Are Wildlife Relocation Practices for Infrastructure Projects Actually Protecting Animals?
As infrastructure projects expand, mitigation translocation is frequently used to relocate wildlife. However, research suggests these efforts lack sufficient monitoring, leaving the long-term survival and health of moved species unknown and highlighting the urgent need for better habitat protection strategies.
Highlights
- •Mitigation translocation is used to move wildlife away from infrastructure project sites to prevent direct harm.
- •Research in British Columbia identified 5.1 million animals relocated across 227 projects, mostly amphibians.
- •There is a critical lack of post-release monitoring to determine if relocated animals survive and reproduce.
- •Experts argue that habitat preservation must be the priority over translocation as a conservation strategy.
When substantial infrastructure projects are developed in rural landscapes, wildlife is frequently displaced. This process, known as mitigation translocation, serves as a globally recognized method for relocating animals to avoid direct harm from construction activities. However, the application of this practice remains inconsistent, with varied regulatory approaches across different jurisdictions.
In Canada, policies differ significantly by province. While regions such as Alberta and Ontario often restrict relocation efforts to federally listed species at risk, others, including British Columbia, mandate the relocation of all native amphibian and reptile species, regardless of their conservation status. This shift toward broader application was notably influenced by events leading up to the 2010 Winter Olympics, when the realignment of the Sea-to-Sky Highway necessitated the protection of the northern red-legged frog habitat.
The Challenges of Mitigation Translocation
Research conducted between 2019 and 2022 by the University of British Columbia’s Martin Conservation Decisions Lab highlights the scale of these operations. The study identified 227 projects, primarily related to developments like pipelines, that involved the relocation of approximately 5.1 million individual animals. A significant portion of these were amphibians, most notably the western toad.
Although mitigation translocation appears to be an effective strategy for minimizing development impacts, the long-term consequences remain largely unknown. Current permit processes often require biological assessment and the identification of release sites, yet they lack rigorous mandates for post-release monitoring. There is generally no legal requirement for project developers to report the precise coordinates of release sites or track the survival and reproductive success of the relocated populations over time.
Without robust monitoring, it is difficult to determine if these efforts successfully protect species or if they introduce secondary hazards. Many translocated animals face significant stressors, such as increased vulnerability to predation, competition with established populations, difficulty securing food, or heightened susceptibility to disease. Some displaced individuals even attempt to navigate back to their original habitats, which can lead to further risk.
Improving Wildlife Protection Standards
While mitigation translocation may serve a purpose in specific, small-scale scenarios where temporary disturbance is managed, it cannot be viewed as a substitute for long-term habitat preservation. Conservation experts emphasize that governments must prioritize avoiding key habitats during the planning phases of industrial and infrastructure projects.
When habitat loss is unavoidable, the implementation of comprehensive monitoring programs is essential. These programs would provide data-driven insights to improve relocation outcomes and ensure that current standard practices genuinely contribute to the survival of wildlife in increasingly developed environments. Prioritizing habitat protection and scientific oversight is vital for the future of species conservation.
