scientific literature means that in the early stages, the Project’s reclamation treatments will be experimental and require monitoring to refine reclamation techniques as well as to understand the ultimate habitat quality that can be achieved. Teck will continue to participate in reclamation research and to monitor developing technologies used elsewhere. See Sections 7 and 8 for more information on the specific measures that Teck would take to



improve the condition of reclaimed wetlands should they prove to be less suitable for bison than natural wetlands.

Ronald Lake bison also will benefit from early seral deciduous and mixedwood forest habitat during initial stages of closure. Empirical information from the oil sands region’s successful reclamation initiatives demonstrates that a variety of wildlife species use young seral habitats (AENV 2010). Syncrude’s successful Beaver Creek Wood Bison Ranch, established in 1993 on reclaimed landscape, now supports approximately 300 bison on 300 ha of land, and provides at least one example where wood bison have successfully used land within reclaimed oil sands1.

Teck recognizes that reclamation might be capable of delivering a net gain in habitat for bison in the long-term, but the timeline to deliver the net gain might be too long to reasonably be considered a net gain. Consequently, our biodiversity management planning process is designed to alert us to the need for additional mitigation planning, which may involve offsetting. Please review the biodiversity management plan for more information on Teck’s vision of achieving a net positive impact in the areas we operate (see the response to JRP IR 7.15).

6.1.1.1.2 Reduce Changes to Landscape Connectivity

The availability of movement corridors for bison is important to maintain daily, seasonal and annual migration patterns that might provide access to important areas such as seasonal foraging habitat, mineral sites, and breeding and calving grounds. Disconnecting habitat areas can result in the loss of otherwise suitable habitat. The primary means of mitigating direct Project effects on wildlife habitat will be through the reestablishment of wildlife habitat (i.e., reclamation of natural vegetation).

• Teck has committed to the following additional measures to avoid changes to connectivity between Birch Mountains and Athabasca River:

• coordinate development activities with Canadian Natural Resources (CNRL), who recently acquired the oil sands leases for the Pierre River Mine, should they choose to develop the mine

• develop an integrated land management strategy for the Project in consultation with industry and the province

• Teck has committed to the following additional measures mitigations to limit changes to connectivity along the Athabasca River Valley:

• provide wildlife passages under both sides of the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island to allow north–south wildlife movement along river banks using crossing design considerations (e.g., bridge height and length) outlined in Clevenger and Huijser (2011) and GOA (2011)

• set up educational signage to limit human use of wildlife underpasses

1 Syncrude (2016). Beaver Creek Wood Bison Ranch.



• evaluate wing fencing along the approach to crossing passages (at least 2.4 m high for large mammals as per GOA 2011) as part of the crossing structure design

• provide appropriate walking substrate along the wildlife underpass

• create vegetated buffers adjacent to wildlife underpasses to increase movement opportunities for bison

6.1.1.2 Reduce Changes in Indirect Habitat Loss

The Project might affect Ronald Lake bison as a result of indirect loss of habitat, which occurs when habitat is physically available but Ronald Lake bison do not use it because of sensory disturbance or habitat fragmentation. Indirect effects of sensory disturbance on habitat use will be mitigated by implementing strategies to reduce noise and light effects, including design considerations (e.g., plant site engineering) and limiting access to identified areas of high-quality habitat adjacent to the Project footprint.

6.1.1.3 Reduce Changes in Mortality Risk

Project development and associated activities can lead to increases in direct mortality (e.g., vehicle-wildlife collisions) or can alter factors that lead to increased risk of mortality (e.g., increase hunter access). A wide variety of mitigation by design approaches will be applied to reduce direct mortality risk associated with vehicle collisions, interactions with equipment, infrastructure and process water and wildlife human conflicts.

6.1.1.3.1 Reduce Bison–Human Interactions

In this document, bison-human interactions include interactions/conflicts with vehicles and infrastructure.

6.1.1.3.1.1 Vehicle-Wildlife Collisions

Collisions with vehicles are a potential source of mortality for bison. Vehicle mortality can have population level effects for Ronald Lake bison given their small population size and because they are attracted to roads. Teck has committed to the following mitigations to reduce vehicle-wildlife collisions:

• implement fly-in/fly-out policy for workers to reduce vehicular traffic volume

• erect wildlife cautionary signage on access roads

• foster environmental awareness with speed restrictions on access roads report Project-related wildlife fatalities

• provide vegetation maintenance at roadsides (vegetation will be trimmed regularly to discourage roadside foraging and prevent visual obstruction of wildlife)

• develop seed mixes for roadside reclamation from less palatable species to reduce wildlife attraction to road edges

• design the road to maximize line of sight



6.1.1.3.1.2 Interactions with Infrastructure

Teck strives to avoid all human-wildlife interactions, including interactions between wildlife and our facilities, equipment, and the materials we use as part of our day to day operations. Teck has committed to the following mitigations to reduce effects on wildlife from interactions with infrastructure:

• create fuel and chemical spill contingency and response plans

• confirm adequate spill protection for all fuel storage facilities

• monitor and maintain waste disposal sites, wastewater storage areas and runoff control structures to prevent contamination of surface waters

• during overburden dewatering, intermittently backslope the sides of drainage ditches to allow for wildlife crossings and to reduce the potential for entrapment

6.1.1.3.2 Hunter Access

Increased access provided by roadways linear features combined with a higher human presence (i.e., because of Project work force) can result in an increase in hunting pressure within the Project area. However, under the current Project plans, there is limited potential for the Project to contribute to measurable increases in hunting pressure in the area. Any new roads to be developed by the Project outside of the PDA to facilitate traditional use of the region will be done in consultation with Indigenous communities to restrict and manage public access in the area.

Efforts to reduce hunter access will focus on reducing hunting activity in the Project area. To avoid an increase in bison harvest pressure, Teck will maintain a hunting prohibition within their lease area for all Project staff and contractors while working or staying in the Project lodge. Non aboriginal hunting of the Ronald Lake bison herd is currently prohibited under the Wildlife Act (Wildlife Regulation, Alberta Regulation 143/97). Teck will work closely with AEP to report any observed incidents of non-aboriginal hunting. Final closure plans will also limit access in the area to restricted travel roads needed for on-going monitoring activities (e.g., groundwater intercept wells). Restoration, or deactivation of linear features, is assumed to reduce wolf/predator travel rates to more natural levels of movement in the landscape. Teck has committed to the following mitigations to reduce hunter access:

• Construct predator access blocks to deter predator use (i.e., reduce line of sight) on linear features in the PDA that may leave core bison areas susceptible to predation.

• Deactivate roads in the PDA no longer in use.

• Implement employee / contractor policies to prohibit hunting within the Project area.

• Reduce linear features in the closure landscape.

• Reduce width of linear features in the closure landscape.

6.1.1.3.3 The Risk of Disease Transmission to the Ronald Lake Bison Herd

The proposed Project is unlikely to cause the Ronald Lake bison herd to move north, outside its current range, and into closer contact with diseased bison in the Delta subpopulation in WBNP (see the response to JRP IR 7.4). As such, the Project is not predicted to increase the likelihood of disease transmission



between the diseased WBNP population and the disease-free Ronald Lake bison. However, the risk of disease transmission currently is high, despite the fact that the disease-free Ronald Lake bison herd and the diseased Delta subpopulation in WBNP appear to have not interacted to date. The existing high risk is attributed to documented bison use of areas close to the Peace-Athabasca Delta (PAD) (see response to JRP AIR 7.5 [c]) and no evidence of a physical barrier that limits northern movement of the Ronald Lake bison herd.

Teck has committed to the following mitigations to reduce the likelihood of disease transmission as a result of Ronald Lake bison moving north into closer contact with the diseased WBNP bison herds:

• implement progressive reclamation in the PDA to create suitable Ronald Lake bison habitat and reduce the potential of shifting habitat use northward

• mitigations associated with reducing hunter and predator access

• mitigations associated with reducing wildlife human conflict

• mitigations associated with reducing indirect habitat loss

6.2 Discussion of Possible Mitigations

Measures to mitigate effects on Ronal Lake bison that are within Teck’s authority to implement have been identified in the preceding section. Although Teck does not have the authority to implement certain measures, we share an interest in maintaining the disease-free status of the Ronald Lake bison herd and, therefore, hope to contribute to the efforts of the responsible authorities: AEP and PCA. Below we have highlighted possible mitigations to reduce effects to which the proposed Project may contribute but that we do not have the authority to implement independently. These possible mitigations should be reviewed alongside Attachment II, as they are linked to various mitigation measures discussed therein. These possible mitigations should be considered potential options only, until such time Teck understands how best to meaningfully contribute.

Managing Habitat Loss or Degradation

• Identify potential habitat enhancement opportunities using prescribed burning and forestry operations.

• Where guidelines for Key Wildlife Biodiversity Zones cannot be met, bison distribution could be monitored and plotted against planned activities, to avoid bison/human interactions in Key Wildlife Biodiversity Zones.

• Protect bison from hunting disturbance in areas of industry activities to permit habituation to human activities in these areas.

• Notify operators and the public about wildlife harassment regulations and enforce such regulations to prevent aircraft from circling bison at low levels (e.g., below 300 m) and ground vehicles from chasing or closely approaching bison (e.g., to within 1 km). Existing regulations might have to be revised to specify prohibitions.

• Develop public awareness about updated regulations under the Wildlife Act (Wildlife Regulation, Alberta Regulation 143/97) that prohibit non-aboriginal hunting of the Ronald Lake bison herd.



• Develop public awareness and industry safety instruments.

Managing Hunting Mortality

• Develop a management plan that includes population size, structure and sustainable harvest objectives.

• Co-management of hunting by Indigenous people. This would necessarily require the involvement of Indigenous communities in developing and agreeing to implement a plan. Monitoring health (age, sex, and condition) of harvested bison would be a key component of a management plan that would allow managers to understand sustainability of the harvest.

Managing Disease

• Continue to assess biophysical factors influencing risk of contact between the Ronald Lake and WBNP bison to inform surveillance and risk management strategies.

MONITORING PROGRAM

7.1 Summary of Bison Monitoring Program

A monitoring program has been developed to measure the effectiveness of mitigation in reducing changes in Ronald Lake bison habitat, landscape connectivity and mortality risk (see Table 7.5-2). The monitoring program is discussed in detail in Section 7.1.1. Possible additional monitoring that Teck is willing to support but that would require the involvement of other entities, such as the Government of Alberta and/or Parks Canada Agency (PCA), is discussed in Section 7.2.

Goal 2: Monitor effectiveness of mitigation designed to reduce direct and indirect habitat loss and changes in landscape connectivity and mortality risk.

• Objective 2a: Document bison recolonization of reclaimed habitats to understand the effectiveness of progressive reclamation.

