Imminent Threat Assessment for the Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Boreal population

Information sur le document

Cat. No.: CW66-1532/2024E-PDF
ISBN: 978-0-660-72282-5
EC24142

Unless otherwise specified, you may not reproduce materials in this publication, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution without prior written permission from Environment and Climate Change Canada’s copyright administrator. To obtain permission to reproduce Government of Canada materials for commercial purposes, apply for Crown Copyright Clearance by contacting:

Environment and Climate Change Canada
Public Information Centre
Place Vincent Massey building
351 St-Joseph boulevard
Gatineau QC K1A 0H3

Toll free: 1-800-668-6767
Email: enviroinfo@ec.gc.ca

Cover photo: © Mark Bradley
© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, 2024

Aussi disponible en français

Executive summary

This imminent threat assessment has been developed to help the federal Minister of the Environment form an opinion on whether the Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Boreal population, is facing imminent threats to its survival or recovery in Canada pursuant to section 80 of the Species at Risk Act.

This assessment was triggered by the Minister’s receipt of official correspondence from several First Nations in Quebec asking him to implement concrete and effective measures to ensure the survival and recovery of the boreal caribou, including the adoption of an emergency order under section 80 of the Species at Risk Act. The assessment examines current threats to the caribou in Quebec, but also aims to determine whether the species overall is exposed to imminent threats. The precautionary principle and the best available information have been taken into account in conducting the assessment.

Species information

The boreal caribou was added to Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act in 2003 as a threatened species. This status was reconfirmed in 2015 following the re-examination of the species’ status by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada in 2014.

These medium-sized cervids require large areas of undisturbed, interconnected old-growth coniferous forest to spatially separate themselves from predators. In Canada, the main factor in the decline of boreal caribou populations is habitat disturbance, which favours other prey species and, by extension, their predator populations. This results in increased predation pressure on caribou, to the point that caribou may not be able to withstand it. Many human activities contribute to the disturbance of caribou habitat in Quebec, and likely pose threats to the survival and recovery of the species. A number of these activities have been ongoing for several decades and are likely to continue in the coming years.

In 2012, an initial recovery strategy was drawn up in accordance with section 37 of the Species at Risk Act. This document, which was partially updated in 2020, establishes that the recovery goal is to achieve self-sustaining local populations in all the boreal caribou ranges throughout the species’ current distribution in Canada, to the extent possible. The document also sets out a maximum disturbance management threshold of 35%, which, when it is exceeded, reduces the probability of a population being self-sustaining to less than 60%.

In 2021, the Quebec government identified 10 local population ranges and two knowledge acquisition areas for the species. These ranges represent the best available information on the structure and distribution of caribou populations in Quebec, and are used as the unit of analysis in this assessment. Based on three indicators of self-sustainability (population size, finite growth rate of population and level of habitat disturbance), three of these local populations face a particularly high level of risk (Val-d’Or, Charlevoix and Pipmuacan). In addition, two other local populations (Assinica and Témiscamie) have a level of habitat disturbance exceeding the 35% threshold. This threat assessment covers all boreal caribou populations in Quebec, but focuses on these five local populations.

Information on new or evolving threats

The anthropogenic activities taking place in Quebec that have contributed the most to habitat disturbance to date are logging and the road network. Consequently, this assessment focuses on these two activities. The Quebec government’s 2023 to 2024 Programmations annuelles des activités de récolte (PRANs) [annual harvesting programs] represent the best available information for assessing the effects of logging and road construction on boreal caribou. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) quantified the planned logging and road construction activities in the Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, Pipmuacan and Témiscamie ranges. Based on the partial data available for the Assinica range, these activities are also planned in this range, although they have not been quantified.

Threat assessment

The impact of at least two threats—logging and the road network—is intensifying, particularly in the case of the Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, Pipmuacan and Témiscamie populations. Disturbance mapping by ECCC in 2010 and 2020 indicates that the level of disturbance linked to logging has increased, at least in the Val-d’Or (from 33% to 43%), Charlevoix (from 51% to 62%), Pipmuacan (from 46% to 53%), Assinica (from 27% to 33%) and Témiscamie (from 21% to 25%) ranges. The level of disturbance related to the road network has also increased, at least in the Val-d’Or (31% to 37%), Charlevoix (36% to 40%), Pipmuacan (18% to 24%), Assinica (13% to 16%) and Témiscamie (8% to 10%) ranges. In addition, according to the work planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs, the level of disturbance linked to logging will likely increase (relative to 2020) in the Val-d’Or (< 1%), Charlevoix (between 2% and 3%), Pipmuacan (between 2% and 3%) and Témiscamie (< 1%) ranges. The level of disturbance associated with multi-purpose roads (which make up the majority of the road network) will also likely increase (relative to 2020) in the Val-d’Or (< 1%), Charlevoix (< 1%), Pipmuacan (~ 1%) and Témiscamie (< 1%) ranges. In the Val-d’Or range, the projected increases will probably be lower than those in a typical year. At the time of this assessment, 2023 to 2024 PRAN data were available for only a small portion of the Assinica range and consequently were not taken into account. The 2023 to 2024 PRAN data for the Témiscamie range were also incomplete, only covering 44% of this range.

Implications for survival: It is the view of ECCC that the threats examined will not make the survival of boreal caribou in Canada highly improbable or impossible, particularly in the short term, since self-sustaining local populations with very little habitat disturbance exist elsewhere in Canada, and would not be affected by the threats in Quebec.

Implications for recovery: ECCC believes that the probability of achieving the species’ recovery objectives is already low, based on the status of the Quebec populations, and that the implementation of the logging operations and road construction planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs would make the recovery of the species extremely unlikely, even if the impacts on caribou populations would not necessarily be measurable in the short term. ECCC has not specifically assessed the effect of threats other than logging and the road network (for example, mining, and vacation and recreational infrastructure), but anticipates that they will have additional and cumulative impacts. The Val-d’Or population has already dropped below the quasi-extinction threshold (that is, it currently has fewer than 10 reproductively active females), the Charlevoix population crossed that threshold in 2020 and now has just over 10 reproductively active females, and the Pipmuacan population could do so within 10 years. The Assinica and Témiscamie populations also face a certain degree of risk, and could reach the quasi-extinction threshold in the longer term if no measures are taken to halt their decline. Although significant measures have been taken in the past, notably to protect individuals, the scope of the measures currently implemented or planned to protect or restore the species’ habitat is deemed to be insufficient to address the main threats assessed. Measures to protect and restore habitat are essential in the short term if the boreal caribou is to recover.

Context

According to section 80 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), if the competent minister is of the opinion that a listed wildlife species faces imminent threats to its survival or recovery, he or she must recommend to the Governor in Council that an emergency order be made for the protection of the species. The federal Minister of the Environment is the competent minister for the Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Boreal population.

The boreal caribou was added to Schedule 1 of SARA in 2003 as a threatened species. This status was reconfirmed in 2015 following a re-examination of the species’ status by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 2014.

This assessment was carried out to help the Minister form an opinion on whether this wildlife species is facing imminent threats to its survival or recovery in Canada, pursuant to section 80 of SARA.

Assessment trigger

The Minister of the Environment has received five pieces of official correspondence from five First Nations in Quebec asking him to implement concrete and effective measures to ensure the survival and recovery of the boreal caribou, notably the adoption of an emergency order under section 80 of SARA. This correspondence refers to a range of activities that have taken place on an ongoing basis in caribou habitat in Quebec for decades and may continue in the coming years. These activities include resource development (forestry, mining, energy), vacation and recreational infrastructure, roads, and anthropogenic disturbance (associated with all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and other means of transportation, among others). In their letters, the First Nations indicate that, among all the activities likely to pose a threat to caribou, forest management activities in certain areas that they have identified as being of interest for caribou are likely among the greatest threats to the species’ survival and recovery. However, the wide range of threats mentioned in the letters also highlights the cumulative impact that the First Nations fear these threats will have on the caribou. In addition, several First Nations address the degradation, alteration and fragmentation of the species’ habitat, and the increase in the level of habitat disturbance, in a more general way. Consequently, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) believes that it has sufficient credible and verifiable evidence to undertake an assessment to determine whether the species faces one or more imminent threats to its survival or recovery in the Quebec portion of its range. The purpose of this assessment is therefore to respond to the five pieces of correspondence received concerning imminent threats to the survival or recovery of boreal caribou in Quebec. The main cause of the decline of the boreal caribou is the disturbance of its habitat due to various anthropogenic activities (Environment Canada [EC],Footnote 1 2012; ECCC, 2020; see Part 1.4). Owing to the fact that these activities are governed by land-use planning regimes specific to each province and territory, and so as to not postpone the adoption of efficient measures (precautionary principle), ECCC has focused its assessment on the threats occurring in Quebec.

How this document Is designed

This assessment was completed in accordance with the Policy on Assessing Imminent Threats under Sections 29 and 80 of the Species at Risk Act: Terrestrial Species – [proposed] (ECCC, 2023a), and, in particular, the precautionary principle. It is based on the best available knowledge of the species’ biology and ecology, threats to its survival or recovery, and population and habitat trends. It also takes into account the recovery objectives defined in the Recovery Strategy for the Woodland CaribouFootnote 2 (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020).

The document is divided into three parts:

Part 1: Information on the species

This part presents the species’ characteristics, its range in Canada (including the best available information on its distribution in Quebec), its status, population parameters, habitat quality and size, threats, and recovery objectives.

Part 2: Information on new or evolving threats

This part presents the best available information on threats.

Part 3: Assessment of threats

This part is intended to help the Minister form an opinion as to whether there are imminent threats to the survival or recovery of the species, by answering the following questions:

To conduct this assessment using the best available information, ECCC submitted a request for information to the Quebec government on September 20, 2023. The request sought to obtain information and data on the planning of forest management activities, other threats to the species, and current or future measures to protect the species’ habitat or address potential threats to its survival or recovery. The Quebec government has not responded to this request. ECCC therefore examined, and based its assessment on, the publicly available information.

During the various discussion forums involving ECCC and the First Nations, notably the round tables held on September 14 and December 11, 2023, ECCC invited the First Nations to transmit any information that they felt was important to share regarding threats that could make the survival or recovery of boreal caribou highly improbable or impossible. The information communicated by the First Nations is considered, along with the publicly available information, to be the best information available to support the completion of this assessment.

Part 1: Information on the species

1.1 Species characteristics

The Caribou, Boreal populationFootnote 3 (hereinafter referred to as boreal caribou)Footnote 4 is a medium-sized (1.0 to 1.2 m shoulder height and weighing 110 to 210 kg) member of the deer family (Cervidae) (Thomas and Gray, 2002). Adults have a dark brown coat (Banfield, 1974; Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Summary Reports on Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population, 2010 to 2011). Both males and females have antlers during part of the year, although some females may only have one antler or no antlers at all (Thomas and Gray, 2022; Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Summary Reports for Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population, 2010 to 2011).

Longevity is generally less than 10 years for males and less than 15 years for females (COSEWIC, 2014). The latter can reproduce beginning at the age of three, giving birth to a maximum of one calf per year (COSEWIC, 2014). Even when conditions are ideal, the species’ reproductive rate is considered low compared with that of other cervids present in North America (COSEWIC, 2014). The average duration of a generation is estimated to be six years (COSEWIC, 2014).

The boreal caribou is a forest-dwelling species whose habitat-use strategy consists primarily of avoiding disturbance in its habitat, in order to geographically separate itself from other prey (for example, moose [Alces alces]) and predators (for example, gray wolves [Canis lupus] and black bears [Ursus americanus]), thereby reducing the risk of predation (Bergerud, 1974; Rettie and Messier, 2000; Racey and Arsenault, 2007; EC, 2012; Viejou et al, 2018).

Caribou are central to the identity, cultures, and way of life of many First Nations (AFNQL – FNQLSDI, 2022). Boreal caribou are also an umbrella species for the conservation of biodiversity in the boreal forest.Footnote 5 Therefore, caribou embody the fundamental connection between the First Nations and their territory (FNQLSDI, 2010; AFNQL – FNQLSDI).

1.2 Population and distribution

Canada

In 2014, COSEWIC estimated the Canadian boreal caribou population to consist of between 33,000 and 34,000 individuals, predicting that the decline in the Canadian population would exceed 30% over the next three generations (18 years; COSEWIC, 2014). When the status report on the species was published (COSEWIC, 2014), most of the 37 local populations for which a finite growth rate estimate (λ) was available were in decline. Given this information and the declines observed in the last decade (ECCC, 2017), it is reasonable to believe that the current size of the Canadian boreal caribou population is smaller than it was in 2014.

In Canada, boreal caribou are found in the boreal forest, from northeastern Yukon in the west to Labrador in the east, and southward to Lake Superior (EC, 2008, 2011). Across Canada, the southern limit of the boreal caribou rangeFootnote 6 has progressively receded northward since the early 1900s, a trend that continues today (Thomas and Gray, 2002; Schaefer, 2003; Festa-Bianchet et al., 2011; Morineau et al., 2023). Indigenous knowledge indicates that the boreal caribou’s range has moved northward as a result of habitat loss in the south (Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Summary Reports on Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population, 2010 to 2011). A recent study also suggests that human activities (that is, anthropogenic land use and hunting) are likely the main factors responsible for the contraction of the boreal caribou’s range in Quebec since 1850 (Morineau et al., 2023). Figure 1 shows the species’ Canadian range as of 2012; it is broken down into 51 local ranges that also correspond to the polygons within which critical habitat was identified in the federal recovery strategy (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020; see Part 1.6). The boundaries of these local ranges are associated with varying degrees of certainty, depending on the data available at the time these delineations were established (see Appendix A).

To assess the extent to which local caribou populations in Canada are likely to be self-sustaining over time, EC (2011) carried out an integrated risk assessment, considering population sizes and trends, the level of habitat disturbance in the corresponding local ranges, and the quality of data available in relation to these indicators. The results of this analysis were then used to assign each population to one of the following classes based on the probability of it being self-sustaining: “self-sustaining”Footnote 7 (15 populations), “as likely as not to be self-sustaining” (10 populations) or “not self-sustaining” (26 populations) (Figure 1).

Map 1, please read long description

Figure 1. Integrated risk assessment for boreal caribou ranges in Canada as of June 2012, reflecting the capacity of each range to maintain a self-sustaining population. The probability of self-sustainability for the Boreal Shield range (SK1) has been updated from “unknown” to “likely” in the 2020 recovery strategy (ECCC, 2020), but the integrated risk assessments for the other ranges have not been updated since 2012. Figure taken from ECCC (2020).

Long description

Map of Canada showing the integrated risk assessment for all 51 boreal caribou ranges in Canada throughout nine provinces and territories, reflecting the capacity of each range to maintain a self-sustaining local population of boreal caribou. The likelihood of self-sustainability is indicated for each range as either: likely, as likely as not, unlikely, and very unlikely. Of the 51 boreal caribou local populations, 15 are “self-sustaining”, 26 are “not self-sustaining”, and 10 are “as likely as not self-sustaining”, based on Environment and Climate Change Canada’s methodology and updated data from provincial and territorial jurisdictions.

The range boundaries used in this map were updated in June 2012. Boreal caribou ranges are based on the best available information provided by provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Boreal caribou ranges are categorized based on the degree of certainty in the delineated boundaries into: Conservation Units (CUs), Improved Conservation Units (ICUs), and Local Population Units (LPUs). Updates to CUs and ICUs are anticipated. Changes to range boundaries may in turn result in changes to the integrated risk assessments.

Quebec

The federal recovery strategy for the species (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020) identifies six ranges in Quebec, their delineation associated with a degree of certainty ranging from low to high (see Appendix A).

Since the publication of the recovery strategy (EC, 2012), technological advances (for example, the advent of GPS telemetry tracking) and significant population monitoring efforts by the Quebec government have enabled the latter to refine the limits of the ranges present in the province, particularly federal range QC6, on which very little information was available in 2012. Today, 10 ranges are recognized by the province (“provincial ranges”; MFFP, 2021a).Footnote 8 Their delineation differs from those identified in the federal recovery strategy (“federal ranges”; EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020; Figure 2). The Quebec government also identified two knowledge acquisition areas where the species is known to be present, but where the existing data do not allow the range boundaries to be precisely identified. Despite changes to the delineations of these local ranges in recent years, taken together, they represent the same Quebec-wide population as that identified in the recovery strategy (EC, 2012).

Map 2, please read long description

Figure 2. Federal (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020) and provincial (MFFP, 2021a) ranges, including knowledge acquisition areas identified by the Quebec government.

Long description

Map of Quebec showing the geographic distribution and boundaries of the six federally recognized ranges of boreal caribou throughout the province. The federal ranges are within the sand-coloured areas of the map and the individual ranges are outlined by a brown dashed line.

The range boundaries used in this map were updated in June 2012. Boreal caribou ranges are based on the best available information provided by provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Boreal caribou ranges are categorized based on the degree of certainty in the delineated boundaries into: Conservation Units (CUs), Improved Conservation Units (ICUs), and Local Population Units (LPUs).

Of the six federally recognized ranges identified in Quebec, two (QC1 – Val-d’Or and QC2 – Charlevoix) were classified as local populations, three (QC3 – Pipmuacan, QC4 – Manouane, and QC5 – Manicouagan) were classified as improved conservation units, and one (QC6 – Quebec) was classified as a conservation unit.

The map also includes the boreal caribou ranges identified by the province (“provincial ranges”) in 2020 (MFFP 2021a). The provincial ranges are identified by coloured polygons as follows, from top to bottom and left to right:

Baie-James (light purple), Caniscapau (teal);

Détour (cyan), Notaway (dark green),  Assinica (red), Témiscamie (light green), Outards (blue), Manicouagan (yellow), Basse-Côte-Nord (magenta);

Pimuacan (dark purple);

Val-d’Or (light blue), Charlevoix (orange). 

Although the provincial ranges (as identified by MFFP [2021a]) differ from the ranges identified in the federal recovery strategy (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020), the former represent the best available information on the distribution and population structure of boreal caribou in Quebec at the time of this assessment. Several First Nations representatives with whom ECCC has had the opportunity to discuss boreal caribou in Quebec in recent years also recognize the added value of the ranges identified by the Quebec government (MFFP, 2021a) compared with those presented in the recovery strategy (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020), since they incorporate more recent and more complete data. Therefore, the provincial ranges and corresponding local populations are used as the units of analysis in the remainder of the document (see Appendix A for the full rationale for this decision).

In Quebec, among the populations identified by the province (MFFP, 2021a), only one is increasing, eight are declining, and the demographic trend in the remaining one is unknown (Table 1). In the two knowledge acquisition areas, the demographic trend is unknown in one and declining in the other. In the case of the Val-d’Or population, the situation was so critical in 2020 that all the remaining individuals (n=7) were put in an enclosure to protect them from excessive predation (Pellerin and Naud, 2020). In 2023, the herd consisted of nine individuals, including four adult males and three adult females, as well as one juvenile male and one juvenile female (MELCCFP, 2023a). A similar operation was carried out in Charlevoix in 2022, where 16 individuals were placed in an enclosure (MFFP, 2022a). The Charlevoix population stands at 31 individuals in 2023 (MELCCFP, 2023a). Therefore, even though the Val-d’Or and Charlevoix populations are considered to be “declining” according to the latest finite growth rate estimates (Table 1), they have in fact grown in recent years. Observed growth is not, however, a reliable indication of the likelihood of these populations’ self-sustainability, since the latter is dependent on significant and ongoing active management intervention (enclosures).

Table 1 presents the size and finite growth rate (λ) of the boreal caribou populations present in Quebec. Population sizes are presented in classes (< 100, 100 to 300, > 300 individuals) to take account of the variability in the accuracy of the estimates. These classes also reflect different levels of risk in relation to the likelihood of the populations’ persistence.Footnote 9 Below 100 individuals, populations are more vulnerable to stochastic effects and the effects of genetic drift (Shaffer, 1981, 1987; Lande, 1993; EC, 2011). Similarly, it is estimated that a minimum of 300 individuals are required for a population to be considered self-sustaining (EC, 2008). The demographic trends in the populations are described based on the finite growth rate, which considers the recruitment rate and individual survival rate observed in a population. Increasing populations have a finite growth rate of greater than one (λ > 1), stable populations have a finite growth rate equal to one (λ = 1) and declining populations have a finite growth rate of less than one (λ < 1). Demographic parameters can vary within the same range. For example, as part of an aerial survey of the Témiscamie population carried out in 2019, the Quebec government observed that the recruitment rate (measured as the number of fawns per 100 females) varied considerably between the southern and northern portions of the range, with the highest values in the northern portion, where the level of habitat disturbance was lower (Szor et al., 2019). The values presented in Table 1 provide a population-level demographic picture, but do not consider local variations that may exist within populations.

Table 1. Size and trend of boreal caribou populations in Quebec

Population or knowledge acquisition areaa

Estimated population size by class: < 100, 100 to 300 or > 300 individuals (year of estimate)

Short-term demographic trend, finite population growth rate (λ) (years taken into account to estimate survival [S] and recruitment [R] rates)b

Assinica

> 300c (2013)

Declining
λ = 0.97 (S: 2017 to 2019, R: 2016 to 2018)c

Baie-Jamesd

> 300c (2020)

Not available

Basse-Côte-Nordd

> 300c (2019)

Declining
λ = 0.96 (S: 2018 to 2019, R: 2018)c

Caniapiscau

> 300c (2018)

Increasing
λ = 1.07 (S: 2018 to 2019, R: 2017)c

Charlevoix

< 100c (2020)

Declining
λ = 0.67 (S: 2017 to 2019, R: 2016 to 2018)c

Detour

> 300e (2022)

Not availablef

Manicouagan

> 300g (2020 to 2021)

Declining
λ = 0.87 (S: 2018 to 2019, R: 2019)c

Nottaway

100 to 300h (2022)

Declining
λ = 0.95 (S: 2016 to 2022, R: 2016 to 2022)h

Outardes

> 3009 (2022)

Declining
λ = 0.89 (S: 2018 to 2021, R: 2022)i

Pipmuacan

100 to 300c (2020)

Declining
λ = 0.76 (S: 2018 to 2019, R: 2019)c

Témiscamie

> 300c (2019)

Declining
λ = 0.97 (S: 2017 to 2019, R: 2018)c

Val-d’Or

< 100c (2020)

Declining
λ = 0.81 (S: 2015 to 2019, R: 2015 to 2019)c

a According to the range limits identified in the Revue de littérature sur les facteurs impliqués dans le déclin des populations de caribous forestiers au Québec et de caribous montagnards de la Gaspésie (MFFP, 2021a)

b Since the finite growth rate of populations can fluctuate from year to year, it is preferable to consider growth rates that incorporate observations of survival and recruitment rates spanning a number of years. When this is not possible, the finite growth rate may provide an incomplete or erroneous picture of population trends. The finite growth rate values presented in this table should be interpreted with caution.

c According to MFFP (2021a)

d According to MFFP (2021a), the population structure is unknown in the Baie-James and Basse-Côte-Nord knowledge acquisition areas. The data presented in this table for these areas should be interpreted with caution, as they may not accurately represent the current status of populations present in these areas.

e According to Szor et al. (2023), the Detour population occurs on both sides of the Ontario-Quebec border. The population size estimate presented here considers the caribou present in both provinces.

f Local observations suggest that the population is declining (Conseil de la Première Nation Abitibiwinni – Territoire et Environnement, 2024).

g According to Heppell and Boissonneault (2021)

h According to Szor and Gingras (2022)

i According to Brodeur et al. (2022)

1.3 Habitat size and quality

Biological and habitat requirements

Boreal caribou require large range areas comprising continuous tracts of undisturbed habitat. In general, boreal caribou prefer habitat consisting of mature to old-growth coniferous forests (for example, jack pine [Pinus banksiana], black spruce [Picea mariana] with abundant lichens, or muskeg and peatlands intermixed with upland or hilly areas; Stuart-Smith et al., 1997; Rettie and Messier, 2000; Courtois, 2003; Brown et al., 2007; Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Summary Reports on Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population, 2010 to 2011). Large range areas reduce the risk of predation by allowing boreal caribou to maintain low population densities throughout the range and to avoid areas of high predation risk, such as areas with high densities of alternate prey species (for example, moose and deer) and predators (for example, wolves and bears; Rettie and Messier, 2001; Brown et al., 2003; Whittington et al., 2011). According to Lesmerises et al. (2013), in habitats with a particularly high level of disturbance, residual forest patches should be at least 100 km2 in size to prevent caribou from concentrating in habitat patches that are too small, where their vulnerability to predation is greater.

Connectivity

Connectivity of habitat, both within a range and between ranges, is essential for the persistence of boreal caribou on the landscape. Within a range, habitat connectivity allows boreal caribou to undertake seasonal movements between habitats to obtain the different resources that they need to satisfy their life history requirements (see
Appendix B for a detailed description of the biophysical attributes of the critical habitat), and to use different areas as they respond to disturbance or as disturbed habitat recovers (Saher and Schmiegelow, 2005).

Connectivity between boreal caribou ranges allows for immigration and emigration between local populations, which increases gene flow, thereby helping to maintain the species’ genetic diversity and its subsequent resilience to environmental stressors (for example, disease, severe weather). Isolated populations such as Val-d’Or and Charlevoix are therefore subject to an additional risk, since individuals cannot naturally immigrate to these populations.

In Quebec, a north-south gradient is observed in the intensity of anthropogenic disturbance of boreal caribou habitat: the territory is very heavily disturbed (mainly by logging) in the southern portion of the range, and less so towards the north (Figure 3). There is also a west-to-east gradient in the availability of quality habitats for caribou, with better-quality habitats more strongly represented in the eastern part of the range (Morin, 2023). Areas of functional connectivityFootnote 10 in the continuous range of boreal caribou in Quebec are mainly found north of the northern limit for commercial timber allocationFootnote 11 and particularly in the eastern part of the range (Morin, 2023). However, the quality of the forest habitat beyond the northern limit for commercial timber allocation may be insufficient to sustain viable boreal caribou populations, particularly west of the 73rd meridian (Szor and Gingras, 2020, 2022).

Map 3, please read long description

Figure 3. Mapping of habitat disturbances (anthropogenic and natural) in the provincial boreal caribou ranges (MFFP, 2021a), based on 2020 disturbance data and the methodology described in Appendix C. The anthropogenic disturbance footprint includes a buffer of 500 m (in accordance with EC [2011]).

Long description

Map of Quebec showing the disturbances within the 2020 provincial boreal caribou ranges (blue polygons) by type (anthropogenic disturbance – grey; fire disturbance – orange), as described in Appendix C. In accordance with Environment Canada’s Scientific Assessment to Inform the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada (EC 2011), the anthropogenic disturbance footprint includes a 500m buffer.

The map also includes the Northern limit of attributable forests, identified by a green line. 

Relationship between the level of habitat disturbance and probability of a population being self-sustaining

Several studies have highlighted the adverse effects of the disturbance of boreal caribou habitat on population recruitment (measured as the ratio of fawns to adult females; EC, 2011, Fortin et al., 2017; Rudolph et al., 2017). According to a study of 24 boreal caribou ranges in Canada, a composite measure of total habitat disturbance (that is, anthropogenic disturbance including a 500-m buffer and forest fires that occurred no more than 40 years ago) alone likely explains nearly 70% of the observed variation in recruitment rate (EC, 2011). EC (2011) used this relationship to predict population trends as a function of the level of habitat disturbance. The resulting model provides an estimate of the probability that a given population will be stable or increasing over a 20-year period as a function of the level of habitat disturbance (Figure 4). It should be noted that this model assumes that the average annual survival rate of adult females is equivalent to the national average (85%). Consequently, in populations where this condition is not met, it is expected that the level of disturbance they can tolerate to maintain stable or positive growth will vary accordingly (lowering the threshold in the case of adult female survival below 85%, and vice versa). More recently, Johnson et al. (2020) reconfirmed the relationship between disturbance level and recruitment, also showing that the effect of fire-associated disturbances on recruitment was three to four times weaker than the effect of disturbances of anthropogenic origin. These authors also highlighted the link between the level of anthropogenic disturbance in a range and the survival of adult females, with the adult female survival rate lower in ranges with higher levels of human disturbance.

Chart , please read long description

Figure 4. Probability of stable or increasing growth (λ ≥ stable) of caribou populations over a 20‑year period at various levels of total disturbance (fire ≤ 40 years + anthropogenic disturbance with a 500-m buffer). The finite growth rate (λ) was calculated using recruitment values specific to the disturbance levels resulting from the EC (2011) meta-analysis, with an average annual adult female survival rate of 0.85 consistent with the other components of the critical habitat assessment. The degree of certainty of the result, ecological risk and management scenarios are represented on a continuum of conditions. (Figure taken from EC, 2011).

Long description

Graph showing the disturbance management thresholds: Percent total disturbance is represented on the x-axis, with the probability of observing stable or positive growth (λ ≥ 1) represented on the y-axis. The probability of observing stable or positive growth (λ ≥ 1) of caribou populations over a 20-year period at varying levels of total range disturbance (fires ≤ 40 years plus anthropogenic disturbances buffered by 500 m). Certainty of outcome, ecological risk, and management scenarios are illustrated along a continuum of conditions.

Based on this relationship, ECCC established a maximum disturbance management threshold of 35%Footnote 12 in its recovery strategy (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020). Above a 35% level of habitat disturbance, the probability of a population experiencing stable or increasing growth over a 20-year period is less than 60%, and the population is considered not to be self-sustaining. Among other things, this threshold has been used to identify the species’ critical habitat (see Part 1.6). ECCC presumes that the relationship highlighted by EC (2011; see also Figure 4) should remain valid, even considering the level of disturbance at the scale of the provincial ranges (MFFP, 2021a), but recognizes that the exact threshold of disturbance that can be tolerated by populations to maintain stable or positive growth may vary. Table 2 presents the levels of habitat disturbance in each of Quebec’s provincial ranges, as of 2020. Additional natural and anthropogenic disturbances have occurred in boreal caribou habitat in Quebec since 2020. For example, the summer of 2023 was a record season for forest fires in Canada (Natural Resources Canada, 2023), particularly affecting certain areas of habitat in the northern and western portions of the boreal caribou’s range in Quebec.

It should be noted that there are several methods for mapping disturbances to boreal caribou habitat and calculating the level of disturbance. The method used by EC (2011), on which the identification of the 35% disturbance threshold in the federal recovery strategy was based (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020), relies on the visual identification of disturbances on 1:50,000-scale Landsat images. This method was chosen at the time due to the availability of data covering the areas of interest across Canada, as well as the time and resources required to carry out the mapping. In recent work in Quebec (for example, St-Laurent and Gosselin, 2020; MFFP, 2021a), more precise geospatial data have been used to calculate levels of habitat disturbance. To ensure consistency between the disturbance levels compiled in this document and the disturbance threshold identified in the federal recovery strategy, ECCC has continued to use the methods described in EC (2011) and Appendix C to map disturbances and calculate disturbance levels. Consequently, ECCC acknowledges that the levels of disturbance presented do not taken into account all existing disturbances, but believes that they are nevertheless an appropriate estimate of the degree of habitat disturbance for the purposes of this assessment (that is, in relation to the probability of the self-sustainability of the Quebec populations).

Table 2. Levels of habitat disturbance in boreal caribou provincial ranges in Quebec (MFFP, 2021a), as of 2020

Range or knowledge acquisition areab

Habitat disturbance level (%)a

Probability of stable or increasing (λ ≥ stable) growth in caribou populations over a 20-year period (according to EC [2011]; see Figure 4)

Fire

Anthropogenic disturbances

Total (without overlap)

Assinica

22

39

57

Unlikely

Baie-James

33

4

36

More or less likely

Basse-Côte-Nord

7

1

9

Very likely

Caniapiscau

8

1

9

Very likely

Charlevoix

2

75

76

Very unlikely

Detour

4

30

33

Probable

Manicouagan

7

23

29

Probable

Nottaway

14

16

28

Probable

Outardes

7

23

28

Probable

Pipmuacan

11

64

72

Unlikely

Témiscamie

18

30

44

More or less likely

Val-d’Or

1

60

61

Unlikely

a To calculate the disturbance level, a disturbance mapping process following the method described in Appendix C was used. Anthropogenic disturbances include a 500-m buffer (in accordance with EC [2011]). Fire-associated disturbances correspond to areas where a fire has occurred in the last 40 years (without buffer; as per EC [2011]). This method does not aim to compile a precise inventory of all habitat disturbances that could be perceived by caribou and affect their behaviour or demographics. It does, however, provide a reliable indication of the degree of habitat disturbance, which has also been linked to demographic parameters such as recruitment and adult female survival (EC, 2011; Johnson et al., 2020).

b According to MFFP (2021a); Baie-James and Basse-Côte-Nord are not considered ranges, but rather knowledge acquisition areas, where caribou are known to be present, but where the population structure and range boundaries are unknown.

