Pierre River Mine Project

TERRESTRIAL AENV SIRS 44 – 78
Section 13.1
As long as habitat is abundant regionally, habitat loss may not result in
population declines. This assumes that population size directly tied to habitat
abundance represents a ‘worst case scenario’. Population viability analyses
(PVAs) were conducted for moose and black bear under the assumption that
initial and carrying capacity population densities were fixed, and therefore loss of
quality habitat would result in a decrease in population size (EIA, Volume 5,
Appendix 5-4, Section 3.2, p. 77). Results suggest about a 2% population decline
for moose, and a less than 1% decline for black bears as a result of the project. In
the Planned Development Case (PDC), PVA results suggest about an 8% decline
in the initial population size of moose within the regional study area (RSA), and
a 9% decline in carrying capacity (EIA, Volume 5, Section 7.6.3.1, p. 7-143). For
black bear, results of the PVA for the PDC estimate a reduction in initial and
carrying capacity population sizes of about 4% (EIA, Volume 5, Section 7.6.3.1,
p. 7-143).
Whether landscape changes in the RSA as a result of the Application Case and
the PDC have implications or potential challenges for fish and wildlife
management depends on a variety of factors. For example, combined harvest and
predation rates may affect fish and wildlife populations if population losses
exceed recruitment. As has been the case since humans began harvesting fish and
wildlife, monitoring is required and harvest rates need to be regularly evaluated
to ensure that harvests remain sustainable. In addition to sources of mortality, the
management of fish and wildlife populations may include manipulating factors
that affect recruitment. For example, changes to the terrestrial landscape that
result in species-specific habitat enhancements may benefit target species of
management interest. Increased forest harvest associated with forestry and oil
and gas development results in a landscape more suitable for moose and deer,
both harvested species. Ultimately, objectives and strategies for the management
of fish and wildlife populations at the RSA scale are the responsibility of the
Alberta government.
Request 63b Shell states that population abundance and habitat suitability are not directly
tied because many other factors are also important. The original question asked
about abundance and habitat loss not habitat suitability. Discuss changes to
abundance as a result of habitat loss at both project and regional/cumulative
level.
Response 63b The abundance of wildlife populations are controlled by many factors that may
operate independently from habitat abundance (Garshelis 2000). For example, all
habitat is not of equal value in terms of mortality risk, the abundance of food, and
overall productivity (van Horne 1983). As such, habitat quality is an important
consideration when attempting to relate habitat loss to changes in wildlife
abundance. The loss of low-quality, unproductive habitat is less likely to affect a
population than the loss of high-quality habitat. Changes to fish and wildlife
abundance as a result of habitat loss at the project and cumulative level are
discussed in the May 2009 Pierre River Mine, Supplemental Information,
Volume 2, SIR 63a and take these considerations into account.
13-46 Shell Canada Limited April 2010
CR029