• Objective 2b: Document bison occurrence, distribution and abundance in lands adjacent to the mine site to understand the effectiveness of minimizing sensory disturbance.

• Objective 2c: Document bison use of wildlife underpasses to understand the effectiveness in maintaining landscape connectivity.

• Objective 2d: Conduct compliance audits to confirm that mitigation to limit changes in mortality risk are implemented as planned.

• Objective 2e: Investigate the cause of bison mortality, if any, as a result of contact with Project infrastructure or vehicles.



Table 7.5-2: Monitoring Program Overview

Potential Project Effects

Mitigation Objectives Mitigation Monitoring Indicator or Metric


Reduce direct habitat loss

• Monitor bison use within reclaimed habitats, and compare with comparable control areas outside the PDA.

• Bison relative abundance in monitoring plots.

Reduce indirect habitat loss

• Monitor bison use in habitat adjacent to the PDA prior to and during construction and operations.


Change in landscape connectivity

Reduce change to landscape connectivity

• Monitor bison use at bridge underpasses under both sides of the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island, as well as wildlife use in area between Athabasca River and the PDA north and south of the bridge, prior to and during construction and operations.

• Bison relative abundance in monitoring sites.

• Monitor bison use within reclaimed habitats, and compare with comparable control areas outside the PDA.



Reduce vehicle–wildlife collisions

• Compliance audit. • Record and investigate interactions.

• Number of equipment-bison interactions (i.e., mortalities).

Reduce effects on wildlife from interactions with infrastructure


• Number and type of compliance violations.

• Number of bison interactions with infrastructure.

Reduce wildlife–human conflicts


• Number and type of compliance violations.

• Number of reported human-bison conflicts or interactions.

• Number of nuisance bison removed from the Project site.

Reduce hunter access

• Compliance audit of employee/contractor policies. • Number of bison hunting violations by Project staff.

• Number of bison hunters using bridge to west side of the Athabasca River.

• Regional initiatives (see Attachment II). -

Reduce disease transmission to the Ronald Lake bison herd

• See monitoring associated with reducing direct habitat loss, indirect habitat loss, bison-vehicle and infrastructure.

-

• Regional initiatives (see Attachment II). -

NOTE: - = Not applicable.



7.1.1 Discussion of Bison Monitoring Program

Proposed mitigation and monitoring actions are organized by potential Project effects (see Table 7.5-2). The following subsections represent mitigation objectives and the monitoring designed to determine whether or not the mitigation is effective.

7.1.1.1 Reduce Direct Habitat Loss

The primary means of mitigating direct Project effects on habitat availability will be through progressive reclamation of the PDA with forest vegetation and wetland areas. Teck will monitor bison use of reclaimed habitats to determine the effectiveness of reclamation. The composition and relative abundance of bison will be monitored in reclaimed and comparable natural habitats. The study design will incorporate the following details:

• Reclaimed habitat plots will be established within the various targeted ecosites and wetland classes across the PDA, as per the closure, conservation and reclamation plan (see Volume 1, Section 13 of the Project Update).

• Control (or reference) plots outside of the PDA will be established in similar ecosites and wetland classes with moisture and nutrient regimes and vegetative composition that are comparable to those reclaimed site types within the PDA. The control sites will be established in undisturbed settings within the vegetation and wildlife RSA to the degree possible to reduce the number of factors influencing wildlife occurrence in these areas. The numbers, locations and sizes of monitoring plots will be finalized as mine planning becomes more defined and after further consultation Indigenous communities and regulatory agencies.

• For the first 15- to 20-years after the commencement of reclamation, habitat conditions within reclaimed sites will be in early structural /successional conditions, and any control sites established to provide reference levels of wildlife use will need to be in similar early successional conditions. It is difficult to predict the availability of such sites in the vegetation and wildlife RSA in 20+ years, as they are the result of logging or fire activity. The Richardson fire of 2011, which covered a portion of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, currently provides such early successional conditions and control sites could be established within the burn to provide reference data on wildlife use of such areas.

• Control plots for the region could be undertaken by the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Program (JOSM) or a provincial monitoring program and optimized to complement reclaimed habitat plots undertaken by industry, and vice-versa.

• Currently, the CC&R plan (see Volume 1, Section 13 of the Project Update) indicates that progressive reclamation will not meaningfully commence until 2034, with the lower slopes of an overburden disposal area being the reclamation focus at this time. The commencement of bison monitoring within the PDA will be dependent on the rate of vegetation establishment on the reclaimed areas, and the proximity of the reclaimed site to mine activities which might prevent wildlife usage of the area. Therefore, Teck does not anticipate this component of the bison monitoring program to commence before 2038 to 2040.

• Field methods similar to those implemented by Hawkes and Tuttle (2011) will be used for early succession monitoring. Plots will be sampled using a standardized experimental unit; each plot will consist of a 500 m long snow‐track transect, a 100 m2 small mammal sampling grid, and two



75 m variable‐radius point count stations situated at each end of the 500 m transect. This design will be used to confirm that bison data within a given reclamation plot could be attributed to a given suite of reclamation plot characteristics.

• Field methods for monitoring in older stands will be similar to those used for baseline data collection for the environmental impact assessment (EIA) (see Project Update, Volume 2, Section 9.2). Bison survey methods might include wildlife cameras and winter track counts.

7.1.1.2 Reduce Indirect Habitat Loss

The primary means of mitigating indirect Project effects on habitat availability is to implement strategies to reduce noise and light effects, including design considerations (e.g., Frontier Project plant site engineering) and limiting access to identified areas of high-quality habitat adjacent to Project footprint. Teck will monitor wildlife use adjacent to the PDA (within the Project oil sand leases) where the highest sensory disturbance effects are predicted and where mitigation can be implemented, in order to determine mitigation effectiveness. As discussed in the introduction to Section 7.1, Teck will seek opportunities to optimize Project specific monitoring programs in consideration of programs undertaken by JOSM.

The composition and relative abundance of bison will be monitored in undisturbed plots within the zone of influence (ZOI) and comparable natural habitats to evaluate the effects of sensory disturbance. The study design will incorporate the following details:

• “Impact” plots will be established within progressively wider ZOIs in natural habitat conditions immediately adjacent to a variety of different mine operational features where noise and light mitigation measures can be implemented where there is the greatest likelihood of seeing the effect and where changes can be made to reduce potential effects (e.g., close to the plant and aerodrome). Control plots outside of the PDA will be established in similar habitats. The numbers, locations and sizes of monitoring plots, and the frequency and duration of the monitoring program, will be finalized as mine planning becomes more defined and after further consultation Indigenous communities and regulatory agencies.

• Monitoring will commence once the proposed mine features are operational.

• Survey methods might include wildlife cameras and/or winter track counts.

7.1.1.3 Reduce Change to Landscape Connectivity

The primary means of mitigating changes to landscape connectivity is to carry out progressive reclamation to restore habitat used for movement as portions of the mine footprint become available. A secondary mitigation to reduce changes to landscape connectivity is to provide wildlife passage under both sides of the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island. Teck will monitor bison use of reclaimed areas and bridge underpasses to determine mitigation effectiveness. As part of the monitoring of the bridge, Teck is also planning to monitor wildlife use between the PDA and the Athabasca River within Teck’s oil sands leases.

7.1.1.3.1 Monitor Wildlife Use of Bridge Underpasses and along Athabasca River within Teck’s Oil Sands Leases

A monitoring program will be designed to measure the effectiveness of the wildlife passage under both the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island to allow north–south bison



movement along river banks. The monitoring focus would be the access road corridor at and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed crossing structure.

The monitoring program for the Athabasca River bridge will focus on bison use at the bridge underpasses and surrounding area along the Athabasca River valley using remote cameras. Evidence of bison use in the underpass will be determined using remote cameras in a Before After Control Impact (BACI) design. Teck anticipates that the monitoring program would start following project initiation and prior to clearing.

The relative abundance of bison will also be monitored in undisturbed natural habitats north and south of the bridge underpasses to measure mitigation effectiveness of the underpasses. Sampling locations focused on established game trails or low hindrance movement areas will be added to the study design. To maximize efficiency in field logistics and sampling effort, sampling plot locations might partially overlap with those established for monitoring direct and indirect habitat effects (e.g., control plots) discussed in Section 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 above. Opportunities would also be sought to optimize Project specific monitoring programs in consideration of programs undertaken by COSIA and JOSM (see Section 7.1). Monitoring of wildlife use (and movement) would commence prior to construction to determine baseline wildlife movement and use.

7.1.1.3.2 Monitor Wildlife Movement Across Reclaimed Habitats

The relative abundance of bison will be monitored in reclaimed and comparable natural habitats, as described in Section 7.2.1.2, to determine the effectiveness of reclamation in facilitating bison movement through the vegetation and wildlife RSA. As reclaimed areas age and offer patches of increased security cover they will become available to wildlife for across mine movements. Teck anticipates that this will occur in the post-closure period, as the sequencing of progressive reclamation in the current conceptual CC&R plan (see Volume 1, Section 13, Figures 13.5-7a and 13.5-7b of the Project Update) has not been designed to develop a defined movement corridor across the PDA during the operational life of the mine. The ability and willingness of bison to move across the closure landscape will largely be interpreted from the wildlife metrics collected on the reclaimed treatment plots discussed in Section 7.2.1.2.

7.1.1.4 Reduce Mortality Risk

The primary means of mitigating mortality risk is to limit direct habitat loss (see Section 7.2.1.1), as well as a collection of measures to limit human-wildlife interactions. Teck will conduct compliance audits to confirm these measures are implemented. Additionally, Teck will investigate any Teck-related wildlife mortalities to adapt mitigation measures as required (see Section 8 for more information).

7.1.1.5 Compliance Audit

A bison mitigation audit will be conducted annually to confirm that the mitigation measures are conducted as planned.

7.1.1.6 Record and Investigate Interactions

Commencing with Project development activities and continuing throughout the life of the mine, monitoring efforts would be restricted to the active mine footprint and along the access road and transmission lines leading to the site from the Athabasca River. Where animal mortalities are recorded, an investigation will be conducted into the circumstances leading to the event, and whether adjustments to operational protocols or mitigation designs are required (see Section 8 for more information).



7.2 Discussion of Possible Monitoring

Bison monitoring that is within the scope of the Project has been identified in the preceding section. Below we have highlighted possible monitoring that is outside the scope of the Project and/or Teck’s authority to implement independently. The possible monitoring should be reviewed alongside Attachment II, as it is linked to various mitigation measures and/or monitoring programs discussed therein. The possible monitoring should be considered potential options only, until such time Teck understands how best to meaningfully contribute.

• support for government programs, including iridium collars, aerial bison surveillance and aerial bison census

• support a monitoring study by PCA on the Delta wood bison subpopulation in WBNP, which would tie in to aerial surveillance and disease risk management of the Ronald Lake bison herd.

