Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Conclusion In order to optimize the potential for related development, the City of Lévis should maintain industrial zoning of lands adjoining the project, if authorised, that would be conducive to the development of cold-processing industries in that area. The city should also request the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec to exclude these properties, along with those needed for the possible completion of the project, from the permanent agricultural zone. The Panel takes note that the project would contribute to an increase in Quebec’s carbon dioxide emissions. Nevertheless, it is of the view that there is no contradiction between this eventuality and the goals of Quebec’s 2006-2012 action plan for climate change, given that the increase could be compensated for by reductions of these emissions in other areas of activity. In this regard, the Panel takes into account the substitution of fuels with higher carbon content by the extra supply of natural gas from this project. In the Panel’s opinion, the emission charges set out in the 2006-2012 action plan could strengthen the possibility of such beneficial substitutions. The Panel recognizes that during the construction phase, the project could exceed noise criteria set by the ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs. However, the proponent has offered financial compensation for temporary moves by residents who might be affected. In terms of impact on air quality, the Panel notes that the use of diesel fuel containing 0.5% sulphur by LNG carriers’ auxiliary generators would be an added source of sulphur dioxide emissions in the residential neighbourhoods of Ville-Guay. The effect would be that the maximum concentration predicted for the area above the jetty, based on the proponent’s air quality modelling, would only be 1 µg/m³ under the hourly standard set in the Projet de règlement sur l’assainissement de l’atmosphère. The Panel recommends that samples taken at the proponent’s monitoring station be analyzed in concert with the ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs. When standard limits are exceeded, the situation should be corrected to the department’s satisfaction. The Panel recommends that the proponent prepare a surface water management plan, to the satisfaction of governmental authorities concerned, that would ensure maintenance of an acceptable flow rate in the ruisseau SaintClaude and protect the refuge pond’s ecological integrity. The Panel is of the view that the proponent should avoid any encroachment on peat bogs in the area set aside for land facilities, even at the cost of cutting back on the effectiveness of measures designed to mitigate the project’s visual impacts. The Panel is also of the view that any residual losses in these areas should be compensated on the basis of guidelines set forth by the ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs. Beyond this, the proponent should study the possibility of changing the gas pipeline’s route to skirt the Saint-Étienne-de- Lauzon peat bog. 226 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure
Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure Conclusion Given the protected status of plant species inventoried on the projected site for shore facilities, and as their habitats could be threatened, the Panel is of the opinion that the ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs should ensure that measures are applied to protect individuals of these species and their habitats. Finally where the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are concerned, the Panel concludes that the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. Such a conclusion is conditional to the implementation of mitigation and compensation measures and follow-up put forth by the proponent, as well as those proposed by the Panel. Executed in the city of Québec, BAPE Panel Joint Review Panel Qussaï Samak, Chair Qussaï Samak, Chair Jean Paré, Panel Member Jean Paré, Panel member Contributors to the writing of the report: Dominic Cliche, Panel Manager Julie Crochetière, Analyst Guy Fortin, Analyst Marie-Eve Fortin, Analyst Sylvie Mondor, Analyst Caroline Pilon, Analyst Suzie Roy, Analyst In collaboration with: Jean-Sébastien Fillion, Communications Advisor Kathleen Martineau, Administrative Officer Josée Primeau, Panel Secretariat Coordinator Jean-Philippe Waaub, Panel member 227
Page 1 and 2:
Bureau d’audiences publiques sur
Page 3:
Ms. Line Beauchamp Minister of Sust
Page 6 and 7:
In terms of its integration into th
Page 9 and 10:
Table of contents Opinions and reco
Page 11 and 12:
Table of contents Land use and appl
Page 13:
Table of contents Project impacts o
Page 16 and 17:
List of figures and tables Table 5
Page 18 and 19:
Opinions and recommendations reques
Page 20 and 21:
Opinions and recommendations Opinio
Page 22 and 23:
Opinions and recommendations needs
Page 24 and 25:
Opinions and recommendations Enviro
Page 27 and 28:
Introduction The Rabaska LNG termin
Page 29 and 30:
Introduction The terminal would als
Page 31:
Introduction encompasses biophysica
Page 38 and 39:
Opinions of participants firmly opp
Page 40 and 41:
Opinions of participants One partic
Page 42 and 43:
Opinions of participants DT33, p. 1
Page 44 and 45:
Opinions of participants Many were
Page 46 and 47:
Opinions of participants “a price
Page 48 and 49:
Opinions of participants Climate ch
Page 50 and 51:
Opinions of participants reached, t
Page 52 and 53:
Opinions of participants l’enviro
Page 54 and 55:
Opinions of participants In contras
Page 56 and 57:
Opinions of participants Moreover,
Page 58 and 59:
Opinions of participants Some parti
Page 60 and 61:
Opinions of participants […] we w
Page 62 and 63:
Opinions of participants monuments
Page 64 and 65:
Opinions of participants area […]
Page 66 and 67:
Opinions of participants On another
Page 68 and 69:
Opinions of participants A certain
Page 70 and 71:
Opinions of participants participan
Page 72 and 73:
Opinions of participants from perpe
Page 74 and 75:
Opinions of participants proponent
Page 76 and 77:
Opinions of participants We are per
Page 78 and 79:
Opinions of participants The risk a
Page 80 and 81:
Opinions of participants Should an
Page 82 and 83:
Opinions of participants Some parti
Page 84 and 85:
Opinions of participants use our co
Page 86 and 87:
Opinions of participants It can see
Page 88 and 89:
Opinions of participants underscore
Page 90 and 91:
Opinions of participants There is a
Page 92 and 93:
Opinions of participants Moreover,
Page 95 and 96:
Chapter 2 Project energy context Th
Page 97 and 98:
Project energy context ♦ Finding
Page 99 and 100:
Project context at the Quebec - Ont
Page 101 and 102:
Project energy context As for Quebe
Page 103 and 104:
Project energy context The proponen
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 3 Territorial breakdown of G
Page 107 and 108:
Project energy context and the comm
Page 109 and 110:
Project energy context implementati
Page 111 and 112:
Chapter 3 Economic context of the p
Page 115 and 116:
The project’s economic spin-offs
Page 117:
The structuring potential of the pr
Page 120 and 121:
Territorial context of the project
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Assessing the risks related to the
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166:
Page 170:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182:
Page 186:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 199 and 200:
Chapter 6 Social acceptance of the
Page 201 and 202: Social acceptance of the project By
Page 203 and 204: Social acceptance of the project -
Page 205: Social acceptance of the project
Page 208 and 209: Impacts on the inhabited area and h
Page 226: Impacts on the natural environment
Page 230: Impacts on the natural environment
Page 234 and 235: Impacts on the natural environment
Page 255 and 256: References ASSOCIATION DES PLUS BEA
show all

Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?