1.4 Threats to the species

Canada

Table 3 is an extract from the table in Appendix 1 of the COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Newfoundland Population, Atlantic-Gaspésie Population and Boreal Population, in Canada (COSEWIC, 2014). It presents an assessment of the direct threats to the species across Canada. The threat assessment is based on the unified threats classification system developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the Conservation Measures Partnership.

Table 3. Threat calculator for Caribou, Boreal population. This table is taken from the COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Newfoundland Population, Atlantic-Gaspésie Population and Boreal Population, in Canada (COSEWIC, 2014)

Number

Threat

Impacta (calculated)

Scopeb (next 10 years)

Severityc (10 years or 3 generations)

Timingd

1

Residential and commercial development

Negligible

Negligible

Extreme

High (continuing)

1.1

Housing and urban areas

Negligible

Negligible

Extreme

High (continuing)

1.2

Commercial and industrial zones

Negligible

Negligible

Extreme

High (continuing)

1.3

Tourism and recreational areas

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

High (continuing)

2

Agriculture and aquaculture

Negligible

Negligible

Extreme

High (continuing)

2.3

Livestock farming and ranching

Negligible

Negligible

Extreme

High (continuing)

3

Energy production and mining

Medium-Low

Large-Restricted-Large

Moderate-Slight

High (continuing)

3.1

Oil and gas drilling

Medium-Low

Large-Restricted

Moderate-Slight

High (continuing)

3.2

Mining and quarrying

Low

Small

Extreme

High (continuing)

4

Transportation and service corridors

Medium

Large

Moderate

High (continuing)

4.1

Roads and railroads

Medium-Low

Large-Restricted

Moderate

High (continuing)

4.2

Utility and service lines

Low

Restricted-Small

Moderate-Sight

High (continuing)

5

Biological resource use

Medium-Low

Large-Restricted

Moderate-Slight

High (continuing)

5.1

Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals

Medium-Low

Large-Restricted

Moderate-Slight

High (continuing)

5.2

Gathering terrestrial plants

Low

Small

Extreme

High (continuing)

5.3

Logging and wood harvesting

High

Large

Extreme

High (continuing)

6

Human intrusions and disturbance

Unknown

Pervasive

Unknown

High (continuing)

6.1

Recreational activities

Unknown

Large

Unknown

High (continuing)

6.2

War, civil unrest and military exercises

Negligible

Negligible

Unknown

High (continuing)

6.3

Work and other activities

Unknown

Pervasive

Unknown

High (continuing)

7

Natural system modifications

Low

Restricted-Small

Moderate-Slight

High (continuing)

7.1

Fire and fire suppression

Low

Restricted-Small

Moderate-Sight

High (continuing)

7.2

Dams and water management/use

Negligible

Negligible

Extreme

High (continuing)

8

Invasive and other problematic species and genes

High-Medium

Pervasive

Serious-Moderate

High (continuing)

8.1

Invasive non-native/alien species

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Moderate (possibly short-term, < 10 years)

8.2

Problematic native species

High-Medium

Pervasive

Serious-Moderate

High (continuing)

9

Pollution

Negligible

Negligible

Unknown

High (continuing)

9.2

Industrial and military effluents

Negligible

Negligible

Unknown

High (continuing)

11

Climate change and severe weather

Unknown

Small

Unknown

High (continuing)

11.1

Habitat shifting and alteration

Unknown

Small

Unknown

High (continuing)

11.3

Temperature extremes

Not Calculated (outside the evaluation period)

Pervasive

Unknown

Low (possibly long-term, > 10 years)

a Impact - The degree to which a species is observed, inferred, or suspected to be directly or indirectly threatened in the area of interest. The impact of each threat is based on the Severity and Scope ratings and considers only present and future threats. Threat impact reflects a reduction of a species population or decline/degradation of the area of an ecosystem. The median rate of population reduction or area decline for each combination of scope and severity corresponds to the following classes of threat impact: Very high (75% declines), High (40%), Medium (15%), and Low (3%). Unknown: used when impact cannot be determined (for example, if values for either scope or severity are unknown); Not Calculated: impact not calculated as threat is outside the assessment (for example, timing is insignificant/negligible [past threat] or low [possible threat in long term]). Negligible: when scope or severity is negligible; Not a Threat: when severity is scored as neutral or potential benefit.

b Scope - Proportion of the species that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within 10 years. Usually measured as a proportion of the species’ population in the area of interest. (Pervasive = 71 to 100%; Large = 31 to 70%; Restricted = 11 to 30%; Small = 1 to 10%; Negligible < 1%).

c Severity - Within the scope, the level of damage to the species from the threat that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within a 10-year or 3-generation timeframe. Usually measured as the degree of reduction of the species’ population. (Extreme = 71 to 100%; Serious = 31 to 70%; Moderate = 11 to 30%; Slight = 1 to 10%; Negligible < 1%; Neutral or Potential Benefit > 0%).

d Timing - High = continuing; Moderate = only in the future (could happen in the short term [< 10 years or 3 generations]) or now suspended (could come back in the short term); Low = only in the future (could happen in the long term) or now suspended (could come back in the long term); Insignificant/Negligible = only in the past and unlikely to return, or no direct effect but limiting.

In accordance with the threat assessment process used by COSEWIC, Table 3 presents the assessment of direct (immediate or proximate) threats, without considering ultimate (underlying) threats. Thus, the threat “Problematic native species” (which refers to excessive predation) is the most important direct threat according to this assessment. It is important to note, however, that excessive predation on boreal caribou is most often the result of habitat disturbances that lead to changes in predator-prey relationships, through a mechanism known as “apparent competition” (Holt, 1977; Seip, 1991; DeCesare et al., 2010; Latham et al., 2011a). Indeed, when caribou habitat is disturbed (for example, by resource exploitation activities, fire or insect outbreaks), the forest is rejuvenated and this younger forest is suitable for other prey species (Gagné et al., 2016; Anderson et al., 2018). These prey species increase in abundance and support predator populations that are also more abundant, increasing the predation pressure on boreal caribou (Seip, 1991; Serrouya et al., 2017). Therefore, all threats that result in habitat disturbance contribute cumulatively to this phenomenon of apparent competition. In addition to their direct effects, these threats are also associated with such things as habitat loss or fragmentation, or sensory disturbances, which are assessed in Table 3.

Linear features (for example, roads, seismic lines, power lines) have a particularly detrimental impact on caribou. This is because, in addition to the habitat disturbance and fragmentation they cause, they facilitate the efficient movement of predators in the habitat (Latham et al., 2011b; Dickie et al., 2017, 2020) and increase human access to the territory, which promotes the occurrence of other threats (for example, recreational activities; Pigeon et al., 2016; Keim et al., 2019).

After a disturbance, the forest takes several decades to regenerate before once again displaying the characteristics sought by the species (Lee and Boutin, 2006; Jandt et al., 2008; Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Summary Reports on Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population, 2010 to 2011; Bartels et al., 2016). Therefore, although some activities may be limited in time or space, if they cause habitat disturbance, the impact may persist for several decades. Furthermore, even though the footprint of the disturbances associated with a given activity may seem small, the impact of these disturbances must be assessed by considering the other disturbances already present in the habitat, in order to adequately take account of the cumulative impacts of habitat disturbances (see Figure 4).

In addition to the threats related to habitat disturbance, COSEWIC (2014) identifies other threats with more direct effects on individuals. Among these, activities that generate sensory disturbances (noise, light)—due to, for example the use of motorized vehicles or machinery—can have non-negligible repercussions on individuals (for example, behaviour modification, changes in habitat use, stress; Duchesne et al., 2000; Vistnes and Nelleman, 2008). These effects may also result from threats that affect the species’ habitat, such as mining, or vacation and recreational infrastructure.

Quebec

The relative scope of the various threats to boreal caribou habitat varies between ranges. In Quebec, logging is considered to be the main ultimate threat to boreal caribou (MFFP, 2021a), and is responsible for the majority of disturbances to the species’ habitat (see Part 2, Table 5). Roads are also a major source of disturbance in caribou habitat (Table 5). Most of the road network in the boreal caribou’s range in Quebec consists of multi-purpose roads, which are built mainly to enable the forest industry to carry out logging activities (MRNF, 2023a; see Part 2). Several First Nations in Quebec have emphasized to ECCC the key role of vacation and recreational infrastructure in the disturbance of caribou habitat and individuals in the province. In particular, the presence of vacation leases on public land in caribou ranges means that the roads that provide access to leased land will be maintained over the long term to ensure this access, which limits opportunities for natural regeneration or active restoration efforts. Conversely, oil and gas drilling, which is widespread elsewhere in Canada (COSEWIC, 2014), is virtually absent in the boreal caribou ranges in Quebec (see Part 2, Table 5). Other threats vary in scope depending on the range. For example, the footprint of disturbances related to mining and mining exploration is greater in the Val-d’Or and Assinica ranges than in the other ranges, which are virtually unaffected by this threat (Table 5). Similarly, forest fires and insect outbreaks represent a major source of disturbance in some ranges, while their scope is negligible in others (Table 5; Labadie et al., 2021).

Hunting boreal caribou has been prohibited in Quebec since 2001 (Gouvernement du Québec, 2023a). To the best of ECCC’s knowledge, many First Nations that once hunted boreal caribou on a cultural or subsistence basis have ceased to do so, to maximize the species’ chances of recovery (for example, Lochon et al., 2022). However, some communities have continued to harvest, particularly in the eastern part of the boreal caribou’s range in Quebec. Harvesting represents an additional pressure on populations, but its impact is difficult to accurately quantify, because the data required to do so are fragmented.

Exceptional measures have been adopted in some Quebec ranges to temporarily reduce the impact of the proximate threat posed by excessive predation. For example, the last remaining individuals in the Val-d’Or and Charlevoix populations were put in enclosures in 2020 and 2022 to protect them from predators (Gouvernement du Québec, 2023a). Therefore, predation is not an immediate threat to these populations. However, the current levels of habitat disturbance in these ranges (61% and 76%, respectively, in 2020, Table 2) greatly favour the populations of other prey and predator species. Consequently, with these enclosures, the impact of excessive predation is only temporarily avoided, and could become critical again if these individuals are released, or in the event of a break in the enclosure fencing that would allow predators to enter or caribou to escape.

1.5 Status, legislation and existing conservation measures

Federal protection

The boreal caribou was added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk in Schedule 1 of SARA in 2003, when the Act came into force. Individuals and residences are protected on federal lands under sections 32 and 33 of SARA, which prohibit killing, harming, harassing, capturing, or taking an individual, as well as damaging or destroying its residence. In 2019, a ministerial order was made under section 58 of SARA, prohibiting the destruction of the species’ critical habitat on federal lands unless authorized under section 73 of the Act. Certain portions of critical habitat are excluded from the application of the order (ECCC, 2019).Footnote 13 The total area covered by the order is around 14,500 km2 (ECCC, 2021).

The Government of Canada reports on actions taken to protect the critical habitat of species at risk through reports published on the Species at Risk Public Registry. Since 2018, 12 reports have been published, with two of these specific to boreal caribou (in 2018 and 2019).

Provincial protection

In Quebec, a number of laws can help to protect individuals and habitats of the species. The following paragraphs describe the main laws, which were also analyzed in a recent report, entitled Protection Assessment of Critical Habitat and Individuals of Boreal Caribou in Quebec, published online by ECCC (2023b). An updated summary of the main elements in this report is provided below. On January 30, 2023, the federal Minister of the Environment concluded that almost all of the critical habitat of the boreal caribou located on non-federal lands in Quebec is not effectively protected.

In the province of Quebec, the species is referred to as the woodland caribou.Footnote 14 The vast majority of its range (98%) is on provincial Crown land.

Some laws provide a certain level of protection for the species and portions of its habitat, but these protections apply to only a small percentage of its total range. Two separate acts are designed to provide some form of protection for species at risk: the Act Respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Species (ATVS) and the Act Respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife (ACDW). The boreal caribou was designated as a vulnerable species in 2005 under ATVS and the Regulation Respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Wildlife Species and Their Habitats (paragraph 2(7)(a) of the Regulation). The protection of individuals is ensured under ACDW, which prohibits the hunting of boreal caribou. This prohibition is the main tool for protecting individuals of this species under ACDW and applies to both provincial Crown land and private land.

In addition, the legislation affords protection to some portions of the species’ habitats, and prohibits certain activities. The Regulation Respecting Wildlife Habitats (RWH) enables the protection of specific boreal caribou habitats, notably if they are located on land in the domain of the State and are identified by a plan drawn up by the Minister (sections 128.1 and 128.2 of ACDW). In the case of boreal caribou, this protection applies to the caribou range south of the 52nd parallel as designated in the Gazette officielle du Québec, which covers virtually all of the critical habitat in the federal Charlevoix range (QC2; Figure 2).Footnote 15 In addition, some activities are permitted in wildlife habitats, notably forest management activities (section 8 of the RWH).

In addition, boreal caribou habitat can be protected under the Natural Heritage Conservation Act (NHCA), which enables the designation of various types of protected areas, including ecological reserves (sections 48 and 49 of the NHCA), biodiversity reserves (sections 50 and 51 of the NHCA) and réserves de territoires aux fins d’aires protégées (RTFAPs) [land set aside for protected areas] (subsections 12.3 to 12.6 of the NHCA). The Parks Act (PA) also allows for the establishment of national parks. In total, an area of 5.1 million hectares, or 50,705 km2, is protected under these various designations (Bureau du forestier en chef, 2022), representing roughly 9% of the species’ range in Quebec.Footnote 16 In addition, some reserves have been established specifically for the species, such as the 2009 Caribous-de-Val-d’Or Biodiversity Reserve, and the Manouane-Manicouagan and Caribous-de-Nottaway RTFAPs.

In the rest of the species’ range, the provincial legislation does not prevent activities that threaten the species, but enables these activities to be managed. The Environment Quality Act (EQA) is not specifically aimed at protecting species at risk, given its general intent. However, as part of the ministerial authorization process set out in the EQA, the Minister may, at his or her discretion, refuse to authorize a project located in the habitat of a vulnerable species for which a plan has been prepared under the Regulation Respecting Wildlife Habitats (section 31.0.3, paragraph 2(4) of the EQA). In addition, threatened and vulnerable species must be included in the inventories required to obtain authorization for projects under this Act. Enforceable conditions attached to authorizations, such as avoidance, mitigation, and compensation measures, can provide a form of protection for boreal caribou. Despite all of the above, some projects may be carried out in caribou habitat.

The Sustainable Forest Development Act (SFDA) sets out the rules for sustainable forest management, notably on provincial Crown land. This law divides the forest territory into 57 management units, which cover 25% of the boreal caribou’s range in Quebec; the remainder of the range is mostly located beyond the northern limit for commercial timber allocation. The SFDA contains no specific mentions of threatened or vulnerable species or boreal caribou.

The Regulation Respecting the Sustainable Development of Forests in the Domain of the State (RSDF), made under the SFDA, stipulates that no forest management activities shall be carried out in a caribou calving ground north of the 52nd parallel (subsection 47(1) of the RSDF). However, forest management activities that are carried out for the purposes of exercising mining rights are exempt (section 49 of the RSDF), which precludes protecting caribou from one of the main anthropogenic threats occurring beyond the northern limit for commercial timber allocation. In addition, logging restrictions apply in the area covered by the Plan de rétablissement du caribou forestier [woodland caribou recovery plan] (section 59, paragraph 1, of the RSDF), although the Minister of the Environment (MELCCFP) and the Minister of Forests (MRNF) may issue authorizations for these operations under the EQA or the SFDA respectively (section 59, paragraph 2, of the RSDF). In addition, certain rules apply to roads in the area covered by the woodland caribou recovery plan (sections 60 and 61 of the RSDF).

History of recovery measures

The measures implemented in Quebec during the 2012 to 2023 period are described in detail in the Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population in Canada for the Period 2012 to 2017 (ECCC, 2017) and in a similar report being prepared for the 2018 to 2023 period (ECCC, in preparation). These reports focus primarily on the actions taken by the federal, provincial and territorial governments, and do not reflect the entirety of the work being done by Indigenous Peoples, non-governmental stakeholders, universities and private citizens to promote the recovery of boreal caribou across the country. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the main measures implemented in Quebec in recent years.

Federal measures

In October 2012, under section 37 of SARA, EC published the first version of the Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada (EC, 2012). In 2020, the recovery strategy was amended under section 45 of SARA to complete the identification of critical habitat (specifically in the SK1 range in Saskatchewan), update the data on population and habitat status and make other minor changes. However, the delineation of the ranges of the local populations in Quebec, and their population and distribution objectives, remain the same. The resulting Amended Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada, 2020 (ECCC, 2020) replaces the 2012 version (EC, 2012).

In 2018, ECCC published the Action Plan for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada: Federal Actions (ECCC, 2018). This plan emphasizes that the recovery of the boreal caribou requires unprecedented commitment, collaboration and cooperation among the various groups involved in caribou conservation.

Provincial measures

A recovery plan for woodland caribou in Quebec was produced by the Équipe de rétablissement du caribou forestier du Québec (hereinafter, the recovery team) for the 2005 to 2012 period and was approved by the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec (MRNF) [Quebec Department of Natural Resources and Wildlife] (Équipe de rétablissement du caribou forestier du Québec, 2008). In 2013, the recovery team produced guidelines on the management of woodland caribou habitat (Équipe de rétablissement du caribou forestier au Québec, 2013a) and a second recovery plan (Équipe de rétablissement du caribou forestier du Québec, 2013b), but they have not been adopted by the Quebec government. The integration of these recommendations is left to the discretion of the Minister of Forests. For the period from 2013 to 2023, the recovery team also produced a report outlining the progress of the actions set out in the woodland caribou recovery plan published in 2013 (Équipe de rétablissement du caribou forestier du Québec, 2023).

When the action plan for managing woodland caribou habitat (Plan d'action pour l'aménagement de l'habitat du caribou forestier) was published in 2016, the Quebec government announced that it would be followed in 2018 by a long-term strategy (MFFP, 2016). In 2019, the Quebec government presented to ECCC the approach it wished to take in developing the strategy. Now referred to as the woodland and mountain caribou strategy (Stratégie pour les caribous forestiers et montagnards), it was still not published at the time of this assessment. Until the strategy is adopted, interim caribou habitat management measures have been put in place in some sectors that the Quebec government considers sensitive (Gouvernement du Québec, 2019). On November 5, 2021, the Quebec government announced the establishment of an independent commission on woodland and mountain caribou (Commission indépendante sur les caribous forestiers et montagnards) to hold consultations and propose scenarios for developing the strategy; its final report was published on August 19, 2022 (Commission indépendante sur les caribous forestiers et montagnards, 2022).

Some recovery measures for boreal caribou have been put in place by the Quebec government since 2016. The main ones include the designation of protected areas, the implementation of a moratorium on logging in certain parts of caribou habitat, the dismantling of more than 157 km of roads in caribou habitat since 2017 (ECCC, in preparation) and the use of enclosures for the remaining members of the Val-d’Or population in 2020 and the Charlevoix population in 2022 (Gouvernement du Québec, 2023a).

Agreement between the governments of Quebec and Canada

On August 18, 2018, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec signed a one-year agreement (2018 to 2019) for boreal caribou (Government of Canada and Government of Quebec, 2018) under the Collaborative Agreement for the Protection and Recovery of Species at Risk in Quebec (Government of Canada and Government of Quebec, 2006). Subsequently, in September 2019, the parties signed the Cost-Sharing Understanding Concerning the Implementation of the Cooperation Agreement for the Protection and Recovery of Species at Risk in Quebec Applied to Boreal Caribou and its Habitat, which covers the 2019 to 2022 period (Government of Canada and Government of Québec, 2019). These two agreements supported some of the measures listed in the previous section on provincial measures.

In 2022, negotiations began on a new agreement on boreal caribou recovery, but were put on hold until the publication of the Quebec government’s woodland and mountain caribou strategy. ECCC needs to know the elements in the provincial strategy in order to develop a collaboration agreement with the Quebec government.

Measures undertaken by Indigenous peoples and organizations

In Quebec, more than a hundred projects conducted by Indigenous peoples or organizations have been carried out since 2013. The scope of these projects and the activities they involve vary according to the issues specific to each Nation. They include habitat restoration measures, including road revegetation; protected area projects targeting habitats of interest; predator control activities to reduce caribou mortality; drafting of action plans to identify strategic measures to be implemented on the territory; awareness-raising activities; and knowledge acquisition. Owing to the bio-cultural importance of caribou, and the sacred ties that Indigenous Peoples maintain with their traditional territories, the latter are deeply involved in the recovery of the species and the restoration of its habitat. ECCC has not listed all the projects carried out; many other measures may have been implemented by Indigenous peoples and organizations, without financial participation from ECCC (see Lochon et al., 2022).

1.6 Recovery objectives

According to the recovery strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Boreal population (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020) the recovery of the species is technically and biologically feasible throughout its Canadian range. The recovery goal for boreal caribou is to achieve self-sustaining local populations in all boreal caribou ranges throughout the species’ current distribution in Canada, to the extent possible. Achieving the recovery goal would allow for local population levels sufficient to sustain traditional Indigenous harvesting activities, consistent with existing Aboriginal and treaty rights.

In order to work towards achieving the recovery goal, population and distribution objectives have been identified for the species. These objectives are, to the extent possible, to:Footnote 17

  1. Maintain the current status of the 15 existing self-sustaining local populations; and
  2. Stabilize and achieve self-sustaining status for the 36 not self-sustaining local populations

In the case of the recovery objectives, “not self-sustaining” refers to local populations assessed as “as likely as not to be self-sustaining” or “not self-sustaining.”

The notion of self-sustainability refers to processes that take place at the population level. However, the most recent data on the size of and trends in caribou populations in Quebec are reported for the populations identified by the Quebec government (MFFP, 2021a), not for those identified in the recovery strategy (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020). Although it is relatively easy to establish a correspondence between some of the populations recently identified by the Quebec government (MFFP, 2021a) and those set out in the recovery strategy (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020; for example, QC1 and Val-d’Or or QC2 and Charlevoix), this direct correspondence is lacking for several populations. The populations recently identified by the Quebec government (MFFP, 2021a) are nevertheless associated with ranges covering approximately the same territory as the ranges identified in the recovery strategy (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020). Consequently, ECCC considers that no population present in Quebec in 2012, when the first draft of the recovery strategy was produced, is excluded from the set of populations identified by the Quebec government in 2021. For these reasons, as well as those set out in Appendix A, ECCC believes that it is appropriate to use the populations and ranges identified by the province as the units of analysis for evaluating the achievement of recovery objectives in this assessment.

Table 4 shows the recent status of the three indicators used by EC (2011) to carry out the integrated risk assessment. For the purposes of this assessment, and given the time constraints, the integrated risk assessment has not been updated. The values of the indicators presented in Table 4 nevertheless enable us to assess the degree of risk faced by each population. The rate of population finite growth (λ) and the level of habitat disturbance provide an indication of the extent to which populations are likely to show stable or positive growth in the future. Indeed, populations whose current growth rate is equal to or greater than one (≥ 1) are more likely to remain stable in the long term. Similarly, the lower the level of habitat disturbance, the more likely conditions are to support stable or increasing populations. In addition, the population size reflects the risk associated with stochastic phenomena; smaller populations run a greater risk of reaching the quasi-extinction threshold of 10 females capable of reproduction over a 50-year period (EC, 2011). According to the data presented in Table 4, the Val-d’Or, Charlevoix and Pipmuacan populations face a particularly high risk in this respect. Indeed, at least two of the three self-sustainability indicators indicate a “high” or “very high” degree of risk for these populations. In addition, the considerable levels of habitat disturbance (that is, approaching or already exceeding 35%) and declining demographic trends associated with most of the other populations suggest that they, too, face a significant degree of risk.

Table 4. Indicators of self-sustainability and levels of risk faced by boreal caribou populations in Quebec (MFFP, 2021a) as a function of each indicator. The gradient from green to dark red reflects an increasing risk gradient. This table shows the population sizes and trends compiled in Table 1, as well as the disturbance levels compiled in Table 2 (see Table 2 for the references associated with these data)

Population or knowledge acquisition area

Self-sustainability indicators

Population size

Habitat conditions

Population trends

Population size (individuals)a

Level of risk, based on population sizea

Level of habitat disturbance (%)b

Level of risk, based on the observed level of disturbance c

Finite population growth rate (λ)d

Level of risk as a function of the finite population growth ratee

Assinica

> 300

Low

57

High

0.97

Moderate

Baie-Jamesf

> 300

Low

36

Moderate

Not available

Not available

Basse-Côte-Nordf

> 300

Low

9

Very low

0.96

Moderate

Caniapiscau

> 300

Low

9

Very low

1.07

Very low

Charlevoix

< 100

High

76

Very high

0.67

Very high

Detour

> 300

Low

33

Low

Not available

Not available

Manicouagan

> 300

Low

29

Low

0.87

Very high

Nottaway

100-300

Moderate

28

Low

0.95

High

Outardes

> 300

Low

28

Low

0.89

Very high

Pipmuacan

100-300

Moderate

72

Very high

0.76

Very high

Témiscamie

> 300

Low

44

Moderate

0.97

Moderate

Val-d’Or

< 100

High

61

High

0.81

Very high

a Since methods for estimating population size may vary, population sizes are presented in classes of <100, 100-300 and >300 individuals. These classes are associated with different levels of risk. Indeed, more than 300 boreal caribou would be needed for a local population to be considered self-sustaining (EC, 2008). Similarly, maintaining a population size of 100 gives a 0.7 probability of not reaching the quasi-extinction threshold of fewer than 10 females capable of reproduction under stable conditions over 50 years (EC, 2011).

b Disturbance levels were calculated based on a disturbance mapping process following the method described in Appendix C. Anthropogenic disturbances include a 500-m buffer (in accordance with EC [2011]). Fire-associated disturbances correspond to areas where a fire has occurred in the last 40 years (without buffer; as per EC [2011]). This method does not aim to provide a precise inventory of all habitat disturbances that could be perceived by caribou and affect their behaviour or demographics. It does, however, provide a reliable indication of the degree of habitat disturbance, which has also been linked to demographic parameters such as recruitment and adult female survival (EC, 2011; Johnson et al., 2020).

c According to the relationship shown in Figure 4 (EC, 2011).

d Since the finite growth rate of populations (λ) can fluctuate from year to year, calculating values for this parameter that take account of estimates of survival and recruitment rates based on a limited number of years of data may provide an incomplete or erroneous picture of population trends. The finite growth rate values presented in this table should be interpreted with caution.

e The risk classes associated with the finite growth rate (λ) for each population were identified based on the projected population trajectory over three generations (18 years), assuming that the growth rate would not change. The risk categories and thresholds used were inspired by the A3 quantitative criterion used by COSEWIC to assess the status of wildlife species (COSEWIC, 2021), which looks at the projected decline over a period of 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer). This criterion establishes a decline threshold of at least 30% for “Threatened” status and at least 50% for “Endangered” status. ECCC has used these thresholds to identify different risk categories. Thus, the “very low” risk class is associated with a stable or positive trend expected over a period equivalent to three generations (corresponding approximately to values of λ ≥ 1); the “low” risk class is associated with an expected decline of less than 30% over three generations (corresponding approximately to values of λ ≥ 0.98 and <1); the “moderate” risk class is associated with an expected decline of at least 30% over three generations (corresponding approximately to values of λ ≥ 0.96 and < 0.98); the “high” risk class is associated with an expected decline of at least 50% over three generations (corresponding approximately to values of λ ≥ 0.94 and < 0.96); and the “very high” risk class is associated with an expected decline of at least 50% in two generations [12 years] or less (corresponding approximately to values of λ < 0.94).

f In the Baie-James and Basse-Côte-Nord knowledge acquisition areas, the self-sustainability indicators should be interpreted with caution, as the population structure in these areas is unknown. The self-sustainability indicators may not accurately reflect the level of risk faced by populations in these areas.

1.7 Critical habitat

Under SARA, critical habitat is defined as “the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species.” The use of the territory by boreal caribou varies over space and time, in accordance with changes in the location of biophysical attributes within the range as areas of disturbed and undisturbed habitat cycle on the landscape. For a local population to be self-sustaining over time, this habitat supply system (that is, critical habitat) must function perpetually. Therefore, for boreal caribou, the most relevant spatial scale for identifying critical habitat is the range (EC, 2008).

In light of the foregoing, the critical habitat of boreal caribou is identified in all rangesFootnote 18 (except the Boreal Shield range [SK1] in northern Saskatchewan)Footnote 19 as follows:

In ranges where the percentage of undisturbed habitat is below the threshold, critical habitat is initially defined as existing habitat that, over time, will contribute to reaching the 65% threshold of undisturbed habitat (except for SK1). Existing habitat is defined as the entire range of boreal caribou, with the exception of areas where alterations are permanent (permanent alterations: existing features found within a range, such as industrial and urban developments, permanent infrastructure and graded or paved roads that do not currently possess or have the potential to possess the biophysical attributes of critical habitat for boreal caribou).

Based on the methodology developed by EC (2011), a disturbance management threshold of 65% has been identified, meaning that a minimum of 65% undisturbed habitat must be maintained or achieved in order to provide a measurable probability of 60% of a local population being self-sustaining. The precise location of the 65% undisturbed habitat in a range will vary over time. The habitat within a range should exist in an appropriate spatial configuration, such that boreal caribou can move throughout the range and access the required habitat when needed.

Box 1 – Findings from Part 1

  • Boreal caribou need large areas of undisturbed and interconnected old-growth forest to separate themselves spatially from their predators
  • The main factor in the decline of boreal caribou populations is habitat disturbance, which favours other prey species and, consequently, predator populations. This results in greater predation pressure on caribou, a phenomenon referred to as “apparent competition”
  • ECCC’s recovery strategy for the boreal caribou established the recovery goal of achieving self-sustaining local populations throughout the species’ current distribution in Canada to the extent possible. The document also establishes a maximum disturbance management threshold of 35%, above which the probability of a population being self-sustaining is less than 60%
  • Using caribou location data from between 2004 and 2020 (MFFP, 2021a), the Quebec government has identified 10 local population ranges and two knowledge acquisition areas. At the time of this assessment, these ranges constitute the best information available on the structure and distribution of caribou populations in Quebec, and are used as the unit of analysis
  • Taking into account the self-sustainability indicators considered (size and finite growth rate of the population, level of habitat disturbance), three of the 10 populations identified by the Quebec government (Val-d’Or, Charlevoix and Pipmuacan) face a particularly high level of risk, while two other populations (Assinica and Témiscamie) have a level of habitat disturbance that exceeds the 35% threshold
  • In February 2023, the federal Minister of the Environment concluded that almost all of the critical habitat of boreal caribou in Quebec located outside federal lands is not effectively protected

Part 2: Information on new or evolving threats

2.1 General information on major threats

This threat assessment focuses on anthropogenic activitiesFootnote 20 that contribute to the increased disturbance of boreal caribou habitat, that is, activities that constitute ultimate threats to the species, given the strong relationship between a caribou population’s probability of self-sustainability and the level of disturbance to its habitat (see Part 1.4). According to the calculations of the relative contributions of the different disturbance classes (Table 5), the anthropogenic activities are responsible for the majority of disturbance in the species’ habitat are logging (cutblocks) and the road network (roads). Consequently, the threat assessment focuses on these two sources of disturbance. The threats associated with other anthropogenic activities are described in less detail, so as to not postpone the adoption of efficient measures (precautionary principle). Since the other activities’ relative contribution to the level of habitat disturbance is smaller, ECCC considers that the risk of them jeopardizing the survival or recovery of the species in the near future is also lower, even if they contribute to increased cumulative effects on the species. Some of these other threats—such as mining, and vacation and recreational infrastructure development—have been identified as significant threats to boreal caribou in the correspondence received by ECCC.