• camera program to monitor bison activity along likely movement routes

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Adaptive management is a systematic process for continually improving management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of operational programs. Its most effective form – "active" adaptive management – employs management programs that are designed to experimentally compare selected policies or practices by evaluating alternative hypotheses about the system being managed (BCMFR 2011). However, not all situations require active adaptive management.

• Active adaptive management is best applied when it is difficult to identify best practices, because of uncertainty, but prospects for reducing uncertainties appear good. Active adaptive management involves comparing selected practices using scientific experiments, monitoring the outcomes and adjusting the direction of practices in light of what the experiments reveal.

• Passive adaptive management is best applied when best practices are known (e.g., through collective experience, science), but opportunities to better predict the environmental performance of the practices are available through monitoring and opportunities to refine or “adapt” the best

Goal 3: Adapt mitigation designed to reduce changes in bison habitat, landscape connectivity and mortality risk, as necessary, based on monitoring outcomes.

• Objective 3a: Adapt mitigation if bison recolonization of reclaimed habitats are not meeting targets.

• Objective 3b: Adapt mitigation to reduce sensory disturbance, as appropriate and possible, based on monitoring outcomes.

• Objective 3c: Adapt mitigation if bison are not using underpasses as predicted.

• Objective 3d: Adapt mitigation if bison mortality as a result of contact with Project infrastructure or vehicles is not meeting targets.



practices are available. Passive adaptive management does not rely on deliberate experimental comparison of two or more selected practices.

• The simplest form of adaptive management emphasizes Teck’s aspiration to continually improve environmental performance. Teck’s continual improvement process is well described by the Shewhart Cycle: Plan-Do-Check-Act, or “Adapt”. This process is not as formal as active or passive adaptive management but is perhaps the most pervasive at Teck operations.

The level of adaptive management rigor is determined based on an assessment of:

• uncertainty and its effect on our ability to determine the best practices to employ

• the likelihood of reducing uncertainty, and determining the best practices to employ, through an adaptive management program

• the ability to change best practices based on the outcome of the adaptive management program; adaptive management cannot help when there is no way to change practices

Teck’s adaptive management program is organized into four main components (see Figure 7.5-2).

1. Define the Problem – Includes an assessment of the uncertainty associated with the mitigation effectiveness, the likelihood that the uncertainty can by reduced and/or, the opportunities to refine or “adapt” the best practices.

2. Design the Adaptive Management Process – Based on the problem defined in point 1, the adaptive management program can be designed, starting with determining the best approach to adaptive management (active, passive or Plan-Do-Check-Act). Considerations for design of the program include: data analysis methods and frequency, predicted trajectories for indicators, triggers for action, and potential adaptations.

3. Implement the Mitigation, Monitor its Effectiveness and Evaluate the Effectiveness – Once the Project development begins and the mitigation is in place, effectiveness monitoring will commence and observed trends will be compared to predicted trajectories. A sequence of actions is triggered if monitoring data indicate that environmental performance is poorer than predicted.

4. Adjust the Mitigation as Required – If adjustments to mitigation are required, a work plan will be followed. Any required notifications and / or approvals will be obtained before acting to confirm that all interested/affected parties are well informed.



Figure 7.5-2: Teck Adaptive Management Process

Establish prediCted trajectory for potential effecl

Ad u th M

lncti~tor of Mib!lation Ellectiven~!>S

Evaluate data trends ayain51 predicled trajectories

ACIUal data ll!!nd AJ:tuaJ Cla'.9 trerdll'll under

~,_d"'<1d b"<liltCill<)'

A.aUBid411t l t,.nding~r

P<edictod tr;o;_.ectol'l'



8.1 Define the Problem

To reduce Project effects on bison, Teck has identified effects pathways, applied mitigation to reduce the effects, assessed residual effects and identified that biodiversity offsets (see the response to JRP IR 7.15) are appropriate for residual effects. Teck is confident that best practices to reduce Project effects have been identified. Nonetheless, some opportunities to refine or “adapt” the best practices are apparent, as discussed below.

• The majority of mitigation measures proposed for the Project, particularly those related to reducing mortality risk to bison, are effective with little inherent uncertainty; they are accepted, standard industry practices. Teck is confident that best practices to reduce such Project effects have been identified in most cases and that mitigation effectiveness monitoring is likely to reveal only minor refinements to these best practices, if any. The mitigation measures are easily modified, if required.

• Mitigation to reduce changes to landscape connectivity are limited, particularly for a development the size of the Project; therefore, they cannot be meaningfully incorporated into an adaptive management framework, except for the wildlife crossing under the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island.

• Mitigation to reduce indirect loss of habitat (i.e., sensory disturbance due to light and/or noise) are limited, particularly for a large mining operation such as the Project. For example, while specifications for limiting noise and light from some operating equipment are available, there is little ability to control cumulative levels from open pit operations or large processing plants. Therefore, they cannot be meaningfully incorporated into an adaptive management framework, except for mitigation to reduce sensory disturbance associated with the plant site or aerodrome (e.g., changes in lighting or planes used).

• Progressive reclamation can be effectively monitored and adapted based on monitoring outcomes; therefore, the likelihood of reducing the uncertainty in the effectiveness of reclamation is high.

As well, technical work conducted under the direction of the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team might provide information that will help to refine mitigation measures. For example, the on-going research by the University of Alberta will provide additional data regarding:

• understanding use of naturally disturbed forests which will improve our understanding of bison use of early seral stages after reclamation

• effects of anthropogenic disturbance (e.g., noise, light, human presence) will provide an understanding of the potential effects of mine-related disturbance adjacent to reclamation sites on bison use of reclaimed sites

• the use of naturally disturbed forests and the effect of anthropogenic disturbance on bison will provide guidance for site–specific reclamation standards for the bridge passageways to improve performance should that be required

This information will become available at various times between 2017 and 2020 as parts of the research program being carried out by the University of Alberta are completed. Results will be incorporated into this plan as they become available.



8.2 Design the Adaptive Management Process

A Plan-Do-Check-Act adaptive management approach, as opposed to passive or active adaptive management, is appropriate for the mitigation measures listed in Table 7.5-3 primarily because:

• The mitigation measures listed in Table 7.5-3 are accepted, standard industry practices with little inherent uncertainty, are effective and are easily modified if required.

• The qualitative measurements associated with effectiveness monitoring of the mitigation measures listed in Table 7.5-3 feed into Teck’s most simple and most common form of adaptive management.

• We are confident that best practices to reduce such Project effects have been identified in most cases and that mitigation effectiveness monitoring is unlikely to indicate the need for major refinements to these best practices.

A passive adaptive management approach, as opposed to Plan-Do-Check-Act or active, is appropriate for the mitigation measures listed in Table 7.5-4 primarily because greater uncertainty exists in the effectiveness of the mitigation but the likelihood of reducing this uncertainty is high through monitoring and refinement of the mitigation based on monitoring outcomes. The adaptive management program for these mitigation measures is the focus throughout the remainder of Section 8. The process for adaptive management includes the following components, which are discussed in more detail in the following subsections:

• monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and evaluate monitoring results to determine if adaptations are warranted

• if adaptations are warranted, develop a plan of action to identify the best adaptations and to implement them

• execute the plan of action and adapt mitigation measures



Table 7.5-3: Adaptive Management Program – Plan-Do-Check-Act


Mitigation Objectives Mitigation Adaptations to Mitigation


Reduce direct habitat loss

• Limit the size of the east side access road ROW and temporary workspace to the extent practical.

• Limit the Athabasca River bridge footprint in riparian areas. • Develop a weed management plan.

• Access road and bridge footprint size to be finalized prior to commencement of construction. Options for modifying footprint size after construction are limited to progressive closure and reclamation of temporary workspace in areas of high quality habitat.

Reduce indirect habitat loss

• Limit access to identified areas of high-quality habitat adjacent to the Project footprint.

• Access requirements adjacent to the PDA to be finalized prior to commencement of construction. Should roads conflict with high occupancy habitats, road closures and re-routes are an adaptive option.


Reduce bison-human interactions - vehicle–bison collisions

• Implement fly-in/fly-out policy for workers to reduce vehicular traffic volume.

• Erect wildlife cautionary signage on access roads. • Foster environmental awareness with speed restrictions on

access roads report Project-related wildlife fatalities. • Provide vegetation maintenance at roadsides (vegetation will

be trimmed regularly to discourage roadside foraging and prevent visual obstruction of wildlife).

• Develop seed mixes for roadside reclamation from less palatable species to reduce wildlife attraction to road edges.

• Design the road to maximize line of sight.

• Mitigation measures proposed for reducing vehicle/wildlife collisions are accepted, standard industry practices with little inherent uncertainty. All mitigation measures can be evaluated based on the documentation of adverse interactions (i.e., deaths, injuries) or near misses between wildlife and vehicles, which would then inform ongoing operational policies on how to better manage and prevent such events. All mitigation measures are easily modified, if required.

Reduce bison-human interactions - interactions with infrastructure

• Create fuel and chemical spill contingency and response plans.

• Confirm adequate spill protection for all fuel storage facilities. • Monitor and maintain waste disposal sites, wastewater storage

areas and runoff control structures to prevent contamination of surface waters.

• During overburden dewatering, intermittently backslope the sides of drainage ditches to allow for wildlife crossings and to reduce the potential for entrapment.

• Mitigation measures proposed for reducing infrastructure/wildlife interactions are accepted, standard industry practices with little inherent uncertainty. All mitigation measures can be evaluated based on the documentation of adverse interactions (i.e., deaths, injuries) or near misses between wildlife and infrastructure, which would then inform ongoing operational policies on how to better manage and prevent such events. All mitigations are easily modified, if required.

Reduce the risk of disease transmission to the Ronald Lake bison herd

• Implement progressive reclamation in the PDA to create suitable Ronald Lake bison habitat and reduce the potential of shifting habitat use northward.

• Mitigation associated with reducing indirect habitat loss. • Mitigation associated with reducing wildlife human conflict. • Mitigation associated with reducing hunter and predator

access.

• See options for adaptations for reducing direct habitat loss, indirect habitat loss, hunter and predator access, bison-vehicle and infrastructure interactions.



Table 7.5-4: Adaptive Management Program – Active / Passive

Mitigation Warranting Adaptive Management

Uncertainty that might necessitate Adaptive

Management Metrics of Mitigation

Effectiveness Threshold or Target Triggering

Adaptive Management Options for Adaptations to

Mitigation

Carry out progressive reclamation to reclaim disturbed bison habitat as portions of the mine footprint become available

While considerable advances have been made in the last two decades on landform, soil and revegetation prescriptions for mine closure landscapes, quantitative information on wildlife usage of closure landscapes is limited. Adaptive management practices are required to further evaluate reclamation success from a wildlife perspective and to inform future reclamation practices.

