Substitution of Block Cutting and Cutting with Protection of Regeneration and Soils for the Period 2018 to 2023 - Development Unit 074-51 ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Substitution of Block Cutting and Cutting with Protection of Regeneration and Soils for the Period 2018 to 2023 Development Unit 074-51 – Outaouais Region 07 August 2021 MINISTÈRE DES FORÊTS, DE LA FAUNE ET DES PARCS
Rapport de suivi des consultations publiques PAFIO 2019 et 2020 - Outaouais Acknowledgements We thank the Pontiac regional county municipality (RCM) for its involvement in organizing the public consultations. Production Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs Direction générale du secteur sud-ouest Direction régionale de la gestion des forêts de l’Outaouais 16, Impasse de la Gare-Talon, RC 100 Gatineau (Québec) J8T 0B1 Telephone: 819 246-4827 E-mail: outaouais.foret@mffp.gouv.qc.ca Distribution This publication is available online only, at: mffp.gouv.qc.ca/rapports-consultations-plans-damenagement-forestier-integre/ © Gouvernement du Québec Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs Dépôt légal – Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, 2021 ISBN (PDF): 978-2-550-89812-2
Rapport de suivi des consultations publiques PAFIO 2019 et 2020 - Outaouais Table of Contents 1. Background Information ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Communications ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Table 1. Public consultation announcements ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation documents ................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Objectives of Public Consultations....................................................................................................................... 2 3. Development Units for the Public Consultation.............................................................................................. 3 4. Comments Received .................................................................................................................................................. 4 4.1 Number of organizations and individuals making comments ................................................................................. 4 Table 2. Number of organizations and individuals making comments ....................................................................... 4 4.2 Comments made and concerns expressed ....................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3. Main comments made and concerns expressed – MFFP analyses and responses ................................. 5 5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 6. References ..................................................................................................................................................................10 Appendix 1. Members of the Outaouais integrated regional land and resource management panel 11 List of Tables Table 1. Public consultation announcements ......................................................................................... 1 Table 2. Number of organizations and individuals making comments .................................................... 4 Table 3. Main comments made and concerns expressed – MFFP analyses and responses .................. 5 Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs III
Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
1. Background Information
The Sustainable Forest Development Act (SFDA), adopted in March 2010, entrusts the Minister
of Forests, Wildlife and Parks (MFFP) with responsibility, among other things, for preparing
integrated operational and tactical development plans (known by their French acronyms PAFIO
and PAFIT). Under section 40 of the Act, the MFFP may authorize a departure from the regulatory
standards if it is shown that the proposed substitute measures offer equivalent or superior
protection for forest resources and the forest environment. However, the departure must be the
subject of a public consultation process.
Objective of the public consultation
This consultation concerns the protective measures replacing the sections of the Regulation
respecting the sustainable development of forests in the domain of the State (RSDF) with respect
to block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils (BC-CPRS) in Development
Unit 074-51. The consultation document is available on the MFFP’s website.1
The application of BC-CPRS by regulation since 2003 has raised a certain number of ecological
issues. In the fir bioclimatic domain, research has shown that this type of spatial distribution
exacerbates the differences between developed and natural forests. These differences can cause
biodiversity to be lost as a result of:
• loss of closed canopy forest habitats (7 metres or more in height);
• fragmentation of closed canopy forest habitats;
• loss of closed canopy forest habitats including interior forest.2
When BC-CPRS was first introduced, its main aim was to mitigate northward expansion of the
cutting boundary in Québec. It also addressed social demands for dispersal of cutting areas
throughout the landscape in order to maintain visual quality and improve harmonization of use.
The dispersal of smaller cutting areas led to the construction of large numbers of forest roads,
which not only increased operating costs but also fragmented wildlife habitats. In addition, the
obligation to go back and harvest separators exacerbated the negative economic impacts of BC-
CPRS without achieving the anticipated landscape maintenance gains.
