Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Impacts on the natural environment
According to the proponent, the jetty construction and especially construction of the
rock platform would cause the destruction of approximately 0.22 ha of potential
habitat for the seven protected species present in this area. Taking into account the
coastal areas generally occupied by theses species, tidal levels associated with them
and topography, the proponent assessed the habitat loss for these seven species to
be 1,430 m 2 . For the gentian and the water-hemlock only, the loss would be 173 m 2
(DQ86.2, p. 191).
One participant also pointed out that calculation of the size of the disrupted area must
take into account the rock platform and work area, and also the sedimentation area
and erosion zone. In this regard, the proponent foresees that the rock platform
constructed on the shoreline, which would extend approximately 100 m into the river,
could slightly modify the local hydrodynamics and the sediment dynamics on a small
portion of the foreshore. Thus, a low accumulation of sediments would have to be
foreseen upstream of this structure but its precise assessment would be difficult. The
proponent evaluated that the length of this structure could extend up to 100 m on both
sides of the structure (PR3.3.1, p. 6.35; DQ86.2, p. 195; Ms. Gisèle Lamoureux, DT34,
p. 55; DM686, p. 18, 21 and 29).
♦ Finding — The Panel notes that the construction of the project’s shore facility would
cause a habitat loss for seven protected plant species, two of which are designated as
threatened under the Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species.
The proponent suggested various measures to mitigate the impacts on precariousstatus
species. For example, he suggests marking out aquatic-grass beds located
near work areas and prohibiting heavy equipment from circulating within or near these
areas. The proponent also committed himself to protecting entirely the shores facing
his properties which would not have been modified by the work so as to encourage
the colonization of rare plants (PR5.2.1, p. 3.67; PR3.3.1. p. 6.42). The type of
protection foreseen by the proponent and its details are not yet known. Nevertheless,
the Panel notes that several measures could be implemented, including the
establishment of a perpetual conservation easement of floristic habitats 1 .
Nevertheless, the proponent raises the possibility that the proposed measures may
not be fit to protect aquatic-grass beds during work. He suggests then that the
seedlings of precarious status species be transplanted by a qualified botanist to a
favourable habitat located nearby. A transplantation and follow-up protocol would be
submitted to the MDDEP for approval and an annual follow-up report would be
submitted to them for an estimated five-year period (PR5.2.1, p. 3.67; DQ86.2, p. 198).
1. Environment Canada [On-line (April 4, 2007): www.qc.ec.gc.ca/faune/pde-egp/definition_e.asp];
ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs [On-line (April 4, 2007):
www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/biodiversite/prive/programme/index.htm].
Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure 221