Pierre River Mine Project

TERRESTRIAL AENV SIRS 44 – 78
Section 13.1
Response 65a The modelling approach used in the recent Cumulative Environmental
Management Association (CEMA) Sustainable Ecosystem Working Group
(SEWG) modelling (CEMA SEWG 2008) uses a substantially different approach
and suite of assumptions than the habitat modelling within the EIA. Therefore,
the results are not comparable.
References
The recent CEMA SEWG modelling effort used the Alberta Landscape
Cumulative Effects Simulator model (ALCES) (Forem Technologies 2009) to
compare all estimated changes in wildlife habitat and populations to a ‘natural
range of variability’ (NRV) (Wilson et al. 2008a). The NRV represents an
approximation of the natural state in the decades or centuries before 1905, i.e., a
pre-disturbance baseline (Wilson et al. 2008a). This makes comparisons with
modelling results from the EIA difficult because in the EIA all landscape changes
are expressed relative to a Base Case that approximates current conditions. In
addition, the CEMA SEWG modelling forecasts changes to habitat as a result of
simulated landscape alterations that follow predicted patterns of oil sands
development and reclamation, forest harvesting, and fire (Wilson et al. 2008b).
Patterns of oil sands development were simulated by translating a bitumen
production forecast provided by the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation
Board (ERCB) into either surface or in situ mine developments, depending on the
scenario (CEMA SEWG 2008). The spatial pattern of development was
simulated to follow locations of greatest anticipated return according to an ERCB
bitumen pay map, i.e., deposit thickness where bitumen accounts for more than
50% of the composition (Wilson et al. 2008b). Although details on simulated
reclamation processes appear lacking in the documentation, patterns apparently
followed trajectories designed to generalize the reclamation trajectories of
existing mine reclamation plans (Wilson et al. 2008b).
ALCES addresses existing, approved and predicted projects for 100 years,
whereas the EIA addresses existing and planned projects disclosed up to six
months before the EIA filing. Outside the LSA, only planned disturbances within
the public domain within six months of the application are represented (i.e., July
2007). As stated in the EIA (EIA, Volume 3, Section 1.3.3 and Errata), projects
disclosed after June 2007, or projects where approvals were issued or plans were
modified following June 2007, were considered in the EIA based on the relevant
information available as of June 2007. In addition, the EIA assessment scenario
does not include progressive reclamation over time, whereas assumptions related
to progressive reclamation were included in the CEMA modelling.
Forem Technologies. 2009. ALCES. Website:
http://www.foremtech.com/home/Home. Accessed January 8, 2009.
CEMA SEWG (Sustainable Ecosystem Working Group of the Cumulative
Environmental Management Association). 2008. Terrestrial ecosystem
management framework for the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo.
57 pp. Available online:
April 2010 Shell Canada Limited 13-51
CR029