Terms of Reference

Assessment of the impact of a geophysical survey in the port of Cacouna, Quebec, on St. Lawrence beluga

Regional Science Response Process – Quebec Region

March 3, 2014
Mont-Joli, Quebec

Chairperson: Charley Cyr

Context

East Energy Pipelines Ltd., a subsidiary of TransCanada, proposes to construct and operate a 4,600-km oil pipeline system from Hardisty, Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick. This national pipeline network would transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta and Moosomin, Saskatchewan to reception points in Quebec and New Brunswick. The reception points will include three existing refineries in Eastern Canada and two marine terminals which will help export crude oil to international markets. The port of Cacouna is one of the marine terminals covered by the project.

In order to decide on the exact location and design of the new terminal, a seismic survey must be carried out to determine the site's conditions. A seismic survey project was therefore submitted to DFO as part of the regulatory process of the Fisheries Act and Species at Risk Act (SARA). Based on the Proponent's request and the subsequently received details, seismic surveys are scheduled for early March 2014, for approximately 10 to 15 days, in a 71-hectare area. Sounding lines will be examined twice (once with a sparker and once with a boomer). In the best case scenario, work would last 10 days and would be carried out entirely in March. However, because the work depends on weather conditions, it may continue into April and perhaps even May. To assess the impact of the project on the beluga population in the St. Lawrence Estuary, a threatened species under SARA, DFO's Regional Ecosystems Management Branch has requested advice from DFO's Science Sector.

Objectives

This Science Response Process aims to provide scientific advice on the following questions:

1. Are the estimates provided by the Proponent regarding noise levels generated by the work and the propagation distances realistic?
2. Is the project, as proposed, likely to create significant disturbance for or impact on belugas? Are the mitigation measures proposed by the Proponent acceptable and sufficient?
3. If necessary, what additional mitigation measures would help reduce the disturbance or impact to make them acceptable?
4. In the event the project causes significant disturbance to the beluga despite the implementation of additional mitigation measures, is the disturbance likely to jeopardize the St. Lawrence beluga population's survival or recovery?
5. Are any other marine mammal species likely to be present during the period in question? If so, do the assessments of impact and mitigation measures for the beluga apply to those species?

Expected publication

• Science Response

Participation

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) (Science Sector)