Pierre River Mine Project

TERRESTRIAL AENV SIRS 44 – 78
Section 13.1
final model output. Indirect habitat loss is not zero for moose or fisher/marten
because it has been taken into consideration with direct habitat change.
The table structure used in the EIA and the May 2009 Pierre River Mine,
Supplemental Information was based on habitat suitability modelling output from
Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models in which direct and indirect effects were
determined separately. This structure was not changed when some of the KIRs
were modelled used RSFs. In those cases, a zero was placed in the “Indirect
Habitat Change” column of the tables to reflect that indirect habitat loss could
not be quantified separately.
Request 48b What evidence does Shell have that indicates sensory disturbance will not lead to
indirect habitat loss for moose, lynx, fisher/marten, black-throated green
warbler, barred owl or beaver?
Response 48b Indirect habitat loss through sensory disturbance was considered to affect all key
indicator resources (KIRs) except for Canadian toads and beavers (see EIA,
Volume 5, Section 7.5.3.2, p.7-112). Beavers are highly adaptable animals that
live in close association with humans, provided that requirements for food and
aquatic habitat are met (Nietfeld et al. 1984), suggesting that they are not
sensitive to noise and other disturbances (see EIA, Volume 5, Section 7.5.3.2,
page 7-112). Indirect habitat loss through sensory disturbance was considered to
affect moose, Canada lynx, fisher/marten, black-throated green warbler and
barred owl (see EIA, Volume 5, Section 7.5.3.2, page 7-112). However,
quantified estimates of habitat loss for these species were produced using
resource selection functions (RSFs). The RSFs incorporate the effects of
disturbance features as variables in complex multivariate statistical equations.
The effects of individual variables on model output in multivariate statistical
models cannot be easily separated and quantified. Assessed effects of the project
on indirect habitat loss incorporate both habitat suitability model output, as well
as professional judgment.
Reference
Question No. 49
Nietfeld, M., J. Wilk, K. Woolnough and B. Hoskin. 1984. Wildlife Habitat
Requirement Summaries for Selected Wildlife Species in Alberta.
Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division,
Wildlife Resource Inventory Unit.
Request Volume 1, SIR 310a-c, Page 13-1 ; Volume 2, SIR 458d i, Page 23-137.
Shell’s response to this question states Shell indicates that the current data
suggest that genetic connectivity will be maintained. However, current research
has not been designed to prove genetic connectivity nor are the data sufficiently
13-6 Shell Canada Limited April 2010
CR029