Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Pipeline right-of-way
Impacts on the natural environment
The proponent does not plan to offer any compensation for the loss of 55 ha of
woodland habitats caused by the construction of the pipeline, a position he justifies by
the absence of special forest ecosystems affected by that component of the project.
The proponent also maintains that, from a wildlife habitat standpoint, the route
designed to have minimal impact for most sections of the pipeline was chosen, aside
from the HSouth-I stretch. However, the MRNF notes that the wildlife inventories carried
out by the proponent have focused almost exclusively on the chosen trajectory. On
that basis, it is difficult to know if, amongst other options available, the chosen route is
the one with the least impact on wildlife. (Figure 14) (PR5.1, p. 3.134; PR6, p. 72).
Along the HSouth-I stretch of the pipeline, the presence of a 90 year-old stock as well as
maple stocks and wetlands was noted. However, the will to meet up with Hydro-Québec’s
rights-of-way and the one planned for the Saint-Laurent pipeline has been favoured over
these components in the natural environment (PR5.2.1, p. 3-58 to 3-62). Indeed, the
pipelines proposed for both this project and that of Ultramar (Saint-Laurent pipeline)
would be set up in the same right-of-way whenever possible, so as to limit the total rightsof-way
widths and to avoid creating two openings close to each other on the territory
(DB46, p. 1).
Cumulative effects
Commissioning the terminal would require two other projects whose implementation is
not the responsibility of the proponent. The first is the setting up of two distribution
lines each supported by four towers for the power supply of the terminal. However,
the exact location of these installations and their impact on wooded areas have yet to
be determined. The proponent believes indeed that Hydro-Québec is responsible for
assessing the environmental effects of that part of the project. The second project is
the building of an access road via Lallemand Road., which is the responsibility of the
City of Lévis.
Assuming the project is carried out, these two related projects would become
necessary and, therefore, ‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’, as defined by the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency 1 . Their impacts would thus add to those of the
initial project in regard to some valued ecosystem components for which residual
impacts are expected, such as on wildlife habitats.
1. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency [On-line (February 27, 2007):
www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/013/0002/cea_ops_e.htm; www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/013/0001/0004/index_e.htm;
www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/013/0001/0008/guide1_e.htm].
Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure 203