The elements targeted by this public consultation will allow for the application of version 3.2 of
the final guidelines for tactical and operational planning of spatial forest organization in the fir
forest. These guidelines will be published in Notebook 3.1, on the issues relating to spatial
1Dérogation à la coupe en mosaïque et à la coupe avec protection de la régénération et des sols dans la sapinière pour la période 2018 à 2023.
https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/les-forets/amenagement-durable-forets/planification-forestiere/plans-damenagement-forestier-integre/derogation-
outaouais-2021/
2 Portion of the forest where wildlife and plant species can live without being affected by the environmental conditions (sunlight, wind, temperature,
humidity, etc.) that exist in edge areas. In the fir bioclimatic domain, the edge influence distance (edge effect) for species sheltered by the interior
forest is roughly 75 metres.
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 1Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
organization in the fir forest (MFFP, currently under preparation in French).3 The notebook will be
used to prepare the 2023-2028 tactical plans.
Organization of the public consultation
The MFFP commissioned the Pontiac RCM to organize this consultation.
The issues addressed in the consultation were laid out in simple terms in a summary document
designed not only to explain the methods targeted by the consultation but also to present the
underlying principle and benefits from an ecosystem-based management standpoint. The
summary document is available on the MFFP’s website.4
The population was informed of the public consultation via local newspapers and the websites of
the Outaouais integrated land and resource management panel (the panel) and the MFFP. E-
mails were also sent to the various regional partners likely to be interested in public forest
management (municipalities, RCM, panel members, etc.).
The general public and regional partners were invited to submit comments and concerns by e-
mail to the Outaouais panel coordinator and/or the MFFP officer responsible for the public
consultation. A telephone line was available to answer participants’ questions. The consultation
documents are still posted on the MFFP’s website. The MFFP’s offices were closed to the public
due to the health emergency, so it was not possible to obtain paper copies of the documents
directly from them. A detailed review of the public consultation can be found in the report prepared
by the Pontiac RCM.5
3The ecosystem-based development notebooks are available online, in French only, at: https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/les-forets/amenagement-
durable-forets/lamenagement-ecosystemique-au-coeur-de-la-gestion-des-forets/
4 Summary – Substitution of Block Cutting and Cutting with Protection of Regeneration and Soils for the period 2018-2023. Development Unit
074-51 – Outaouais Region 07. https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/DR_resume_outaouais_avril2021.pdf
5Consultation Report – Substitution of Block Cutting and Cutting with Protection of Regeneration and Soils for the period 2018-2023.
Development Unit 074-51 – Pontiac RCM.
https://trgirto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Rapport-consultation-publique_Derogation-CMO_CPRS_UA_07451_2021_nominatif.pdf
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 2Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
1.1 Communications
The population was notified about the public consultations in a variety of ways.
Table 1. Public consultation announcements
Method Information provided
Announcement of the public consultation and
E-mail sent to the representatives of the Outaouais
transmission of the consultation database
integrated regional land and resource
(shapefiles)
management panel (the Panel) and their
replacements (33)
E-mail sent via Cyberimpact to the municipalities,
the Outaouais RCMs, individuals wishing to be
notified about public consultations and Outaouais Announcement of the consultation
panel representatives and their replacements
(552)
Link to the summary map, the complete 2018-
Notice published on the Outaouais panel’s website 2023 substitution document and the participation
form
The Outaouais panel’s Facebook page Announcement of the public consultation and
participation form
A public notice was published in the
Outaouais regional media:
Le Droit (web and print version)
Info de la Basse Lièvre
Public notice Journal les 2 Vallées
Info de la Vallée
The Equity (French and English)
La Petite-Nation
Journal Pontiac – French
Journal Pontiac – English
The MFFP’s offices were closed to the public because of the pandemic. Anyone wishing to obtain
additional information on the substitution was asked to leave questions or concerns on the voicemail of
an employee, along with their name and contact information. They received a response within two
working days.
1.2 Consultation documents
The MFFP produced and posted complete documentation on the substitution, along with a summary to
facilitate the consultation. Using these documents, members of the public could locate potential forestry
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 1Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
sectors in the region’s various development units and expand or reduce the information available on an
interactive map created by bringing together all the maps in a single, more intuitive tool containing a
significant volume of information on potential forestry work. This greatly simplified the research task, and
made it easier for citizens to submit comments.