Bison usage of reclaimed, closure landscape would be evaluated based on bison relative abundance, as measured by: • wildlife cameras and/or • winter track counts

Evaluating the success of reclamation and associated bison use of the PDA will require direct comparisons of bison metrics between reclaimed habitats and comparable natural habitat conditions (i.e., control sites) situated outside of the PDA and outside of ZOIs surrounding the PDA. Performance thresholds or milestones for identifying the need for adaptive management measures will be based on the metrics being recorded in the control sites.

• Early reclamation (2034 to 2040) on the lower slopes of EDA 2 will provide opportunities to evaluate the effectiveness of soil and habitat reconstruction, and the degree of bison use of these areas mid-way through the life of the mine. Learnings from these areas will be used to adapt soil and revegetation prescriptions, if necessary, for future reclamation areas to improve wildlife values.

• Should wetland reclamation not meet performance targets, the following adaptations could be implemented as deemed appropriate: • manage water levels

to stabilize wetland function, vegetation recovery

• stabilize shorelines (e.g., live planting, rip-rap)

• Increase flow rates to dilute/flush salts,

• Benthic invertebrate seeding

• additional planting programs to supplement existing vegetation

• Should reclaimed wetlands prove to be less suitable for bison than natural wetlands, the need for offsets will be addressed through our biodiversity management plan.



Table 7.5-4: Adaptive Management Program – Active / Passive (continued) Mitigation Warranting Adaptive

Management Uncertainty that might necessitate Adaptive

Management Metrics of Mitigation

Effectiveness Threshold or Target Triggering

Adaptive Management Options for Adaptations to

Mitigation

Design plant site and aerodrome to reduce noise and light levels on wildlife use, within approved safety limits

There are numerous studies examining the effects of both noise and light from industrial activities and facilities on wildlife; however, the response of wildlife to facilities and aerodromes is limited in the oil sands region.

Bison use of habitat affected by sensory disturbance from the plant site and aerodrome would be evaluated based on relative abundance, as measured by: • wildlife cameras

Evaluating the need for adaptive management measures will require direct comparisons of wildlife metrics between sensory-affected habitats and comparable natural habitat conditions (i.e., control sites) situated outside of ZOIs surrounding the PDA. Performance thresholds or milestones for identifying the need for adaptive management measures will be based on the metrics being recorded in the control sites.

Mitigation measures that have been proposed to reduce sensory disturbance include: • evaluate additional design

considerations for the plant site or aerodrome

• evaluate different lighting options and orientations

• evaluate different plane options for transporting workers to site

Provide wildlife passage under both sides of the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island to allow north–south wildlife movement along river banks

There is an extensive volume of literature on the types and effectiveness of crossing structures for wildlife associated with roads, bridges, and above-ground pipelines. However, the willingness of bison to utilize such structures is dependent on a number of factors, including: • the degree to which the linear

development in question is physically impeding wildlife movement across the ROW

• human activity levels along the linear development,

• availability of vegetative cover adjacent to and leading up to the crossing structure

• the wildlife species involved These dependencies introduce a level of uncertainty around the effectiveness of crossing structures, and adaptive management practices are required to further evaluate crossing success, and identify design modifications during operations, if necessary.

The effectiveness of crossing structures would be evaluated based on bison responses to the bridge/roads in question. Responses would be categorized as: • direct crossing of

road/bridge ROW using crossing structure

• direct crossing road/bridge ROW not using crossing structure

• deflected movement along the road/bridge ROW before using crossing structure

• deflected movement along and then across the road/bridge ROW, without using crossing structure

• failed crossing of road/bridge

Wildlife responses to the road/bridge ROW would be captured and categorized from: • wildlife cameras • winter track counts

Performance thresholds for identifying the need for adaptive management measures will be based on the proportion of successful versus unsuccessful crossings of the road/bridge in the monitoring locations.

Mitigation measures that have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of the crossing structures include: • set up educational signage

to limit human use of wildlife underpasses

• evaluate wing fencing along the approach to crossing passages (at least 2.4 m high for large mammals as per GOA 2011) as part of the crossing structure design

• provide appropriate walking substrate along the wildlife underpass

• create vegetated buffers adjacent to wildlife underpasses

All mitigation measures are easily modified if required, to improve crossing success.



8.2.1 Identify Indicators, Trajectories and Triggers

Mitigation objectives, metrics of effectiveness, and targets have been defined in Table 7.5-4. To design the adaptive management process, Teck will develop a desired trajectory or performance objectives through time for each wildlife metric (e.g., species composition and abundance), as described below, so that trends observed through monitoring can be evaluated against desired objectives. The desired performance objectives can be used to define a trigger to indicate when observed wildlife metrics vary significantly from the objectives.

• To evaluate bison use of reclaimed habitats, bison use trajectories and associated management triggers would be developed from baseline reference data collected on control sites in undisturbed habitats outside of the PDA. If the composition or relative abundance of bison in reclaimed areas are not approaching the values in natural habitats with similar site type conditions and structural stages, then management actions will be required.

• To evaluate effects of sensory disturbance from the plant site and aerodrome, bison use trajectories and associated management triggers would be developed from baseline reference data collected on control sites in undisturbed habitats outside of the PDA. If the composition or relative abundance of bison in ZOIs around the plant site and aerodrome are not similar to the values in natural habitats with similar site type conditions and structural stages, then management actions will be required.

• To evaluate bison use of underpasses, crossing structures performance would be based on observed bison responses to the bridge/roads in question. Responses would be categorized as described below. Management triggers would, in turn, be developed based on an acceptable level of crossing success by bison.

• direct crossing of road/bridge ROW using crossing structure

• direct crossing road/bridge ROW not using crossing structure

• deflected movement along the road/bridge ROW before using crossing structure

• deflected movement along and then across the road/bridge ROW, without using crossing structure

• failed crossing of road/bridge

8.3 Implement the Mitigation, Monitor its Effectiveness and Evaluate the Effectiveness

The schedule for implementing the mitigation, and subsequent monitoring, was discussed in the Section 7.2 and is summarized below for the reader’s convenience. Early monitoring data will be used at the end of each monitoring year to track environmental performance against the performance objectives to determine if any of the identified management actions are needed to bolster environmental performance. The monitoring data also will be used to verify predictions made in the EIA.

• Bison habitat reclamation is scheduled to commence in 2034 and associated monitoring between 2038 and 2040. The frequency of monitoring is yet to be determined.



• Wildlife crossing structures are scheduled to be in service prior to the initiation of Phase 1 of the Project, between 2019 and 2023 (see Volume 1, Section 12, Table 12.2-1 of the Project Update). Monitoring will commence as soon as feasible after the Project approval (e.g., 2018) to establish baseline conditions and will continue through construction and operations. Remote camera monitoring will be conducted continuously year round.

8.3.1 Plan of Action to Respond to Poorer than Predicted Environmental Performance

A sequence of actions is triggered if monitoring data indicate that environmental performance is poorer than predicted. Early in the sequence of actions are steps to distinguish observed trends from background levels, which might include and not be limited to increased monitoring effort. In other words, investigation of observed trends is required before mitigation is adjusted.

A sequence of actions is provided below using the effectiveness of the wildlife passages under the Athabasca River bridge as an example.

1. Verify the observed trend in bison movement under the Athabasca River bridge and investigate as required. a) Verify the observed trend.

• Check remote camera function and available photo data. Is a data/sampling error causing the observed trend? If yes then continue remote camera monitoring, if no then investigate the observed trend.

b) Investigate the observed trend. • Is the observed trend in use of the passageways significantly different from baseline

conditions and concurrent monitoring at reference sites? If no then continue monitoring, if yes then increase monitoring frequency, as required, considering the following potential steps:

Confirmation – Increase remote camera sites to confirm the observed trend. Can the trend be confirmed?

Extent and magnitude (Focused monitoring). Increase the number of cameras in approaches to the passageways to better understand bison use in areas adjacent to the passageways. What is the extent and magnitude of bison use in habitats adjacent to the passageways relative to baseline conditions and concurrent monitoring at reference sites?

• Update predicted trajectories, as required, in consideration of the most recent data collected. Triggers are based on predicted conditions and might require updating. Forecasts are based on our understanding of the data available at the time of the forecast. As data amasses through monitoring, updated trajectories and triggers might be warranted.

• Re-evaluate and update triggers, as required. 2. Identify, evaluate and implement solutions, as required.

a) Use the trajectory timeline and trend analysis to determine when mitigation should be adjusted.

b) Make decisions about mitigation options (i.e., update avoidance and mitigation measures and/or review additional mitigation options in light of monitoring results), for example:

• bison habitat enhancement in habitats adjacent to the passageways • clearing underbrush and select trees to create ‘trails’ to provide clear access routes

to the passageways



• use wildlife fencing to direct bison to the passageways c) Develop a work plan showing that mitigation options can be in place within the timeframe

determined in point a. d) Continue monitoring and implement work plan. e) Demonstrate whether or not the mitigation measures are effective in counterbalancing the

effects of the Project on bison movement relative to baseline conditions and concurrent monitoring at reference sites. If not, determine whether or not additional measures are required to increase bison use of the passageways.

8.4 Adjust the Mitigation as Required

In this component of the adaptive management plan, the work plan will be implemented. Any required notifications and/or approvals will be obtained before acting to confirm that all interested/affected parties are well informed. Section 6 of this plan will be updated to reflect the adapted mitigation for the Project.

IMPLEMENTATION

9.1 Roles and Responsibilities

The Roles and Responsibilities section will outline specific roles and responsibilities for Teck employees and contractors related to executing the plan.

9.2 Information Management and Reporting

Effective monitoring and record keeping is required to review the implementation of the plan, to measure the effectiveness of management and to develop and implement improvements as required. The Information Management and Reporting Section will outline how the monitoring results and adaptive management actions will be recorded, stored, tracked and made available to interested parties.

9.3 Change Management

The Change Management section will outline the process for changing any part of this plan. Changes might be required as part of ongoing adaptive management, or for other reasons. Any significant proposed amendments to the plan will be presented to interested parties before the plan is formally updated.

9.4 Communication Management

The Communication Management section will outline how findings of the program will be communicated to interested parties.



REFERENCES

AENV (Alberta Environment). 2010. Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, 2nd Edition. Prepared by the Terrestrial Subgroup of the Reclamation Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Fort McMurray, Alberta.

Ball, M.C., T.L. Fulton, and G.A. Wilson. 2016. Genetic analyses of wild bison in Alberta, Canada: implications for recovery and disease management. Journal of Mammalogy. DOI:10.1093/jmammal/gyw110.

BCFR (BC Ministry of Forests and Range). 2011. Defining adaptive management. Available at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/Admin/index.htm Accessed May 2017.

Boutin, S., H. Bohn, A. Droghini and C. de la Mare. 2015. Wildlife Habitat Effectiveness and Connectivity. Final Report August 2015. 107 pp.

Candler, C. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative. 2013a. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. Prepared on behalf of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.

Candler, C., R. Olsen and the Firelight Group Research. 2013b. Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited’s Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. Prepared on behalf of Mikisew Cree First Nation.

Candler, C., S. Leech, C. Whittaker and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative. 2015. Sakâw Mostos (Wood Bison): Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Study. Prepared for on behalf of Mikisew Cree First Nation.

CEAA Operational Policy Statement Follow-up Programs under the Canadian Environment Assessment Act. 2011.

Clevenger, A.P. and M.P. Huisjser. 2011. WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURE HANDBOOK Design and Evaluation in North America. Publication No. FHWA-CFL/TD-11-003. US Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. https://roadecology.ucdavis.edu/files/content/projects/DOT-FHWA_Wildlife_Crossing_Structures_Handbook.pdf.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Plains Bison Bison bison bison and the Wood Bison Bison bison athabascae in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xv + 109 pp.

DeMars, C.A., S.E. Nielsen and M.A. Edwards. 2016. Range Use, Habitat Selection and the Influence of Natural and Anthropogenic Disturbance on Wood Bison in the Ronald lake Area of Northeastern Alberta. Unpublished report prepared for the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team. 70 pp.

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2016. Recovery Strategy for the Wood Bison (Bison bison athabascae) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Ottawa. viii + 52 pp.



Fort McKay Sustainability Department & Integral Ecology Group. 2011. Traditional Land Use Study for the Teck and Silverbirch Frontier Project. Submitted to Teck and Silverbirch, 09 August 2011. 130 pp.

GOA (Government of Alberta). 2011. Managing Disease Risk in Alberta’s Wood Bison with a Special Focus on Bison to the West of Wood Buffalo National Park.10 pp.

GOA. 2014. Managing Disease Risk in Northern Alberta Wood Bison – Outside of Wood Buffalo National Park. 2013-2014 Progress report. September 2014. Downloaded 1 October 2015. http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-diseases/documents/ManagingBisonDiseaseWoodBuffalo-Sep2014.pdf .

Hawkes, V.C. and K.N. Tuttle. 2011. Early successional wildlife monitoring on reclaimed plots in the oil sands region. Year 1 2010–2011 annual report. LGL Report EA3248. Unpublished report by LGL Limited environmental research associates, Sidney, BC, for CEMA – The Reclamation Working Group (RWG), Fort McMurray, AB. 51 pp. + Appendices. (Contract 2010-0023).

Hayward, G.D. and R. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and northern Idaho. Condor 91: 476–479.

Mitchell, J.A. and C.C. Gates. 2002. Status of the wood bison in Alberta. ASRD Fish and Wildlife Div., and ACA. Wildlife Status Report #38. Edmonton, AB. 32 pp.

Parks Canada. 2017. State Party Report on the State Of Conservation of Wood Buffalo National Park World Heritage Site (Canada) In Response to: World Heritage Committee Decision 39 COM 7B.18. For Submission By: 1 April 2017.

Revised Statutes of Alberta (RSA). 2000. Wildlife Act. Current as of December 17, 2014. Office Consolidation. Alberta Queen’s Printer.

Syncrude (Syncrude Canada Ltd.). 2016. Bison herd grows with more than 50 new calves. http://www.syncrude.ca/our-news/featured-stories/2016/new-news-release-pbison-herd-grows-with-more-than-50-new-calvesage/.

Tan, T., S.E. Nielsen and M.A. Edwards. 2015. Ronald Lake Bison Summary Report. March 2013 – March 2014telemetry study. Unpublished report prepared for the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team. 58 pp.

Willow Springs (Willow Springs Strategic Solutions Inc.) 2014. Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935 Land Use and Occupancy Study: Teck Resources Ltd. – Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. 53 pp.



Attachment I Relevant Approvals



Attachment II Considerations for Parks Canada Agency and Alberta Environment and Parks



1. Introduction

As discussed in Section 1 of the draft Ronald Lake bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan, wood bison are federally listed as Threatened under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) because of small population sizes, restricted distribution, and threats from disease outbreaks (COSEWIC 2013) and are the subject of a proposed Recovery Strategy for the Wood Bison (Bison bison athabascae) in Canada (Recovery Strategy) (ECCC 2016). The Recovery Strategy recognizes that “The greatest threat to Wood Bison recovery is the presence of the exotic bovine diseases brucellosis and tuberculosis on the landscape, and the resultant management actions taken” (ECCC 2016). The short-term population and distribution objective of the proposed Recovery Strategy for the Wood Bison is to maintain the health status of all disease-free wood bison local2 populations within the original range of wood bison in Canada (ECCC 2016). Elimination (i.e., eradication) of the two diseases from infected herds in WBNP is identified in the proposed Recovery Strategy as necessary in the long-term.

Also discussed in Section 1 of the main document, the mitigation required to prevent the spread of disease is outside the authority of a proponent. PCA has the responsibility and authority to act on the Recovery Strategy for the Wood Bison by preventing the spread of brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis from diseased local populations in the greater WBNP area. The AEP also has the responsibility and authority to act on both the Wildlife Act (RSA 2000, c W-10) and the Recovery Strategy by developing a management plan, which includes management strategies (http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/). Regional wildlife biologists then use the plan to develop their specific strategies for their regions, which might include population inventories and the establishment of hunting regimes. Teck has the responsibility to reduce Project effects but does not have the authority to implement the mitigation necessary to address the risk of disease transmission.

This attachment has been developed by a group of bison experts (Martin Jalkotzy, John Nishi and Dr. Cormack Gates) to provide some of the information requested in JRP IR 7.5, including:

• the mitigation measures to prevent the Ronald Lake bison from contacting diseased bison in WBNP

• any mitigation measures for disease prevention that are not dependent on genetic differentiation or biophysical barriers

• the likelihood of success of these measures, how these measures would be monitored and additional adaptive management actions that could be taken if mitigation measures are not successful

• how the mitigation measures align with the proposed Recovery Strategy for the Wood Bison (Bison bison athabascae) in Canada (ECCC 2016)

Primarily, AEP and PCA have the authority to implement the mitigation measures identified to prevent the Ronald Lake bison from contacting diseased bison in WBNP. Therefore, the information provided here is

2 A local population is defined as a group of wood bison subject to similar factors affecting their demography and occurring in the same discrete geographic area (ECCC 2016).



not part of Teck’s draft Plan because the mitigation, monitoring and adaptations discussed are not within Teck’s authority to implement. Areas where Teck envisions participating, if empowered by governments to do so, are discussed in Section 6.2 of the main document.

2. Possible Mitigation

Table II-1 lists possible mitigation measures that might prevent disease introduction to the Ronald Lake bison herd and, therefore, meet the short-term population and distribution objective of the proposed Recovery Strategy to maintain the health status of local disease-free wood bison populations. The possible mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Section 2.1.

Table II-1: Mitigation Measures To Prevent The Ronald Lake Bison From Contacting Diseased Bison In Wood Buffalo National Park


Mitigation Objective Possible Mitigation


Reduce risk of disease transmission to the Ronald Lake bison herd

• Negotiate a Joint Management Framework and Actions. • Assess biophysical factors influencing risk of contact between Ronald Lake bison and

WBNP bison to inform surveillance and risk management strategies. • Construct a bison fence at the southern edge of the range of the diseased Delta

subunit in WBNP at a location that would not reduce the current size of the Ronald Lake bison herd range.

• Maintain available habitat above the resource requirements of the Ronald Lake bison herd (e.g., density remains below 0.5 bison/ km2 of winter foraging habitat).

2.1 Discussion of Possible Mitigation

The possible mitigation measures listed in Table II-1 are discussed in the following subsections, along with examples where the management actions have been effective elsewhere.

2.1.1 Negotiate a Joint Management Framework and Actions

From 2003 to 2004, an intergovernmental committee was established by PCA and Deputy Ministers of three separate Alberta government departments to develop risk mitigation options to reduce the risk of transmission of tuberculosis and brucellosis from diseased bison in and around WBNP to livestock and free-ranging bison; the options were summarized in a technical report (see Nishi et al. 2006).

Recently, PCA (PCA 2017) has indicated that:

The governments of Canada, Alberta and the Northwest Territories are committed to work with Indigenous groups to support recovery of the Wood Bison, including the identification, development and implementation of preferred disease management options with the dual long-term objective of removing the risk to the livestock sector.

Cooperation through a Joint Management Framework can increase the efficiency and effectiveness over acting alone. The Recovery Strategy acknowledges that it depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies.



2.1.2 Assess Biophysical Factors to Inform Surveillance and Risk Management Strategies

Assessments of risk of contact between diseased and non-diseased sub-populations have been conducted in the past:

• Animal Plant and Food Risk Analysis Network (APFRAN 1999) quantified the risk to cattle in the Fort Vermilion area, commercial captive bison herds in Alberta and North East British Columbia, and disease-free, free-ranging bison herds (Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary and Hay Zama herd).

• Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA 2016) quantified the risk of the transfer of bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis to cattle from bison of WBNP and area.

• Gates et al. (2001), Gates and Wierchowski (2003), and Chen and Morley (2005) have presented landscape modelling of bison movements. Disease Surveillance and Risk Reduction East of Highway 35 (GOA 2014) has been informed by Gates et al. (2001), which identified several routes that bison would likely use to move west.

• Responses to JRP IR 7.4(a) and 7.5(a) provide an assessment of radio collared bison movement and habitat composition at the northern edge of the Ronald Lake herd range. The response to JRP IR 7.5(c) provides an analysis of the existing risks of contact between the existing Ronald Lake herd range and diseased bison in the Delta subunit of the WBNP bison herd.

Similar or updated analyses could be conducted for the Ronald Lake herd using the bison radio telemetry database to create a movement-specific habitat suitability model (i.e., resource–selection-function) which would provide a quantitative movement-specific habitat suitability model of the landscape between the existing Ronald Lake herd range and diseased bison in the Delta subunit of the WBNP bison herd.

2.1.3 Construct a Bison Fence

Construction of a bison fence at the southern edge of the range of the diseased Delta subunit in WBNP at a location that does not have detrimental effects on the Ronald Lake bison herd might substantially reduce the likelihood of diseased bison moving south and coming into contact with disease-free bison in the Ronald Lake bison herd. The 1988 Disease Task Force ‘Evaluation of Brucella and Tuberculosis in Bison in Northern Canada’ report indicated that a fence around WBNP has been considered.

