Pierre River Mine Project

TERRESTRIAL AENV SIRS 44 – 78
Question No. 63
Request Volume 2, SIR 441a-b, Page 23-89.
Section 13.1
Shell’s response states the impacts of [on] wildlife abundance as a consequence
of habitat loss over the 80-year project timeline were not generally discussed
because habitat loss is not necessarily directly liked to a direct reduction in the
abundance of wildlife KIRs. While there may be both direct and indirect links to
a direct or indirect reduction in abundance, the characterization of the links and
reduction source are not critical to the discussion and in this case seem to have
obscured the answer. There are clear biological pathways between habitat loss
and reduced abundance.
Shell indicates that the overall local and regional environmental consequence on
hunting because of site clearing effects are predicted to be negligible and directs
the reviewer to Volume 5, Section 8.4.6.3, page 107 of the EIA. This section
indicates that in the long-term, habitat will be restored with a potentially positive
effect on moose as described. Wildlife abundance must be managed in the
interim time period prior to the long-term goal of habitat restoration. This
period may be up to 80 years.
63a Provide a general discussion of the impacts on fish and wildlife abundance as a
consequence of habitat loss over the 80-year project timeline, both from a
Project perspective and a cumulative perspective. Discuss the fish and wildlife
management implications and potential challenges of any expected changes in
abundance.
Response 63a The loss of fish habitat as a result of the project will be compensated for with the
development of a compensation lake and stream channel habitats (EIA,
Volume 4, Appendix 4-6). The compensation habitat for fish would be developed
as habitat losses occur, and therefore substantial delays from when habitat is lost
to when new habitat is available are not anticipated. As a result of mitigation
measures and the planned compensation habitat, changes to regional fish
abundance because of the project under the Application Case were considered to
be negligible (EIA, Volume 4, Section 6.7.6.3). The Application Case for fish
and fish habitat assessed in the EIA is a cumulative assessment as it assesses all
residual impacts for the project in combination with potential impacts associated
with all existing and approved developments (EIA, Volume 4, Section 6.7.6.2).
Changes in wildlife abundance as a result of habitat loss are difficult to predict
because abundance is controlled by many factors that may operate independently
from habitat abundance (Garshelis 2000). For example, historical events, habitat
quality, weather, disease, parasites, predators, and human harvest may all affect
wildlife abundance, but are not necessarily linked directly to habitat abundance
(Levin 1998). Habitat loss is likely to lead to direct reductions in species
abundance only when the availability of habitat is reduced to the point that it
becomes a limiting factor (i.e., when a population density equivalent to carrying
capacity is reached).
April 2010 Shell Canada Limited 13-45
CR029