For additional information on forest planning, please visit the MFFP’s website at:
mffp.gouv.qc.ca/rapports-consultations-plans-damenagement-forestier-integre/
2. Objectives of Public Consultations
The objectives of public consultations on forest plans are to:
foster a better understanding among the general public of how Québec’s public forests are
managed, and more specifically about the forest planning process;
give the population an opportunity to state its opinion of the proposed forest management plans,
so that their interests, values and needs can be addressed as far as possible;
reconcile the interests of the many users of forest land and resources;
harmonize forest development with the values and needs of the population;
enable the MFFP to make the best possible decisions, given its responsibilities.
Scope and limitations of public consultations
Public consultations allow for consideration of the interests and concerns of people with an interest in the
sustainable management and development of Québec’s public forests.
They cannot be used to question public land use designations planned or approved by the Government,
or forestry rights granted by the MFFP, nor do they cover the sustainable forest management vision,
orientations or objectives set out in the Sustainable Forest Management Strategy.
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 2Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
3. Development Units for the Public
Consultation
The Outaouais region (07) is divided into six development units (DUs): 071-51, 071-52, 072-51, 073-51,
073-52 and 074-51. These development units cover the administrative regions of Outaouais and Abitibi-
Témiscamingue (Vallée-de-l’Or RCM portion). This consultation applied only to development unit 074-
51.
Development Units in the Outaouais Region
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 3Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
4. Comments Received
4.1 Number of organizations and individuals making comments
During the public consultations on the 2018-2023 operational plan, comments were made on behalf of
organizations and by individuals in their personal capacity. Table 2 shows the type and number of
participants.
Table 2. Number of organizations and individuals making comments
Public Consultation on the 2021 Operational Plan
Development Unit Number of Organizations Number of individuals
(participating in their
personal capacity)
074-51 2 0
4.2 Comments made and concerns expressed
Table 3 presents the main comments made and concerns expressed, by subject, during the consultation,
along with a summary of MFFP follow-up in each case. This allows readers to obtain information more
quickly and provides an overview of the concerns raised by participants. Some of the concerns have
been broken down and moved to their respective categories in order to simplify the report and make it
easier to understand.
No comments were made on the consultation process itself, or the tools provided.
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 4Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
Table 3. Main comments made and concerns expressed – MFFP analyses and responses
Comments - Concerns (Summary) Responses
Based on what we see, the rules set out in the 2018-2023 substitution for spatial distribution in DU 07451 are very The proposed rules in DU 074-51 are identical to those in DU 073-52. Only the formulation has changed. Accordingly, in
similar to those currently in place in DU 07352. The Sépaq is not against the use of “SOCs” in DU 07451 but wishes 2023, the rules as written in the substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils for the
to point out some of the concerns expressed in prior consultations for DU 07352. period 2018 to 2023 in DU 974-51 will be applied at provincial level, as announced by the Minister in November.
It is true that there is no maximum worksite size. Cutting in the SOCs and TRUs is limited by rules concerning 7 metres or
more in height. As for harmonization of the potential forest operations zones when prescriptions are made, it continues to
One of our concerns is the size and distribution of the harvest blocks. The fact of having no maximum size is of concern
be a part of the planning process even though the cut type has changed. The elements mentioned in the substitution
mainly from the landscape and connectivity standpoints. The planners’ judgment will be important and we count on
document are minimum levels. Third party concerns regarding the other regulatory measures still apply, as is the case for
their collaboration to consider the status of the wildlife reserves during the planning process, among other things in
the criterion of 30% of the productive forest area measuring 7 metres or more in the Regulation, which must be maintained
order to maintain and improve wildlife habitats and the quality of the activities offered by the Sépaq.
in outfitters with exclusive rights, controlled harvesting zones and wildlife reserves. In addition, the rules applicable to the
visual frameworks of landscape sites to be protected, as approved by the Outaouais panel, continue to apply.
When delimiting the SOCs in DU 07352, the structured wildlife territory boundary received extensive consideration.
The same criteria and methodology were used when determining SOC boundaries development unit 07451. Harvest area
We hope the same was done for DU 7451, to avoid overlapping harvest areas in a given harvest sector or creating
overlaps will continue to be addressed in the usage harmonization process.
new adjoining access roads.
The 600-900 m target ensures that 5 ha residual forest blocks are distributed spatially. These blocks are large enough to
act as screens in order to mitigate the visual impacts of the large cutting blocks and to maintain connectivity with the bigger
forest. In addition, variable retention harvesting, i.e. a form of cutting that leaves part of the stand untouched, will be used
to limit the visual impacts even further in large logging sites (taken from the SOC consultation report for DU 073-52).
Regarding wildlife habitat connectivity, this is an important issue for the Sépaq, and based on the proposed rules, it is
difficult for us to see how the substitution will be an improvement. The fact of reducing block size to a minimum of 5
The targets are minimum levels. Follow-up in development unit 073-52 has shown that the blocks maintained for the 600-
ha for distances of both 600 m and 900 m creates some concerns. Based on the standard, we might find ourselves
900 m target are generally larger and closer together than the required minimums. This is also true for the percentage of
with CPRS cuts that are nearly 1,200 m wide, and even up to 1,800 in some cases, with only a 5 ha minimum block
the area covered by blocks of 25 ha or more. Since the rules are the same in development unit 074-51, the effect should
required as residual forest. We agree that this would be difficult to apply in the context of the Outaouais forest, but it
be similar.
is nevertheless a possibility. The distribution and size of residual forest areas in the SOCs will have a significant impact
on wildlife habitats, landscape quality and the forest “ambiance” in general. The residual forest in a SOC should be
In addition to maintaining a good quantity of residual forest, including interior forest in block form at disturbance level, the
composed mainly of unbroken blocks of at least 25 ha, which is more than the minimum requested goal of 20%. The
goal is to distribute these blocks so as to avoid concentrating large areas dominated by regenerating stands. This type of
Sépaq depends on the MFFP’s flexibility when harmonizing uses in order to adapt the plans to respond to this and
distribution also leads to better visual acceptability of cuts (Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (under
other issues.
preparation). Intégration des enjeux écologiques dans les plans d’aménagement forestier intégré, Cahier 3.2.1 —
Organisation spatiale des forêts dans les domaines bioclimatiques de la sapinière — Orientations pour la planification
tactique et opérationnelle, Québec, Gouvernement du Québec, Direction de l’aménagement et de l’environnement
forestiers).
In recent years we have seen that harvest activities have been concentrated in certain portions of the La Vérendrye
wildlife reserve. We therefore reiterate the importance of not juxtaposing type 0 and type 1 SOCs in order to maintain
The rule concerning the maximum percentage of a TRU’s productive forest area in type 0 or type 1 SOCs may be as much
quality habitats and a pleasant ambiance for users.
as 30%. This rule ensures that there is no significant concentration of type 0 or type 1 SOCs. In the substitution report (*)
dated February 2021, there were only two type T1 SOCs and no type T0s. However, the harmonization context may cause
In short, we count on the MFFP’s collaboration to continue to listen to the region’s stakeholders when implementing
justapositions of type T1 SOCs in some places. The MFFP undertakes to monitor this rule and to keep the Outaouais panel
this standard, which is new, so that it can be adapted if necessary. We also ask to be consulted upstream of the
members informed.
planning level, through the usage harmonization process, to ensure that this new spatial distribution departure is able
to address our various issues and apply in a context of integrated management.
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 5Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
Comments - Concerns (summary) Responses
Outfitters with exclusive rights are divided into more than 26 small portions of land throughout Outaouais as a whole.
They account for only 11.59% of the public forest under management. Their average size is 115 km2. In DU 74-51,
the percentage is larger, with an average of 18% of the DU and an average size of 175 km2. The outfitters are
companies, generally privately owned, that carry out a reserved activity pursuant to the Act respecting the protection
and development of wildlife. Although they are business owners, outfitters are also the most ardent defenders of the
land they develop. The land is their livelihood, their family’s income and the product they offer. What they earn depends
on the quality of the forest on their land, meaning that sustainable development is an intrinsic duty. The substitution will take effect from September 2021 onwards in development unit 074-51.