A buck and pole fence design has been used in Yellowstone National Park to limit bison movement outside the park while at the same reducing the effects on the movements of other wildlife species (Scott 1992). Other types of wildlife fences have been erected in national parks, including 2.4 m high fences with a buried chainlike apron along the TransCanada Highway in Banff and Kootenay National Parks.

Building the fence, coupled with surveillance monitoring (see section Appendix II 3.1 for more information on surveillance), could be a bison management initiative between PCA and Indigenous groups.

2.1.4 Maintain Available Habitat Above the Resource Requirements of the Ronald Lake bison herd

Teck suggests that AEPs cooperative management plan should include:

1. Continued population assessment to assess the population size, distribution, population trends and herd composition.



2. Reviews of winter nutritional carrying capacity assessments will indicate the number of bison that can be sustained in winter without causing a downward trend in rangeland health (ASRD 2004).

3. Possible Monitoring Program

3.1 Summary of Possible Monitoring Program

A possible monitoring program has been developed to measure the effectiveness of mitigation identified in Attachment II, Section 2 in preventing the Ronald Lake bison from contacting diseased bison in WBNP (see Table II-2).

Table II-2: Possible Monitoring Program Overview


Mitigation Objectives Mitigation Monitoring Indicator or Metric Target


Reduce risk of disease transmission to the Ronald Lake bison herd - Assess biophysical factors influencing risk of contact between Ronald Lake bison and WBNP bison to inform surveillance and risk management strategies

Camera program to monitor bison activity along likely movement routes.

Camera detections of bison. Zero camera detections of bison.

Reduce risk of disease transmission to the Ronald Lake bison herd - Construct a bison fence at the southern edge of the range of the diseased Delta subunit in WBNP

Surveillance of the landscape between the diseased WBNP Delta subpopulation and the northern edge of the Ronald Lake bison herd in WBNP.

Incidence of bison in the landscape between the diseased WBNP Delta subpopulation and the northern edge of the Ronald Lake bison herd in WBNP.

Zero bison recorded in landscape between the diseased WBNP Delta subpopulation and the northern edge of the Ronald Lake bison herd in WBNP.

Disease-testing. Incidence of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis.

Zero incidence of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis in the Ronald Lake bison herd.

Reduce risk of disease transmission to the Ronald Lake bison herd - Maintain available habitat above the resource requirements of the Ronald Lake bison herd (e.g., density remains below 0.5 bison/ km2 of winter foraging habitat)

Annual mid-winter aerial bison census.

Bison/km2. Size of the herd meets target densities to reduce the likelihood of range expansion northward.

3.1.1 Discussion of Possible Monitoring Program

3.1.1.1 Risk Assessment - Camera Program to Monitor Bison Activity along Likely Movement Routes

In conjunction with the assessments of risk of contact between diseased and non-diseased sub-populations, as discussed in Section 2.1.2, identified movement routes could be monitored using a



network of remote motion-sensitive cameras to determine whether or not bison are moving along the routes. Results of the monitoring could inform bison fence planning as discussed in Section 2.1.3 as well as surveillance as discussed in Section 3.1.1.2.

3.1.1.2 Surveillance of the Landscape between the WBNP Delta Subpopulation and the Ronald Lake bison herd

As an alternative to, or in conjunction with, a camera program on potential movement routes as described in Attachment II Section 3.1.1.1, surveillance of the landscape between the diseased Delta subpopulation and the disease-free Ronald Lake herd range could inform bison fence planning. Once a fence is in place, surveillance could monitor fence effectiveness by detecting breaches.

The Northwest Territories (NWT) and Alberta currently undertake surveillance in a bison control zone between the MacKenzie Bison Sanctuary and WBNP and between the Hay Zama Herd and WBNP and the Wentzel Lake Herd (GOA 2014), respectively, so the methodology is well established. In Alberta (GOA 2014), regularly scheduled aerial surveys of the designated bison-free management zone are conducted in winter using a fixed-wing aircraft. Survey flights are conducted on previously-determined transects using GPS for navigation that provide 100% coverage of the bison-free management zone after fresh snow to aid in efficiently finding bison and their tracks. Surveys often involve local Indigenous monitors.

3.1.1.3 Iridium Collars for the WBNP Delta Subpopulation

As an alternative to, or in conjunction with, a camera program and surveillance of the landscape between the diseased Delta subpopulation and the disease-free Ronald Lake herd range, iridium collars put on bison could inform bison fence planning. Teck understands that PCA is considering a collaring program to inform a disease containment strategy.

Since 2013, 38 iridium collars have been put on bison (33 female, 5 male; DeMars et al. 2017) from the Ronald Lake bison herd. Through tracking, Teck has gained insight into bison movement see the response to JRP IRs 7.4 [a] and 7.5 [a]). The same understanding of movement by the WBNP Delta subpopulation is required to contain disease.

3.1.1.2 Annual Mid-winter Aerial Bison Census

Aerial surveys are used to assess the population size, distribution, population trends and herd composition (ASRD 2010). This information is used to determine priority areas for recovery actions, among other uses. Aerial surveys are used to monitor all species of ungulates in the Alberta (ASRD 2010). Mid-winter aerial bison surveys have been conducted periodically over the last 5 years to estimate the size and distribution of the Ronald Lake bison herd (GOA 2013, 2016; Powell and Morgan 2010).

AEP has published protocols to serve as a reference for biologists conducting aerial surveys for ungulates in Alberta (ASRD 2010). The methodology followed for the most recent Ronald Lake bison herd survey has been presented (GOA 2016) and could be replicated to allow for comparisons between surveys.

Additional population parameters should be collected to effectively manage the Ronald Lake bison herd. These could include calf production, neonatal mortality, yearling recruitment, and herd composition



statistics, as well as wolf densities. These parameters will be important to understand because they will provide insights into the trajectory of the herd and sustainable Indigenous harvest rates.

3.1.1.4 Disease Testing

Between 2010 and 2014, disease testing was carried out by the Government of Alberta on the Ronald Lake bison herd; 73 bison were tested (GOA 2014). A formal ongoing disease testing program is not currently in place. However, bison collared over the next two years as part of the University of Alberta Ronald Lake bison research program will be tested for disease.

Disease testing for bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis can be carried out on bison tissue, blood or hair samples collected from Ronald Lake bison or possibly from bison removed from the bison-free management zone. Samples might be acquired as part of continuing collaring capture operations, successful Indigenous hunting, bison removed from the bison-free management zone and if deemed necessary, bison collected lethally from the herd specifically for disease testing. Disease testing would follow standardized protocols used by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

4. Possible Adaptions to Mitigation

Adaptive management is a systematic process for continually improving management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of operational programs. Given that the mitigation measures discussed in this Attachment are not within Teck’s authority to implement, we have not developed a full adaptive management program, as was done for the mitigation measures that are within Teck’s authority to implement. Rather, we have provided a brief discussion on why mitigation might require adaptation as well as possible adaptations and how they could be implemented.

The key mitigation that might prevent disease introduction to the Ronald Lake bison herd are listed below. The actions to carry out these mitigation measures are common wildlife management practices that are used in Alberta and elsewhere to manage bison.

• Confirm available habitat continues to be above the resource requirements of the Ronald Lake bison herd (e.g., density remains below 0.5 bison/km2 of winter foraging habitat).

• Prescribe a bison-free management zone in an area between the Delta-subpopulation range in WBNP and the Ronald Lake bison herd range in Alberta and implement aerial and ground-based culling as well as prescribed open hunting zones for bison.

The mitigation measures will maintain the distribution and disease-free status of the Ronald Lake bison herd. However, should industrial pressures cause a range shift or no non-Indigenous hunting cause a population increase, these mitigation measures might have to be adapted.

4.1 Design the Adaptive Management Process

The adaptive management for these mitigation measures (see Table II-3) is the focus throughout the remainder of Section 4.



Table II-3 Possible Adaptive Management Program


Mitigation Objectives Mitigation Options for Adaptations to Mitigation


Reduce risk of disease transmission to the Ronald Lake bison herd

Maintain available habitat above the resource requirements of the Ronald Lake bison herd (e.g., density remains below 0.5 bison/ km2 of winter foraging habitat).

• Manage the population at a density not exceeding a defined winter density threshold.

• Conduct habitat enhancement within the range and/or within suitable habitats adjacent to the existing range.

• Consider habitat disturbance management thresholds.

Construct a bison fence at the southern edge of the range of the diseased Delta subunit in WBNP at a location that does not reduce the size of the current range of the Ronald Lake bison herd within the park.

• Prescribe a bison-free management zone between the Delta-subpopulation range and the Ronald Lake bison herd range in WBNP:

o Increase surveillance within bison-free zone

o If disease does spread from the WBNP herd to the Ronald Lake bison herd despite mitigation, depopulation in conjunction with captive-breeding and reintroduction

4.1.1 Maintain Available Habitat Above the Resource Requirements of the Ronald Lake bison herd

If the Ronald Lake bison herd grows in size, exceeds the carrying capacity of existing range, and begins to expand its range further into WBNP, the adaptations in the following subsections could be implemented.

4.1.1.1 Manage the Population at a Density Not Exceeding a Defined Winter Density Threshold

Hunter harvest can be increased to reduce bison densities. This management approach has been implemented by the Government of Alberta to limit the numbers and distribution of the wild Hay-Zama wood bison herd. In the spring of 2008, it was determined that a highly regulated hunting season would be instituted and scheduled annually to stop the Hay-Zama herd from continuing to increase in numbers and distribution (GOA 2014). Harvest quotas have varied from year to year depending on the herd’s size and distribution.

The Recovery Strategy for the Wood Bison indicates that management actions to decrease the risk of disease transmission, such as culling, might impede or delay achievement of the long-term population and distribution objectives, but acknowledges that they are required to reach the short-term population and distribution objectives (ECCC 2016).

4.1.1.2 Habitat Disturbance Management Thresholds

An example of habitat disturbance management thresholds is the Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Boreal population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada (EC 2012). This recovery strategy identifies 65% undisturbed habitat in a range as the disturbance management threshold. Habitat disturbance management thresholds for bison have not been published, likely because most local



populations are presently not habitat-limited, excluding limitations of their range by control measures or agricultural/industrial activity (ECCC 2016).

Once critical habitat and a long-term population and distribution objective are defined for the Ronald Lake bison herd, habitat disturbance management thresholds would be possible. Critical habitat is defined in the SARA Section 2(1) as:

the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species.

Critical habitat for the Wood Bison cannot be identified at this time because of insufficient information regarding range and habitat usage. However, studies for identification of critical habitat are scheduled to occur between 2016 and 2021 (ECCC 2016). Information currently available to define critical habitat for the Ronald Lake bison herd is the result of work conducted by the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team, ACFN and MCFN (Greg Wilson, personal communication), all of which was supported by Teck:

• Ronald Lake Bison Summary Report. March 2013 – March 2014 Telemetry study (Tan et al. 2015).