Furthermore, given the extent of the boreal caribou ranges in Quebec, this assessment only examines the threats in ranges where the level of disturbance is greater than 35%,Footnote 21 since threats in these ranges are more likely to have a significant immediate impact on the survival or recovery of the species. Owing to this risk-based approach, the assessment can focus on the most significant threats, in accordance with the emergency context referred to in section 80 of SARA.

Table 5. Relative contribution of different disturbance classes, as of 2020, in the five provincial boreal caribou ranges (MFFP, 2021a) for which the level of habitat disturbance was greater than 35% in 2020.a

Disturbance classes

Relative contribution (%) based on total surface area of all disturbance classes in each rangeb

Val-d’Or

Charlevoix

Pipmuacan

Assinica

Témiscamie

Cutblocks

50

58

61

46

51

Roads

42

37

28

23

20

Fires

<1

1

9

25

29

Power lines

2

3

2

3

<1

Mines

2

<1

<1

1

<1

Urban development

2

<1

<1

<1

<1

Railways

<1

0

0

<1

0

Unknown polygonal entities

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

Agriculture

<1

0

0

<1

0

Unknown linear entities

<1

0

<1

<1

<1

Landing strips

0

0

<1

<1

<1

Oil and gas infrastructure

0

0

0

<1

0

Pipelines

<1

0

0

0

0

Dams

0

0

0

0

0

Seismic exploration lines

0

0

0

0

0

Well sites

0

0

0

0

0

a The Baie-James knowledge acquisition area was not included, despite its disturbance level of 36%. This is because it is not directly linked to the range of a local population, and because the level of anthropogenic disturbance is only 4%.

b The calculation of disturbance levels is based on a disturbance mapping process following the method described in Appendix C. Anthropogenic disturbances include a buffer of 500 m (in accordance with EC [2011]). Fire-associated disturbances correspond to areas where a fire has occurred in the last 40 years (buffer not included; in accordance with EC [2011]). This method does not aim to compile a precise inventory of all habitat disturbances that could be perceived by caribou and affect their behavior or demography. Assigning a class to disturbances is an intermediate step in the disturbance mapping process described in EC (2011) and Appendix C, and may result in inaccuracies. As such, the values in this table should be interpreted with caution. Values greater than 1 have been rounded to the nearest whole number, and values between 0 and 1 are indicated as < 1. A given area may be affected by more than one disturbance class, due mainly to the 500-m buffers added to anthropogenic disturbances (see Appendix C). In the table above, each disturbance class is considered independently of the others, and overlaps between classes are not considered. To calculate the relative contribution of each disturbance class, the area affected by that disturbance class was compared to the sum of the areas affected by all disturbance classes, without merging areas of overlap (this sum is therefore greater than the true area of disturbed habitat in a given range). The methodology used underestimates the relative contribution of linear disturbances (for example, roads; see Appendix C).

2.2 Logging

Forest management activities in Quebec are governed by the Sustainable Forest Development Act (SFDA; see Section 1.5). Among other things, this law governs the steps involved in establishing both the volumes of wood to be harvested and the areas where this harvesting will take place (Figure 5).

Flow chart, please read long description

Figure 5. Summary of the main stages in forest planning leading to commercial forestry operations in Quebec.

Long description

Flow chart demonstrating the steps involved in establishing the volumes of wood to be harvested and the areas where the harvesting will take place, as governed by Quebec’s Sustainable Forest Development Act.

Every five years, the Forestier en chef du Québec [Chief Forester of Quebec] establishes the allowable cuts in each of the 57 forest management units, which correspond to the maximum annual timber harvest (section 48 of the SFDA). The allowable cuts in effect at the time of this assessment were established for the 2023 to 2028 period.

The Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (MRNF) applies reduction factors to the allowable cut, in order to subtract unusable wood volumes and obtain the net merchantable volumes (NMV) (MFFP, 2022b). In addition, other volumes are subtracted according to the department’s list of criteria until the allocatable volume is obtained, which can then be granted as forestry rights—in the form of timber supply guarantees (garanties d’approvisionnement) or licenses to harvest timber for the purpose of supplying a wood processing plant (Permis d’intervention pour la récolte de bois aux fins d’approvisionner une usine de transformation du bois) (PRAU) or for sale on the open market. Allocatable volumes are generally not assigned or harvested in full. However, to the best of ECCC’s knowledge, there is nothing to prevent all volumes from being allocated should the industry demand increase. Between 2013 and 2022, wood harvesting on public land in Quebec represented 89% of allocated volumes and 73% of allowable cuts on average.Footnote 22

For each forest management unit, the Quebec government draws up tactical integrated forest management plans (plans d'aménagement forestier intégré tactiques) (PAFITs). The PAFITs in effect at the time of this assessment target the 2023 to 2028 period. These five-year plans establish management objectives and the strategies selected to achieve them (section 54 of the SFDA). The PAFITs are followed by operational integrated forest management plans (Plans d'aménagement forestier intégré opérationnels) (PAFIOs), which map the areas where timber harvesting and other forest management activities are to take place (section 54 of the SFDA). The PAFIOs are updated on an ongoing basis, in accordance with MRNF’s objective of identifying potential forest operations areas that provide 300% of the timber supply required to meet companies’ annual needs, or the equivalent of three years of operations, to offer latitude and predictability to forestry rights holders (MFFP, 2021b).

In keeping with the PAFITs and PAFIOs, the forestry rights holders in each forest management unit jointly prepare an annual program of commercial silvicultural work (for example, total cutting, partial cutting, commercial thinning), while the provincial government draws up a program of non-commercial silvicultural work (for example, reforestation, precommercial thinning). This information is made available in the annual harvesting program (Programmation annuelle des activités de récolte) (PRAN), which presents the areas where forest management activities are scheduled to take place over the course of the year, based on a cycle running from April 1 to March 31 (Gouvernement du Québec, 2022a). Once MRNF has approved the PRAN in whole or in part, these operations can proceed. However, the PRANs may be subject to minor modifications during the year, mainly due to operational constraints or fluctuations in timber markets.

The government may also produce special management plans, which may deviate from the Regulation Respecting the Sustainable Development of Forests in the Domain of the State (RSDF), in order to recover timber in areas affected by natural disturbances (fires, disease outbreaks, windthrow) or anthropogenic disturbances (hydroelectric projects).Footnote 23 As soon as they come into effect, these special plans replace all other management plans and annual harvesting programs in force in the area affected by the disturbance. They may result in the allowable cut for a given management unit being exceeded.

Areas specified in the PAFIOs and PRANs are not always fully harvested. However, areas can be added to the PRANs during the year. ECCC therefore considers that, even if the actual areas and locations of logging operations may differ slightly from those shown in the forestry planning documents, the PRANs provide a good estimate of the areas targeted by the current year’s forestry operations, while the PAFIOs provide a good estimate of the areas targeted by forestry operations to take place in the next three years.

The Quebec government publishes the PRAN and PAFIO data through interactive map applications, on a region-by-region basis.Footnote 24 PAFIO data are made available online for consultation purposes, and are not necessarily edited to reflect changes once the consultations have been completed. The publication of PRAN data is not a legal requirement under the SFDA, and their availability varies from region to region. For example, the interactive map application for the 2023 to 2024 Nord-du-Québec PRAN was not available at the time of this assessment, which resulted in incomplete data being available on the planned logging operations in the Assinica and Témiscamie ranges. This does not mean that no harvesting is planned in this region for 2023 to 2024, but rather that MRNF has not published the data for the annual program. However, the PAFIO data for the Nord-du-Québec region indicate planned logging operations over a three-year horizon. When schedules of the PRAN updates were available for the other regions, they indicated that the data were updated two to three times a year, at different times depending on the region.

In the absence of information and data shared directly by the Quebec government, ECCC considers that the published PRAN data constitute the best available information on planned forest management activities for the year 2023 to 2024. In the remainder of this document, the expression “2023 to 2024 PRAN” is used as a generic term to refer to the annual planning data for the 2023 to 2024 period made available by MRNF between October 15 and December 22, 2023. Therefore, the area of cuts in the PRANs could possibly be modified (for example, cutblocks added or moved) after they have been published. More details on the geospatial information available are presented in Appendix D. Table 6 shows the total area of the cuts planned according to the 2023 to 2024 PRANs in the boreal caribou ranges where the level of habitat disturbance is greater than 35%.

Table 6. Total area of cuts planned for 2023 to 2024 in the boreal caribou ranges (MFFP, 2021a) with a level of habitat disturbance greater than 35% in 2020, according to the annual harvesting programs (PRANs) (see Appendix D).a

Boreal caribou range

Range area (km2)

Area of planned cuts (km2)b

Val–d'Or

8,202

11

Charlevoix

7,248

53

Pipmuacan

18,432

170

Assinica

70,875

Presentc

Témiscamie

105,332

518c

a The Baie-James knowledge acquisition area was not included, even though it has a disturbance level of 36%. This is because it is not directly linked to the range of a local population, and because the anthropogenic disturbance level is only 4%.

b For the purposes of this assessment, the areas of planned cuts correspond to the total areas in the map elements entitled “Programmation annuelle commerciale septembre 2023” [annual commercial program, September 2023] in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region; “Travaux sylvicoles commerciaux - Secteurs d'intervention autorisées" [commercial sylvicultural work –authorized intervention sectors] in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for the Capitale-Nationale region; “Activités planifiées – 2023 to 2024 – Travaux commerciaux” [planned activities, 2023-2024, commercial work], “Activities planifiées - 2023 to 2024 - Travaux commerciaux” [planned activities, 2023-2024, commercial work], and “Activités planifiées - 2023 to 2024 - Chantiers (Bureau de mise en marché des bois)” [planned activities, 2023-2024, work sites (timber marketing board)] in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region; and “Récolte" [harvest] and “Bureau de mise en marché des bois” [timber marketing board] in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for the Côte-Nord region. These areas do not include buffers.

c In total, 29% of the Assinica range is located beyond the northern limit for commercial timber allocation and 67% is in the Nord-du-Québec region. An interactive map application for the 2023 to 2023 PRAN for this region was not available at the time of this assessment. The partial calculation of the area of cuts planned in the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean and Mauricie regions according to the 2023 to 2024 PRANs was not carried out, but, based on a qualitative analysis, it can be determined that logging is planned in the range (Gouvernement du Québec, 2023b,c).

d In total, 39% of the Témiscamie range is located beyond the northern limit for commercial timber allocation and 16% is in the Nord-du-Québec region, for which no interactive map application was available for the PRAN 2023 to 2024 at the time of this assessment. The area of planned cuts shown is therefore incomplete.

Given the continuous nature of forest harvesting activities, a significant portion of the planned cuts in the 2023-2024 PRANs may already have taken place at the time of this assessment. However, since the allowable cuts and volume allocations have been established for the 2023 to 2028 period, it is expected that they will remain relatively stable over this period, at least for the Val-d’Or, Charlevoix and Pipmuacan ranges.Footnote 25 Consequently, ECCC considers that the area of the planned cuts shown in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs can be used as an indicator of the area of the cuts that could take place in these ranges until 2028. The area of cuts can nevertheless vary annually; ECCC has noted three factors in particular that could result in the 2023-2024 PRANs being more or less representative of the area of the annual cuts. Approximately 25% of the allocatable volumes are set aside for the timber marketing board, and the areas specified in the PRAN for these volumes can be harvested over two years (MFFP, 2023a), which can result in the areas appearing in the PRANs being larger or smaller depending on the year. In addition, several special management plans are currently in effect in the caribou ranges, mainly as a result of the numerous forest fires in the summer of 2023, and were not considered in the analyses carried out for this assessment. These special plans could also modify the location and area of the cuts that will be carried out relative to the cuts specified in the PRANs published by MRNF. In such cases, ECCC believes that, despite the different locations of the cuts, the areas harvested are likely similar to or greater than those planned, even though the harvests would take place in areas where natural disturbances already occur. In addition, cuts authorized under the PRANs, but not carried out during the year, can be carried out in subsequent years. Lastly, the situation of the Val-d’Or range is special, since 92% of it is included in forest management unit 083-51. Some AnishnabeFootnote 26 communities currently hold licenses to harvest timber for the purpose of supplying a wood processing plant (PRAU), which operates in this management unit. Forestry rights holders in the same management unit must agree on an annual program of commercial silvicultural work (which is then published in a PRAN). In 2023 to 2024, one of the Anishnabe communities holding a PRAU had not ratified the annual program of commercial silvicultural work (Anishnabe Nation of Lac Simon, pers. comm., 2023). As a result, the PRAN was not finalized or approved by the Quebec government and the planned cuts in 2023 to 2024 in the Val-d’Or range are lower than in a typical year.

2.3 Road network

The road network in Quebec—which is managed by the Ministère des Transports et de la Mobilité durable (MTMD) [Department of Transport and Sustainable Mobility] and consists of highways and national and regional roads (hereinafter referred to as the main road network)—accounts for a small proportion of the disturbances classified as “roads” in boreal caribou habitat. To the best of ECCC’s knowledge, no development projects involving the main road network are planned in the short term in ranges where the level of habitat disturbance is greater than 35% (MTMD, 2023).

In each of the provincial ranges evaluated (Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, Pipmuacan, Assinica and Témiscamie), multi-purpose roads accounted for over 90% of the road network in 2021Footnote 27 (unpublished data obtained using AQRéseau+ [2021 version]). A multi-purpose road is defined as a road in the forest, other than a mining road, built or used for multiple purposes, notably to give access to the forest and its resources (Sustainable Forest Development Act, CQLR c A-18). As multi-purpose roads are unpaved, natural regeneration may occur on the road bed, requiring a variable amount of time depending on the degree of soil compaction (St-Pierre et al., 2021). However, these roads are often maintained for various activities in the forest.

Multi-purpose roads can be built with authorization from MRNF and in compliance with the RSDF. A large proportion of these roads are built by the forest industry for timber harvesting purposes (MRNF, 2023a). The construction, improvement, repair, and closure of roads are considered forest management activities under the Sustainable Forest Development Act and are included in forest planning. Forest management activities associated with the multi-purpose road network are included in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs. Table 7 shows the extent of the roads planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs in the boreal caribou ranges where habitat disturbance exceeds 35%. MRNF can also authorize the construction of multi-purpose roads for activities other than forest management, but these roads will not appear in the 2023-2024 PRANs. It is also possible that some of the roads planned in the PRAN will not be built. The same factors that can cause discrepancies between the logging work planned and carried out are also valid for road construction. For example, special harvesting plans could result in the construction of additional roads to allow timber harvesting in more remote areas than originally planned. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this assessment, ECCC considers that the data on the roads planned in the 2022 to 2024 PRANs provide the best estimate available of the length of roads that will be constructed in 2023 to 2024. As in the case of forest harvesting, some of the roads planned in the interactive PRAN maps for 2023 to 2024 may already have been constructed at the time of this assessment; the road lengths are used as an indicator of the extent of the new roads that may be established in a given year.

Table 7. Planned roads under the annual harvesting programs (PRANs) for 2023 to 2024 (see Appendix D) in the boreal caribou ranges (MFFP, 2021a) with a habitat disturbance level greater than 35% in 2020a

Range

Length of roads to be built (km)b

Val-d’Or

16

Charlevoix

115

Pipmuacan

288

Assinica

Presentc

Témiscamie

996d

a The Baie-James knowledge acquisition area was not included, even though its disturbance level is 36%, because it is not directly linked to the range of a local population, and because the anthropogenic disturbance level is only 4%.

b The lengths used were taken from the following map elements in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs: “Chemin de la programmation annuelle septembre 2023 - PRAN_chemin_09_2023” [roads in annual program, September 2023, PRAN_chemin_09_2023] in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region PRAN; “Chemins forestiers - Chemins autorisés” [logging roads, approved roads] in the Capitale-Nationale region PRAN; “Activités_planifiées - 2023-2024 - Chemins” [planned activities, 2023-2014, roads] and “Activités planifiées - 2023-2024 - Chemins (Bureau de mise en marché des bois)” [planned activities, 2023-2024, roads (timber marketing board)] in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region PRAN; and “Chemin” [road] in the Côte-Nord region PRAN.

c At the time of this assessment, an interactive map application was not available for the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for the Nord-du-Québec region, which represents 67% of the entire Assinica range and 94% of the portion of this range located in the commercial forest. The partial calculation of the road lengths to be established in the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, Mauricie and Côte-Nord regions based on the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for these regions was not prioritized, given the time frame of the assessment.

d At the time of this assessment, an interactive map application was not available for the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for the Nord-du-Québec region, which represents 16% of the Témiscamie range and 27% of the portion of this range located in the commercial forest. The road lengths shown are therefore incomplete. Some roads in the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region seem to be duplicates. These represent less than 0.5% of all the roads digitized in the Témiscamie range.

2.4 Mining development

Mining operations can be authorized in most boreal caribou habitat in Quebec, mainly that outside protected areas (ECCC, 2023b), if the conditions of the Mining Act and the Environment Quality Act are met.

Exploration rights, also known as a claim, must be obtained before proceeding with mining exploration on a piece of land (section 19 of the Mining Act). Mining exploration requires removing the vegetation and drilling into the rock in a number of places to find ore (MERN and MAMOT, 2016). The cutting of timber during the exploration phase is limited to the area required to carry out the work and may not exceed 2% of the wooded area of the parcel of land covered by the mining title (section 213 of the Mining Act). A claim is valid for three years, and the mineral exploration phase generally lasts at least two years (section 61 of the Mining Act; MERN and MAMOT, 2016). The number of drill holes increases if the project moves on to the mineral deposit appraisal (development) phase. This phase lasts an average of three to eight years and is used to complete the mining lease application to the Quebec government, which will grant the right to develop the land (MAMOT and MERN, 2016). In most cases, mining projects are subject to Quebec’s environmental impact assessment and review process, and some projects may also be subject to the federal impact assessment process. Under both processes, mitigation measures must be identified to avoid, mitigate or offset the effects of the project on boreal caribou habitat and individuals.

The construction of the mine, followed by its operation, can begin as soon as a mining lease is obtained (section 100 of the Mining Act). Construction is the phase that causes the most habitat disturbance. However, the surface area impacted by mining activities may also increase while the mine is in operation, notably due to the waste rock, tailings and ore slurry stored at the site (MRNF, 2023b). Mine operations generally last from 5 to 30 years (MERN and MAMOT, 2016). The mining company must have a government-approved mine rehabilitation and restoration plan before operations begin (section 101 of the Mining Act). This plan may allow for the restoration of part of the habitat disturbed by the project. However, even with active restoration efforts, timelines of several decades must be considered before the habitat once again presents favorable conditions for caribou (Ray, 2014).

Mines do not account for a significant proportion of the disturbed areas in caribou habitat (Table 5), and their effects are not further quantified in this assessment. However, mining is a growing activity across Quebec. MRNF publishes the Mines et projects [mines and mine projects] dataset, as well as the “Producing Mines and Mines in Care and Maintenance” and “Mining Projects” maps. According to these sources, in 2023, Quebec had 20 active mines and six mines undergoing maintenanceFootnote 28 or reopening (MRNF, 2023c,d). The Val-d’Or range has four active mines, including an approximately 25-km2 section of the Canadian Malartic development, one of the largest mining projects in Canada (MRNF, 2023e). Furthermore, despite the rehabilitation and restoration requirements, on March 31, 2023, the Quebec government calculated that there were 31 abandoned contaminated mining sites under effective public responsibility within the boundaries of the Val-d’Or, Assinica and Témiscamie ranges (MRNF, 2023f; Government of Quebec, 2023d). Mining activities at these sites ceased between 1935 and 2008 (MRNF, 2023f). Three sites are currently being rehabilitated, and two others are at the post-reclamation monitoring and maintenance stage; all the other sites are still at the characterization (environmental site assessment) stage (MRNF, 2023f).

Across Quebec, 35 mining projects are at the mineral deposit appraisal (or development) stage (MRNF, 2023c, d), including one in the Pipmuacan range and one in the Val-d’Or range, where construction has already begun (Agnico-Eagle Mines, 2023). Four other projects are located close to the Val-d’Or range. In the Assinica range, there is currently one mine under maintenance, and seven projects in the development stage, two in the area where the Assinica and Témiscamie ranges intersect (see Figure 2). In 2022, ECCC also identified 132 additional mining projects in the five ranges where the habitat is already more than 35% disturbed. These are projects at the exploration phase.

It has been reported in the media that the number of mining claims more than doubled between March 31, 2021, and December 20, 2023, increasing from 165,155 to 347,955. Together, these claims cover an area of 176,000 km2 (Shields, 2023). The Quebec government also wishes to encourage the exploration and development of Quebec’s critical and strategic minerals, notably by increasing support for exploration (MERN, 2020), which could increase the impact of exploration and mining in the coming years. The development of critical and strategic minerals would particularly affect the Val-d’Or and Assinica ranges.

The Mining Act also governs the development of surface mineral substances,Footnote 29 the mining of which generates disturbances in boreal caribou habitat in the same way as standard mines do. Potential operators of surface mineral mining operations must meet various requirements before obtaining a lease from the Quebec government. The process for developing surface mineral resources is simpler and faster than that in standard mining (MRNF, 2023g). In 2021, there were 3,866 sand and gravel extraction sites in Quebec with active leases to mine surface mineral substances, the majority of them in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, Côte-Nord and Nord-du-Québec regions (MRNF, 2023h).

Although the footprint of the disturbances resulting from mines is small, mining can result in the creation of new roads in an area, and mining activities also cause disturbance due to blasting operations, heavy traffic, the crushing and grinding of ore, and the emission of dust and vibrations that disturb the adjacent natural environment (MAMOT and MERN, 2016) and can harm caribou (see ECCC, 2020 for a description of the effects).

2.5 Vacation and recreational infrastructure

Vacation leases on public land, cottages, hunting camps, rough shelters and other types of vacation and recreational infrastructure are present in caribou habitat, particularly in the southern part of the caribou’s provincial range. This was among the major threats to the species raised by some of the First Nations that have asked the federal government to intervene to protect boreal caribou. As of October 1, 2021, 49,991 leases for personal purposes had been issued on Quebec public land, the vast majority of which are private vacation leases (MERN, 2022). These plots of land are generally allocated by random draw and average 4,000 m2 (Gouvernement du Québec, 2023e). Under the 2022 to 2026 Plan de mise en valeur du territoire public (PMVTP) [public land development plan] (MERN, 2022), new vacation leases will be made available on an accelerated basis, with an overall objective of 1,000 additional lots in Quebec for the 2022 to 2026 period.

In 2022 to 2023, 257 vacation leases were awarded across Quebec, the highest number since 2019 to 2020 (MRNF, 2023i). In the time available for this assessment, ECCC was unable to find any information on the process for selecting the lots for the random draw. However, the 2022 to 2026 PMVTP provides for the modernization of regional public land development plans, which could facilitate the allocation of vacation leases, as well as commercial or industrial leases, on public land (MERN, 2022). These objectives cover all public land in Quebec and do not directly target the boreal caribou ranges, but the species’ habitat makes up a large proportion of public land and will certainly be affected by these initiatives.

According to the COSEWIC (2014) status report, tourism and recreation areas are considered to have a “Negligible” impact on caribou, while recreational activities have an “Unknown” impact on the species as a whole (see Table 3). Furthermore, it is impossible to map most of the disturbances generated by vacation and recreational infrastructure using the methods described in EC (2011) and Appendix C. Consequently, the impact of this threat is not further quantified in this assessment. However, a portion of the disturbances linked to vacation and recreational infrastructure are captured under the road network (multi-purpose roads) category (MFFP, 2015), particularly in the 500-m buffer that is applied to them, which is used in the method described in EC (2011) and Appendix C. However, numerous studies on both caribou and reindeer suggest that these activities have a larger zone of influence on caribou behaviour (MFFP, 2021a). In 2013, the recovery team proposed using a zone of influence with a 1-km radius specifically around cabins, which is almost twice the size of the buffer used for calculating disturbances in the current assessment (Équipe de rétablissement du caribou forestier au Québec, 2013a).

The use of the multi-purpose roads makes their natural regeneration or active restoration almost impossible, particularly since the Quebec government wants to guarantee access to the territory. Quebec also considers that roads leading to vacation leases constitute permanent habitat disturbances, while class 3, 4, unclassified and unknown roads that do not lead to rights granted on the territory are considered temporary disturbances (MFFP, 2015). A portion of the multi-purpose road network was probably established solely to provide access to vacation and recreational infrastructure and recreational and tourism development projects.

Therefore, the upward trend in granting vacation leases on public land is worrisome, since it could increase disturbances that will be considered permanent due to their nature. Disturbances of this type are already very prevalent in the Val-d’Or and Pipmuacan ranges (MRNF, 2023j). The ranges, in particular Charlevoix and Pipmuacan, also include several structured recreational areas, such as wildlife reserves and controlled exploitation zones (ZEC; MRNF, 2023k). These recreational areas have extensive infrastructure such as trails, cabins and campgrounds, and more intensive use by vacationers is encouraged there.

Since 2022, the Government of Quebec has also offered an assistance program for the development of public land, in order to increase the development of recreational infrastructure on public land (Gouvernement du Québec, 2023f).

2.6 Other threats

As shown in Table 5, there are other sources of disturbance to boreal caribou habitat. Given the small relative contribution of these activities to the level of disturbance in the ranges, their impacts have not been further quantified by ECCC. However, some upcoming development projects could increase the level of disturbance in boreal caribou habitat, notably the Des Neiges wind farm (Charlevoix sector) in the Charlevoix range (MELCCFP, 2023b), and the QcRail project, a proposed railway line between Dolbeau-Mistassini and Baie-Comeau that passes through the Pipmuacan range (MELCCFP, 2023b). These projects are currently in the midst of the provincial environmental assessment process.

Other activities that represent threats but are not directly related to habitat may impede the species’ recovery. Indeed, at various discussion forums with ECCC, some First Nations raised concerns about chronic wasting disease (which could also affect caribou), sensory disturbance caused by low-flying aircraft, and other sources of human disturbance, such as (in some cases) pursuing caribou in snowmobiles.

Box 2 - Findings from Part 2

  • A number of anthropogenic activities contribute to the disturbance of caribou habitat and are likely to constitute threats to the survival and recovery of the species. Several of these activities have been carried out continuously for several decades and will likely continue in the coming years
  • This threat assessment covers all populations of boreal caribou present in Quebec, but places greater emphasis on the Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, Pipmuacan, Assinica and Témiscamie populations, for which the level of habitat disturbance already exceeds 35%
  • The anthropogenic activities taking place in Quebec that have contributed the most to habitat disturbance to date are logging and the road network, which is why this assessment focuses in particular on these two activities
  • The annual harvesting programs (PRANs) provide the best information available for assessing the threats associated with logging and road construction in 2023 to 2024. The 2023 to 2024 PRANs map the planned cuts and roads and can serve as an indicator of the footprint of these activities over the course of a year
  • ECCC quantified the logging and road construction planned for 2023 to 2024 in the Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, Pipmuacan and Témiscamie ranges using the PRAN data available. The partial data published for the Assinica range allowed ECCC to determine that some activities are also planned in this range, although the planned cuts and roads have not been quantified

Part 3. assessment of threats

According to the Policy on Assessing Imminent Threats under Sections 29 and 80 of the Species at Risk Act: Terrestrial Species – [proposed] (ECCC, 2023a), a wildlife terrestrial species is considered to be facing an imminent threat to its survival or recovery if the threats identified render its survival or recovery highly unlikely or impossible and cannot be eliminated or mitigated without immediate intervention. According to this policy, the issue of whether a specific threat is “imminent” is assessed on a case‑by‑case basis, taking into account the nature of the threat as well as biological considerations related to the wildlife species and its habitat. This context-specific analysis may involve taking into account various factors, in particular, the severity and timing of the threats to the species and their likelihood, the potential scope and timing of the impacts, and the conservation status of the species and its habitat.

The following questions, rationale, and applicable evidence are key considerations in supporting the Minister in forming an opinion on whether a wildlife species is facing imminent threat(s).

To respond to the following questions, ECCC specifically considered the work planned (logging and construction of multi-purpose roads) in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs made available by the Government of Quebec. Since forest management activities take place year after year in Quebec on a continuous basis, impacts similar to those described in this part of the assessment are likely to occur annually, if no additional measures are taken to reduce or eliminate the threats examined—particularly for the duration of the PAFIT currently in effect (2023 to 2028). More broadly, ECCC considered other threats likely to have an impact during the 2023 to 2024 period, but it did not quantify this impact.

The term “2023 to 2024 PRAN” used in this part of the document is a generic term that designates the annual planning files made available by MRNF for the 2023 to 2024 period in the areas targeted by this threat assessment. The data sources that were publicly available and used to conduct this assessment contain some uncertainties and limitations of use, requiring some interpretation. In addition, the way the information is presented in the PRAN files differs depending on the region, which creates additional uncertainties and limitations of use. Appendix D sets out the methodology used to address this, particularly the list of data and the criteria used in processing the data, their description, and the validation protocol applied.

Question 1. Is the wildlife species facing a new or evolving human‑induced threat(s) or is the impact of an existing human‑induced threat intensifying?

Yes, the impact of at least two threats, logging and the road networks, is intensifying.

For the purposes of this assessment, an increase in the scope of the threats (represented by the level of disturbance) was interpreted as an intensification of their impact.Footnote 30 Therefore, the intensification of the impact of logging was established by examining the change in the level of disturbance attributable to this threat between 2010 and 2020 and by projecting the anticipated level of disturbance from logging in 2023 to 2024. The same process was used for roads. A summary of the results is presented here for each of the ranges where the level of habitat disturbance was above the 35% threshold in 2020.Footnote 31

2010-2020 Period

The analysis for the 2010 to 2020 period is based on disturbance mapping using the visual interpretation of Landsat images from 2010 (EC, 2011) and 2020 (Appendix C). Although these data have some limitations (see Appendix C), they provide an indication of the changes in the scope of the threats under examination between these two reference years. The results obtained, which are rounded to the nearest unit, indicate an increase in the level of habitat disturbance caused by cutblocks and roads in all ranges where the level of habitat disturbance exceeded the 35% threshold in 2020 (see Appendix E). The terms “cutblocks” and “roads” correspond to those used in ECCC’s disturbance mapping process. “Cutblocks” correspond to logged areas. “Roads” correspond to the road network.

2020-2023 Period

The most recent disturbance mapping was based on Landsat images obtained in 2020, but has not been updated since then, given the significant resources and processing time required. Additional disturbances that have appeared between 2020 and 2023 are therefore not considered in this analysis, as well as the sectors where regeneration may have taken place during this period (that is, sectors that went from a disturbed to a non-disturbed state, according to the method described in EC [2011]). However, based on the following elements, it seems virtually impossible that sufficient habitat would have been regenerated during this period to offset the increase in the disturbance levels observed between 2010 and 2020:

2023-2024 Period

Annual planning data for 2023 to 2024 were used to estimate the scope of logging and roads planned in 2023 to 2024. If these activities are carried out, they will result in new disturbed areas, which will be added to the ones already present in the ranges in question. The addition of these new disturbances to those present in 2020 (Appendix C) likely provides a conservative estimate, given the fact that the disturbances that appeared between 2020 and 2023 have not been taken into account. The term “road” is used by the Quebec government in forestry planning. “Roads” correspond to a portion of the road network (see Part 2.3).

Val-d’Or

The scope of the disturbance from cutblocks increased by 10% (851 km2) between 2010 and 2020, covering 33% and 43% of the range respectively (see Appendix E). According to the logging planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs (11 km2; Table 6), an additional area of 54 km2 of disturbed habitat will be created (including the 500 m-buffer; see EC, 2011). By adding this new area of disturbance to the one calculated in 2020 (without overlap), the scope of this threat would increase by less than 1%, and affect 44% of the range.

The scope of the disturbance from roads increased by 6% (457 km2) between 2010 and 2020, from 31% to 37% of the range (see Appendix E). According to the new roads planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs (16 km; Table 7), 20 km2 of disturbed habitat would be generated (including the 500-m buffer; see EC, 2011). By adding this new disturbed area to that calculated in 2020 (without overlap), the scope of this threat would increase slightly, but would remain at 37% of the range.

Since the PRAN for forest management unit 083-51 has not been finalized or approved by the Quebec government, no logging or road construction data for this unit is included in the geospatial data used in this assessment. This unusual situation (which is not representative of a typical year) explains why the expected increase in the scope of these threats in this range is lower than what is expected in the Charlevoix and Pipmuacan ranges.

Charlevoix

The scope of the disturbance from cutblocks increased by 11% (808 km2) between 2010 and 2020, from 51% to 62% of the range (see Appendix E). According to the logging planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs (53 km2; Table 6), an additional area of 319 km2 of disturbed habitat would be created (including the 500-m buffer; see EC [2011]). By adding this new disturbed area to that calculated in 2020 (without overlap), the scope of this threat would increase by between 2% and 3%, affecting 65% of the range.

The scope of the disturbance from road construction increased by 4% (280 km2) between 2010 and 2020, from 36% to 40% of the range (see Appendix E). According to the information in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs on new roads (115 km; Table 7), 131 km2 of disturbed habitat would be created (including the 500-m buffer; see EC [2011]). By adding this new disturbed area to that calculated in 2020 (without overlap), the scope of this threat would increase by less than 1%, but would continue to affect 40% of the range.

Pipmuacan

The scope of the disturbance from cutblocks increased by 7% (1,268 km2) between 2010 and 2020, from 46% to 53% of the range (see Appendix E). According to the logging planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs (170 km2; Table 6), an area of 768 km2 of disturbed habitat would be created (including the 500-m buffer; see EC [2011]). By adding this new disturbed area to that calculated in 2020 (without overlap), the scope of this threat would increase by between 2% and 3% to affect 55% of the range.

The scope of the disturbance from roads increased by 6% (1,106 km2) between 2010 and 2020, from 18% to 24% of the range (see Appendix E). According to the new roads planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs (288 km; Table 7), 298 km2 of disturbed habitat would be generated (including the 500-m buffer; see EC [2011]). By adding this new disturbed area to that calculated in 2020 (without overlap), the scope of this threat would increase by roughly 1%, affecting 25% of the range.

Assinica

Part of the Assinica range lies beyond the northern limit for commercial timber allocation (that is, 29%; Figure 3). South of this limit, 2023 to 2024 PRAN data is not available for the Nord-du-Québec region, which represents 67% of the range. Therefore, in order to estimate the extent of the cutblocks and roads to be developed in 2023 to 2024, only the PRAN data for the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean and Mauricie regions are considered here, which represent 4% of the range.

The scope of the disturbance from cutblocks increased by 6% (3,959 km2) between 2010 and 2020, from 27% to 33% of the range. The scope of the disturbance from roads increased by 3% (2,138 km2) between 2010 and 2020, from 13% to 16% of the range (see Appendix E). Given that the 2023 to 2024 PRAN data are only available for a very small portion of the range (that is, 4%), the scope of the threat from the cutblocks and roads to be created in 2023 to 2024 has not been quantified. However, a partial qualitative analysis was conducted, allowing it to be determined that cutblooks are planned in the portion of the range in the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean and Mauricie regions (Government of Quebec, 2023b,c). In addition, roads are planned in the portion of the range in the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region; however, this information is not available for the Mauricie region (Government of Quebec, 2023b,c)

Témiscamie

The Témiscamie range is partially located beyond the northern limit for commercial timber allocation (that is, 39%; Figure 3). South of this limit, 2023 to 2024 PRAN data are not available for the Nord-du-Québec region, which represents 16% of the range. Therefore, in order to estimate the scope of the new cutblocks and roads planned in 2023 to 2024, only the PRAN data for the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean and Côte-Nord regions, which represent 44% of the range, were analyzed and presented here.

The scope of the disturbance from cutblocks increased by 4% (4,738 km2) between 2010 and 2020, from 21% to 25% of the range (see Appendix E). According to the logging planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean and Côte-Nord regions (518 km2; Table 6), an area of 1,921 km2 of disturbed habitat would be generated (including the 500-m buffer; see EC [2011]). By adding this new disturbed area to that calculated in 2020 (without overlap), the scope of this threat would increase by less than 1%, affecting 26% of the range.

The scope of the disturbance from roads increased by 2% (2,341 km2) between 2010 and 2020, from 8% to 10% of the range (see Appendix E). According to the roads planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean and Côte-Nord regions (996 kmFootnote 32; Table 6), 937 km2 of disturbed area would be created (including a 500-m buffer; see EC [2011]). By adding this new disturbed area to that calculated in 2020 (without overlap), the scope of this threat would increase by less than 1%, affecting 11% or the range.

Box 3 – Findings from Part 3, Question 1
  • It is the view of ECCC that the impact of at least two threats (logging and the road network) is intensifying, particularly for the Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, Pipmuacan and Témiscamie populations
  • The scope of the disturbances linked to cutblocks increased between 2010 and 2020, at least in the Val-d’Or (from 33% to 43%), Charlevoix (from 51% to 62%), Pipmuacan (from 46% to 53%), Assinica (from 27% to 33%) and Témiscamie (from 21% to 25%) ranges
  • The scope of the disturbances related to the road network increased between 2010 and 2020, at least in the Val-d’Or (from 31% to 37%), Charlevoix (from 36% to 40%), Pipmuacan (from 18% to 25%), Assinica (from 13% to 16%) and Témiscamie (from 8% to 10%) ranges
  • In the Val-d’Or range, according to the work planned in the PRAN, the scope of the threat from logging and the road network would increase by less than 1%, respectively, relative to the scope in 2020, for the 2023 to 2024 period. These results are likely lower than in a typical year
  • In the Charlevoix and Pipmuacan ranges, the scope of the threat from logging is expected to increase by 2% to 3% in each range relative to the 2020 levels for the 2023 to 2024 period. The scope of the threat from the road network will likely increase by close to 1% over the 2020 levels for the 2023 to 2024 period
  • In the Témiscamie range, according to the partial data available, the scope of the threat from logging and the road network will likely increase by less than 1% for both threats for the 2023 to 2024 period relative to the 2020 levels
  • At the time of this assessment, 2023 to 2024 PRAN data was only available for a very small portion of the Assinica range. The scope of the threat from logging and road construction was not quantified, but a partial qualitative analysis determined that these activities are planned within the range

Question 2. Will the impact of the threat(s) make:

a) survival of the wildlife species highly unlikely or impossible?

No. If the threats described in Part 2 and in Question 1 occurred, ECCC is of the view that they would not be likely to render the survival of the boreal caribou impossible or highly unlikely throughout its range in Canada, particularly in the short term. As specified in the Context section, this assessment only deals with threats present in Quebec. However, Question 2 (a) deals with the species’ survival across its entire Canadian range.

According to the Species at Risk Policy on Recovery and Survival (Government of Canada, 2020), “A species at risk will be considered to have an acceptable likelihood for long-term survival in Canada when it has achieved a stable (or increasing) state, exists in the wild in Canada, and is not at significant risk of extirpation or extinction.” A species is considered more likely to survive if it possesses the characteristics described below. The more of these characteristics a species possesses, the greater its probability of survival. In the context of the present analysis, it is difficult to predict with certainty the long-term likelihood of survival of boreal caribou in Canada in the event that the assessed threats materialize. However, it is possible to state that there is very little risk in the short term that the species will disappear from the wild in Canada, or will become extirpated.

1. Stability: A species that has a stable (or increasing) population and distribution is more likely to survive over the long term.

2. Resilience: A species that has large enough population size(s) to rebound from periodic disturbance and avoid demographic and genetic collapse is more likely to survive over the long term.

3. Redundance: A species that has multiple (sub) populations or locations, or a distribution that is very widespread, is more likely to survive over the long term because of the reduced risk of catastrophic loss or extirpation from a single, local event.

4. Connectivity: A species that has more continuity (less fragmentation) in Canada is, in general, more likely to survive in the long term since recolonization would be facilitated following a local extirpation event.

5. Protection from human‑caused threats: A species for which significant impacts caused by humans are eliminated, avoided, or mitigated is more likely to survive over the long term.

Given the cumulative nature of the impacts, their partially indirect nature and the anticipated time lag between the point at which threats occur and the demographic response of the populations, it is difficult to accurately assess to what extent the threats under review would affect each of the indicators described earlier. ECCC is of the view that the occurrence of the threats under review would reduce the stability, resilience, redundance and connectivity of most of the populations in Quebec. In fact, the threats would contribute to the decline of the populations concerned and to habitat fragmentation, and could lead to range contraction, particularly in the southern parts of the Quebec range. Although this could have an impact on some of the characteristics listed above (particularly stability and redundance) across Canada, ECCC does not consider this impact sufficient to render the survival of the species highly unlikely or impossible, primarily because most of the populations in Canada would not be directly affected by the threats discussed here. Moreover, some populations in the country are considered to be self-sustaining (ECCC, 2020; Figure 1) and they have relatively undisturbed habitat (ECCC, 2020), which suggests that the scope of anthropogenic threats for them is limited. The self‑sustaining status of these populations means that they should be able to persist over the long term (≥ 50 years) without the need for active management. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the species would persist within these populations, at least at a low level, even if some populations in Quebec were affected significantly by the threats reviewed here. In addition, considering the self‑sustainability indicators presented in Table 4, the disturbance level in the Caniapiscau range suggests that the risk for this population is “very low” (Table 4). Although the demographic data on this population are limited, the size and trend of this population suggest that the short-term risk is low. There are other regions in Quebec (such as the Basse-Côte-Nord) where the level of habitat disturbance is low, specifically outside the commercial forest (see Figure 3) where the main threats (logging, multi-purpose roads) are avoided. Taking into account these elements, it is reasonable to believe that, even within Quebec, the species would be able to persist over the long term despite the effect of the assessed threats.

ECCC acknowledges that most of the threats reviewed in this assessment are activities that are widespread elsewhere in Canada, that other threats may exert significant pressure on the species (such as activities related to oil and gas exploration and development in western Canada), and that the accumulated impact of all these activities could significantly reduce the likelihood of the species’ long-term survival.

b) recovery of the wildlife species highly unlikely or impossible?

Yes. The threats described in Part 2 and in Question 1 would render the recovery of the species highly unlikely, even if the impacts of the threats on caribou populations are not necessarily measurable in the short term (see Part 1.4). The recovery objectives for boreal caribou are, to the extent possible, to maintain self-sustaining local populations and to stabilize and achieve self-sustaining status for all the local populations that are currently not self-sustaining. Taking into account the situation of the populations in Quebec, ECCC considers that the likelihood of reaching the recovery objectives is already low,Footnote 33 although recovery is still technically and biologically feasible (if the main threats are avoided or mitigated). The challenges associated with reaching the objectives have increased over the past decade, primarily because of the increase in the level of disturbance in the species’ habitat, and any additional disturbances would exacerbate the problem. The threats reviewed as part of this assessment would cause a further deterioration in the indicators of self‑sustainability and thus reduce the likelihood of achieving self‑sustaining status for the populations concerned. Among them, the Val-d’Or population has already fallen below the quasi‑extinction threshold (that is, it currently has fewer than 10 reproductively active females; MELCCFP, 2023a), the Charlevoix population crossed this threshold in 2020 (Hins and Rochette, 2020) and now has just over 10 reproductively active females, and the Pipmuacan population could do so within about 10 years.Footnote 34 ECCC is of the view that, once this quasi-extinction threshold is reached, if the main threats to boreal caribou are not mitigated or avoidedFootnote 35, there is little likelihood of a population returning to self‑sustaining status, which would make it highly unlikely or impossible to attain the recovery goals for the species. Even though the other populations for which the habitat disturbance level exceeds 35% (Assinica and Témiscamie) are not at high risk of reaching the quasi-extinction threshold in the short term since their numbers are still fairly high (that is, > 300 individuals; see Table 4), a decrease in their likelihood of becoming self‑sustaining would jeopardize the species’ recovery. More broadly, the self‑sustainability indicators (Table 4) suggest that nearly all the other boreal caribou populations in Quebec (Detour, Manicouagan, Nottaway, Outardes, but probably not Caniapiscau) are at risk to some extent. These populations are located at least partly within the commercial forest zone (Figure 3), their disturbance level was close to the 35% threshold in 2020 (Table 4), and in some ranges, the disturbance level could exceed 35% by 2024. If nothing is done to prevent new disturbances in these ranges, these populations could also reach the quasi-extinction threshold (although it would take some time for populations with a large number of individuals [100 to 300 or > 300] to do so). Furthermore, the fact that almost all the populations in Quebec are currently in decline reduces the likelihood that individuals would be available at the right time to repopulate ranges in which populations have become extirpated.

In the case of the Val-d’Or and Charlevoix populations, which currently benefit from significant measures (enclosures) that mitigate the immediate impact of predation, ECCC is of the view that new disturbances would reduce the likelihood of these populations becoming self‑sustaining. In fact, as long as they are kept within enclosures, they would not be self‑sustaining because maintaining their numbers would depend on active management intervention. Consequently, new disturbances in these ranges would further reduce the likelihood that the populations will be able to return to their natural habitat and move towards self-sustainability in the future.

Like other activities that have increased the disturbance level (see Part 2, Table 5), logging and road construction have caused a gradual but significant decrease in the quantity and quality of available habitat (see Question 1). Allowing these activities to continue under the same management regime would further compromise the achievement of the recovery objectives. Table 8 provides estimates of the percentage of undisturbed habitat in 2020 that could become disturbed as a result of the work planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs (logging and road construction) in ranges where the level of disturbance already exceeded 35% in 2020Footnote 36. The work included in the 2023‑2024 PRANs is expected to reduce the quantity of undisturbed habitat available to boreal caribou as well as alter or destroy biophysical attributes of the critical habitatFootnote 37 (Appendix B). In fact, the work planned in the 2023‑2024 PRANs (logging and road construction), at least for the Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, and Pipmuacan ranges, primarily targets mature forests (Appendix F), which constitute quality habitat for the species (Leblond et al., 2014). ECCC has not assessed how the work included in the 2023‑2024 PRANs would affect the various habitat categories in the other ranges, notably Assinica and Témiscamie; however, it expects that the work would have an impact similar to that anticipated in the Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, and Pipmuacan ranges. Even with active restoration measures (for example, closing of roads, revegetation; Ray, 2014), the critical habitat that is altered or destroyed as a result of this work would take decades to regenerate to the point where it once again provides suitable conditions for the species and can support its recovery.

Table 8. Level of habitat disturbance in 2020 in the ranges (MFFP 2021a) that are in the most precarious situation, and percentage of ranges that are likely to become disturbed as a result of the work planned in the annual harvesting programs for 2023 to 2024 (logging and construction of new roads)

Range

Level of disturbancea in 2020 (%)

Area of disturbanceb arising from work set out in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs (km2)

Area of undisturbed habitat in 2020 that would become disturbed as a result of the logging and road construction work planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANsb (km2)

Percentage of the range that was not disturbed in 2020 but would become disturbed as a result of the logging and road construction work planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs3 (%)

Val-d’Or

61

56

25

0.30

Charlevoix

76

347

108

1.49

Pipmuacan

72

866

251

1.36

Assinica

57

Presenced

n.a.

n.a.

Témiscamie

44

2,178e

728

0.69

a The calculation of disturbance levels is based on a disturbance mapping exercise using the method described in Appendix C. Anthropogenic disturbances include a 500‑m buffer (in accordance with EC [2011]). Disturbances caused by fires correspond to areas where a fire has occurred in the last 40 years (no buffer; in accordance with EC [2011]). This method does not aim to compile a precise inventory of all the habitat disturbances that could be perceived by caribou and affect their behaviour or demography. It does, however, provide a reliable indication of the degree of habitat disturbance, which has been linked to demographic parameters such as recruitment and adult female survival (EC, 2011; Johnson et al., 2020).

b The logging and road construction work planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs includes 500-m buffers. These different areas are combined to avoid double-counting overlapping zones (in accordance with the methodology set out in EC [2011] and in Appendix C).

c The percentage of the range that would be disturbed as a result of the work planned in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs was calculated using the disturbance map for 2020 (ECCC, currently being developed) as a reference point.

d At the time of this assessment, no interactive map application was available for the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for the Nord-du-Québec region, which contains 67% of the entire Assinica range and 94% of the portion of this range that is located in the commercial forest. In addition, no interactive map application was available for the roads in the Mauricie region, which accounts for just under 1% of the range, and just over 1% of the portion of this range located in the commercial forest zone. The partial calculation of road lengths to be constructed (based on the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region) was not prioritized within the time frame of the assessment.

e At the time of this assessment, no interactive map application was available for the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for the Nord-du-Québec region, which contains 16% of the Témiscamie range and 27% of the portion of this range located in the commercial forest zone. The road lengths are therefore incomplete.

With regard to individual caribou, the anticipated impacts of the threats under review would translate into avoidance of the disturbed sectors (Beauchesne et al., 2013; 2014), particularly because caribou are more likely to encounter predators there (Wittmer et al., 2007; Whittington et al., 2011; Leblond et al., 2013). An increase in the habitat disturbance level is associated with a decrease in survival (Courtois et al., 2007; Fortin et al., 2017; Fryxell et al., 2020) and recruitment (Fortin et al., 2017) as well as a decrease in the likelihood that a population will remain stable or grow over a 20-year period (EC, 2011). These effects are indirect and may not occur for a number of years (Vors et al., 2007), creating a time lag between the occurrence of habitat disturbance and the impact on the population. It is therefore difficult to accurately estimate the specific effect that new habitat disturbances would have on population sizes and trends.

It should be noted that other activities which are not discussed in this part of the assessment could cause new disturbances in the boreal caribou ranges in Quebec in 2023 to 2024 (for example, recreational tourism development and mining exploration or development). Considering the relative contribution of these activities to the level of disturbance in the ranges (Table 5), ECCC believes that the increase associated with these activities would be low, but not negligible, and agrees that they would contribute to the cumulative effects of habitat disturbance on the species. Moreover, natural disturbances, such as forest fires (which are expected to increase in frequency and severity in the future due to climate change; Splawinski et al., 2019; Leblond et al., 2022), could also increase the level of habitat disturbance. Other activities not directly related to habitat or activities not considered here could have negative effects on the species. For example, the use of motorized vehicles in caribou habitat is associated with sensory disturbances (noise, light) that can increase the stress that individuals experience and affect their behaviour (Duchesne et al., 2000; Vistnes and Nelleman, 2008). The opening of new roads would make it more likely for most threats to occur, given that roads improve access to the territory.

Box 4 – Findings from Part 3, Question 2
  1. ECCC is of the view that the threats under review would not render the survival of the boreal caribou in Canada highly unlikely or impossible, particularly in the short term, because there are self‑sustaining local populations elsewhere in Canada that have relatively undisturbed habitat and that would not be affected by the threats that exist in Quebec
  2. Taking into account the situation of the populations in Quebec, ECCC considers that the likelihood of meeting the recovery objectives for the species is already low and would be further compromised if the threats examined (logging and road network) were to materialize
  3. ECCC has not specifically assessed the effect of threats other than logging and the road network (for example, mining, and vacation and recreational infrastructure), but anticipates that they will have additional and cumulative impacts
  4. The Val-d’Or population has already dropped below the quasi‑extinction threshold (that is, it currently has fewer than 10 reproductively active females), the Charlevoix population crossed this threshold in 2020 and now has just over 10 reproductively active females, and the Pipmuacan population could do so within about 10 years
  5. With the exception of the Caniapiscau population, all the other populations in Quebec, in particular Assinica and Témiscamie populations, face a certain degree of risk and could reach the quasi-extinction threshold over the longer term if no action is taken to stop their decline

Question 3. Does the threat(s) require immediate intervention beyond existing protection measures?

Yes. The measures currently in place cannot help to prevent the expected impacts of the threats examined as part of this assessment, specifically logging and road construction planned in the short term (that is, in the 2023 to 2024 PRANs), and these threats could render the recovery of the species highly unlikely or impossible. Consequently, additional measures are needed to address these threats. Boreal caribou are found in mature boreal forest ecosystems that take decades to recover from disturbance. Reversing harmful ecological processes that are detrimental to boreal caribou (for example, habitat degradation and loss, increase in predator and alternate prey populations) often requires time frames in excess of 50 to 100 years. In the meantime, it is critical to stem the increase in the level of habitat disturbance by avoiding or mitigating activities that pose a threat to the species. This is essential in order to avoid further decreasing the likelihood that populations that are not self-sustaining at present will achieve self-sustaining status. As a result of ongoing disturbance, it will take longer to restore habitat, and even greater efforts will be required to maintain the populations until the habitat recovers to the point where it once again has suitable characteristics for the species.

In recent years, the Government of Quebec has implemented some measures to contribute to caribou conservation (for example, creating large protected areas specifically designed to support the recovery of the caribou, see Part 1.5). Although these actions help maintain quality habitat for the species locally, the analysis results presented in the response to Question 1 show that the quality of habitat has continued to decline since 2010 across at least five ranges (Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, Pipmuacan, Assinica, Témiscamie). Similarly, the indicators of self‑sustainability (Table 4) indicate that most of the boreal caribou populations in Quebec still face a certain level of risk, despite the adoption of these measures. It is important to note that, following the analysis of the protection of critical habitat and individuals of boreal caribou in Quebec (ECCC, 2023b), the federal Minister of Environment formed the opinion that almost all boreal caribou critical habitat located on non-federal lands in Quebec is not effectively protected. Furthermore, the recovery strategy (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020) indicates that it is crucial to plan and implement, across the provinces and territories, a coordinated habitat management framework that includes measurable objectives to help meet the recovery goal (see Part 1.7) and that takes into account the cumulative effects of all the activities that cause disturbance throughout boreal caribou habitat. Such a management framework has not yet been established in Quebec. This element supports the conclusion that ECCC has reached, specifically that immediate action is required beyond the measures that are currently being implemented.

Box 5 – Findings from Part 3, Question 3

  1. ECCC is of the view that immediate action is required, beyond the measures already implemented, in order to avoid the occurrence of the threats under review
  2. Although important measures have been taken in the past, primarily to protect individuals, the scope of the measures that are planned or are currently being implemented to protect or restore the species’ habitat is considered insufficient to address the main threats examined. Such measures aimed at protecting and restoring habitat are essential to enable the recovery of boreal caribou

References

Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Summary Reports on Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population. 2010-2011, compiled in June 2011. Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Anderson, M., B.N. McLellan and R. Serrouya. 2018. Moose response to high‐elevation forestry: Implications for apparent competition with endangered caribou. The Journal of Wildlife Management 82:299-309.

Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador [AFNQL] and First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Sustainable Development Institute [FNQLSDI]. 2022. Thesis: Independent Commission on Woodland and Mountain Caribou. ii + 10 pp.

Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press. 438 pp.

Bartels, S.F., H.Y. Chen, M.A. Wulder and J.C. White. 2016. Trends in post-disturbance recovery rates of Canada’s forests following wildfire and harvest. Forest Ecology and Management 361:194-207.

Base de données AQréseau+. 2021. Cartographie intégrée de l’ensemble des réseaux de transport terrestre. Portail de données ouvertes du gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2023-12-01 at donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset/adresses-quebec/resource/0d5df103-f856-4183-9a15-eb06fce9c8bf

Beauchesne, D., J.A. Jaeger and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2013. Disentangling woodland caribou movements in response to clearcuts and roads across temporal scales. PLoS One 8:e77514.

Beauchesne, D., J.A. Jaeger and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2014. Thresholds in the capacity of boreal caribou to cope with cumulative disturbances: Evidence from space use patterns. Biological Conservation 172:190-199.

Bergerud, A.T. 1974. Decline of caribou in North America following settlement. The Journal of Wildlife Management 38:757-770.

Bichet, O., A. Dupuch, C. Hébert, H. Le Borgne and D. Fortin. 2016. Maintaining animal assemblages through single‐species management: the case of threatened caribou in boreal forest. Ecological Applications 26:612-623.

Brodeur, A., S. Heppell and L. Boissonneault. 2022. Inventaire aérien de la population de caribous forestiers (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Outardes et du secteur sud-ouest de la population Caniapiscau à l’hiver 2022. Québec: ministère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction de la gestion de la faune de la Côte-Nord. 23 pp. + appendices.

Brown, G.S., F.F. Mallory and W.J. Rettie. 2003. Range size and seasonal movement for female Woodland Caribou in the boreal forest of northeastern Ontario. Rangifer Special Issue 14:227-233.

Brown, G.S., W.J. Rettie, R.J. Brooks and F.F. Mallory. 2007. Predicting the impacts of forest management on woodland caribou habitat suitability in black spruce boreal forest. Forest Ecology and Management 245:137-147.

Bureau du forestier en chef. 2022. Possibilités forestières 2023-2028 – caribous forestiers et montagnards. 11 p.

Bureau du forestier en chef. 2023. Recommandation d’une mise à jour à la suite des feux de forêt 2023. Gouvernement du Québec. 8 p. Accessed on 2023-12-01 at forestierenchef.gouv.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/Effet-des-feux-de-foret-2023-sur-les-possibilites-forestieres-2023-2028.pdf

Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec [CDPNQ]. 2023. Cartographie des occurrences d’espèces en situation précaire. Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2023-12-01 at services-mddelcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2d32025cac174712a8261b7d94a45ac2

Commission indépendante sur les caribous forestiers et montagnards. 2022. Rapport final. Gouvernement du Québec. 77 p.

Conseil de la Première Nation Abitibiwinni - Territoire et Environnement. 2024. Avis technique concernant le partage de l’ébauche des parties 1 et 2 de l’évaluation des menaces imminentes en vertu de l’article 80 de la Loi sur les espèces en péril pour le caribou boréal avec ECCC. 2 p.

COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Newfoundland population, Atlantic-Gaspésie population, Boreal population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xxiii + 128 pp.

COSEWIC. 2021. COSEWIC Assessment Process, Categories and Guidelines – Approved by COSEWIC in November 2021. 24 pp.

Courtois, R. 2003. La conservation du caribou forestier dans un contexte de perte d’habitat et de fragmentation du milieu. Doctoral thesis, Université du Québec à Rimouski. 350 pp.

Courtois, R., J.P. Ouellet, L. Breton, A. Gingras and C. Dussault. 2007. Effects of forest disturbance on density, space use, and mortality of woodland caribou. Ecoscience 14:491-498.

DeCesare, N.J., M. Hebblewhite, H.S. Robinson and M. Musiani. 2010. Endangered, apparently: the role of apparent competition in endangered species conservation. Animal Conservation 13:353-362.

Dickie, M., R. Serrouya, C. DeMars, J. Cranston and S. Boutin. 2017. Evaluating functional recovery of habitat for threatened woodland caribou. Ecosphere 8:e01936.

Dickie, M., S.R. McNay, G.D. Sutherland, M. Cody and T. Avgar. 2020. Corridors or risk? Movement along, and use of, linear features varies predictably among large mammal predator and prey species. Journal of Animal Ecology 89:623-634.

Duchesne, M., S.D. Côté and C. Barrette. 2000. Responses of woodland caribou to winter ecotourism in the Charlevoix Biosphere Reserve, Canada. Biological Conservation 96:311-317.

Environment Canada [EC]. 2008. Scientific Review for the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa. x + 239 p.

Environment Canada [EC]. 2011. Scientific Assessment to Inform the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa. xiv + 103 pp.

Environment Canada [EC]. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. xi + 138 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada [ECCC]. 2017. Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population in Canada for the Period 2012-2017. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. ix + 94 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada [ECCC]. 2018 Action Plan for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada – Federal Actions. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. vii + 28 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada [ECCC]. 2019. Critical Habitat of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Boreal Population Order (SOR/2019-188). Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 153, Number 13. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. 10 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada [ECCC]. 2020. Amended Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. xiii + 143 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada [ECCC]. 2021. Order Summary – Critical Habitat of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population Order. Web page. Accessed on 2024-02-08 at https://wildlife-species.az.ec.gc.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/Cho-BorealCaribouSommaireSummary-v00-2021Jun-Eng.pdf

Environment and Climate Change Canada [ECCC]. 2022. Minister Guilbeault is visiting regions in Quebec to discuss protection of the caribou. Press release. Government of Canada. Accessed on 2023-12-15 at https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/minister-guilbeault-is-visiting-regions-in-quebec-to-discuss-protection-of-the-caribou-868105889.html

Environment and Climate Change Canada [ECCC]. 2023a. Policy on Assessing Imminent Threats under Sections 29 and 80 of the Species at Risk Act – Terrestrial Species [draft]. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa.

Environment and Climate Change Canada [ECCC]. 2023b. Protection Assessment of Critical Habitat and Individuals of Boreal Caribou in Quebec. Environnement et Changement climatique Canada, Ottawa. 11 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada [ECCC]. 2024. Report on the Progress of the Recovery Strategy Implementation (Period 2017-2022) and the Action Plan Implementation (Period 2018-2023) for Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Boreal Population, in Canada. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. xii + 125 pp. see https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2024/eccc/En3-4-140-1-2024-eng.pdf

Équipe de rétablissement du caribou forestier du Québec. 2008. Plan de rétablissement du caribou forestier (Rangifer tarandus) au Québec — 2005-2012. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Faune Québec, Direction de l’expertise sur la faune et des habitats. 78 p.

Équipe de rétablissement du caribou forestier du Québec. 2013a. Lignes directrices pour l’aménagement de l’habitat du caribou forestier (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Produit pour le compte du ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs. 24 p. + 1 annexe.

Équipe de rétablissement du caribou forestier du Québec. 2013b. Plan de rétablissement du caribou forestier (Rangifer tarandus caribou) au Québec — 2013-2023. Produit pour le compte du ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec, Faune Québec. 110 p.

Équipe de rétablissement du caribou forestier du Québec. 2023. Bilan du rétablissement du caribou forestier (Rangifer tarandus caribou) au Québec pour la période 2013-2023. Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction générale de la gestion de la faune et des habitats. 93 p.

Festa-Bianchet, M., J.C. Ray, S. Boutin, S.D. Côté and A. Gunn. 2011. Caribou conservation in Canada: an uncertain future. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89:419-434.

Fortin, D., F. Barnier, P. Drapeau, T. Duchesne, C. Dussault, S. Heppell, M.-C. Prima, M.-H. Saint-Laurent and G. Szor. 2017. Forest productivity mitigates human disturbance effects on late-seral prey exposed to apparent competitors and predators. Scientific Reports 7:6370.

Fryxell, J.M., T. Avgar, B. Liu, J.A. Baker, A.R. Rodgers, J. Shuter, ... and B. Patterson. 2020. Anthropogenic disturbance and population viability of woodland caribou in Ontario. The Journal of Wildlife Management 84:636-650.

Gagné, C., J. Mainguy and D. Fortin. 2016. The impact of forest harvesting on caribou–moose–wolf interactions decreases along a latitudinal gradient. Biological Conservation 197:215-222.

Government of Canada. 2020. Species at Risk Act Policies: Policy on Recovery and Survival. Species at Risk Act: Policies and Guidelines Series. Government of Canada, Ottawa. 9 pp. see https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/policies/Pg-RecoverySurvivalRetablissementSurvie-v00-2021Mar-eng.pdf

Government of Canada and Gouvernement du Québec. 2006. Cooperation Agreement for the Protection and Recovery of Species at Risk in Quebec. 28 pp.

Government of Canada and Gouvernement du Québec. 2018. Accord de partage des coûts relatifs à la mise en œuvre de l’Entente de collaboration pour la protection et le rétablissement des espèces en péril au Québec. 28 p.

Government of Canada and Gouvernement du Québec. 2019. Accord de partage des coûts relatifs à la mise en œuvre de l’Entente de collaboration pour la protection et le rétablissement des espèces en péril au Québec appliqué au caribou boréal et son habitat, 2019-2022. 33 p.

Gouvernement du Québec. 2019. Stratégie pour les caribous forestiers et montagnards – Des mesures intérimaires nécessaires et sans impact sur les volumes attribués. Press release. Accessed on 2023-12-15 at www.quebec.ca/nouvelles/actualites/details/strategie-pour-les-caribous-forestiers-et-montagnards-des-mesures-interimaires-necessaires-et-sans-impact-sur-les-volumes-attribues

Gouvernement du Québec. 2022a. Processus de planification forestière. Web page. Accessed on 2023-12-05 at www.quebec.ca/agriculture-environnement-et-ressources-naturelles/forets/planification-forestiere/processus

Gouvernement du Québec. 2022b. Discours sur le budget 2022-2023, des investissements de 152 M$ pour stimuler le développement du secteur forestier et assurer la vitalité des régions du Québec. Press release. Accessed on 2024-02-13 at https://www.quebec.ca/nouvelles/actualites/details/discours-sur-le-budget-2022-2023-des-investissements-de-152-m-pour-stimuler-le-developpement-du-secteur-forestier-et-assurer-la-vitalite-des-regions-du-quebec-38866

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023a. La situation du caribou au Québec. Web page. Accessed on 2023-11-25 at www.quebec.ca/agriculture-environnement-et-ressources-naturelles/faune/gestion-faune-habitats-fauniques/situation-caribou

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023b. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts – Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean - PRAN). Web application. Aménagement forestier au Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://mrn-dgr02.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0d4e707cde29434593bac4f5accb507b

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023c. Planification opérationnelle et programmation annuelle (PRAN) 2023 – Mauricie. Web application. Aménagement forestier en Mauricie - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://dgr04.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3f51e3ee0fec427c9a2249b22d304d08

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023d. Cartographie interactive des sites contaminés sous la responsabilité de l’État. Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2024-02-20 at https://merndgig.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/interactivelegend/index.html?appid=54bdfb0c9c0f4953a953e4fa00e9055b&locale=fr

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023e. Vacation lot random draw. Web page. Government of Québec. Accessed on 2024-02-20 at https://www.quebec.ca/en/housing-territory/lease-purchase-public-land/obtain-lot/vacation-lot-random-draw

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023f. Programme d'aide à la mise en valeur du territoire public. Web page. Accessed on 2024-02-20 at www.quebec.ca/gouvernement/politiques-orientations/plan-mise-valeur-territoire-public/programme-aide

Heppell, S. and L. Boissonneault. 2021. Inventaire aérien de la population de caribous forestiers (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Manicouagan à l’hiver 2021. Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction de la gestion de la faune de la Côte-Nord. 22 pp. + appendices.

Hins, C. and B. Rochette. 2020. Inventaire aérien de la population de caribous forestiers (Rangifer tarandus caribou) de Charlevoix à l’hiver 2020. Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction de la gestion de la faune de la Capitale-Nationale et de la Chaudière-Appalaches. 15 pp.

Holt, R.D. 1977. Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. Theoretical Population Biology 12:197-229.

First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Sustainable Development Institute [FNQLSDI]. 2010. Project Woodland Caribou – Final project report. 66 pp.

Jandt, R., K. Joly, C.R. Meyers and C. Racine. 2008. Slow recovery of lichen on burned caribou winter range in Alaska tundra: potential influences of climate warming and other disturbance factors. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 40:89-95.

Johnson C.A., G.D. Sutherland, E. Neave, M. Leblond, P. Kirby, C. Superbie, and P.D. McLoughlin. 2020. Science to inform policy: Linking population dynamics to habitat for a threatened species in Canada. Journal of Applied Ecology 57:1314-1327.

Keim, J.L., S.R. Lele, P.D. DeWitt, J.J. Fitzpatrick and N.S. Jenni. 2019. Estimating the intensity of use by interacting predators and prey using camera traps. Journal of Animal Ecology 88:690-701.

Labadie, G., P.D. McLoughlin, M. Hebblewhite and D. Fortin. 2021. Insect-mediated apparent competition between mammals in a boreal food web. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118:e2022892118.

Labadie, G., I. Bouderbala, Y. Boulanger, J.M. Béland, C. Hébert, A. Allard, M. Hebblewhite and D. Fortin. 2024. The umbrella value of caribou management strategies for biodiversity conservation in boreal forests under global change. Science of The Total Environment 907:168087.

Lande, R. 1993. Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity, and random catastrophes. American Naturalist 142:911-927.

Latham, A.D.M., M.C. Latham, N.A. McCutchen and S. Boutin. 2011a. Invading white‐tailed deer change wolf–caribou dynamics in northeastern Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75:204-212.

Latham, A.D.M., M.C. Latham, M.S. Boyce and S. Boutin. 2011b. Movement responses by wolves to industrial linear features and their effect on woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Ecological Applications 21:2854-2865.

Leblond, M., C. Dussault and J.-P. Ouellet. 2013. Impacts of human disturbance on large prey species: Do behavioral reactions translate to fitness consequences? PLoS One 8:e73695.

Leblond, M., C. Dussault and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2014. Development and validation of an expert-based habitat suitability model to support boreal caribou conservation. Biological Conservation 177:100-108.

Leblond, M., Y. Boulanger, J.P. Puigdevall and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2022. There is still time to reconcile forest management with climate-driven declines in habitat suitability for boreal caribou. Global Ecology and Conservation 39:e02294.

Lee, P. and S. Boutin. 2006. Persistence and developmental transition of wide seismic lines in the western Boreal Plains of Canada. Journal of Environmental Management 78:240-250.

Lesmerises, R., J.-P. Ouellet, C. Dussault and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2013. The influence of landscape matrix on isolated patch use by wide-ranging animals: conservation lessons for woodland caribou. Ecology and Evolution 3:2880-2891.

Lochon, I., A.C. Bélisle and B. Croteau. 2022. ATIK Forum Proceedings. Abitibiwinni First Nation Council. 42 pp.

Mines Agnico Eagle. 2023. Projet Akasaba Ouest: Rapport annuel 1er avril 2022 – 31 mars 2023. Web page. Accessed on 2024-01-16 at http://abitibi.agnicoeagle.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Rapport-annuel-2022-2023.pdf

Ministère de l’Énergie et des Ressources naturelles [MERN] en collaboration avec le ministère des Affaires municipales et de l’Occupation du territoire [MAMOT]. 2016. Les 4 phases du processus de développement minier. Les orientations gouvernementales en aménagement du territoire. Gouvernement du Québec. 4 p.

Ministère de l’Énergie et des Ressources naturelles [MERN]. 2020. Les minéraux critiques et stratégiques. Plan québécois pour la valorisation des minéraux critiques et stratégiques. 2020-2025. Gouvernement du Québec. v + 54 p.

Ministère de l’Énergie et des Ressources naturelles [MERN]. 2022. Plan de mise en valeur du territoire public. 2022-2026. Gouvernement du Québec. vii + 26 p.

Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs [MELCCFP]. 2023a. Bilan des naissances de caribou: 11 faons s’ajoutent à la population en captivité. Press release. Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2023-11-25 at www.newswire.ca/fr/news-releases/bilan-des-naissances-de-caribous-11-faons-s-ajoutent-a-la-population-en-captivite-820263003.html

Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs [MELCCFP]. 2023b. Registre des évaluations environnementales. Web page. Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2023-12-05 at www.ree.environnement.gouv.qc.ca/projet.asp?no_dossier=3211-12-243

Ministère des Affaires municipales et de l’Occupation du territoire [MAMOT] en collaboration avec le ministère de l’Énergie et des Ressources naturelles [MERN]. 2016. Aménager à proximité des sites miniers. Les orientations gouvernementales en aménagement du territoire. Gouvernement du Québec. ii + 10 p.

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2015. Solutions de mise en œuvre des lignes directrices pour l’aménagement de l’habitat du caribou forestier — Principales orientations. Rapport du Comité de travail sur les solutions, ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, Québec. 60 pp. + 4 appendices.

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2016. Plan d’action pour l’aménagement de l’habitat du caribou forestier. Gouvernement du Québec. 2 p.

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2018. Ressources et industries forestières du Québec: Portrait statistique 2017. Gouvernement du Québec. 124 p.

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2019. Ressources et industries forestières du Québec: Portrait statistique 2018. Gouvernement du Québec. 132 p. + annexes.

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2020a. Ressources et industries forestières du Québec: Portrait statistique 2019. Gouvernement du Québec. 136 p. + annexes.

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2020b. Stratégie nationale de production de bois. Gouvernement du Québec. 50 p.

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2021a. Revue de littérature sur les facteurs impliqués dans le déclin des populations de caribous forestiers au Québec et de caribous montagnards de la Gaspésie. Gouvernement du Québec. xx + 260 p.

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2021b. Qu’est-ce que la prévisibilité 300%? Web page. Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2023-11-26 at tgirt.ca/media/filer_public/7e/1c/7e1c5dec-5ee4-4188-8d84-817255c554d2/feuillet_previsibilite300.pdf

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2021c. Ressources et industries forestières du Québec: Portrait statistique 2020. Gouvernement du Québec. 138 pp. + appendices.

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2022a. Suivi de l'opération de capture et de mise en enclos des caribous de Charlevoix. Press release. Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2023-11-25 at www.newswire.ca/fr/news-releases/suivi-de-l-operation-de-capture-et-de-mise-en-enclos-des-caribous-de-charlevoix-889216267.html

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2022b. Méthodologie de révision des droits forestiers en vigueur au 1er avril 2023. Gouvernement du Québec. iii + 14 p.

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2022c. Études des crédits 2022-2023, demande de renseignements particuliers de l’opposition officielle. Gouvernement du Québec. 570 p.

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2023a. Termes utilisés. Document PFD joint à l’application de carte interactive Travaux autorisés 2023-2024 (mise à jour octobre 2023) de la région de la Côte-Nord. Accessed on 2024-03-14 at https://dgr09.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=81cac0551aba4f29aaa75225373623f8.

Ministère des Ressources naturelles du Québec [MRNQ]. 2013. Rapport du Comité scientifique chargé d’examiner la limite nordique des forêts attribuables. Secteur des forêts. 148 pp. + 6 appendices.

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [MRNF]. 2022. Ressources et industries forestières du Québec: Portrait statistique 2021. Gouvernement du Québec. vii + 138 p.

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [MRNF]. 2023a. Guide d’application du Programme de remboursement des coûts pour des activités d’aménagement forestier sur des chemins multiusages 2023-2024. Gouvernement du Québec. iii + 28 p.

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [MRNF]. 2023b. Le processus de développement minéral. Web page. Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2023-11-26 at gq.mines.gouv.qc.ca/geologie-pour-tous/processus-developpement-mineral/#bloc-valeur

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [MRNF]. 2023c. Cartes minières. Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2023-11-27 at mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/mines/publications/cartes-minieres/

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [MRNF]. 2023d. SIGÉOM_QC_Activites_minieres_FGDB.zip. (2023-12-07). Downloaded on 2024-01-04 at https://gq.mines.gouv.qc.ca/documents/SIGEOM/TOUTQC/FRA/FGDB/

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [MRNF]. 2023e. Cartographie interactive pour la gestion des titres miniers. Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2023-12-02 at gestim.mines.gouv.qc.ca/MRN_GestimP_Presentation/ODM02101_login.aspx

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [MRNF]. 2023f. Liste des sites miniers abandonnés en responsabilité réelle au PTSC – 31 mars 2023. Accessed on 2024-01-17 at https://mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/LI_sites-miniers-abandonnes.pdf

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [MRNF]. 2023g. Processus et délais de traitement. Page web. Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2024-01-17 at https://mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/mines/publications/processus-delais-traitement/

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [MRNF]. 2023h. Statistiques 2021 sur les titres miniers. Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2023-11-26 at mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques-2021-titres-miniers/

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [MRNF]. 2023i. Rapport annuel de gestion 2022-2023. Gouvernement du Québec. xi + 116 p.

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [MRNF]. 2023j. Couche des droits fonciers (baux). Dataset in Données Québec. Version 2019. Updated on 2023-07-14. Accessed on 2024-02-02 at https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset/couche-des-droits-fonciers-baux

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [MRNF]. 2023k. Couche des territoires récréatifs du Québec à l'échelle de 1/100 000. Jeu de données dans Données Québec. Version 2019, mis à jour le 2023-07-14. Accessed on 2024-02-10 at https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset/couche-des-territoires-recreatifs-du-quebec-a-l-echelle-de-1-100-000

Ministère des Transports et de la Mobilité durable [MTMD]. 2023. Liste des projets routiers du ministère du Transport et de la Mobilité durable. Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed on 2023-12-02 at transports.gouv.qc.ca/fr/projets-infrastructures/reseau-routier/projets-routiers/Pages/projets-routiers.aspx

Morin, C. 2023. Détermination des variables clés pour maintenir ou restaurer la connectivité fonctionnelle des habitats utilisés par le caribou forestier dans les territoires sous aménagement. Master’s thesis, Université du Québec à Rimouski. 131 p.

Morineau C., Y. Boulanger, P. Gachon, S. Plante and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2023. Climate change alone cannot explain boreal caribou range recession in Quebec since 1850. Global Change Biology 29:6661-6678.

Natural Resources Canada. 2023. Canada’s record-breaking wildfires in 2023: A fiery wake-up call. Web page Web. Accessed on 2024-02-08 at https://natural-resources.canada.ca/simply-science/canadas-record-breaking-wildfires-2023-fiery-wake-call/25303

Nation Anishnabe du Lac Simon, personal communication. 2023. Meeting between ECCC and the Groupe de Travail de Val d'Or. November 29, 2023. Online meeting.

Pellerin, S. and J.-S. Naud. 2020. Inventaire de la population de caribous forestiers (Rangifer tarandus caribou) de Val-d’Or à l’automne 2019 et à l’hiver 2020. Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction de la gestion de la faune de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue. 18 p.

Pigeon, K.E., M. Anderson, D. MacNearney, J. Cranston, G. Stenhouse and L. Finnegan. 2016. Toward the restoration of caribou habitat: understanding factors associated with human motorized use of legacy seismic lines. Environmental Management 58:821-832.

Plourde, J., A. Landry and S. Gravel. 2020. Inventaire aérien de caribous forestiers (Rangifer tarandus caribou) du secteur Pipmuacan à l’hiver 2020. Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction de la gestion de la faune du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean. 17 p.

Racey, G.D. and A.A. Arsenault. 2007. In search of a critical habitat concept for woodland caribou, boreal population. Rangifer Special Issue 17:29-37.

Ray, J.C. 2014. Defining habitat restoration for boreal caribou in the context of national recovery: A discussion paper. Commissioned by Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

Rettie, W.J. and F. Messier. 2000. Hierarchical habitat selection by woodland caribou: its relationship to limiting factors. Ecography 23:466-478.

Rettie, W.J. and F. Messier. 2001. Range use and movement rates of Woodland Caribou in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1933-1936.

Rudolph, T.D., P. Drapeau, L. Imbeau, V. Brodeur, S. Légaré and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2017. Demographic responses of boreal caribou to cumulative disturbances highlight elasticity of range-specific tolerance thresholds. Biodiversity and Conservation 26:1179-1198.

Saher, D.J. and F.K.A. Schmiegelow. 2005. Movement pathways and habitat selection by woodland caribou during spring migration. Rangifer Special Issue 6:143-154.

Schaefer, J.A. 2003. Long-term range recession and the persistence of caribou on the taiga. Conservation Biology 15:1435-1439.

Seip, D.R. 1991. Predation and caribou populations. Rangifer 11:46-52.

Serrouya, R., B.N. McLellan, H. van Oort, G. Mowat and S. Boutin. 2017. Experimental moose reduction lowers wolf density and stops decline of endangered caribou. PeerJ 5:e3736.

Shaffer, M. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31:131-141.

Shaffer, M. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. Pp. 69-86, in M. Sould (ed). Viable populations for conservation, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Shields, A. 2023. Boom de permis d'exploration minière en 2023 au Québec: La forte croissance du nombre de « claims miniers » pourrait compromettre la protection de la biodiversité. Le Devoir, édition du 28 décembre 2023. Press article. Accessed on 2024-01-16 at https://www.ledevoir.com/environnement/804467/environnement-boom-permis-exploration-miniere-2023-quebec#:~:text=La%20ru%C3%A9e%20vers%20les%20permis,de%20protection%20de%20la%20biodiversit%C3%A9

Splawinski, T.B., D. Cyr, S. Gauthier, J.-P. Jetté and Y. Bergeron. 2019. Analyzing risk of regeneration failure in the managed boreal forest of northwestern Quebec. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 49:680-691.

St-Laurent, M.-H. and J. Gosselin. 2020. Sélection d’habitat, délimitation de l’habitat essentiel et scénarios de restauration d’habitat à prioriser au bénéfice du caribou de Val-d’Or. Scientific report submitted to the Conseil de la Nation Anishnabe du Lac Simon, par l’Université du Québec à Rimouski. viii + 118 p.

St-Pierre, F., P. Drapeau and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2021. Drivers of vegetation regrowth on logging roads in the boreal forest: Implications for restoration of woodland caribou habitat. Forest Ecology and Management 482:118846.

Stuart-Smith, A.K., C.J.A. Bradshaw, S. Boutin, D.M. Hebert and A.B. Rippin. 1997. Woodland Caribou relative to landscape pattern in northeastern Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife Management 61:622-633.

Szor, G., C. Dussault and A. Landry. 2019. Inventaire aérien de la population de caribous forestiers (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Témiscamie au cours de l’hiver 2019. Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (MFFP), Direction de la gestion de la faune Nord-duQuébec, Direction de la gestion de la faune du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean. 26 p.

Szor, G. and G. Gingras. 2020. Inventaire aérien du caribou forestier (Rangifer tarandus caribou) dans les secteurs baie James, Rupert et La Grande, Nord-du-Québec, à l’hiver 2020. Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction de la gestion de la faune du Nord-du-Québec. 31 p.

Szor, G. and G. Gingras. 2022. Inventaire aérien de la population de caribous forestiers (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Nottaway à l’hiver 2022. Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction de la gestion de la faune du Nord-du-Québec. 22 p. + annexes.

Szor, G., G. Gingras and A.A. Arsenault. 2023. Inventaire aérien de la population de caribous forestiers (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Detour: Rapport d’inventaire – hiver 2022. Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction de la gestion de la faune du Nord-du-Québec. 20 p. + annexe.

Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig and K. With. 2006. Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. Pp. 29-43, in K.R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan (eds). Connectivity Conservation, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Thomas, D.C. and D.R. Gray. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Woodland Caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 98 pp.

Viejou, R., T. Avgar, G.S. Brown, B.R. Patterson, D.E.B. Reid, A.R. Rodgers, J. Shuter, I.D. Thompson and J.M. Fryxell. 2018. Woodland caribou habitat selection patterns in relation to predation risk and forage abundance depend on reproductive state. Ecology and Evolution 8:5863-5872.

Vistnes, I. and C. Nellemann. 2008. The matter of spatial and temporal scales: a review of reindeer and caribou response to human activity. Polar Biology 31:399-407.

Vors, L.S., J.A. Schaefer, B.A. Pond, A.R. Rodgers and B.R. Patterson. 2007. Woodland caribou extirpation and anthropogenic landscape disturbance in Ontario. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1249-1256.

Whittington, J., M. Hebblewhite, N.J. DeCesare, L. Neufeld, M. Bradley, J. Wilmshurst and M. Musiani. 2011. Caribou encounters with wolves increase near roads and trails: a time-to-event approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:1535-1542.

Wittmer, H.U., B.N. McLellan, R. Serrouya and C.D. Apps. 2007. Changes in landscape composition influence the decline of a threatened woodland caribou population. Journal of Animal Ecology 76:568-579.

Appendix A. Best available information on boreal caribou ranges in Quebec

Environment Canada (2011) has defined three types of boreal caribou ranges based on the level of certainty in their delineated boundaries (in ascending order of certainty: conservation unit, improved conservation unit, local population; Figure A.1). Given their low degree of certainty, “conservation units” should be considered provisional ranges until data are available to assess the certainty of the delineated boundaries (EC, 2011). Similarly, given the dynamic nature of ranges, their boundaries need to be re-evaluated and updated periodically to incorporate the best available information on caribou populations and their use of the territory (EC, 2011). In Quebec, the federal recovery strategy (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020) identifies six ranges: two (QC1 and QC2) are considered “local populations” (high level of certainty), three (QC3, QC4 and QC5) are considered “improved conservation units” (medium level of certainty) and one (QC6) is considered a “conservation unit” (low level of certainty). These ranges reflected the best information available at the time the first version of the boreal caribou recovery strategy was published, in 2012 (EC, 2012). EC (2011) acknowledges that very large ranges (for example QC6) may mask local variations in habitat condition, and that it may be appropriate to identify smaller ranges within the same territory to help achieve the recovery goal. ECCC considers that the range boundaries identified by the Province of Quebec (MFFP, 2021a) represent the best available information on the distribution and population structure of boreal caribou in that province at the time of this assessment. Several First Nations representatives with whom ECCC has had discussions about boreal caribou in Quebec in recent years also recognize the added value of the ranges identified by the Quebec government (MFFP, 2021a) compared to those presented in the federal recovery strategy (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020). It is important to note that the population and distribution objectives, as well as the identified critical habitat, currently remain linked to the local population ranges identified in the federal recovery strategy. However, the recovery goal is to achieve self-sustaining local populations throughout the species' current distribution in Canada, to the extent possible (ECCC, 2020). This goal is not explicitly linked to the delineation of boundaries of local population ranges, like the boundaries used to define the population and distribution objectives and identify critical habitat. Based on this understanding, it appears legitimate to use the best available information on local populations throughout the current range in Quebec, specifically, the information published by the Government of Quebec (MFFP, 2021a).

Flow chart, please read long description

Figure A.1 Data requirements for types of boreal caribou ranges (from conservation units to local population ranges) and associated level of certainty; figure taken from EC [2011]). The acronym "ATK" stands for Aboriginal traditional knowledge.

Long description

Flow chart explaining the data requirements for the three boreal caribou range types and their level of certainty.

  1. Conservation units: Ranges inferred from digital maps (e.g., forest cover and geographical barriers) of caribou habitat. Information on caribou habitat and movement not specific to area of interest. Low level of certainty that delineated area represents local population range
  2. Improved conservation units: Ranges inferred from digital maps of caribou habitat and movement reported in other areas supplemented with limited, short-term observational data (e.g., ground or aerial surveys) specific to area of interest. Moderate level of certainty that the delineated area represents local population range
  3. Local populations: Ranges delineated from longer-term data (e.g., telemetry or Indigenous Knowledge (IK)) on habitat use and movement for particular area of interest. Movement data allows for estimation of annual migration rates. High level of certainty that delineated area represents local population range

The area covered by the provincial rangesFootnote 38 (547,652 km2; non-overlapping) differs by 130,359 km2 (19%) from that covered by the federal ranges (678,011 km2). More specifically, the provincial ranges cover 8,853 km2 (134%) more than the federal ranges with regard to isolated ranges (corresponding to QC1 and QC2), and 139,212 km2 (20%) less than the federal ranges for the continuous portion of the range (corresponding to QC3, QC4, QC5 and QC6). The table below shows the area of each of the federal and provincial ranges. Figure 2 shows the location of these ranges.

Table A.1. Area of federal (EC, 2012; ECCC, 2020) and provincial (MFFP, 2021a) ranges

Range or knowledge acquisition area (federal or provincial)

Areaa (km2)

Val-d'Or (QC1; federal)

3,469

Charlevoix (QC2; federal)

3,128

Pipmuacan (QC3; federal)

13,769

Manouane (QC4; federal)

27,165

Manicouagan (QC5; federal)

11,341

Quebecb (QC6; federal)

621,561

Assinica (provincial)

70,875

Basse-Côte-Nordb,c (provincial)

116,638

Baie-Jamesb,c (provincial)

146,952

Caniapiscaub (provincial)

107,312

Charlevoix (provincial)

7,248

Detourb (provincial)

59,009

Manicouagan (provincial)

39,697

Nottawayb (provincial)

62,756

Outardes (provincial)

41,885

Pipmuacan (provincial)

18,432

Témiscamie (provincial)

105,332

Val-d'Or (provincial)

8,202

a The map projection used to calculate these areas is Canada Albers Equal Area Conic. There are overlaps between the different provincial ranges or knowledge acquisition areas.

b These ranges or knowledge acquisition areas are partly located outside Quebec. The areas indicated are therefore partly outside Quebec.

c Baie-James and Basse-Côte-Nord are knowledge acquisition areas.

Appendix B. Biophysical Attributes of critical habitat

In addition to differing from one ecozone or ecoregion to another, the biophysical attributes required by boreal caribou vary both between and within ranges. Table B.1 shows the ecozones and ecoregions in which the local boreal caribou populations in Quebec are found, and the associated biophysical attributes.

Table B.1 Biophysical attributes of critical habitat by ecozone/ecoregion and by type of habitat for local boreal caribou populations in Quebec. The description of the biophysical attributes of critical habitat is taken from Appendix H of the recovery strategy (ECCC, 2020)

Ecozone or ecoregion

Target population(s)

Type of habitat

Description

Boreal Shield Central

Val-d'Or (QC1)

Quebec (QC6)

Broad Scale

Late seral-stage black spruce-dominated lowlands and jack pine-dominated uplands.

Open black spruce lowlands.

Low-density late seral-stage jack pine or black spruce forests and black spruce/tamarack-dominated peat lands with abundant terrestrial and moderate arboreal lichens.

Caribou also use areas with dry to moist sandy to loamy soils and shallow soils over bedrock. Elevations of 300 m. Intermediate values of Normalized Difference Vegetation Indexa.

Selection for old (>40 years) burns.

Calving

Open canopies of mature black spruce and mesic peat land with ericaceous species are selected for calving in the Claybelt region.

Females with calves selected areas with more abundant ericaceous shrubs and terrestrial lichens during the summer compared to females without calves.

Winter

Large areas of contiguous forests dominated by black spruce.

Open conifer forests or forests with lower tree densities where terrestrial and arboreal lichens are abundant and there is significant less snow (for example, shorelines) are also selected.

Boreal Shield Southeast

Charlevoix (QC2);

Quebec (QC6)

Broad scale

Late seral-stage black spruce-dominated lowlands and jack pine-dominated uplands, balsam fir stands, marshlands and abundant lichen.

Calving

Open, medium-closed conifer forests.

Elevations of 300 m.

Intermediate values of Normalized Difference Vegetation Indexa.

Selection for old (>40 years) burns.

Rutting

Dense and open mature conifer forests of spruce, tamarack, jack pine and young conifer forests between 30 to 50 years old.

Winter

Open stands of balsam fir, balsam fir-black spruce, black spruce, black-spruce-tamarack and jack pine stands older than 70 yrs. Dry bare lands, 30 to 50-year-old stands of balsam fir or fir-black spruce, as well as 50-year-old jack pine stands, and arboreal and terrestrial lichens.

Boreal Shield East

Pipmuacan (QC3);

Manouane (QC4);

Manicouagan (QC5);

Quebec (QC6)

Broad scale

Conifer-feather moss forests on poorly drained sites and mature conifer uplands with abundant terrestrial lichen. Black spruce, jack pine and balsam fir stands present with abundant lichen.

Water bodies and wetlands (swamps, marshy areas with tamarack).

Mountains or rolling hills.

Elevations of 300 m.

Intermediate values of Normalized Difference Vegetation Indexa.

Selection for old (>40 years) burns.

Calving

Open wetlands, peninsulas and islands.

Sedges, ericaceous species, bryophytes, alder and larch selected in spring.

Balsam fir, dense black spruce stands, spruce-fir forests older than 40 years, and dry bare land with high lichen densities.

Mature conifer stands, as well as wetlands (marshes, peat moss areas). Higher elevations used for calving in this area rather than lakes or water bodies.

Post- calving

Open and forested wetlands (marshes, swamps), and continued use of peninsulas and islands. Hilly areas, coastal sites, shorelines (rivers, lakes, creeks).

Aquatic plants, dwarf birch (Betula glandulosa), deciduous shrubs, ericaceous species and moss.

Rutting

Open wetlands selected, swamps.

Terrestrial and arboreal lichens, forbs, sedges, mosses and coniferous and deciduous shrubs.

Balsam fir stands, dense spruce stands, mature and regenerating conifer stands, other forest stands (tamarack, pine) with abundant lichens, wetlands (swamps) and dry bare lands.

Winter

Forested wetlands. Some use of upland tundra for loafing. Mountainous terrain.

Dry bare land, wetlands, mature conifer forests with lichen, balsam fir stands, dense spruce stands, and mixed spruce-fir forests older than 40 years selected in southern areas. Observed along frozen bodies of water.

Use of mature forests protected from harvesting increases probability of encounters with wolves that select the same habitats in winter.

Shallow snow depths selected in late winter.

Travel

Caribou move greater distances during the rutting season.

Hudson Plain

Quebec (QC6)

Broad scale

Habitats selected generally to reduce predation risk.

Shrub-rich treed muskeg and mature conifer forests with abundant lichens.

Shorelines of deep lakes and rivers (birch trees). Poorly drained areas dominated by sedges, mosses and lichens, as well as open black spruce and tamarack forests.

Elevations of 150 m.

Intermediate levels of ruggednessb and Normalized Difference Vegetation Indexa.

Calving

Mature conifer stand with and without lichens and muskegs. Preference for higher elevations compared to habitat use during other periods.

Post-calving

Fens, bogs and lakes.

Rutting

Wetlands and conifer stands with lichen. Mature and regenerating conifer stands are also used, albeit to a lesser degree. Caribou use hills in the lowlands and treed islands in muskegs with several different tree species.

Winter

Dense and mature conifer forests with lichens and wetlands.

Peat lands dominated by open bogs and terrestrial lichens.

Large patches of intermediate and mature black spruce, shrub-rich treed muskeg and mixed conifer stands all used in late winter.

Travel

Movements greatest in fall/winter when caribou transition from calving to winter habitat.

Long-range movements are greater in areas with high moose densities, presumably to reduce predation risk.

Taiga Shield

Quebec (QC6)

Broad scale

Upland tundra dominated by ericaceous shrubs (Ericaceae spp.), lichen, grasses and sedges.

Lowland tundra composed of peat land complexes (muskeg and string bogs), wetlands (swamps, marshes), lakes, rivers and riparian valleys.

Dense mature jack pine and black spruce stands with balsam fir and tamarack present and open conifer forests with abundant lichens.

Calving

String bogs, treed bogs, small open wetlands (< 1 km2), large muskeg, marshes along water bodies. Barren grounds.

Calving on peninsulas and islands increases with amount of open water.

Post-calving

Forested wetlands. Hilly areas, coastal sites, along shorelines of water bodies (rivers, lakes, creeks), marshes with lichen availability.

Rutting

Open wetlands, swamps. Mature forests, mountainous terrain with forests of black spruce, tamarack and pine trees with abundant lichen.

Winter

Forested areas are used in years of low snow accumulation; otherwise, winter habitat selection reflects general avoidance of deep snow, including use of tundra habitat at higher elevations in mountainous regions and bogs along lakes or oceans.

Forested wetlands.

Tundra uplands and sand flats in proximity to water. Barren grounds.

Bog edges, glacial erratics and bedrock erratics with lichen and lakes.

Some use of mature white spruce and fir stands as alternative to habitat with arboreal lichens.

Mix of mature forest stands, mountainous terrain with forests of black spruce, tamarack and jack pine with abundant lichen.

Travel

Connectivity between selected habitat types important given reported patterns of movement among caribou.

Some animals have been reported to travel up to distances of approximately 200 km, although the majority of animals appear to move shorter distances. Females show fidelity to post-calving sites, returning to within 6.7 km of a given location in consecutive years

a Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) is an index that provides a standardized method of comparing vegetation greenness between satellite images.

b Vector ruggedness is a metric used to capture variability in slope and aspect.

Appendix C. Mapping of disturbances in boreal caribou habitat

Description of the disturbance mapping method

Disturbance mapping is an exercise that was first carried out by ECCC using 2008 to 2010 data, then repeated with data from 2015 and more recently with data from 2020. The mapping process was established to build a nationally consistent, reliable and reproducible geospatial dataset using a common methodology. Mapping of anthropogenic disturbances, specifically, is based on visual identification of disturbances on 1:50,000 Landsat images at a scale ofFootnote 39. A 500-m buffer is then applied around the disturbances (see Appendix 7.4 of EC [2011]). Lastly, the footprint of forest fires up to 40 years old is extracted from the Canadian Forest Fire Database (Natural Resources Canada) and combined with the footprint of anthropogenic disturbances to generate the total disturbance footprint for each range.

This document summarizes the methods used in 2020 to map the second five-year update (2020). The data acquisition process is much faster now thanks to advances in technology, but the mapping protocol is consistent with the detailed methodology described in Appendix 7.2 of EC (2011).

Highlights of the anthropogenic disturbance mapping protocol for 2020

ArcGIS version 10.8 was used for geodatabase creation and data processing. The following general steps were followed to capture disturbance features within each of the local population ranges:

  1. the previous mapping database (2008 to 2010 and 2015) consisted of linear and polygon features, identified by a disturbance class, along with additional metadata (for example, date of imagery used, initials of interpreter). The 2015 database was copied into a multiuser SDE database and used as a starting point. The features from 2010 that were visible in 2015 and the features added in 2015 were included
  2. in 2020, the mapping process was modified as follows: harvest polygons for 2020 were extracted from the National Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring System (NTEMS) of the Canadian Forest Service (Natural Resources Canada; Hermosilla et al., 2016) and added to the 2015 database prior to interpretation, which accelerated the digitization process considerably. NTEMS harvest polygons that were not superimposed on polygons already mapped in 2015 were verified before being included, thereby eliminating some erroneously generated polygons
  3. all new linear disturbances (see Limitation b) below) and all remaining new polygonal disturbances (other than the 2020 harvest polygons extracted from NTEMS), as interpreted from Landsat 2020 imagery, were digitized
  4. a quality assurance process was implemented. This involved having a second independent interpreter review the work and add missing disturbances while ensuring the completeness and accuracy of the information in the attribute table. General checks were also carried out to verify feature classification, disturbance class consistency, and so on

Specific limitations associated with the interpretation of disturbance mapping results

The specific limitations identified below are important to consider in the context of this assessment. This is not an exhaustive list. For example, Appendix 7.2 of EC (2011) presents additional limitations.

  1. Since anthropogenic disturbances are identified visually from Landsat 1:50,000 images, disturbance mapping does not provide an exhaustive inventory of all habitat disturbances that could be perceived by caribou and affect individual behavior or have population-level effects (for example, affect demographic parameters such as recruitment or survival). Furthermore, the scale at which the visual identification of anthropogenic disturbance is performed implies that the representation of the different disturbance classes is not very precise
  2. The disturbance mapping dataset was designed to provide an index of disturbance that considers the cumulative impact of all anthropogenic disturbances (along with fire as a natural disturbance). The data were not developed to examine individual disturbance classes, and it is expected that there will be overlaps, sometimes significant, between the different disturbance classes
  3. Given the above statement, and for reasons of efficiency, portions of linear disturbances that overlapped one or more polygonal disturbances were not mapped. It is very likely that the footprint of linear disturbances was underestimated
  4. In cases where two linear features converged and became indistinguishable on Landsat images, a single line was digitized and the disturbance class was assigned based on a hierarchy (from highest to lowest priority: roads, railroads, power lines, pipelines, seismic lines, dams, landing strips and unknown features). As a result, the footprint of certain classes of linear disturbance may have been underestimated, particularly for "lower priority" disturbance classes (according to the hierarchy mentioned above)

References

Footnote 40

Hermosilla, T., M.A. Wulder, J.C. White, N.C. Coops, G.W. Hobart, and L.B. Campbell. 2016. Mass data processing of time series Landsat imagery: pixels to data products for forest monitoring. International Journal of Digital Earth 9(11):1035-1054.

Natural Resources Canada. Canadian National Fire Database (CNFDB) 1981-2020. https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb

Access to 2010 and 2015 data

“Boreal ecosystem anthropogenic disturbance vector data for Canada based on 2008 to 2010 Landsat imagery” can be downloaded from:

https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/afd0ce47-17c3-445c-b823-2f86409da2e0

"Anthropogenic disturbance footprint within boreal caribou ranges across Canada - As interpreted from 2008-2010 Landsat satellite imagery Updated to 2012 range boundaries” can be downloaded from:

https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/890a5d8d-3dbb-4608-b6ce-3b6d4c3b7dce

“2015 - Anthropogenic disturbance footprint within boreal caribou ranges across Canada - As interpreted from 2015 Landsat satellite imagery" can be downloaded from:

https://data-donnees.az.ec.gc.ca/data/species/developplans/2015-anthropogenic-disturbance-footprint-within-boreal-caribou-ranges-across-canada-as-interpreted-from-2015-landsat-satellite-imagery/?lang=en

Appendix D. Presentation of geospatial information relating to forest management planning activities

The Government of Quebec's website entitled “Plans d’aménagement forestier régionaux et consultations (regional forest management plans and consultations)” provides information on the forest planning and the public consultation process (Gouvernement du Québec, 2022c). The website provides access to interactive map applications. Section 1 of this appendix describes in greater detail the interactive map applications that were available at the time the imminent threat assessment was prepared. Section 2 presents the information selected for integration into this assessment. Some of the information and descriptions were collected using the interactive map applications, while others required the use of a geographic information system, such as the area and length statistics presented in Tables 6 and 7 of the imminent threat assessment. Section 3 presents the elements used for this processing. Lastly, all the references used can be found in Section 4.

1. Inventory of information disseminated on interactive map applications

1.1 List of interactive map application titles and elements displayed

Table D.1 shows the titles of the interactive map applications and the elements displayed on these maps on the “regional forest management plans and consultations” website for the regions under study (period from October 15, 2023, to December 22, 2023; Gouvernement du Québec, 2022c). It was prepared by consulting the interactive map applications that are accessible via hyperlinks on the regions' web pages in the sections entitled “Programmation annuelle des activités de récolte (annual harvesting program - PRAN) and Plans d’aménagement forestier intégré opérationnels (operational integrated forest management plans - PAFIO)” or via a hyperlink in the most recent consultation follow-up report published on the same web pagesFootnote 41. The table includes only those items checked (and thus displayed) when the interactive map application was first openedFootnote 42.

Table D.1: Interactive map application titles and elements displayed on initial opening of the interactive map applications

Region name

Information shown in the title bar of the interactive map application

Element name - Level 1

Element name - Level 2

Element name - Level 3

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region]

Consultation PAFIO Février 2023 [PAFIO consultation, February 2023]

Plan d'aménagement spécial [Special management plan]

N/A

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region]

Consultation PAFIO Février 2023 [PAFIO consultation, February 2023]

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Ponts et ponceaux en consultation [Bridges and culverts under consultation]

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region]

Consultation PAFIO Février 2023 [PAFIO consultation, February 2023]

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Ponts et ponceaux déjà consultés [Bridges and culverts, consultation completed]

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region]

Consultation PAFIO Février 2023 [PAFIO consultation, February 2023]

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Autres infrastructures en consultation [Other infrastructure under consultation]

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region]

Consultation PAFIO Février 2023 [PAFIO consultation, February 2023]

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Autres infrastructures déjà consultées [Other infrastructure, consultation completed]

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region]

Consultation PAFIO Février 2023 [PAFIO consultation, February 2023]

Chemins forestiers [Logging roads]

Chemins en consultation [Roads under consultation]

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region]

Consultation PAFIO Février 2023 [PAFIO consultation, February 2023]

Chemins forestiers [Logging roads]

Chemins déjà consultés [Roads, consultation completed]

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region]

Consultation PAFIO Février 2023 [PAFIO consultation, February 2023]

Travaux sylvicoles commerciaux [Commercial silvicultural work]

Secteurs d'intervention potentiels en consultation [Potential intervention sectors under consultation]

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region]

Consultation PAFIO Février 2023 [PAFIO consultation, February 2023]

Travaux sylvicoles commerciaux [Commercial silvicultural work]

Potential secteurs d'intervention [Potential intervention sectors, consultation completed]

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region]

Consultation PAFIO Février 2023 [PAFIO consultation, February 2023]

Travaux sylvicoles non commerciaux [Non-commercial silvicultural work]

Secteurs d'intervention potentiels en consultation [Potential intervention sectors under consultation]

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region]

Consultation PAFIO Février 2023 [PAFIO consultation, February 2023]

Travaux sylvicoles non commerciaux [Non-commercial silvicultural work]

Potential secteurs d'intervention [Potential intervention sectors, consultation completed]

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts - Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean PRAN

N/A

Programmation annuelle commerciale septembre 2023 [Annual commercial harvesting program, September 2023]

N/A

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts - Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean PRAN

N/A

Camp de la programmation annuelle septembre 2023 [Work camps in the annual harvesting program, September 2023]

N/A

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts - Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean PRAN

N/A

Pont de la programmation annuelle septembre 2023 [Bridges in the annual harvesting program, September 2023]

PRAN_pont_09_2023 [PRAN_bridge_09_2023]

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts - Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean PRAN

N/A

Chemin de la programmation annuelle septembre 2023 [Roads in the annual harvesting program, September 2023]

PRAN_chemin_09_2023 [PRAN_roads_09_2023]

Capitale-Nationale

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et le PAS de la Capitale-Nationale [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Capitale-Nationale region]

Consultation_Publique_R03_2023 [Public consultation R03 2023]

Travaux sylvicoles commerciaux [Commercial silvicultural work]

Secteurs d'intervention potentiels en consultation [Potential intervention sectors under consultation]

Capitale-Nationale

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et le PAS de la Capitale-Nationale [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Capitale-Nationale region]

Consultation_Publique_R03_2023 [Public consultation R03 2023]

Travaux sylvicoles commerciaux [Commercial silvicultural work]

Potential secteurs d'intervention [Potential intervention sectors, consultation completed]

Capitale-Nationale

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et le PAS de la Capitale-Nationale [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Capitale-Nationale region]

Consultation_Publique_R03_2023 [Public consultation R03 2023]

Chemins forestiers [Logging roads]

Chemins en consultation [Roads under consultation]

Capitale-Nationale

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et le PAS de la Capitale-Nationale [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Capitale-Nationale region]

Consultation_Publique_R03_2023 [Public consultation R03 2023]

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Ponts et ponceaux en consultation [Bridges and culverts under consultation]

Capitale-Nationale

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et le PAS de la Capitale-Nationale [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Capitale-Nationale region]

Consultation_Publique_R03_2023 [Public consultation R03 2023]

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Autres infrastructures en consultation [Other infrastructure under consultation]

Capitale-Nationale

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et le PAS de la Capitale-Nationale [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Capitale-Nationale region]

Consultation_Publique_R03_2023 [Public consultation R03 2023]

Plan d'aménagement speciala [Special management plana]

N/A

Capitale-Nationale

Diffusion des Programmation de Récolte Annuelle Autorisée de la Capitale-Nationale [Dissemination of authorized annual harvesting plans in the Capitale-Nationale region]

PRANA_2023_2024 [2023 to 2024 PRANA]

Plan d'aménagement speciala autorisés [Authorized special management plansa]

N/A

Capitale-Nationale

Diffusion des Programmation de Récolte Annuelle Autorisée de la Capitale-Nationale [Dissemination of authorized annual harvesting plans in the Capitale-Nationale region]

PRANA_2023_2024 [2023 to 2024 PRANA]

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Pont et ponceaux autorisés [Authorized bridges and culverts]

Capitale-Nationale

Diffusion des Programmation de Récolte Annuelle Autorisée de la Capitale-Nationale [Dissemination of authorized annual harvesting plans in the Capitale-Nationale region]

PRANA_2023_2024 [2023 to 2024 PRANA]

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Other authorized infrastructure

Capitale-Nationale

Diffusion des Programmation de Récolte Annuelle Autorisée de la Capitale-Nationale [Dissemination of authorized annual harvesting plans in the Capitale-Nationale region]

PRANA_2023_2024 [2023 to 2024 PRANA]

Travaux sylvicoles commerciaux [Commercial silvicultural work]

Secteurs d'intervention autoriséesa [Authorized intervention sectorsa]

Capitale-Nationale

Diffusion des Programmation de Récolte Annuelle Autorisée de la Capitale-Nationale [Dissemination of authorized annual harvesting plans in the Capitale-Nationale region]

PRANA_2023_2024 [2023 to 2024 PRANA]

Chemins forestiers [Logging roads]

Chemins autorisés [Authorized roads]

Mauricie

Planification opérationnelle et programmation annuelle (PRAN) 2022 - Mauricie [Operational plan and annual harvesting program (PRAN) 2022 - Mauricie]

N/A

Programmation annuelle (PRAN) [Annual harvesting program (PRAN)]

N/A

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région Abitibi-Témiscamingue [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region]

ConsultationR08_E23

Travaux sylvicoles commerciaux [Commercial silvicultural work]

Secteura d'intervention potentiels en consultation [Potential intervention sectorsa under consultation]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région Abitibi-Témiscamingue [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region]

ConsultationR08_E23

Travaux sylvicoles commerciaux [Commercial silvicultural work]

Secteur d'intervention potentiels déjà consultés [Potential intervention sectors, consultation completed]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région Abitibi-Témiscamingue [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region]

ConsultationR08_E23

Travaux sylvicoles non commerciaux [Non-commercial silvicultural work]

Secteura d'intervention potentiels en consultation [Potential intervention sectorsa under consultation]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région Abitibi-Témiscamingue [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region]

ConsultationR08_E23

Travaux sylvicoles non commerciaux [Non-commercial silvicultural work]

Secteur d'intervention potentiels déjà consultés [Potential intervention sectors, consultation completed]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région Abitibi-Témiscamingue [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region]

ConsultationR08_E23

Chemins forestiers [Logging roads]

Chemins en consultation [Roads under consultation]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région Abitibi-Témiscamingue [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region]

ConsultationR08_E23

Chemins forestiers [Logging roads]

Chemins déjà consultés [Roads, consultation completed]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région Abitibi-Témiscamingue [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region]

ConsultationR08_E23

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Ponts et ponceaux en consultation [Bridges and culverts under consultation]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région Abitibi-Témiscamingue [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region]

ConsultationR08_E23

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Ponts et ponceaux déjà consultés [Bridges and culverts, consultation completed]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région Abitibi-Témiscamingue [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region]

ConsultationR08_E23

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Autres infrastructures en consultation [Other infrastructure under consultation]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région Abitibi-Témiscamingue [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region]

ConsultationR08_E23

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Autres infrastructures déjà consultées [Other infrastructure, consultation completed]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région Abitibi-Témiscamingue [Public consultation on PAFIOs and PASs in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region]

ConsultationR08_E23

Plan d'aménagement spécial [Special management plan]

N/A

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Programmation annuelle 2023-2024 - Abitibi-Témiscamingue (région 08) [Annual harvesting program 2023 to 2024 - Abitibi-Témiscamingue (region 08)]

N/A

Activitéesaplanifiées- 2023-2024 - Chemins [Planned activities1 - 2023 to 2024 - Roads]

N/A

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Programmation annuelle 2023-2024 - Abitibi-Témiscamingue (région 08) [Annual harvesting program 2023 to 2024 - Abitibi-Témiscamingue (region 08)]

N/A

Activitéesa planifiées - 2023-2024 - Chemins (Bureau de mise en marché des bois) [Planned activitiesa - 2023 to 2024 - Roads (timber marketing board)]

N/A

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Programmation annuelle 2023-2024 - Abitibi-Témiscamingue (région 08) [Annual harvesting program 2023 to 2024 - Abitibi-Témiscamingue (region 08)]

N/A

Activités_planifiées-2023-2024-Travaux non commerciaux [Planned_activities 2023 to 2024 -Non-commercial work]

N/A

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Programmation annuelle 2023-2024 - Abitibi-Témiscamingue (région 08) [Annual harvesting program 2023 to 2024 - Abitibi-Témiscamingue (region 08)]

N/A

Activités planifiées- 2023-2024 - Travaux commerciaux [Planned_activities 2023 to 2024 - Commercial work]

N/A

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Programmation annuelle 2023-2024 - Abitibi-Témiscamingue (région 08) [Annual harvesting program 2023 to 2024 - Abitibi-Témiscamingue (region 08)]

N/A

Activités planifiées - 2023-2024 - Chantiers (Bureau de mise en marché des bois) [Planned activities - 2023 to 2024 - Work sites (timber marketing board)]

N/A

Côte-Nord

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO de la Côte-Nord [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Côte-Nord region]

N/A

Pont planifié en consultation [Planned bridge under consultation]

N/A

Côte-Nord

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO de la Côte-Nord [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Côte-Nord region]

N/A

Chemin planifié en consultation [Planned road under consultation]

N/A

Côte-Nord

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO de la Côte-Nord [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Côte-Nord region]

N/A

Chemin principal déjà consulté [Main road, consultation completed]

N/A

Côte-Nord

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO de la Côte-Nord [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Côte-Nord region]

N/A

Récolte potentielle en consultation [Potential harvest under consultation]

N/A

Côte-Nord

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO de la Côte-Nord [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Côte-Nord region]

N/A

Travaux sylvicoles potentiels en consultation [Potential silvicultural work under consultation]

N/A

Côte-Nord

Travaux autorisés 2023-2024 (mise à jour octobre 2023) [Authorized work 2023 to 2024 (updated October 2023)]

N/A

Chemin [Road]

N/A

Côte-Nord

Travaux autorisés 2023-2024 (mise à jour octobre 2023) [Authorized work 2023 to 2024 (updated October 2023)]

N/A

Travaux sylvicoles [Silvicultural work]

N/A

Côte-Nord

Travaux autorisés 2023-2024 (mise à jour octobre 2023) [Authorized work 2023 to 2024 (updated October 2023)]

N/A

Récolte [Harvesting]

N/A

Côte-Nord

Travaux autorisés 2023-2024 (mise à jour octobre 2023) [Authorized work 2023 to 2024 (updated October 2023)]

N/A

Bureau de mise en marché des bois [Timber marketing board]

N/A

Nord-du-Québec

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO du Nord-du-Quebec [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Nord-du-Québec region]

Activités d'aménagement forestier [Forest management activities]

Travaux sylvicoles commerciaux [Commercial silvicultural work]

Secteurs d'intervention potentiels en consultation [Potential intervention sectors under consultation]

Nord-du-Québec

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO du Nord-du-Quebec [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Nord-du-Québec region]

Activités d'aménagement forestier [Forest management activities]

Travaux sylvicoles commerciaux [Commercial silvicultural work]

Secteura d'intervention potentiels déjà consultés [Potential intervention sectorsa, consultation completed]

Nord-du-Québec

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO du Nord-du-Quebec [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Nord-du-Québec region]

Activités d'aménagement forestier [Forest management activities]

Travaux sylvicoles non commerciaux [Non-commercial silvicultural work]

Secteurs d'intervention potentiels en consultation [Potential intervention sectors under consultation]

Nord-du-Québec

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO du Nord-du-Quebec [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Nord-du-Québec region]

Activités d'aménagement forestier [Forest management activities]

Travaux sylvicoles non commerciaux [Non-commercial silvicultural work]

Potential secteurs d'intervention [Potential intervention sectors, consultation completed]

Nord-du-Québec

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO du Nord-du-Quebec [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Nord-du-Québec region]

Activités d'aménagement forestier [Forest management activities]

Chemins forestiers [Logging roads]

Chemins en consultation [Roads under consultation]

Nord-du-Québec

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO du Nord-du-Quebec [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Nord-du-Québec region]

Activités d'aménagement forestier [Forest management activities]

Chemins forestiers [Logging roads]

Chemins déjà consultés [Roads, consultation completed]

Nord-du-Québec

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO du Nord-du-Quebec [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Nord-du-Québec region]

Activités d'aménagement forestier [Forest management activities]

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Ponts et ponceaux en consultation [Bridges and culverts under consultation]

Nord-du-Québec

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO du Nord-du-Quebec [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Nord-du-Québec region]

Activités d'aménagement forestier [Forest management activities]

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Ponts et ponceaux déjà consultés [Bridges and culverts, consultation completed]

Nord-du-Québec

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO du Nord-du-Quebec [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Nord-du-Québec region]

Activités d'aménagement forestier [Forest management activities]

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Autres infrastructures en consultation [Other infrastructure under consultation]

Nord-du-Québec

Consultation publique sur les PAFIO du Nord-du-Quebec [Public consultation on PAFIOs in the Nord-du-Québec region]

Activités d'aménagement forestier [Forest management activities]

Infrastructures forestières [Forestry infrastructure]

Autres infrastructures déjà consultées [Other infrastructure, consultation completed]

a In general, the spelling used in the interactive map applications is reproduced here in its entirety for identification purposes.

1.2 Update schedule

When the interactive map applications for specific regions are opened, the update schedule for the information provided is indicated. Below are some details for the interactive map applications available under the Programmation annuelle des activités de récolte (annual harvesting program - PRAN) hyperlink.

For the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, a pop-up window appears when the interactive map application is opened. This pop-up window states: "Bienvenue sur le site de diffusion de la programmation annuelle (PRAN) des travaux forestiers 2023 du ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (MRNF). La PRAN est mise à jour sur ce site les premiers jours des mois de septembre, de décembre et de février, et ce, à titre indicatif [Welcome to the website used to disseminate the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (MRNF)'s 2023 annual harvesting program (PRAN). On this website, the PRAN is updated in early September, December, and February for information purposes only]."Footnote 43 In addition, the elements consulted and used for this region are called Programmation annuelle commerciale septembre 2023, Chemin de la programmation annuelle septembre 2023 (see Table D.1).

For the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region, among the explanatory tabs available in the About window, the Mise à jour des travaux prévus tab indicates that "la Direction de la gestion des forêts de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue mettra à jour cette programmation annuelle sur son site Web deux fois par année, soit au printemps (vers juin) et à l’automne (vers septembre) [the Direction de la gestion des forêts de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue will update this annual program on its website twice a year, in the spring (around June) and in the fall (around September)]"Footnote 44.

For the Côte-Nord region, among the explanatory tabs available in the About window, the Mise en garde tab indicates that "L’information présentée sur ce site est mise à jour deux fois par année, soit au printemps (vers juin) et à l’automne (vers septembre) [the information presented on this site is updated twice a year, in the spring (around June) and in the fall (around September)]"Footnote 45. Also, in the title bar of the online interactive map, it says: Travaux autorisés 2023-2024 (mise à jour octobre 2023) [Authorized work 2023 to 2024 (update October 2023)].

For the Mauricie region, a pop-up window appears when the interactive map application is opened. This pop-up window reads: "Bienvenue sur le site de diffusion de la Programmation annuelle (PRAN) des activités d’aménagement forestier 2023 en Mauricie, préparée par la Direction de la gestion des forêts de la Mauricie – Centre-du-Québec. Dernière mise à jour: PRAN Commerciale, Octobre 2023. PRAN Non commerciale, Octobre 2023 [Welcome to the site used to disseminate the 2023 annual harvesting program (PRAN) for the Mauricie, prepared by the Direction de la gestion des forêts de la Mauricie - Centre-du-Québec. Last update: Commercial PRAN, October 2023. Non-commercial PRAN, October 2023)]Footnote 46.

2. List of elements selected

2.1 Selected elements related to logging activities

Table 6 in the Imminent Threat Assessment for the Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Boreal Population lists the area of planned cutting in square kilometres. Among the elements displayed on the interactive map applications, those selected to produce the area statistics are identified by a blue background in Table D.1. For the regions listed in Table 6, the attributes listed in the legend of the interactive map applications were used for the selected elements. Table D.2 gives details of the attributes displayed for the regions concerned:

Table D.2: Attributes as labelled in the legend of interactive map applications:

Region

Element name - Levels 2 and 3

Attributes

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Programmation annuelle commerciale septembre 2023 [Annual commercial harvesting program, September 2023]

  • Coupe de régénération [Regeneration cut]
  • Coupe par bandes [Strip cutting]
  • Coupe partielle [Partial harvest]
  • Coupe à rétention variable [Retention harvesting]
  • Coupe à rétention variable par bouquets [Group retention harvesting]
  • Récolte partielle (500 tiges résiduelles) [Partial harvesting (500 residual stems)]
  • Récolte partielle (700 tiges résiduelles) [Partial harvesting (700 residual stems)]
  • Éclaircie commerciale [Commercial thinning]

Capitale-Nationale

Travaux sylvicoles commerciaux - [Commercial silvicultural work]

Secteurs d'intervention autorisées [Authorized intervention sectors]

  • Coupe de jardinage par pied d'arbres et groupe d'arbres [Single-tree and group selection cutting]
  • Coupe de jardinage par pied d'arbres et groupe d'arbres phase d'amélioration [Single-tree and group selection cutting, improvement cutting phase]
  • Coupe avec protection de la haute régénération et des sols avec legs biologiques par bouquets [Cutting with protection of tall regeneration and soils including biological legacies (clusters)]
  • Coupe avec protection de la haute régénération et des sols sans legs biologiques [Cutting with protection of tall regeneration and soils with no biological legacies]
  • Coupe progressive irrégulière à couvert permanent phase d'ensemencement uniforme [Uniform irregular shelterwood cutting, permanent cover, seed cutting phase]
  • Coupe progressive irrégulière à couvert permanent phase d'ensemencement [Irregular shelterwood cutting, permanent cover, seed cutting phase]
  • Coupe progressive irrégulière à régénération lente en deux interventions phase d'ensemencement [Irregular shelterwood cutting, slow regeneration, two treatments, seed cutting phase]
  • Coupe progressive irrégulière à régénération lente en trois interventions phase d'ensemencement [Irregular shelterwood cutting, slow regeneration, three treatments, seed cutting phase]
  • Coupe avec protection des petites tiges marchandes discontinue [Harvesting with protection of small merchantable stems, discontinuously distributed]
  • Coupe avec protection des petites tiges marchandes discontinue avec ajout de legs biologiques par bouquets [Harvesting with protection of small merchantable stems discontinuously distributed and including biological legacies in clusters,]
  • Coupe avec protection de la régénération et des sols uniforme avec leg par bouquets [Uniform harvesting with protection of regeneration and soils including legacies in clusters]
  • Coupe avec protection de la régénération et des sols uniforme avec Îlots [Uniform harvesting with protection of regeneration and soils with patches]
  • Coupe avec protection de la régénération et des sols uniforme sans legs biologiques [Uniform harvesting with protection of regeneration and soils with no biological legacies]
  • Coupe progressive régulière uniforme - coupe d'ensemencement [Uniform regular shelterwood system - seed cutting]
  • Coupe progressive régulière uniforme phase finale sans legs biologiques [Uniform regular shelterwood system, final cutting with no biological legacies]
  • Coupe progressive régulière uniforme phase secondaire [Uniform regular shelterwood system, secondary phase]
  • Coupe avec réserve de semenciers sans legs biologiques [Seed-tree method with no biological legacies]
  • Coupe de succession sans legs [Succession cutting with no legacies]
  • Coupe totale sans protection uniforme sans legs biologiques [Uniform clearcutting with no protection and no biological legacies]
  • Éclaircie commerciale mixte par le haut et par le bas [Mixed commercial thinning from above and below]
  • Récolte partielle dans une lisière boisée (700 tiges de 10 cm et +) [Partial harvesting in a buffer strip (700 stems of 10+ cm)]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Activités planifiées- 2023-2024 - Travaux commerciaux [Planned_activities - 2023 to 2024 - Commercial work]

  • Coupe de régénération [Regeneration cut] (CPHRS-CPPTM-CPRS-CRS-CTSP)
  • Coupe partielle [Partial harvest] (CPI-EC-RPLB)

Activités planifiées- 2023-2024 - Chantiers (Bureau de mise en marché des bois) [Planned activities- 2023 to 2024 - Work sites (timber marketing board)]

  • No attributes

Côte-Nord

Récolte [Harvesting]

  • Récolte [Harvesting]
  • Récolte partielle [Partial harvesting]

Bureau de mise en marché des bois [Timber marketing board]

  • Secteur vendu [Sold area]

All polygons present in the elements covering the study area were included in the production of the statistics.

2.2 Selected elements related to road network activities

Table 7 of the Imminent Threat Assessment for the Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Boreal Population lists the lengths of road to be built (in kilometers). Among the elements displayed on interactive map applications, those selected to produce the length statistics are identified by a brown background in Table D.1. For the regions documented in Table 7, the attributes listed in the legend of the interactive map applications were used for the selected elements. Table D.3 gives details of the attributes displayed for the regions concerned.

Table D.3: Attributes as labelled in the legend of interactive map applications:

Region

Element name - Levels 2 and 3

Attributes

Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean

Chemin de la programmation annuelle septembre 2023 [Roads in the annual harvesting program, September 2023]

PRAN_chemin_09_2023 [PRAN_roads_09_2023]

  • Amélioration [Improvement]
  • Implantation [Building]
  • Réfection [Repairs]

Capitale-Nationale

Chemins forestiers - [Logging roads]

Chemins autorisés [Authorized roads]

  • Amélioration [Improvement]
  • Implantation [Building]
  • Réfection [Repairs]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue

Activités_planifiées - 2023-2024 - Chemins [Planned_activities - 2023 to 2024 - Roads]

  • Amélioration (AM-EN-RE) [Improvement]
  • Implantation (IM) [Building]

Activités planifiées - 2023-2024 - Chemins (Bureau de mise en marché des bois)

[Planned activities - 2023 to 2024 - Roads (timber marketing board)]

  • Amélioration (AM-EN-RE) [Improvement]
  • Implantation (IM) [Building)

Côte-Nord

Chemin [Road]

  • Implantation [Building]
  • Amélioration [Improvement]
  • Réfection [Repairs]
  • Entretien [Maintenance]
  • Implantation suivie d'une fermeture [Building following a closure]
  • Fermeture définitive [Permanent closure]

To generate the lengths of roads to be built, the Implantation (Building) attribute was selected for each element (shown in bold in the table above).

3. Source of elements used

For each of the elements selected, statistics were produced and presented in Tables 6 and 7 of the imminent threat assessment. Complete references for the elements used to produce these statistics can be found in Section 4. For each element used, information on the terms of use was consulted and archived.

4. References

Gouvernement du Québec. 2022. Plans d’aménagement forestier régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://www.quebec.ca/agriculture-environnement-et-ressources-naturelles/forets/planification-forestiere/plans-regionaux-consultations.

Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Aménagement forestier au Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://www.quebec.ca/agriculture-environnement-et-ressources-naturelles/forets/planification-forestiere/plans-regionaux-consultations/saguenay-lac-st-jean.

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean [web application]. Aménagement forestier au Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://operationsregionales.mffp.gouv.qc.ca/applicationsweb/R02/Consultation_PAFIO/2023/Fevrier/.

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts – Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean - PRAN) [web application]. Aménagement forestier au Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://mrn-dgr02.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0d4e707cde29434593bac4f5accb507b.

Gouvernement du Québec. Ministère des ressources naturelles et des forêts. 6 septembre 2023. Rapport de suivi de la consultation publique sur les PAFIO 2023 – Unités d’aménagement: 023-71, 024-71, 02571, 027-51. ISBN 978-2-550-95795-9 (PDF), 23 pages. Accessed multiple times between 2023-11-15 and 2024-01-14 at https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/forets/documents/planification/Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean/RA_PAFIO_SLSJ_2023.pdf.

MRNreg02. PRAN_comm_09_2023. [Programme annuelle commercial septembre 2023] https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=c2378a8e4bb34a44a4336c8ac31fde41. Accessed on 2023-10-30.