In 2023, the spatial organization compartments (SOCs) will replace block cutting as a harvest planning tool in the
forest. This new operational planning method will require new development criteria and new targets with which the
MFFP’s planners will have to comply when delimiting the various worksites. The new development criteria will apply
within the SOC boundaries. However, general monitoring criteria will also apply to larger scales such as the TRUs and
DUs.
As mentioned above, the aim, in addition to maintaining a good quantity of residual forests including interior forest in block
form at disturbance level, is to distribute these blocks so as to avoid concentrations of large areas dominated by
regenerating stands.
This new management approach in the fir forest seems promising for the reproduction of large forest blocks and
This latter situation (the current solution) therefore has a negative impact on wildlife protection. While it favours moose,
imitation of certain ecosystems that are becoming rarer. However, it worries the outfitters for many reasons, including
the species for which it was devised, block cutting also increases the number of logged areas and access roads, and
the intention to use the SOCs as a worksite planning tool and as predetermined harvest areas. The SOC boundaries
reduces the quantity of interior forests as well as the size of forest blocks. This has the effect of creating a host of small
do not follow outfitter boundaries, the size of the SOCs is totally unsuited to outfitter use, the potential cutting level
forests that, when combined with wooded strips, may allow for adequate circulation of wildlife species through the
may be as high as 70%, concentration of logging may reproduce disproportionate CPRS that is unacceptable for
landscape, but it does not provide the mass of habitats required for their survival. By concentrating the same cutting area
users, this cutting model is aimed at obtaining a return in the very long term only, the model is tantamount to
in a single sector, wildlife movements may, at first glance, appear to be hindered, but in fact, the SOCs produce a forest
abandonment and non-sustainable production of quality habitats for certain developed species, and so on. It is
that is less fragmented and is therefore more conducive to movement. This is clear when observed specifically at landscape
therefore clear that the SOC-based approach is a significant threat to the future of the outfitters’ territories. It is not so
level. Conversely, if the planning scale is reduced, the layout would once again look similar to block cutting, meaning that
much the concept of spatial organization compartments replacing TRUs that is the problem, as the way in which it is
the benefits of SOC-based planning for wildlife habitats would be lost because fragmentation would increase.
applied. The outfitters’ position is clear: they reject SOC-based operational planning, There are no nuances or
subtleties about this.
In addition, the other regulatory measures still apply, including the 30% of the productive forest area measuring 7 metres
or more in height, as required by the Regulation, which must be maintained in outfitters with exclusive rights, controlled
harvesting zones and wildlife reserves. In addition, the rules applicable to the visual frameworks of landscape sites to be
protected, as approved by the Outaouais panel, continue to apply.
So SOC-based management is not the issue, nor is the intention to reproduce ecosystems. The issue is the use of a The spatial organization of natural forests is influenced by serious natural disturbance dynamics typical of large areas. In
general standard applied according to wall-to-wall implementation principles, over areas much larger than many the fir bioclimatic domains, research has shown that block cutting (BC) and cutting with regeneration and soils (CPRS),
outfitters’ territories. The issue is that this approach, applied without other measures, is simply not sustainable for applied by regulation since 2003, exacerbate the spatial organization differences with the natural forest, and this may have
enterprises on which the incomes of thousands of Québecers depend, as does access to good quality forests for repercussions for ecological processes and biodiversity. This information therefore suggests that a landscape disturbed
hundreds of thousands of others wanting to engage in tourism activities in the forest. The SOC-based approach is by BC-CPRS includes far more edge habitats than a landscape disturbed by fire, and hence fewer interior habitats
associated with a so-called ecosystem-based process tested in the Laurentides wildlife reserve. A wildlife territory- (Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (under preparation). Intégration des enjeux écologiques dans les plans
based approach is very different from a DU-based or region-based approach. A wall-to-wall approach designed to d’aménagement forestier intégré, Cahier 3.2.1 — Organisation spatiale des forêts dans les domaines bioclimatiques de la
address every situation with the same remedy should not be confused with an approach based on the issues faced sapinière — Orientations pour la planification tactique et opérationnelle, Québec, Gouvernement du Québec, Direction de
by a specific wildlife territory. l’aménagement et de l’environnement forestiers).
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 6Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
Comments - Concerns (summary) Responses
The wall-to-wall approach has never produced good results in Québec, but it keeps being used. What we propose is
to adjust the model according to the territories concerned and their features. The SOC scale should be variable,
depending on the size of the territory. The smaller the territory, the smaller the SOCs should be. Since the MFFP’s
goal is to designate them as worksites, they should be adaptable and should allow for sustainable use of the land over
the entire stand rotation. There should therefore be between 40 and 60 compartments per wildlife territory, to allow for
applied use that is realistic, useful, close to people and suited to the actual use of the region’s land. The proposed 16
square kilometre average is problematical for the outfitters, but may have benefits for some larger-scale territories. If
we take a territory of 1200 km2 and divide it into 60 compartments, each compartment measures 20 km2. But if we
take a territory of 115 km2 and divide it into 20 km2 SOCs, we obtain only five or six compartments, and even worse if
we take the smallest outfitter in 74-51 and apply the same method, we end up with only 2.5 SOCs. We remain
unconvinced that it will be possible to apply a single rule and obtain a type of forestry that will develop all the area’s
economic activities in an effective, sustainable way, with due regard for our issues.
The compartments must respect territorial boundaries at all times. Substitutions should be allowed only for small,
physically enclosed areas and those that are otherwise inaccessible. In any case, serious road planning is needed
before delimiting sectors or worksites. We should stop thinking in terms of one or two worksites and have a vision
based on timber basins and a medium to long-term future. Some regions of Québec have adopted this delimitation
method, so it is certainly possible when the decision-makers are open to it. We are not saying anything new when we The choice of target size is based on ecological and economic criteria and on a compromise to facilitate forestry planning.
point out that the issue of boundary crossings is primordial for the wildlife territories. Delimitation depends first on physical boundaries, to foster operational timber basins and reduce the number of roads,
which fragment the area. A SOC is a planning unit selected at disturbance level by cutting, to reduce spatial organization
The SOC proposal as presented does not differences with the natural forest by reproducing serious natural disturbances (fires, insect epidemics and windfall)
address the issues faced by outfitters in 74- (Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (en préparation). Intégration des enjeux écologiques dans les plans
51. d’aménagement forestier intégré, Cahier 3.2.1 — Organisation spatiale des forêts dans les domaines bioclimatiques de la
sapinière — Orientations pour la planification tactique et opérationnelle, Québec, Gouvernement du Québec, Direction de
l’aménagement et de l’environnement forestiers).
ISSUES CLARIFICATION
PREDICTABILITY Ability to predict the condition of the area, the In addition, regional agreements continue to apply, including the Outaouais panel resolution limiting the creation of new
potential tourism supply, investments, developments access points in structured wildlife territories.
and operating conditions
ADAPTABILITY Adaptation to change, ability to modify the product, Priority provincial criteria were given to use, but as complements, and wherever possible we considered other important
the supply and the user base while maintaining an regional criteria, including structured wildlife territory boundaries.
adequate level of activity and reputation.
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS Status before, during and after forestry operations.
Ability to offer a satisfactory experience, sell
packages, manage harvests, develop activity sites,
ensure safety, etc.
OBLIGATIONS AND REPUTATIONS Management of wildlife, customer satisfaction,
reputation of the destination and the enterprise,
value of the enterprise, customer retention, etc.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OWER Ensure that future generations will be able to benefit
from every outfitter lease (outfitter with exclusive
rights, OWER), stable, viable conditions for the
exercise of rights, etc.
ACCESSIBILITY MANAGEMENT Associated with development potential, operational
conditions and exercise of lease rights (sea plane,
poaching, peace and quiet, theft, etc.).
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 7Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
Abbreviations and Acronyms
BC Block cutting
SOC Spatial organization compartment
CPRS Cutting with protection of regeneration and soils
Km Kilometre
MFFP Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs
RSDF Regulation respecting the sustainable development of forests in the domain of
the State
SWT Structured wildlife territory
The Outaouais integrated regional land and resource management panel
Panel
DU Development unit
TRU Territorial reference unit
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 8Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
5. Conclusion
The purpose of this public consultation was to give the population an opportunity to express its views on
the departure from block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils for the period 2018
to 2023. It was of benefit to both the MFFP and to the RCMs and third parties concerned.
The members of the Outaouais integrated regional land and resource management panel will read this
report and use it as a basis to propose harmonization measures to the MFFP. The MFFP will assess the
validity of the panel’s recommendations and will draw up its final forestry plans in light of the
recommendations is retains, with due regard for the development strategy and legal framework.
Given the important role of the integrated regional land and resource management panels in the forestry
planning process, the MFFP invites individuals to contact their representatives if they so wish. The list of
members can be found on the panel’s website at www.trgirto.ca.
The Direction de la gestion des forêts de l’Outaouais thanks all its partners, everyone who played a role
in preparing the tactical plan (PAFIT) and everyone who took part in the public consultation.
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 9Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
6. References
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (en préparation). Intégration des enjeux
écologiques dans les plans d’aménagement forestier intégré, Cahier 3.2.1 — Organisation
spatiale des forêts dans les domaines bioclimatiques de la sapinière — Orientations pour la
planification tactique et opérationnelle, Québec, Gouvernement du Québec, Direction de
l’aménagement et de l’environnement forestiers.
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 10Substitution of block cutting and cutting with protection of regeneration and soils in the fir forest – DU 073-52
Appendix 1. Members of the Outaouais integrated regional land and resource management
panel
Name Sector group Organization
Stephane Taillon Timber Louisiana-Pacifique
Dominik Chartier Timber Resolute Forest Products
Christian Picard Timber Commonwealth Plywood
Charles St-Julien Timber Lauzon Ressources forestières
François Poirier Wildlife Territoire de pêche et de chasse Poirier
Abigaël Guénette Wildlife Regroupement des zecs de l’Outaouais
Frédéric Lussier Wildlife Sepaq - Réserve faunique La Vérendrye
Pierre Rollin Wildlife Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs
de l’Outaouais
Étienne St-Onge Other users with rights Forestry worker
Jacques David Other users with rights Regroupement des locataires des terres publiques
du Québec
Alain Lacoste Other users with rights Private citizen
Jacques Chaîné Other users with rights Fédération québécoise des clubs Quads
François Saumure Other users with rights Fédération des clubs de motoneigistes du Québec
Geneviève Le Blanc Nature Société pour la nature et les parcs
Section Vallée de l’Outaouais
Gérard Desjardins Nature Club des ornithologues de l’Outaouais (COO)
Paula Armstrong Nature Pontiac Environmental Protection
Nathalie Magnan Nature Conseil régional de l’environnement et du
développement durable de l’Outaouais
Jason Durand Land MRC de Pontiac
Dominic Lauzon Land MRC de la Vallée-de-la-Gatineau
Siège vacant Land MRC des Collines-de-l’Outaouais
Jean-François Larrivée Land MRC de Papineau
Vacant seat Land MRC de la Vallée-de-l’Or
Vacant seat First Nations Kitcisakik Anicinapek
Vacant seat First Nations Barriere Lake Algonquins
Vacant seat First Nations Anishnabe Nation of Lac Simon
Vacant seat First Nations Wolf Lake Community
Name (replacement) Sector group Organization
François Racine Timber Louisiana-Pacific
Jean-Sébastien Perron Timber Lauzon Ressources forestières
Jonathan Leblond Wildlife Fédération des pourvoyeurs du Québec
Michel Boucher Wildlife Association provinciale des trappeurs
indépendants, Conseil Outaouais
Yannick Dufour Wildlife Société des établissements de plein air du Québec
Lucien Léveillé Wildlife Regroupement des zecs de l’Outaouais
Pierre Beaudoin Other users with rights Regroupement des locataires des terres publiques
du Québec
Pierre Tremblay Other users with rights Fédération des clubs de motoneigistes du Québec
John McDonnell Nature Société pour la nature et les parcs
Deborah Powell Nature Club des ornithologues du l’Outaouais
Michael H. Walker Nature Pontiac Environnemental Protection
Benoit Delage Nature Conseil régional de l’environnement et du
développement durable de l’Outaouais
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 11You can also read