• Habitat Selection and the Influence of Natural and Anthropogenic Disturbance on Wood Bison in the Ronald lake Area of Northeastern Alberta (DeMars et al. 2016).

• Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (Candler and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2013a).

• Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited’s Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (Candler and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2013b).

• Candler, C., S. Leech, C. Whittaker and the Firelight Group with the Mikisew Cree First Nation. 2015. Sakâw Mostos (Wood Bison), Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Study. 65 pp. (Candler et al. 2015a).

• Wîyôw’tan’kitaskino (Our Land is Rich), A Mikisew Cree Culture and Rights Assessment for the Proposed Teck Frontier Project Update (Candler et al. 2015b).

4.1.1.3 Habitat Enhancement within the Ronald Lake Bison Range: Prescribed Fire and Forestry

Prescribed fire in winter bison range has the potential to increase the winter nutritional carrying capacity, should the Ronald lake population increase to the point that it exceeds existing winter nutritional carrying capacity. Prescribed burning has long been practiced by Indigenous people (FNFN and Shifting Mosaics Consulting 2015; Lewis and Ferguson 1988) and fire management has been recognized as a useful tool for bison habitat enhancement by wildlife managers (e.g., BC MWLAP 2002; GNWT 2010).

Studies have been conducted on the success of prescribed burns to enhance wildlife habitat. Prescribed fire has been suggested as a tool for renewing northern meadow habitat (Reynolds and Hawley 1987), which is habitat considered to be important bison winter range. Spring burning of sedge-grass meadows



in the Slave River Lowlands, NWT, Canada was applied to examine the effects of burn frequency on willow encroachment and preferred winter bison forage. Results indicated that infrequent burning was associated with greater abundance of preferred winter bison forage than more frequent burns. Conversely multiple burns had a greater effect on willow encroachment although there was also in increase in the abundance of forage that was less preferred by bison (Quinlan et al. 2003).

The Recovery Strategy considers the potential for using prescribed burning to create, improve, and maintain bison habitat across its range in Canada (ECCC 2016). Furthermore, fire suppression is considered a threat to wood bison recovery (ECCC 2016). The ECCC (2016) states that modifying policies to reduce fire suppression could serve to enhance or create meadow habitat for bison.

The Recovery Strategy indicates that industrial and agricultural practices also have the potential to improve habitat conditions (ECCC 2016). Summer nutritional carrying capacity can be increased through clearcutting, for example. Redburn et al. (2008) demonstrated that forest clearcutting in the Boreal Mixedwood of northern Alberta increased forage availability but not quality for bison in summer. Wood bison carrying capacity typically decreased when stands were greater than eight years old.

4.1.2 Construct a Bison Fence

Should monitoring detect fence breaches, the adaptations in the following subsections could be implemented.

4.1.2.1 Prescribe a Bison-free Management Zone between the Delta-subpopulation Range in WBNP and the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Range in Alberta

If the construction of the bison fence at the southern edge of the diseased Delta subpopulation is not as effective at keeping diseased bison from moving south as planned, a bison-free management zone south of the bison fence between the Delta-subpopulation range in WBNP and the Ronald Lake bison herd range in Alberta could be established.

The Recovery Strategy indicates that management actions to decrease the risk of disease transmission, such as culling, might impede or delay achievement of the long-term population and distribution objectives, but acknowledges that they are required to reach the short-term population and distribution objectives. The Recovery Strategy also recognizes that such control measures to prevent the spread of disease from the WBNP region to disease-free herds and domestic ranched animals is a threat to bison expansion across the landscape. If necessary, the bison-free management zone concept could be implemented to reduce the threat.

By locating the bison-free management zone in proximity to the southern edge of the diseased Delta subpopulation, WBNP would be responsible for the bison-free management zone. Given that the Recovery Strategy considers depopulation and repopulation as a disease management approach for the long-term, delineating a bison-free management zone on the southern edge of the Delta subpopulation in WBNP to restrict the southward movement of diseased bison might be a reasonable proposition in the short term. Similarly, PCA is undertaking fish removals in Banff National Park to manage the spread of whirling disease in Johnson Lake (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/whirling-disease-johnson-lake-banff-cutthroat-westslope-parks-canada-two-jack-1.4119302) and to reduce impacts on Endangered westslope cutthroat trout in Hidden Lake (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/killing-one-fish-species-to-preserve-another/article4558186/).



In the NWT, a Bison Control Area (BCA) program was created in 1987 to reduce the risk of tuberculosis or brucellosis would spread to uninfected bison in the Mackenzie, Nahanni and Hay-Zama (Alberta) populations. The BCA is managed as a bison-free zone designed to prevent bison from moving out of the Slave River Lowlands or WBNP area from coming into contact with uninfected populations. Since 1993, the BCA has been jointly funded by the PCA and the Government of the Northwest Territories (http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/programs/wood-bison/bison-control-area).

Alberta’s approach for managing the disease risk to both domestic livestock and free-ranging wood bison is detailed in Managing Disease Risk in Northern Alberta Wood Bison – Outside of West of Wood Buffalo National Park (GOA 2014). The approach includes an “Alberta Bison Protection Area” (i.e., a bison-free management zone) for the Hay-Zama herd and “Disease Surveillance and Risk Reduction East of Highway 35 which includes the removal of all wild bison detected on private agricultural lands near Ft. Vermilion and La Crete and in any of the Agricultural and Highway 35 Surveillance Zones (GOA 2014).

Non-lethal alternatives to discourage Wood Bison from entering these buffer zones could also be applied, such as encouraging animals to use more ‘desired’ locations through creation of linear features, prescribed fire and connectivity between herds, strategic salt and mineral block distribution, or cattle guards (ECCC 2016).

4.1.2.2 Increase surveillance and removal of bison in the bison-free zone

The number of bison detected and killed in the bison-free management zone will be monitored. If at any time, there are increases in the number of bison detected, surveillance and removal activities can be intensified to reduce the likelihood that diseased wood bison from WBNP contact bison from the Ronald Lake herd. This could involve contracting Indigenous stakeholders to conduct continuous patrols of the bison free zone or additional aerial surveillance and removal.

4.1.2.4 Depopulation in conjunction with captive-breeding and reintroduction

There remains a risk, whether the Project proceeds or not, that the Ronald Lake bison herd might become diseased given their close proximity to diseased bison in WBNP and the apparent absence of a barrier (see the response to JRP IR 7.4 [a]). However, if this outcome was to occur, that is, the Ronald lake bison herd becomes diseased, viable options are available to maintain the genetic diversity inherent in the existing population and return disease free bison to the Ronald Lake herd range in alignment with the proposed Recovery Strategy for the Wood Bison (ECCC 2016).

Depopulation in conjunction with captive-breeding and reintroduction are potential actions that would support the objective of disease elimination, genetic preservation, and re-establishment of healthy bison as outlined in the Recovery Strategy for the Wood Bison (ECCC 2016).

In 1990, a federal Environment Assessment Panel recommended completely eradicating all bison from WBNP, followed by restocking with disease-free animals (GOA 2014). Disease eradication in WBNP bison was reviewed, evaluated and considered to be feasible by a group of technical specialists (Shury et al. 2006). The ECCC (2016) recommends disease elimination. Experience gained through capture and captive breeding (Gates et al. 1998; Lutze-Wallace et al. 2006; Nishi et al. 2001, 2002,), disease testing (Gall et al. 2000; Himsworth et al. 2010a,b) and genetic management (McFarlane et al. 2006; Wilson et al. 2003, 2005) of wood bison is relevant for successful implementation of future conservation and salvage efforts.



In 1965, 18 wood bison from a disease-free herd of 200 discovered near Nyarling River, WBNP in 1957 were relocated to Elk Island National Park (Mitchell and Gates 2002). In 2014, the wood bison population in Elk Island National Park was estimated at 494 (EINP unpublished data).

Midwest United States of America Region parks (Badlands, Theodore Roosevelt, and Wind Cave) support some of the largest (400 to 700) brucellosis-free and genetically healthy herds left in the world. These three parks have provided nearly 9,000 live bison to at least 50 American Indian tribes, eight state parks and zoos, as well as a handful of federal and non-profit conservation herds. In all, bison from these parks have gone to 19 states and Mexico, and many more have established new bison herds.

Quarantine procedures for conserving bison from the brucellosis infected population in Yellowstone National Park have been developed and implemented. This has shown it is feasible to qualify brucellosis-free bison from an infected herd following quarantine procedures as published in the USDA APHIS brucellosis eradication uniform methods and rules (Clarke et al. 2014).

Recent studies on collection and storage of germplasm (Aurini et al. 2009; Krishnakumar et al. 2011, 2013, 2015; Lessard et al. 2009; Pegge et al. 2011; Thundathil et al. 2007) and production of viable calves using in vitro fertilization protocols (Adams et al. 2009; Palomino et al. 2014; Toosi et al. 2013) demonstrated viability of advanced reproductive techniques to support conservation and management of genetic diversity in wild bison.



5. References

Adams, G. P., R. B. McCorkell, V. C. Jurgielewicz, D. Ambati, and M. R. Woodbury. 2009. 194 Estrous synchronization and fixed-time AI in wood bison (Bison bison athabascae). Reproduction, Fertility and Development 22:255-255.

APFRAN (Animal Plant and Food Risk Analysis Network). 1999. Risk assessment on bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis in Wood Buffalo National Park and area. Animal Health Risk Analysis E5, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa, ON. 38 pp. + Appendices.

ASRD (Alberta Sustainable Resources Development). 2004. Methodology for Calculating Carrying and Grazing Capacity on Public Rangelands. Prepared by Range and Management Branch, Public Lands and Forests. Pub No. I/197. 25 pp.

ASRD. 2010. Ronald Lake (Bison bison) Survey February 2010. Prepared by Todd Powell and Traci Morgan, ASRD, Fort McMurray, Alberta. November 2010.

Aurini, L. C., D. P. Whiteside, B. T. Elkin, and J. C. Thundathil. 2009. Recovery and cryopreservation of epididymal sperm of plains bison (Bison bison bison) as a model for salvaging the genetics of wood bison (Bison bison athabascae). Reproduction in Domestic Animals 44:815-822.

BC MWLAP (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection). 2002. Wood Bison. Wildlife in British Columbia Species at Risk. 6 pp.

Candler, C. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative. 2013a. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. Prepared on behalf of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.

Candler, C., R. Olson and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative. 2013b. Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited’s Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. xi + 165 pp.

Candler, C., S. Leech, C. Whittaker and the Firelight Group with the Mikisew Cree First Nation. 2015a. Sakâw Mostos (Wood Bison), Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Study. 65 pp.

Candler, C., G. Gibson, M. Malone and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative with the MCFN. 2015b. Wîyôw’tan’kitaskino (Our Land is Rich), A Mikisew Cree Culture and Rights Assessment for the Proposed Teck Frontier Project Update. 230 pp.

CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency). 2016. Risk of bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis to cattle from bison of Wood Buffalo National Park and area. Animal Import/Export Division Unpublished Report, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa, ON. 99 pp.

Chen, S., and R. S. Morley. 2005. Observed herd size and animal association. Ecological Modelling 189:425-435.



Clarke, R. P., R. K. Frey, J. C. Rhyan, M. P. McCollum, P. Nol, and K. Aune. 2014. Feasibility of quarantine procedures for bison (Bison bison) calves from Yellowstone National Park for conservation of brucellosis-free bison. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 244:588-591.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Plains Bison Bison bison bison and the Wood Bison Bison bison athabascae in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xv + 109 pp.

DeMars, C.A., S.E. Nielsen and M.A. Edwards. 2016. Range Use, Habitat Selection and the Influence of Natural and Anthropogenic Disturbance on Wood Bison in the Ronald lake Area of Northeastern Alberta. Unpublished report prepared for the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team. 70 pp.

DeMars, C.A., S.E. Nielsen and M.A. Edwards. 2017. Range Use, Habitat Selection and the Influence of Natural and Anthropogenic Disturbance on Wood Bison in the Ronald lake Area of Northeastern Alberta. March 2017 Update. Unpublished report prepared for the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team. 40 pp.

EC (Environment Canada). 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. xi + 138pp.

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2016. Recovery Strategy for the Wood Bison (Bison bison athabascae) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Ottawa. viii + 52 pp.

Gall, D., K. Nielsen, L. Forbes, D. Davis, P. Elzer, S. Olsen, S. Balsevicius, L. Kelly, P. Smith, S. Tan, and D. Joly. 2000. Validation of the Fluorescence Polarization Assay and comparison to other serological assays for the detection of serum antibodies to Brucella abortus in bison. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 36:469-476.

Gates, C. C., B. T. Elkin, and D. C. Beaulieu. 1998. Initial results of an attempt to eradicate bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis from a wood bison herd in Northern Canada. Pages 221-228 in International Symposium on Bison Ecology and Management in North America. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.

Gates, C. C., J. Mitchell, J. Wierchowski, and L. Giles. 2001. A landscape evaluation of bison movements and distribution in northern Canada. AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd., Calgary, AB. 113 pp.

Gates, C. C., and J. Wierchowski. 2003. A landscape evaluation of bison movements and distribution in northern Canada - Simulation of bison movements in the Slave River Lowlands and the area between Wood Buffalo National Park and the Mackenzie Bison Range in the Northwest Territories. Addendum to the final report dated December 2001, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. 18 pp.



GNWT (Government of the NWT). 2010. Wood bison management strategy for the Northwest Territories. 2010-2020. NWT Species at Risk and NWT Environment and Natural Resources. 23 pp.

GOA (Government of Alberta). 2011. Managing Disease Risk in Alberta’s Wood Bison Fact Sheet 2 pp. http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-diseases/documents/Managing DiseaseRisk-WoodBison-Feb2011.pdf .

GOA. 2013. Ronald Lake Bison Winter 2012-2013 Activities Progress Report (Final) August 2013. 9 pp. + app.

GOA. 2014. Managing Disease Risk in Northern Alberta Wood Bison – Outside of Wood Buffalo National Park. 2013-2014 Progress report. September 2014. Downloaded 1 October 2015. http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-diseases/documents/ManagingBisonDiseaseWoodBuffalo-Sep2014.pdf.

GOA. 2016. Wildlife Management Unit 531 Bison Mark‐Resight Survey (2015). August 10, 2016. 8 pp.

Himsworth, C. G., B. T. Elkin, J. S. Nishi, T. Epp, K. P. Lyashchenko, O. Surujballi, C. Turcotte, J. Esfandiari, R. Greenwald, and F. A. Leighton. 2010a. Comparison of test performance and evaluation of novel immunoassays for tuberculosis in a captive herd of wood bison naturally infected with Mycobacterium bovis. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 46:78-86.

Himsworth, C. G., B. T. Elkin, J. S. Nishi, A. S. Neimanis, G. A. Wobeser, C. Turcotte, and F. A. Leighton. 2010b. An outbreak of bovine tuberculosis in an intensively managed conservation herd of wild bison in the Northwest Territories. Canadian Veterinary Journal 52:593-597.

Joly, D.O. and F. Messier. 2004. Factors affecting apparent prevalence of tuberculosis and brucellosis in wood bison. Journal of Animal Ecology 73:623-631.

Krishnakumar, S., D. P. Whiteside, B. Elkin, and J. C. Thundathil. 2011. Evaluation of an animal protein-free semen extender for cryopreservation of epididymal sperm from North American bison (Bison bison). Theriogenology 76:252-260.

Krishnakumar, S., D. P. Whiteside, A. Dance, B. Elkin, and J. Thundathil. 2013. Effect of chilling duration on post-thaw characteristics of sperm from the North American bison (Bison bison). Reproduction in Domestic Animals 48:636-642.

Krishnakumar, S., D. P. Whiteside, B. Elkin, and J. C. Thundathil. 2015. Effect of reproductive seasonality on gamete quality in the North American bison (Bison bison bison). Reproduction in Domestic Animals 50:206-213.

Lessard, C., J. Danielson, K. Rajapaksha, G. P. Adams, and R. McCorkell. 2009. Banking North American buffalo semen. Theriogenology 71:1112-1119.

Lutze-Wallace, C., C. Turcotte, D. A. Stevenson, B. Elkin, M. Koller-Jones, J. Nishi, and G. Wobeser. 2006. Isolation of Mycobacterium bovis from a wood bison in a wildlife conservation project in the Northwest Territories. Canadian Veterinary Journal 47:317-318.



McFarlane, K. A., G. A. Wilson, and J. S. Nishi. 2006. Management strategies for conservation of genetic diversity in wood bison. File Report No. 135, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories Yellowknife, NT. 76 pp.

Mitchell, J.A. and C.C. Gates. 2002. Status of the wood bison in Alberta. ASRD Fish and Wildlife Div., and ACA. Wildlife Status Report #38. Edmonton, AB. 32 pp.

Nishi, J. S., B. T. Elkin, T. R. Ellsworth, G. A. Wilson, D. W. Balsillie, and J. van Kessel. 2001. An overview of the Hook Lake Wood Bison Recovery Project: where have we come from, where are we now, and where we would like to go? Pages 215-233 in Bison are back - 2000. Proceedings of the Second International Bison Conference. Bison Centre of Excellence, Edmonton, AB.

Nishi, J. S., B. T. Elkin, and T. R. Ellsworth. 2002. The Hook Lake Wood Bison Recovery Project: can a disease-free captive wood bison herd be recovered from a wild population infected with bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 969:229-235.

Nishi, J. S., T. Shury, and B. T. Elkin. 2006. Wildlife reservoirs for bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) in Canada: Strategies for management and research. Veterinary Microbiology 112:325-338.

Palomino, J. M., R. B. McCorkell, M. R. Woodbury, M. P. Cervantes, and G. P. Adams. 2014. Ovarian superstimulation and oocyte collection in wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) during the ovulatory season. Theriogenology 81:250-256.

PCA (Parks Canada Agency). 2017. State Party Report on the State Of Conservation of Wood Buffalo National Park World Heritage Site (Canada) In Response To: World Heritage Committee Decision 39 COM 7B.18. For Submission By: 1 April 2017.

Pegge, R. B. G., S. Krishnakumar, D. Whiteside, B. Elkin, J. M. Parlevliet, and J. C. Thundathil. 2011. Sperm characteristics in plains (Bison bison bison) versus wood (Bison bison athabascae) bison. Theriogenology 75:1360-1370.

Powell, T and T. Morgan. 2010. Roanld Lake Bison Survey February 2010. ASRD Wildlife Division. 14 pp.Quinlan, A., M. Dale, and C. Gates. 2003. Effects of prescribed burning on herbaceous woody vegetation in northern lowland meadows. Restoration Ecology 11:343-350.

Redburn, M.J., W.L. Strong and C.C. Gates. 2008. Suitability of boreal mixedwood clearcuts as wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) foraging habitat in north-central Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 255(7): 2225–2235.

Reynolds, H.W. 2006. Historical overview of the Northern Diseased Bison Issue. In: Shury, T. K., Woodley, S. J., and Reynolds, H. W. 2006. Proceedings of the Bison Diseases Technical Workshop, October 28,29, 2005. Parks Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.

Reynolds, H.W., and A.W.L. Hawley (eds.). 1987. Bison ecology in relation to agriculture development in the Slave River Lowlands, NWT. Occasional Paper No. 63. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 74 pp.



Revised Statutes of Alberta (RSA). 2000. Wildlife Act. Current as of December 17, 2014. Office Consolidation. Alberta Queen’s Printer.

Scott, M.D. 1992. Buck-and-pole fence crossings by 4 ungulate species. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20(2): 204-210.

Shury, T. K., S. J. Woodley, and H. W. Reynolds. 2006. Proceedings of the Bison Diseases Technical Workshop, October 28 and 29, 2005. Parks Canada Agency and the Canadian Wildlife Service. Gatineau, Quebec. 37 pp. + Appendices.

Tan, T., S.E. Nielsen and M.A. Edwards. 2015. Ronald Lake Bison Summary Report. March 2013 – March 2014 Telemetry study. Unpublished report prepared for the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team. 58 pp.

Thundathil, J., D. Whiteside, B. Shea, D. Ludbrook, B. Elkin, and J. Nishi. 2007. Preliminary assessment of reproductive technologies in wood bison (Bison bison athabascae): implications for preserving genetic diversity. Theriogenology 68:93-99.

Toosi, B. M., A. Tribulo, C. Lessard, G. F. Mastromonaco, R. B. McCorkell, and G. P. Adams. 2013. Superovulation and embryo transfer in wood bison (Bison bison athabascae). Theriogenology 80:542-551.

Wilson, G. A., K. A. Zittlau, and J. S. Nishi. 2003. Captive management of the Hook Lake Wood Bison Recovery Project. Part I: An overview of management for genetic diversity. File Report No. 132, Northwest Territories Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Yellowknife, NT. 79 pp.

Wilson, G.A., J.S. Nishi, B.T. Elkin, and C. Strobeck. 2005. Effects of a recent founding event and intrinsic population dynamics on genetic diversity in an ungulate population. Conservation Genetics 6:905-916.

5.1 Personal Communication

Greg Wilson, personal communication Wildlife Biologist, Canadian Wildlife Service Environment and Climate Change Canada, Presentation given to the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team, 19 April, 2017.

draft ronald lake bison mitigation, monitoring and …draft ronald lake bison mitigation, monitoring...

Documents