MRNreg02. PRAN_chemin_09_2023. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=51646ae19974443785ec470245eda6af. Accessed on 2023-11-28.

Capitale-Nationale region

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Aménagement forestier dans la Capitale-Nationale - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://www.quebec.ca/agriculture-environnement-et-ressources-naturelles/forets/planification-forestiere/plans-regionaux-consultations/capitale-nationale.

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Diffusion des Programmation de Récolte Annuelle Autorisée de la Capitale-Nationale. [web application]. Aménagement forestier dans la Capitale-Nationale - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://operationsregionales.mffp.gouv.qc.ca/APPLICATIONSWEB/R03-12/Diffusion_Pran_2020/?_gl=1*13wzhv8*_ga*MjE0NDgzMzE2OC4xNjQ4ODQ0NTk1*_ga_7KG0CGH2EY*MTY0OTg3MTY3NC4xMS4xLjE2NDk4NzQ1MDMuMA..&_ga=2.81265047.1626302446.1649862184-2144833168.1648844595.

Gouvernement du Québec. Ressources naturelles et Forêts. PRANA_2023_PRO. Portail géomatique du secteur des Opérations régionales du MRNF. https://operationsregionales.mffp.gouv.qc.ca/portal/home/item.html?id=76628782f2464ce098f0da8f7b094966. Accessed on 2023-11-22.

Mauricie region

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Aménagement forestier en Mauricie - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://www.quebec.ca/agriculture-environnement-et-ressources-naturelles/forets/planification-forestiere/plans-regionaux-consultations/mauricie#c150221.

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Planification opérationnelle et programmation annuelle (PRAN) 2023 – Mauricie. [web application]. Aménagement forestier en Mauricie - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://dgr04.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3f51e3ee0fec427c9a2249b22d304d08.

Abitibi-Témiscamingue region

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Aménagement forestier en Abitibi-Témiscamingue - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://www.quebec.ca/agriculture-environnement-et-ressources-naturelles/forets/planification-forestiere/plans-regionaux-consultations/abitibi-temiscamingue.

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Consultation publique sur les PAFIO et les PAS de la région de Abitibi-Témiscamingue [web application]. Aménagement forestier en Abitibi-Témiscamingue - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://operationsregionales.mffp.gouv.qc.ca/applicationsweb/R08/Consultation_2023/.

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Programmation annuelle 2023-2024 – Abitibi_Témiscamingue (région 08) [web application]. Aménagement forestier en Abitibi-Témiscamingue - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://dgr08.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7e0f6d279e34488eb0700dcf9f1505bb.

Gouvernement du Québec. Ressources naturelles et Forêts. Activités planifiées 2023 v2. [Chemins, Chemins (Bureau de mise en marché des bois), Travaux commerciaux, Chantiers (Bureau de mise en marché des bois)]. Portail géomatique du secteur des Opérations régionales du MRNF. https://operationsregionales.mffp.gouv.qc.ca/portal/home/item.html?id=d4aa890d94ce49138cbcc42435f411e1. Accessed on 2023-11-16.

North Shore Region

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Aménagement forestier sur la Côte-Nord - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://www.quebec.ca/agriculture-environnement-et-ressources-naturelles/forets/planification-forestiere/plans-regionaux-consultations/cote-nord.

Gouvernement du Québec. Ministère des ressources naturelles et des forêts. Mai 2023. Rapport de suivi de la consultation publique sur le PAFIO 2022 – Unités d’aménagement: 09351, 09471, 09751. ISBN 978-2-550-95129-2 (PDF), 12 pages. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/forets/documents/planification/Cote-Nord/RA_suivi_Cote-Nord_PAFIO_UA09351-09471-09751_nov2022.pdf.

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Consultation publique sur les PAFIO de la Côte-Nord [web application]. Aménagement forestier sur la Côte-Nord - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://operationsregionales.mffp.gouv.qc.ca/APPLICATIONSWEB/R09/Consultation_PAFIO/2022/.

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Travaux autorisés 2023-2024 (mise à jour octobre 2023) [web application]. Aménagement forestier sur la Côte-Nord - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://dgr09.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=81cac0551aba4f29aaa75225373623f8.

AGOL_DGR09. PRAN_Recolte_Octobre_2023. [Pran_Recolte]. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=388ed090453f4edfb2bb6bbf4ffc6bbc. Accessed on 2023-10-27.

AGOL_DGR09. PRAN_BMMB_JUIN2023. [Secteur vendu]. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=e5043d42d93b4ed8b9af5645ed429f4e. Accessed on 2023-10-27.

AGOL_DGR09. Chemin_Octobre_2023. [Pran_Chemin] https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=9ff52d20ff3c42ceb7e3d18c2e89597b. Accessed on 2023-11-11.

Nord-du-Québec region

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Aménagement dans le Nord-du-Québec - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://www.quebec.ca/agriculture-environnement-et-ressources-naturelles/forets/planification-forestiere/plans-regionaux-consultations/nord-du-quebec.

Gouvernement du Québec. 2023. Consultation publique sur les PAFIO du Nord-du-Québec [application web]. Aménagement forestier sur la Côte-Nord - Plans d’aménagement forestiers régionaux et consultations. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://operationsregionales.mffp.gouv.qc.ca/APPLICATIONSWEB/R10/032_CI_23janv_16fev_2023/.

Gouvernement du Québec. Ministère des ressources naturelles et des forêts. 1er juin 2023. Rapport de suivi de la consultation publique sur les plans d’aménagement forestier intégré opérationnels (PAFIO) – Unités d’aménagement: 026-61, 026-63, 026-64 026-65, 026-66, 085-51, 086-52, 086-63, 086-64, 086-65, 086-66, 087-51, 087-62, 087-63 et 087-64. ISBN (PDF): 978-2-550-95093-6 (PDF), 18 pages. Accessed multiple times between 2023-10-15 and 2023-12-22 at https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/forets/documents/planification/Nord-du-Quebec/RA_PAFIO_Nord-du-Qc_juin2023.pdf.

Appendix E. Evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) and roads (road network) between 2010 and 2020 in provincial ranges (MFFP, 2021a) where the disturbance level is greater than 35%

Footnote 47

Histogram, please read long description

Figure E.1. Evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) and roads (road network) between 2010 and 2020 in the Val-d'Or range (as identified by MFFP [2021a]).

Long description

Bar chart visualizing the evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) in red and roads (road network) in blue between 2010 and 2020 in the provincial 2020 Val-d'Or range. In 2010, roads (road network) represented 31% of the disturbance of the range and cutblocks (logging) represented 33% of the disturbance in the range. In 2020, roads (road network) represented 37% of the disturbance in the range, an increase of 6% since 2010. Cutblocks (logging) represented 43% of the disturbance in the range in 2020, an increase of 10% since 2010. 

Table E.1. Evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) and roads (road network) between 2010 and 2020 in the Val-d'Or range (as identified by MFFP [2021a])

Disturbance classa

2010

2020

Increase in area between 2010 and 2020 (km2)

Increase in scope between 2010 and 2020 (%)

Areab (km2)

Scopec (%)

Areab (km2)

Scopec (%)

Cutblocks

2,709

33

3,560

43

851

10

Roadsd

2,539

31

2,996

37

457

6

a See methodology described in EC (2011). The results do not take into account other disturbance classes present in the range.

b Areas include a 500-m buffer (non-overlapping; see methodology described in EC [2011] and Appendix C).

c The scope corresponds to the proportion of the area of the range (8,202 km2) that is affected by the disturbance class.

d This disturbance class is most likely underestimated, as explained in Appendix C.

Histogram, please read long description

Figure E.2. Evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) and roads (road network) between 2010 and 2020 in the Charlevoix range (as identified by MFFP [2021a]).

Long description

Bar chart visualizing the evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) in red and roads (road network) in blue between 2010 and 2020 in the provincial 2020 Charlevoix range. In 2010, roads (road network) represented 36% of the disturbance of the range and cutblocks (logging) represented 51% of the disturbance in the range. In 2020, roads (road network) represented 40% of the disturbance in the range, an increase of 4% since 2010. Cutblocks (logging) represented 62% of the disturbance in the range in 2020, an increase of 11% since 2010.

Table E.2. Evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) and roads (road network) between 2010 and 2020 in the Charlevoix range (as identified by MFFP [2021a])

Disturbance classa

2010

2020

Increase in area between 2010 and 2020 (km2)

Increase in scope between 2010 and 2020 (%)

Areab (km2)

Scopec (%)

Areab (km2)

Scopec (%)

Cutblocks

3,706

51

4,514

62

808

11

Roadsd

2,601

36

2,881

40

280

4

a See methodology described in EC (2011). The results do not take into account other disturbance classes present in the range.

b Areas include a 500-m buffer (non-overlapping; see methodology described in EC [2011] and Appendix C).

c The scope corresponds to the proportion of the area of the range (7,248 km2) that is affected by the disturbance class.

d This disturbance class is most likely underestimated, as explained in Appendix C.

Histogram, please read long description

Figure E.3. Evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) and roads (road network) between 2010 and 2020 in the Pipmuacan range (as identified by MFFP [2021a]).

Long description

Bar chart visualizing the evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) in red and roads (road network) in blue between 2010 and 2020 in the provincial 2020 Pipmuacan range. In 2010, roads (road network) represented 18% of the disturbance of the range and cutblocks (logging) represented 46% of the disturbance in the range. In 2020, roads (road network) represented 24% of the disturbance in the range, an increase of 6% since 2010. Cutblocks (logging) represented 53% of the disturbance in the range in 2020, an increase of 7% since 2010.

Table E.3. Evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) and roads (road network) between 2010 and 2020 in the Pipmuacan range (as identified by the MFFP [2021a])

Disturbance classa

2010

2020

Increase in area between 2010 and 2020 (km2)

Increase in scope between 2010 and 2020 (%)

Areab (km2)

Scopec (%)

Areab (km2)

Scopec (%)

Cutblocks

8,523

46

9,791

53

1,268

7

Roadsd

3,407

18

4,513

24

1,106

6

a See methodology described in EC (2011). The results do not take into account the other disturbance classes present in the range.

b Areas include a 500-m buffer (non-overlapping; see methodology described in EC [2011] and Appendix C).

c The scope corresponds to the proportion of the area of the range (18,432 km2) that is affected by the disturbance class.

d This disturbance class is most likely underestimated, as explained in Appendix C.

Histogram, please read long description

Figure E.4. Evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) and roads (road network) between 2010 and 2020 in the Assinica range (as identified by the MFFP [2021a]).

Long description

Bar chart visualizing the evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) in red and roads (road network) in blue between 2010 and 2020 in the provincial 2020 Assinica range. In 2010, roads (road network) represented 13% of the disturbance of the range and cutblocks (logging) represented 27% of the disturbance in the range. In 2020, roads (road network) represented 16% of the disturbance in the range, an increase of 3% since 2010. Cutblocks (logging) represented 33% of the disturbance in the range in 2020, an increase of 6% since 2010.

Table E.4. Evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) and roads (road network) between 2010 and 2020 in the Assinica range (as identified by the MFFP [2021a])

Disturbance classa

2010

2020

Increase in area between 2010 and 2020 (km2)

Increase in scope between 2010 and 2020 (%)

Areab (km2)

Scopec (%)

Areab (km2)

Scopec (%)

Cutblocks

19,323

27

23,281

33

3,959

6

Roadsd

9,346

13

11,484

16

2,138

3

a See methodology described in EC (2011). The results do not take into account other disturbance classes present in the range.

b Areas include a 500 m buffer (non-overlapping; see methodology described in EC [2011] and Appendix C).

c The scope corresponds to the proportion of the area of the range (70,875 km2) that is affected by the disturbance class.

d This disturbance class is most likely underestimated, as explained in Appendix C.

Histogram, please read long description

Figure E.5. Evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) and roads (road network) between 2010 and 2020 in the Témiscamie range (as identified by the MFFP [2021a]).

Long description

Bar chart visualizing the evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) in red and roads (road network) in blue between 2010 and 2020 in the provincial 2020 Témiscamie range. In 2010, roads (road network) represented 8% of the disturbance of the range and cutblocks (logging) represented 21% of the disturbance in the range. In 2020, roads (road network) represented 10% of the disturbance in the range, an increase of 2% since 2010. Cutblocks (logging) represented 25% of the disturbance in the range in 2020, an increase of 4% since 2010.

Table E.5. Evolution of the scope of cutblocks (logging) and roads (road network) between 2010 and 2020 in the Témiscamie range (as identified by the MFFP [2021a])

Disturbance classa

2010

2020

Increase in area between 2010 and 2020 (km2)

Increase in scope between 2010 and 2020 (%)

Areab
(km2)

Scopec
(%)

Areab
(km2)

Scopec
(%)

Cutblocks

21,985

21

26,723

25

4,738

4

Roadsd

8,054

8

10,395

10

2,341

2

a See methodology described in EC (2011). The results do not take into account other disturbance classes present in the range.

b Areas include a 500-m buffer (non-overlapping; see methodology described in EC [2011] and Appendix C).

c The scope corresponds to the proportion of the area of the range (105,332 km2) that is affected by the disturbance class.

d This disturbance class is most likely underestimated, as explained in Appendix C.

Appendix F. Habitat categories affected by work planned under the 2023-2024 PRANS in the Val-d'Or, Charlevoix and Pipmuacan ranges

Too determine how the activities planned in the 2023-2024 PRANs (logging and road construction) were likely to affect the biophysical attributes of critical habitat for boreal caribou, ECCC examined which habitat categories would be affected by the work. The Updated Ecoforestry Map (MFFP, 2023b) is a public dataset produced by the Quebec government that contains information on the different forest and ecological characteristics of Quebec's forest land, as well as on some relatively recent disturbances (for example, logging). Some of these characteristics can be grouped into categories that are representative of the different types of habitats used, or not used, by boreal caribou within the ranges located in Quebec (Table F.1). Leblond et al. (2014a) carried out such an exercise by drawing on the knowledge of several experts on the species in Eastern Canada. According to them, mature forests (young and old), wetlands and lichen-rich environments represent quality habitats for the species. For the purposes of this analysis, polygons from the Updated Ecoforestry Map that matched the query criteria defining each of the habitat categories presented in Table F.1 were selected and grouped, following the methodology developed by Leblond et al. (2014a, b) and updated by Martin, Leblond and Trus (ECCC, unpublished data). The “Definitions” section provides a description of eachFootnote 48 attribute code and value used in this table. For some habitat categories, several query strings were used to process the ecoforestry data, and the results were then merged to produce a single geographic information layer (for each habitat category). To ensure that only one habitat category was assigned to each polygon in the Updated Ecoforestry Map, the geographic information layers were created sequentially (see methodology detailed in Leblond et al., 2014a, b).

Table F.1. Martin, Leblond and Trus (ECCC, unpublished data) queries used to select polygons from the Updated Ecoforestry Map (MFFP, 2023b) corresponding to the different habitat categories identified by Leblond et al. (2014a, b)

Habitat categorya

Query (attribute code, value code)

Old mature forest

AN_ORIGINE = N/Ab and CL_AGE = (120, 12010, 12012, 12030, 12050, 12070, 12090, 90, 9010, 90120, 9030, 9050, 9070, 9090, VIN, VIR, VIN10, VIN30, VIN50, 110, 120JI, 120VI, 12JIN, 12VIN, 130, 90JIN, 90VIN, VIN12, VIN70, VIN90, VINJI, or VINVI) and TYPE_COUV = (M or R)

CO_TER = (ILE or IL)

AN_ORIGINE < (reference yearc – 70) and TYPE_COUV = (M or R)

AN_ORIGINE < (reference year – 70) and TYPE_COUV = N/A and CO_TER = N/A and TYPE_ECO = (ME13, ME16, MS12, MS20, MS20E, MS20P, MS21, MS22, MS22E, MS23, MS24, MS25, MS25E, MS26, MS40, MS42, MS61, MS62, MS71, RE10, RE11, RE11P, RE12, RE12P, RE13, RE14, RE15, RE16, RE20, RE20P, RE21, RE21P, RE22, RE22M, RE22P, RE23, RE24, RE24P, RE25, RE25P, RE25S, RE26, RE42, RS20, RS20P, RS20S, RS21, RS21P, RS22, RS22M, RS22P, RS23, RS24, RS25, RS25P, RS25S, RS26, RS37, RS38, RS39, RS40, or RS42)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = (120, 12010, 12012, 12030, 12050, 12070, 12090, 90, 9010, 90120, 9030, 9050, 9070, 9090, VIN, VIR, VIN10, VIN30, VIN50, 110, 120JI, 120VI, 12JIN, 12VIN, 130, 90JIN, 90VIN, VIN12, VIN70, VIN90, VINJI, or VINVI) and TYPE_COUV = N/A and CO_TER = N/A and TYPE_ECO = (ME13, ME16, MS12, MS20, MS20E, MS20P, MS21, MS22, MS22E, MS23, MS24, MS25, MS25E, MS26, MS40, MS42, MS61, MS62, MS71, RE10, RE11, RE11P, RE12, RE12P, RE13, RE14, RE15, RE16, RE20, RE20P, RE21, RE21P, RE22, RE22M, RE22P, RE23, RE24, RE24P, RE25, RE25P, RE25S, RE26, RE42, RS20, RS20P, RS20S, RS21, RS21P, RS22, RS22M, RS22P, RS23, RS24, RS25, RS25P, RS25S, RS26, RS37, RS38, RS39, RS40, or RS42)

Young mature forest

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = (50, 5010, 50120, 5030, 5050, 5070, 5090, 70, 7010, 70120, 7030, 7050, 7070, 7090, JIN, JIR, JIN10, JIN30, 50JIN, 50VIN, 70JIN, 70VIN, JIN12, JIN50, JIN70, JIN90, JINJI, or JINVI) and TYPE_COUV = (M or R)

AN_ORIGINE < (reference year – 50) and AN_ORIGINE ≥ (reference year – 70) and TYPE_COUV = (M or R)

AN_ORIGINE < (reference year – 50) and AN_ORIGINE ≥ (reference year – 70) and TYPE_COUV = N/A and CO_TER = N/A and TYPE_ECO = (ME13, ME16, MS12, MS20, MS20E, MS20P, MS21, MS22, MS22E, MS23, MS24, MS25, MS25E, MS26, MS40, MS42, MS61, MS62, MS71, RE10, RE11, RE11P, RE12, RE12P, RE13, RE14, RE15, RE16, RE20, RE20P, RE21, RE21P, RE22, RE22M, RE22P, RE23, RE24, RE24P, RE25, RE25P, RE25S, RE26, RE42, RS20, RS20P, RS20S, RS21, RS21P, RS22, RS22M, RS22P, RS23, RS24, RS25, RS25P, RS25S, RS26, RS37, RS38, RS39, RS40, or RS42)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = (50, 5010, 50120, 5030, 5050, 5070, 5090, 70, 7010, 70120, 7030, 7050, 7070, 7090, JIN, JIR, JIN10, JIN30, 50JIN, 50VIN, 70JIN, 70VIN, JIN12, JIN50, JIN70, JIN90, JINJI, or JINVI) and TYPE_COUV = N/A and CO_TER = N/A and TYPE_ECO = (ME13, ME16, MS12, MS20, MS20E, MS20P, MS21, MS22, MS22E, MS23, MS24, MS25, MS25E, MS26, MS40, MS42, MS61, MS62, MS71, RE10, RE11, RE11P, RE12, RE12P, RE13, RE14, RE15, RE16, RE20, RE20P, RE21, RE21P, RE22, RE22M, RE22P, RE23, RE24, RE24P, RE25, RE25P, RE25S, RE26, RE42, RS20, RS20P, RS20S, RS21, RS21P, RS22, RS22M, RS22P, RS23, RS24, RS25, RS25P, RS25S, RS26, RS37, RS38, RS39, RS40, or RS42)

Wetlands

CO_TER = (AL, DH, or INO)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = (120, 12012, 12030, 12050, 12070, 12090, 30, 30120, 3030, 3050, 3070, 3090, 50, 50120, 5030, 5050, 5070, 5090, 70, 70120, 7030, 7050, 7070, 7090, 90, 90120, 9030, 9050, 9070, 9090, JIN, JIR, VIN, VIR, JIN30, VIN30, VIN50, 110, 120JI, 120VI, 12JIN, 12VIN, 130, 30JIN, 30VIN, 50JIN, 50VIN, 70JIN, 70VIN, 90JIN, 90VIN, JIN12, JIN50, JIN70, JINJI, JINVI, VIN12, VIN70, VIN90, VINJI, or VINVI) and TYPE_COUV = N/A and CO_TER = N/A and TYPE_ECO = (MA18R, RE37, RE38, RE39, TO18, TOB9D, TOB9U, or TOF8U)

AN_ORIGINE < (reference year – 20) and TYPE_COUV = N/A and CO_TER = N/A and TYPE_ECO = (MA18R, RE37, RE38, RE39, RS42, TO18, TOB9D, TOB9U, or TOF8U)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = N/A and TYPE_COUV = N/A and CO_TER = N/A and TYPE_ECO = (MA18R, RE37, RE38, RE39, TO18, TOB9D, TOB9U, or TOF8U)

Lichen-rich environment

CO_TER = DS

AN_ORIGINE < (reference year – 20) and TYPE_COUV = N/A and CO_TER = N/A and TYPE_ECO = (LA12C, LA20, LA20C, LA20P, LA22, LA40, LL20, or TA12)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = (120, 12012, 12030, 12050, 12070, 12090, 30, 30120, 3030, 3050, 3070, 3090, 50, 50120, 5030, 5050, 5070, 5090, 70, 70120, 7030, 7050, 7070, 7090, 90, 90120, 9030, 9050, 9070, 9090, JIN, JIR, VIN, VIR, JIN30, VIN30, VIN50, 110, 120JI, 120VI, 12JIN, 12VIN, 130, 30JIN, 30VIN, 50JIN, 50VIN, 70JIN, 70VIN, 90JIN, 90VIN, JIN12, JIN50, JIN70, JINJI, JINVI, VIN12, VIN70, VIN90, VINJI, or VINVI) and TYPE_COUV = N/A and CO_TER = N/A and TYPE_ECO = (LA12C, LA20, LA20C, LA20P, LA22, LA40, LL20, or TA12)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = N/A and TYPE_COUV = N/A and CO_TER = N/A and TYPE_ECO = (LA12C, LA20, LA20C, LA20P, LA22, LA40, LL20, or TA12)

Natural disturbance

AN_ORIGINE ≥ (reference year – 20) and ORIGINE = (BR, CHT, DT, ES, FR, or VER)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = (10, 10120, 1030, 1050, 1070, 1090, 12010, 3010, 5010, 7010, 9010, 1010, JIN10, VIN10, 10JIN, 10VIN, or JIN90) and ORIGINE = (BR, CHT, DT, ES, FR, or VER)

Young cutblock

AN_ORIGINE ≥ (reference year – 5) and ORIGINE = (CBA, CBT, CDV, CEF, CIF, CPE, CPH, CPR, CPT, CRB, CRR, CRS, CS, CT, ENS, ETR, P, PLN, PLR, PRR, REA, RPS, CPHRS, CPI_RL_F, CPPTM_DIS, CPPTM_U, CPRS_BA, CPRS_DA, CPRS_PA, CPRS_T, CPRS_U, CPR_U-F, CTSP_BA, CTSP_DA, CTSP_PA, CTSP_T, CTSP_U, PL, RECUP_C-T, RECUP_F-T, RECUP_I-T, or RECUP_M-T)

Old cutblock

AN_ORIGINE < (reference year – 5) and AN_ORIGINE ≥ (reference year – 20) and ORIGINE = (CBA, CBT, CDV, CEF, CIF, CPE, CPH, CPR, CPT, CRB, CRR, CRS, CS, CT, ENS, ETR, P, PLN, PLR, PRR, REA, RPS, CPHRS, CPI_RL_F, CPPTM_DIS, CPPTM_U, CPRS_BA, CPRS_DA, CPRS_PA, CPRS_T, CPRS_U, CPR_U-F, CTSP_BA, CTSP_DA, CTSP_PA, CTSP_T, CTSP_U, PL, RECUP_C-T, RECUP_F-T, RECUP_I-T, or RECUP_M-T)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = (10, 10120, 1030, 1050, 1070, 1090, 12010, 3010, 5010, 7010, 9010, 1010, JIN10, VIN10, 10JIN, 10VIN, or JIN90) and ORIGINE = (CBA, CBT, CDV, CEF, CIF, CPE, CPH, CPR, CPT, CRB, CRR, CRS, CS, CT, ENS, ETR, P, PLN, PLR, PRR, REA, RPS, CPHRS, CPI_RL_F, CPPTM_DIS, CPPTM_U, CPRS_BA, CPRS_DA, CPRS_PA, CPRS_T, CPRS_U, CPR_U-F, CTSP_BA, CTSP_DA, CTSP_PA, CTSP_T, CTSP_U, PL, RECUP_C-T, RECUP_F-T, RECUP_I-T, or RECUP_M-T)

Regenerating stand

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = (1030, 12030, 30, 3010, 30120, 3030, 3050, 3070, 3090, 5030, 7030, 9030, JIN30, VIN30, 30JIN, or 30VIN) and TYPE_COUV = F

AN_ORIGINE < (reference year – 20) and AN_ORIGINE ≥ (reference year – 50) and TYPE_COUV = F

AN_ORIGINE < (reference year – 20) and AN_ORIGINE ≥ (reference year – 50) and TYPE_COUV = (M or R)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = N/A and ORIGINE = (ENM, ENS, P, PLB, PLN, PLR, or PL) and TYPE_COUV = (F, M, or R)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = N/A and ORIGINE = N/A and PERTURB = (RR, RRG, or RRR) and TYPE_COUV = (F, M, or R)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = (10, 10120, 1030, 1050, 1070, 1090, 1010, 10JIN, or 10VIN) and ORIGINE = N/A and TYPE_COUV = (F, M, or R)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = (10, 10120, 1030, 1050, 1070, 1090, 1010, 10JIN, or 10VIN) and ORIGINE = (CBA, ENS, or PRR) and TYPE_COUV = (F, M, or R)

AN_ORIGINE = N/A and CL_AGE = (30, 3010, 30120, 3030, 3050, 3070, 3090, 30JIN, or 30VIN) and TYPE_COUV = N/A and CO_TER = N/A and TYPE_ECO = (ME13, ME16, MS12, MS20, MS20E, MS20P, MS21, MS22, MS22E, MS23, MS24, MS25, MS25E, MS26, MS40, MS42, MS61, MS62, MS71, RE10, RE11, RE11P, RE12, RE12P, RE13, RE14, RE15, RE16, RE20, RE20P, RE21, RE21P, RE22, RE22M, RE22P, RE23, RE24, RE24P, RE25, RE25P, RE25S, RE26, RE42, RS20, RS20P, RS20S, RS21, RS21P, RS22, RS22M, RS22P, RS23, RS24, RS25, RS25P, RS25S, RS26, RS37, RS38, RS39, RS40, or RS42)

AN_ORIGINE < (reference year – 20) and AN_ORIGINE ≥ (reference year – 50) and TYPE_COUV = N/A and CO_TER = N/A and TYPE_ECO = (ME13, ME16, MS12, MS20, MS20E, MS20P, MS21, MS22, MS22E, MS23, MS24, MS25, MS25E, MS26, MS40, MS42, MS61, MS62, MS71, RE10, RE11, RE11P, RE12, RE12P, RE13, RE14, RE15, RE16, RE20, RE20P, RE21, RE21P, RE22, RE22M, RE22P, RE23, RE24, RE24P, RE25, RE25P, RE25S, RE26, RE42, RS20, RS20P, RS20S, RS21, RS21P, RS22, RS22M, RS22P, RS23, RS24, RS25, RS25P, RS25S, RS26, RS37, RS38, RS39, RS40, or RS42)

a The eight categories in the table do not include 100% of the area covered by the Updated Ecoforestry Map. The area not covered has been divided into two sub-categories: hydrography (CO_TER = WATER) and "other terrestrial environments", which include all the remaining area.

b “N/A” means that a polygon should not contain a value for a given attribute (equivalent to NULL).

c The reference year has been set at 2021 (Martin, Leblond and Trus; ECCC; unpublished data).

Tables F.2, F.3 and F.4 show the proportion of the different habitat categories found within the ranges and within the areas targeted by planned work (logging and road construction) under the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for the Val-d'Or, Charlevoix and Pipmuacan ranges, respectively. For the purposes of this analysis, the Assinica and Témiscamie ranges were not considered since only partial data from the 2023 to 2024 PRANs for these two ranges was available (see Question 1 in Part 3), and since data from the Updated Ecoforestry Mapping only covers the portion of territory south of the northern limit for commercial timber allocation. These tables show that areas of mature forest (young or old) account for the majority of habitats in which work is planned (without including a buffer). The other two suitable habitat categories for caribou, namely wetlands and lichen-rich environments, are not directly affected by the work planned under the 2023 to 2024 PRANs.

Mature forest stands (young and old) are habitats that possess the biophysical attributes of critical habitat for boreal caribou (see Appendix B). ECCC recognizes that some stands may have certain characteristics (for example, old forest) sought by the species without having all the characteristics necessary to make them high-quality habitat for the species (for example, the stands may be too small to allow caribou to spatially separate themselves from alternate prey and predators). In the herds covered by this analysis, these habitat patches nevertheless constitute critical habitat (see Part 1.7), and their destruction would further reduce the likelihood of the species’ recovery. Before the work planned under the 2023 to 2024 PRANs was considered, the probability of stable or increasing growth (over a 20-year period) was assessed in 2020 as “Unlikely” for the Val-d'Or and Pipmuacan populations and “Very unlikely” for the Charlevoix population (see Table 2).

Table F.2. Representation of the different habitat categories in the Val-d'Or range, as well as in the areas targeted by the work planned under the 2023 to 2024 PRANs

Habitat category

Representation within the range (8,202 km2)

Representation in the areas targeted by logging and roads to be built under the 2023 to 2024 PRANs, without including a buffer (11 km2)a

Area (kmb)2

Proportion of reference area (see above; %)

Area (kmb)2

Proportion of reference area (see above; %)

Old mature forest (> 70 years)

1,929

24

5

45

Young mature forest (50 to 70 years)

1,563

19

4

36

Wetlands

941

11

0

0

Lichen-rich environments

30

0

0

0

Natural disturbance

24

0

0

0

Young cutblock (˂ 5 years)

187

2

0

0

Old cutblock (5 to 20 years)

414

5

0

0

Regenerating stand (20 to 50 years)

1,729

21

0

0

Other terrrestrial environments

432c

5

2

18

Hydrography

952

12

0

0

a For the purposes of this analysis, a width of 20 m was assigned to the roads (normally treated as linear features) so that their area could be calculated when a buffer was not applied. This width corresponds to the right-of-way of a class 5 multi-purpose road (MFFP, 2023c). Logging and roads to be built under the 2023 to 2024 PRANs have been combined to avoid double-counting of overlapping areas.

b The areas shown in this table have been rounded to the nearest unit. As a result, the sum of these areas may differ slightly from the actual total area. Similarly, the sum of the proportions may differ slightly from 100%.

c The majority of this area (82%) is made up of hardwood stands.

Table F.3. Representation of the different habitat categories in the Charlevoix range (as identified by MFFP [2021a]), as well as in the areas targeted by the work planned under the 2023 to 2024 PRANs

Habitat category

Representation within the range (7,248 km2)

Representation in the areas targeted by logging and roads to be built under the 2023-2024 PRANs (56 km2)a

Area (km2)b

Proportion of reference area (see above; %)

Area (km2)b

Proportion of reference area (see above; %)

Old mature forest (> 70 years)

1,451

20

16

29

Young mature forest (50-70 years)

2,450

34

35

63

Wetlands

183

3

0

0

Lichen-rich environments

31

0

0

0

Natural disturbance

5

0

0

0

Young cutblock (˂ 5 years)

172

2

0

0

Old cutblock (5-20 years)

530

7

0

0

Regenerating stand (20-50 years)

1,969

27

4

7

Other terrestrial environments

147c

2

1

2

Hydrography

309

4

0

0

a For the purposes of this analysis, a width of 20 m was assigned to the roads (normally treated as linear features) so that their area could be calculated when a buffer was not applied. This width corresponds to the right-of-way of a class 5 multi-purpose road (MFFP, 2023c). Logging and roads to be built under the 2023-2024 PRANs have been combined to avoid double-counting of overlapping areas.

b The areas shown in each of the entries in this table have been rounded to the nearest unit. As a result, the sum of these areas may differ slightly from the actual total area. Similarly, the sum of the proportions may differ slightly from 100%.

c The majority of this area (64%) is made up of hardwood stands.

Table F.4. Representation of the different habitat categories in the Pipmuacan range, as well as in the areas targeted by the work planned under the 2023 to 2024 PRANs

Habitat category

Representation within the range (18,432 km2)

Representation in the areas targeted by logging and roads to be established under the 2023 to 2024 PRANs, without including a buffer (175 km2)a

Area (km2)b

Proportion of reference area (see above; %)

Area (km2)b

Proportion of reference area (see above; %)

Old mature forest (> 70 years)

4,632

25

55

31

Young mature forest (50-70 years)

2,692

15

72

41

Wetlands

442

2

0

0

Lichen-rich environments

308

2

0

0

Natural disturbance

156

1

0

0

Young cutblock (˂ 5 years)

321

2

0

0

Old cutblock (5-20 years)

1,204

7

0

0

Regenerating stand (20-50 years)

5920

32

47

27

Other terrestrial environments

239c

1

1

1

Hydrography

2,516

14

0

0

a For the purposes of this analysis, a width of 20 m was assigned to the roads (normally treated as linear features) so that their area could be calculated when a buffer was not applied. This width corresponds to the right-of-way of a class 5 multi-purpose road (MFFP, 2023c). Logging and roads to be built under the 2023-2024 PRANs have been combined to avoid double-counting of overlapping areas.

b The areas shown in this table have been rounded to the nearest unit. As a result, the sum of these areas may differ slightly from the actual total area. Similarly, the sum of the proportions may differ slightly from 100%.

c The majority of this area (75%) is made up of hardwood stands.

Definitions

The tables belowFootnote 49 contain the value code definitions for each attribute used in this analysis. The information is taken from the Fiche descriptive des attributs et de leurs domaines de valeurs (MFFP, 2023d). The only attribute not considered in the following tables is “AN_ORIGINE”. This attribute has no predefined value. It is described as the year of the original disturbance.

Table F.5. Description of the value codes used in this analysis for the attribute ORIGINE (which identifies the original disturbance), according to the Updated Ecoforestry Map

Code

Description

BR

Brûlis total [Total burn]

BRD

[Brûlage dirigé] Prescribed burn

BRU

[Brûlage dirigé] Prescribed burn

CBA

Coupe par bandes [Strip cutting]

CBT

Coupe par bandes finale [Final strip cutting]

CDV

Coupe avec protection des tiges à diamètre variable [Harvesting with protection of variable diameter stems]

CEF

Coupe d'ensemencement finale [Final seed cutting]

CHT

Chablis total [Total windfall]

CIF

Coupe progressive irrégulière phase finale [Irregular shelterwood system, final cutting]

CPE

Coupe progressive d'ensemencement (coupe finale) [Shelterwood seed cutting (final cutting)]

CPH

Coupe avec protection de la haute régénération et des sols [Harvesting with protection of tall regeneration and soils]

CPHRS

Coupe avec protection de la haute régénération et des sols [Harvesting with protection of tall regeneration and soils]

CPI_RL_F

Coupe progressive irrégulière à régénération lente phase finale [Irregular shelterwood system, slow regeneration, final cutting]

CPPTM_DIS

Coupe avec protection des petites tiges marchandes discontinue [Harvesting with protection of small merchantable stems, discontinously distributed]

CPPTM_U

Coupe avec protection des petites tiges marchandes uniforme [Uniform harvesting with protection of small merchantable stems]

CPR

Coupe avec protection de la régénération [Cutting with protection of regeneration]

CPR_U-F

Coupe progressive régulière uniforme finale [Uniform regular shelterwood system, final cutting]

CPRS_BA

Coupe avec protection de la régénération et des sols par bandes [Strip cutting with protection of regeneration and soils]

CPRS_DA

Coupe avec protection de la régénération et des sols en damier [Checkerboard cutting with protection of regeneration and soils]

CPRS_PA

Coupe avec protection de la régénération et des sols en parquets [Block cutting with protection of regeneration and soils]

CPRS_T

Coupe avec protection de la régénération et des sols par trouées [Patch cutting with protection of regeneration and soils]

CPRS_U

Coupe avec protection de la régénération et des sols uniforme [Uniform harvesting with protection of regeneration and soils]

CPT

Coupe avec protection des petites tiges marchandes et des sols [Harvesting with protection of small merchantable stems and soils]

CRB

Coupe de récupération dans un brûlis [Salvage cutting in a burned area]

CRR

Récolte des tiges résiduelles et des rebuts [Harvesting of residual stems and slash]

CRS

Coupe avec réserve de semencier [Seed-tree method]

CS

Coupe de succession [Succession cutting]

CT

Coupe totale [Clearcutting]

CTSP_BA

Coupe totale sans protection par bandes [Strip clearcutting without protection]

CTSP_DA

Coupe totale sans protection en damier [Checkerboard clearcutting without protection]

CTSP_PA

Coupe totale sans protection en parquets [Block clearcutting without protection]

CTSP_T

Coupe totale sans protection par trouées [Patch clearcutting without protection]

CTSP_U

Coupe totale sans protection uniforme [Uniform clearcutting without protection]

CTX

Ancienne coupe totale sans référence cartographique, dont l'année de réalisation [Past clearcut with no map reference, including year carried out]

DT

Dépérissement total [Complete dieback]

ENM

Ensemencement avec mini-serres [Seeding in mini-greenhouses]

ENS

Ensemencement [Seeding]

ES

Épidémie grave [Severe disease outbreak]

ETR

Élimination des tiges résiduelles [Removal of residual stems]

FR

Friche [Wildland]

P

Plantation [Plantation]

PL

Plantation [Plantation]

PLB

Plantation de boutures [Plantation of cuttings]

PLN

Plantation à racines nues [Bareroot plantation]

PLR

Plantation avec semis en récipients [Plantation of container seedlings]

PRR

Regarni de régénération pour constituer l'équivalent d'une plantation [Fill planting in areas of regeneration to establish the equivalent of a plantation]

REA

Régénération d'aire d'ébranchage [Regeneration of a lopping site]

RECUP_C-T

Coupe de récupération totale après chablis [Salvage clearcutting after windfall]

RECUP_F-T

Coupe de récupération totale après feu [Salvage clearcutting after fire]

RECUP_I-T

Coupe de récupération totale après épidémie d'insectes [Salvage clearcutting after an insect outbreak]

RECUP_M-T

Coupe de récupération totale après maladie [Salvage clearcutting after disease]

RIA

Régénération de site d'infrastructure abandonnée [Regeneration of an abandoned infrastructure site]

RPS

Récupération en vertu d'un plan spécial d'aménagement [Salvage operations under a special management plan]

VER

Verglas grave [Severe ice damage]

Table F.6. Description of the value codes used in this analysis for the CL_AGE attribute (which identifies the age class), according to the Updated Ecoforestry Map

Code

Description

10

Peuplement équienne: classe d’âge de 10 ans [Even-aged stand: 10-year age class]

30

Peuplement équienne: classe d’âge de 30 ans [Even-aged stand: 30-year age class]

50

Peuplement équienne: classe d’âge de 50 ans [Even-aged stand: 50-year age class]

70

Peuplement équienne: classe d’âge de 70 ans [Even-aged stand: 70-year age class]

90

Peuplement équienne: classe d’âge de 90 ans [Even-aged stand: 90-year age class]

110

Peuplement équienne: classe d'âge de 110 ans [Even-aged stand: 110-year age class]

120

Peuplement équienne: classe d’âge de 120 ans [Even-aged stand: 120-year age class]

130

Peuplement équienne: classe d'âge de 130 ans [Even-aged stand: 130-year age class]

1010

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 10 ans et 10 ans [Multi-layered stand: 10-year and 10-year age classes]

1030

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 10 ans et 30 ans [Multi-layered stand: 10-year and 30-year age classes]

1050

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 10 ans et 50 ans [Multi-layered stand: 10-year and 50-year age classes]

1070

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 10 ans et 70 ans [Multi-layered stand: 10-year and 70-year age classes]

1090

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 10 ans et 90 ans [Multi-layered stand: 10-year and 90-year age classes]

3010

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 30 ans et 10 ans [Multi-layered stand: 30-year and 10-year age classes]

3030

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 30 ans et 30 ans [Multi-layered stand: 30-year and 30-year age classes

3050

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 30 ans et 50 ans [Multi-layered stand: 30-year and 50-year age classes]

3070

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 30 ans et 70 ans [Multi-layered stand: 30-year and 70-year age classes]

3090

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 30 ans et 90 ans [Multi-layered stand: 30-year and 90-year age classes]

5010

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 50 ans et 10 ans [Multi-layered stand: 50-year and 10-year age classes]

5030

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 50 ans et 30 ans [Multi-layered stand: 50-year and 30-year age classes]

5050

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 50 ans et 50 ans [Multi-layered stand: 50-year and 50-year age classes]

5070

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 50 ans et 70 ans [Multi-layered stand: 50-year and 70-year age classes]

5090

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 50 ans et 90 ans [Multi-layered stand: 50-year and 90-year age classes]

7010

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 70 ans et 10 ans [Multi-layered stand: 70-year and 10-year age classes]

7030

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 70 ans et 30 ans [Multi-layered stand: 70-year and 30-year age classes]

7050

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 70 ans et 50 ans [Multi-layered stand: 70-year and 50-year age classes]

7070

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 70 ans et 70 ans [Multi-layered stand: 70-year and 70-year age classes]

7090

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 70 ans et 90 ans [Multi-layered stand: 70-year and 90-year age classes]

9010

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 90 ans et 10 ans [Multi-layered stand: 90-year and 10-year age classes]

9030

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 90 ans et 30 ans [Multi-layered stand: 90-year and 30-year age classes]

9050

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 90 ans et 50 ans [Multi-layered stand: 90-year and 50-year age classes]

9070

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 90 ans et 70 ans [Multi-layered stand: 90-year and 70-year age classes]

9090

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 90 ans et 90 ans [Multi-layered stand: 90-year and 90-year age classes]

10120

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 10 ans et 120 ans [Multi-layered stand: 10-year and 120-year age classes]

12010

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 120 ans et 10 ans [Multi-layered stand: 120-year and 10-year age classes]

12012

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 120 ans et 120 ans [Multi-layered stand: 120-year and 120-year age classes]

12030

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 120 ans et 30 ans [Multi-layered stand: 120-year and 30-year age classes]

12050

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 120 ans et 50 ans [Multi-layered stand: 120-year and 50-year age classes]

12070

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 120 ans et 70 ans [Multi-layered stand: 120-year and 70-year age classes]

12090

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 120 ans et 90 ans [Multi-layered stand: 120-year and 90-year age classes]

30120

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 30 ans et 120 ans [Multi-layered stand: 30-year and 120-year age classes]

50120

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 50 ans et 120 ans [Multi-layered stand: 50-year and 120-year age classes]

70120

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 70 ans et 120 ans [Multi-layered stand: 70-year and 120-year age classes]

90120

Peuplement étagé: classes d’âge de 90 ans et 120 ans [Multi-layered stand: 90-year and 120-year age classes]

10JIN

Peuplement biétagé: Classes d'âge de 10 ans et jeune peuplement inéquienne [Two-layered stand: 10-year age class and young, uneven-aged stand]

10VIN

Peuplement biétagé: Classes d'âge de 10 ans et vieux peuplement inéquienne [Two-layered stand: 10-year age class and old-growth, uneven-aged stand]

120JI

Peuplement étagé: Classe d'âge de 120 ans et jeune peuplement inéquienne [Multi-layered stand: 120-year age class and young, uneven-aged stand]

120VI

Peuplement étagé: Classe d'âge de 120 ans et vieux peuplement inéquienne [Multi-layered stand: 120-year age class and old-growth, uneven-aged stand]

12JIN

Peuplement étagé: Classe d'âge de 120 ans et jeune peuplement inéquienne [Multi-layered stand: 120-year age class and young, uneven-aged stand]

12VIN

Peuplement étagé: Classe d'âge de 120 ans et vieux peuplement inéquienne [Multi-layered stand: 120-year age class and old-growth, uneven-aged stand]

30JIN

Peuplement biétagé: Classes d'âge de 30 ans et jeune peuplement inéquienne [Two-layered stand: 30-year age class and young, uneven-aged stand]

30VIN

Peuplement biétagé: Classes d'âge de 30 ans et vieux peuplement inéquienne [Two-layered stand: 30-year age class and old-growth, uneven-aged stand]

50JIN

Peuplement biétagé: Classes d'âge de 50 ans et jeune peuplement inéquienne [Two-layered stand: 50-year age class and young, uneven-aged stand]

50VIN

Peuplement biétagé: Classes d'âge de 50 ans et vieux peuplement inéquienne [Two-layered stand: 50-year age class and old-growth, uneven-aged stand]

70JIN

Peuplement étagé: Classe d'âge de 70 ans et jeune peuplement inéquienne [Multi-layered stand: 70-year age class and young, uneven-aged stand]

70VIN

Peuplement biétagé: Classes d'âge de 70 ans et vieux peuplement inéquienne [Two-layered stand: 70-year age class and old-growth, uneven-aged stand]

90JIN

Peuplement étagé: Classe d'âge de 90 ans et jeune peuplement inéquienne [Multi-layered stand: 90-year age class and young, uneven-aged stand]

90VIN

Peuplement biétagé: Classes d'âge de 90 ans et vieux peuplement inéquienne [Two-layered stand: 90-year age class and old-growth, uneven-aged stand]

JIN

Jeune peuplement inéquienne [Young, uneven-aged stand]

JIN10

Peuplement étagé: Jeune peuplement inéquienne et 10 ans [Multi-layered stand: Young, uneven-aged stand and 10-year age class]

JIN12

Peuplement biétagé: Jeune peuplement inéquienne et 120 ans [Two-layered stand: Young, uneven-aged stand and 120-year age class]

JIN30

Peuplement étagé: Jeune peuplement inéquienne et 30 ans [Multi-layered stand: Young, uneven-aged stand and 30-year age class]

JIN50

Peuplement étagé: Jeune peuplement inéquienne et 50 ans [Multi-layered stand: Young, even-aged stand and 50-year age class]

JIN70

Peuplement biétagé: Jeune peuplement inéquienne et 70 ans [Two-layered stand: Young, uneven-aged stand and 70-year age class]

JIN90

Peuplement biétagé: Jeune peuplement inéquienne et 10 ans [Two-layered stand: Young, uneven-aged stand and 10-year age class]

JINJI

Peuplement étagé: Jeune peuplement équienne et jeune peuplement équienne [Multi-layered stand: Young, even-aged stand and young, even-aged stand]

JINVI

Peuplement étagé: Jeune peuplement inéquienne et jeune peuplement inéquienne [Two-layered stand: Young, uneven-aged stand and young, uneven-aged stand]

JIR

Jeune peuplement irrégulier dont l'origine remonte à moins de 80 ans [Young irregular stand less than 80 years old]

VIN

Vieux peuplement inéquienne [Old-growth, uneven-aged stand]

VIN10

Peuplement étagé: Vieux peuplement inéquienne et 10 ans [Multi-layered stand: Old-growth, uneven-aged stand and 10-year age class]

VIN12

Peuplement étagé: Vieux peuplement inéquienne et 120 ans [Multi-layered stand: Old-growth, uneven-aged stand and 120-year age class]

VIN30

Peuplement étagé: Vieux peuplement inéquienne et 30 ans [Multi-layered stand: Old-growth, uneven-aged stand and 30-year age class]

VIN50

Peuplement étagé: Vieux peuplement inéquienne et 50 ans [Multi-layered stand: Old-growth, uneven-aged stand and 50-year age class]

VIN70

Peuplement étagé: Vieux peuplement équienne et classe d'âge de 70 ans [Multi-layered stand: Old-growth, even-aged stand and 70-year age class]

VIN90

Peuplement étagé: Vieux peuplement équienne et classe d'âge de 90 ans [Multi-layered stand: Old-growth, even-aged stand and 90-year age class]

VINJI

Peuplement étagé: Vieux peuplement équienne et jeune peuplement équienne [Multi-layered stand: Old-growth, even-aged stand and young, even-aged stand]

VINVI

Peuplement biétagé: Vieux peuplement inéquienne et vieux peuplement inéquienne [Two-layered stand: Old-growth, uneven-aged stand and young, uneven-aged stand]

VIR

Vieux peuplement irrégulier dont l'origine remonte à plus de 80 ans [Old-growth irregular stand more than 80 years old]

Table F.7. Description of the value codes used in this analysis for the TYPE_COUV attribute (which identifies the major cover type), according to the Updated Ecoforestry Map

Code

Description

F

Feuillu [Hardwood]

M

Mixte [Mixed]

R

Résineux [Softwood]

Table F.8. Description of the value codes used in this analysis for the CO_TER attribute (which identifies the terrain code), according to the Updated Ecoforestry Map

Code

Description

AL

Aulnaie [Alder thicket]

DH

Dénudé humide [Wet barren area]

DS

Dénudé sec [Dry barren area]

IL

Ile boisée de 2 ha et moins [Treed island of 2 h or less]

ILE

Ile superficie < 1 ha [Island less than 1 ha]

INO

Site inondé, site exondé non régénéré [Flooded site, exposed site, non-regenerated]

EAU

Étendue d'eau [Water body]

Table F.9. Description of the value codes used in this analysis for the TYPE_ECO attribute (which identifies the ecological type), according to the Updated Ecoforestry Map

Code

Description

LA12C

Lande à lichens (ou à mousses) sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage mésique, arboré (espèces arborescentes (> 4 m) entre 1 à 10 % de couvert) [Lichen (or moss) barren, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage, treed (tree species > 4 m, between 1% and 10% cover)]

LA20

Lande arbustive sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée, de drainage de xérique à hydrique [Shrub barren, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage]

LA20C

Lande arbustive sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée, de drainage de xérique à hydrique, arboré (espèces arborescentes (> 4 m) entre 1 à 10 % de couvert) [Shrub barren, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage, treed (tree species > 4 m, between 1% and 10% cover)]

LA20P

Lande arbustive sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de drainage de xérique à hydrique, terrain très pierreux (plus de 80 % de pierrosité) [Shrub barren, thin to thick mineral deposits, xeric to hydric drainage, very stony land (stoniness of over 80%)]

LA22

Lande arbustive sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage mésique [Shrub barren, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage]

LA40

Lande rocheuse sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée, de drainage de xérique à hydrique [Rock barren, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage]

LL20

Lande alpine arbustive sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée, de drainage de xérique à hydrique [Alpine shrub barren, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage]

MA18R

Marais ou marécage arbustif, d'eau douce, sur dépôt organique ou minéral de mince à épais, de drainage hydrique, minérotrophe, riverain (en bordure d’un cours d’eau ou d’un lac) [Marsh or shrub swamp, freshwater, thin to thick organic or mineral deposits, hydric drainage, minerotrophic, riparian (located at the edge of a water body or lake)]

ME13

Pessière noire à peuplier faux-tremble sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture fine et de drainage mésique [Black spruce–trembling aspen stand, thin to thick deposits, fine soil texture, mesic drainage]

ME16

Pessière noire à peuplier faux-tremble sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture fine et de drainage subhydrique [Black spruce–trembling aspen stand, thin to thick deposits, fine soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

MS12

Sapinière à bouleau jaune sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture moyenne et de drainage mésique [Balsam fir–yellow birch stand, thin to thick deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage]

MS20

Sapinière à bouleau blanc sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée et au drainage de xérique à hydrique [Balsam fir–white birch stand, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage]

MS20E

Sapinière à bouleau blanc sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée et au drainage de xérique à hydrique, d'altitude élevée [Balsam fir–white birch stand, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage, high elevation]

MS20P

Sapinière à bouleau blanc sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée et de drainage de xérique à hydrique, terrain très pierreux (plus de 80 % de pierrosité) [Balsam fir–white birch stand, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage, very stony land (stoniness over 80%)]

MS21

Sapinière à bouleau blanc sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture grossière et de drainage xérique ou mésique [Balsam fir–white birch stand, thin to thick deposits, coarse soil texture, xeric or mesic drainage]

MS22

Sapinière à bouleau blanc sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture moyenne et de drainage mésique [Balsam fir–white birch stand, thin to thick deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage]

MS22E

Sapinière à bouleau blanc sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage mésique, d'altitude élevée [Balsam fir–white birch stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage, high elevation]

MS23

Sapinière à bouleau blanc sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture fine et de drainage mésique [Balsam fir–white birch stand, thin to thick deposits, fine soil texture, mesic drainage]

MS24

Sapinière à bouleau blanc sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture grossière et de drainage subhydrique [Balsam fir–white birch stand, thin to thick deposits, coarse soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

MS25

Sapinière à bouleau blanc sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture moyenne et de drainage subhydrique [Balsam fir–white birch stand, thin to thick deposits, medium soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

MS25E

Sapinière à bouleau blanc sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage subhydrique, d'altitude élevée [Balsam fir–white birch stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, sub-hydric drainage, high elevation]

MS26

Sapinière à bouleau blanc sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture fine et de drainage subhydrique [Balsam fir–white birch stand, thin to thick deposits, fine soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

MS40

Sapinière à bouleau blanc montagnarde sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée et au drainage de xérique à hydrique [Montane balsam fir–white birch stand, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage]

MS42

Sapinière à bouleau blanc montagnarde sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture moyenne et de drainage mésique [Montane balsam fir–white birch stand, thin to thick deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage]

MS61

Sapinière à érable rouge sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture grossière et de drainage xérique ou mésique [Balsam fir–red maple stand, thin to thick deposits, coarse soil texture, xeric or mesic drainage]

MS62

Sapinière à érable rouge sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture moyenne et de drainage mésique [Balsam fir–red maple stand, thin to thick deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage]

MS71

Sapinière à bouleau blanc maritime sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture grossière et de drainage xérique ou mésique [Maritime balsam fir–white birch stand, thin to thick deposits, coarse soil texture, xeric or mesic drainage]

RE10

Pessière noire à lichens sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée, de drainage de xérique à hydrique [Black spruce–lichen stand, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage]

RE11

Pessière noire à lichens sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture grossière, de drainage xérique ou mésique [Black spruce–lichen stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, coarse soil texture, xeric or mesic drainage]

RE11P

Pessière noire à lichens sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture grossière et de drainage xérique ou mésique, terrain très pierreux (plus de 80 % de pierrosité) [Black spruce–lichen stand, thin to thick deposits, coarse soil texture, xeric or mesic drainage, very stony land (stoniness over 80%)]

RE12

Pessière noire à lichens sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage mésique [Black spruce–lichen stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage]

RE12P

Pessière noire à lichens sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage mésique, terrain très pierreux (plus de 80 % de pierrosité) [Black spruce–lichen stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage, very stony land (stoniness over 80%)]

RE13

Pessière noire à lichens sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture fine, de drainage mésique [Black spruce–lichen stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, fine soil texture, mesic drainage]

RE14

Pessière noire à lichens sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture grossière, de drainage subhydrique [Black spruce–lichen stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, coarse soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

RE15

Pessière noire à lichens sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage subhydrique [Black spruce–lichen stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

RE16

Pessière noire à lichens sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture fine, de drainage subhydrique [Black spruce–lichen stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, fine soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

RE20

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée , de drainage de xérique à hydrique [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage]

RE20P

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de drainage de xérique à hydrique, très pierreux sans matrice [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, xeric to hydric drainage, very stony without matrix]

RE21

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture grossière, de drainage xérique ou mésique [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, coarse soil texture, xeric or mesic drainage]

RE21P

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture grossière et de drainage xérique ou mésique, terrain très pierreux (plus de 80 % de pierrosité) [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick deposits, coarse soil texture, xeric or mesic drainage, very stony land (stoniness over 80%)]

RE22

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage mésique [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage]

RE22M

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture moyenne et de drainage mésique, situation topographique de mi-pente [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage, mid-slope topographic position]

RE22P

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture moyenne et de drainage mésique, terrain très pierreux (plus de 80 % de pierrosité) [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage, very stony land (stoniness over 80%)]

RE23

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture fine, de drainage mésique [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, fine soil texture, mesic drainage]

RE24

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture grossière, de drainage subhydrique [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, coarse soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

RE24P

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture grossière et de drainage subhydrique, terrain très pierreux (plus de 80 % de pierrosité) [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick deposits, coarse soil texture, sub-hydric drainage, very stony land (stoniness over 80%)]

RE25

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage subhydrique [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

RE25P

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture moyenne et de drainage subhydrique, terrain très pierreux (plus de 80 % de pierrosité) [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick deposits, medium soil texture, sub-hydric drainage, very stony land (stoniness over 80%)]

RE25S

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture moyenne et de drainage subhydrique, situation topographique favorisant la présence de drainage latéral (seepage) [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick deposits, medium soil texture, sub-hydric drainage, topographic position that favours lateral drainage (seepage)]

RE26

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture fine et de drainage subhydrique [Black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick deposits, fine soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

RE37

Pessière noire à sphaignes sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de drainage hydrique, ombrotrophe [Black spruce–sphagnum moss stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, hydric drainage, ombrotrophic]

RE38

Pessière noire à sphaignes sur dépôt organique ou minéral, de mince à épais, de drainage hydrique, minérotrophe [Black spruce–sphagnum moss stand, thin to thick organic or mineral deposits, hydric drainage, minerotrophic]

RE39

Pessière noire à sphaignes sur dépôt organique de mince à épais, de drainage hydrique, ombrotrophe [Black spruce–sphagnum moss stand, thin to thick organic deposits, hydric drainage, ombrotrophic]

RE42

Pessière noire à mousses ou à éricacées montagnarde sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage mésique [Montane black spruce–moss or black spruce–heath stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage]

RI14

Rive sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture grossière, de drainage subhydrique [Shoreline, thin to thick mineral deposits, coarse soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

RS20

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée, de drainage de xérique à hydrique [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage]

RS20P

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée et au drainage de xérique à hydrique, terrain très pierreux (plus de 80 % de pierrosité) [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage, very stony land (stoniness over 80%)]

RS20S

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée et au drainage de xérique à hydrique, situation topographique favorisant la présence de drainage latéral (seepage) [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage, topographic position that favours lateral drainage (seepage)]

RS21

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture grossière, de drainage xérique ou mésique [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, coarse soil texture, xeric or mesic drainage]

RS21P

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture grossière et de drainage xérique ou mésique, terrain très pierreux (plus de 80 % de pierrosité) [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, thin to thick deposits, coarse soil texture, xeric or mesic drainage, very stony land (stoniness over 80%)]

RS22

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage mésique [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage]

RS22M

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage mésique, situation topographique de mi-pente [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage, mid-slope topographic position]

RS22P

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture moyenne et de drainage mésique, terrain très pierreux (plus de 80 % de pierrosité) [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, thin to thick deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage, very stony land (stoniness over 80%)]

RS23

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture fine, de drainage mésique [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, fine soil texture, mesic drainage]

RS24

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture grossière, de drainage subhydrique [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, coarse soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

RS25

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage subhydrique [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

RS25P

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture moyenne et de drainage subhydrique, terrain très pierreux (plus de 80 % de pierrosité) [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, thin to thick deposits, medium soil texture, sub-hydric drainage, very stony land (stoniness over 80%)]

RS25S

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage subhydrique, situation topographique favorisant la présence de drainage latéral (seepage) [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, sub-hydric drainage, topographic position that favours lateral drainage (seepage)]

RS26

Sapinière à épinette noire sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture fine, de drainage subhydrique [Balsam fir–black spruce stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, fine soil texture, sub-hydric drainage]

RS37

Sapinière à épinette noire et sphaignes sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de drainage hydrique, ombrotrophe [Balsam fir stand with black spruce and sphagnum moss, thin to thick mineral deposits, hydric drainage, ombrotrophic]

RS38

Sapinière à épinette noire et sphaignes sur dépôt organique ou minéral, de mince à épais, de drainage hydrique, minérotrophe [Balsam fir stand with black spruce and sphagnum moss, thin to thick organic or mineral deposits, hydric drainage, minerotrophic]

RS39

Sapinière à épinette noire et sphaignes sur dépôt organique de mince à épais, de drainage hydrique, ombrotrophe [Balsam fir stand with black spruce and sphagnum moss, thin to thick organic deposits, hydric drainage, ombrotrophic]

RS40

Sapinière à épinette noire montagnarde sur dépôt très mince, de texture variée, de drainage de xérique à hydrique [Montane balsam fir–black spruce stand, very thin deposits, variable soil texture, xeric to hydric drainage]

RS42

Sapinière à épinette noire montagnarde sur dépôt minéral de mince à épais, de texture moyenne, de drainage mésique [Montane balsam fir–black spruce stand, thin to thick mineral deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage]

TA12

Toundra alpine à lichens sur dépôt de mince à épais, de texture moyenne et de drainage mésique [Alpine tundra with lichens, thin to thick deposits, medium soil texture, mesic drainage]

TO18

Tourbière non boisée sur dépôt minéral ou organique, de drainage hydrique, minérotrophe [Non-forested peatland, mineral or organic deposits, hydric drainage, minerotrophic]

TOB9D

Tourbière ombrotrophe, station au dépôt organique de mince à épais, de drainage hydrique, ombrotrophe, ridé (alternance de buttes arbustives et de dépressions herbacées que l’on observe dans les tourbières) [Bog, thin to thick organic or mineral deposits, hydric drainage, ombrotrophic, ridges (shrub-covered hummocks alternating with depressions containing herbaceous vegetation characteristic of peatlands)]

TOB9U

Tourbière ombrotrophe, station au dépôt organique de mince à épais, de drainage hydrique, ombrotrophe, surface uniforme (absence de lanières et de mares) que l’on observe dans les tourbières [Bog, thin to thick mineral deposits, hydric drainage, ombrotrophic, flat surface (lacking strings and pools characteristic of peatlands)]

TOF8U

Tourbière minérotrophe, station au dépôt organique ou minéral de mince à épais, de drainage hydrique, minérotrophe, surface uniforme (absence de lanières et de mares) que l’on observe dans les tourbières [Fen, thin to thick organic or mineral deposits, hydric drainage, minerotrophic, flat surface (lacking strings and pools characteristic of peatlands)]

References

Footnote 50

Leblond, M., C. Dussault and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2014a. Development and validation of an expert-based habitat suitability model to support boreal caribou conservation. Biological Conservation 177:100-108

Leblond, M., C. Dussault and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2014b. Développement et validation d’un modèle de qualité d’habitat pour le caribou forestier Rangifer tarandus caribou au Québec. Prepared for the Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs. Université du Québec à Rimouski. Rimouski. Québec. 104 p.

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2023b. Updated Ecoforestry Map. Dataset in Données Québec. Version 2017. Updated on 2023-07-13. Downloaded on 2023-09-28 at https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset/carte-ecoforestiere-avec-perturbations

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2023c.

Guide to the Application of the Regulation Respecting the Sustainable Development of Forests in the Domain of the State. Government of Québec. Accessed on 2024-02-29 at https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/RADF/guide/?lang=en

Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs [MFFP]. 2023d. Fiche descriptive des attributs et de leurs domaines de valeurs - Carte écoforestière à jour. Données Québec. Version 2020. Updated on 2023-07-13. Accessed on 2024-02-20 at https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset/carte-ecoforestiere-avec-perturbations/resource/9beebaf2-75bc-4683-8ed7-cd0aa531d714

Page details

Date modified: