Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Opinions of participants
underscored the fact that the loss of a marsh cannot be compensated by creating
another: “since it is impossible to move marshes, the authors ask the proponent to
move his facilities into ecosystems that have less environmental value” (ibid., p. 3 and
4). The Comité ZIP de Québec et Chaudière-Appalaches also believed that adequate
mechanisms should be put into place to protect wetlands. It also proposed to protect
the wetlands targeted for the real estate expansion in the area as a compensation
measure (DM636, p. 10).
Some participants were interested in several endangered species of flora found on
the St. Lawrence River’s banks, in the area which would be affected by the project.
They emphasized that some of them are very rare, being found only in the river’s
estuary, and they believed that protecting these plants and their habitats is essential
(Ms. Annie Lebel and Mr. Hubert Pelletier-Gilbert, DM160, p. 3; Ms. Gisèle
Lamoureux, DM686.1; Sierra Club of Canada, DM699, p. 8). The Association pour la
protection de l’environnement de Lévis believed that transplanting species which are
affected isn’t an appropriate mitigation measure in this respect (DM459, p. 33), while
the Conférence régionale des élus de la Chaudière-Appalaches recommended
“conducting a study to quantify the loss of floristic habitats and, if required, that the
proponent commit to taking part in a protection program for another threatened site in
order to compensate for the losses” (DM534, p. 10).
According to one participant, “it’s an irreplaceable component. We cannot recreate
such a habitat, and we cannot replace these vulnerable or threatened species. […] I
really don’t see any possible satisfactory compensation” (Ms. Gisèle Lamoureux,
DM686, p. 26). She believed that it was necessary to “reject the project for this site or
for whichever bank of the fresh water estuary between Grondines and Saint-Jean-
Port-Joli” (DM686.1). Other participants were of the opinion that “shoreline
construction projects should be built in areas which have been made artificial, and not
those which are still intact” (Ms. Annie Lebel and Mr. Hubert Pelletier-Gilbert, DM160,
p. 3).
Moreover, one participant specified that the proponent omitted to consider a tree
plantation that is more than ten years old in his project’s deforestation assessment. In
his opinion, the loss of habitat and wood materials would be tangible and the planned
berms to mitigate the project’s visual impact could not replace the environmental
value of these forest stands (Mr. Pierre Cadorette, DM522, p. 4 and 13). The
Chambre de commerce de Lévis supported the proponent’s intention to reforest areas
that are equivalent or greater than the area cut down, which by the same token would
contribute to improving the landscape (DM611, p. 12). Another participant
emphasized that such a project could have positive impacts on a greater scale by
creating revenue streams for the government levels, which could be invested in the
62 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure