## #Description of the distribution areas of local populations of woodland caribou, forest ecotype, in Quebec The data represent the ranges of the 13 local populations and two areas of knowledge acquisition of woodland caribou, a forest ecotype in Quebec (hereinafter forest caribou). The file contains the polygons and the name assigned to each population or knowledge acquisition sector, the period covered by the telemetry data used during the delimitation exercise, and the date these boundaries were last updated. The information contained in the file of occurrences of species in a precarious situation of the Quebec Natural Heritage Data Center (CDPNQ) is also present in the file (CDPNQ occurrence number, French, English and scientific name of the species, the type of occurrence, the rank of precariousness [rank S] and the status under the Act Respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Species, see MELCCFP 2023 for a description of these fields.). ## #Contexte The Ministry of the Environment, the Fight against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks (hereinafter MELCCFP) is responsible for the monitoring and management of forest caribou in Quebec (Government of Quebec, 2021 a). In 2017-2018, the MELCCFP improved its monitoring activities in order to obtain an accurate and up-to-date portrait of the situation of the various populations on its territory (see [Literature review on the factors involved in the decline of caribou populations in Quebec, Government of Quebec] (https://consultation.quebec.ca/rails/active_storage/blobs/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBjZz09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--45f10ff67d1f9e80ca714b08f984b5965760abd3/RevueLitterature_CaribouVF.pdf), 2021 b). The local population has been identified as the appropriate monitoring and management scale for this species since each population may face different threats depending on the habitat and socio-economic context in which it is found (Environment Canada, 2008). It is within this framework that the work to identify and delimit the distribution areas of forest caribou populations carried out in 2021-2022 is part of. The local population is defined as a group of caribou occupying a defined territory that is spatially distinct from the territories occupied by other caribou groups. The dynamics of the local population are determined primarily by local factors influencing birth and mortality rates, rather than by the contributions or losses resulting from immigration or emigration between groups. Therefore, the ranges of local forest caribou populations in this file are defined as the geographic area where a group of individuals exposed to similar factors influencing their demographics live and which meets the needs of their life cycle over a given period of time (e.g. calving, rutting, wintering). Note that for the two knowledge acquisition sectors, Baie-James and Matamec, the number of caribou monitored and the temporal scale of monitoring do not allow to date clearly conclude that they are distinct local populations or to associate these caribou with an adjacent population. ## #Méthodologie in short The forest caribou populations in Charlevoix and Val-d'Or were excluded from the following manipulations, as their geographic isolation is sufficient to demonstrate that they are local populations distinct from other caribou groups. A minimal convex polygon was made using 100% of telemetry data from 2004-2012 and 2017-2021 for the population of Charlevoix and from 1986 to 2020 for that of Val-d'Or. For other forest caribou populations, telemetry data from collars placed on caribou by the MELCCFP and various partners (Université Laval, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Hydro-Québec, Government of Ontario and Government of Ontario and Government of Newfoundland and Labrador) were used to identify and delimit the distribution areas of local populations. The data ranges from 2001 to 2021, but the period covered by the data varies by sector of study (see field: Layer tempo for information). Forest caribou populations in Quebec were identified by assigning caribou monitored by telemetry to a population using the fuzzy classification method (*c-mean fuzzy clustering*; Schaefer et al., 2001; Schaefer et al., 2001; Schaefer and Wilson, 2002). This method aims to unite individuals into groups in order to maximize the distance between members of distinct groups and to minimize the distance between members of the same group. Centroids from individual home ranges were used in this analysis. The ranges were delineated by creating minimal convex polygons including 100% of caribou locations (100% MCP) assigned to a population. For the Baie-James sector, the area was delimited by removing the overlaps between the area inventoried in 2020 (Szor and Gingras, 2020) and the distribution areas of the surrounding local populations. For the Matamec sector, the area represents the non-overlap between the distribution area of the local population of the Lower North Shore and a minimal convex polygon encompassing all telemetry data for caribou in the Matamec sector and the local Lower North Shore population. The acquisition of knowledge on the distribution of caribou and the presence of distinct populations continues in the Baie-James sector (Nord-du-Québec) and the Matamec sector (Côte-Nord). The last update was made in 2021-2022. ## #Mise on guard and limitations of data use: * The ranges of forest caribou populations in Quebec in this file represent the state of knowledge on land use by caribou between 2001 and 2021. * The ranges of the Detour and Nottaway populations overlap both the province of Quebec and that of Ontario, while the ranges of the populations Caniapiscau, Lower North Shore, Lac Joseph and Joir River also straddle the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Only the portion of the ranges of forest caribou populations in the province of Quebec is presented in the file. * Information on the ranges of local populations does not make it possible to establish with certainty that caribou is absent in territories outside the ranges. * The ranges represent areas where it is likely to find caribou belonging to the same population. They do not make it possible to identify the sectors used more or less strongly by caribou in this population or the sectors used by caribou to move within the range or from one population to another (connectivity sectors). * The ranges are subject to change, depending on the new telemetry data that will be acquired, the refinement of our local knowledge and the modifications of land use patterns by caribou. ## #Littérature Environment Canada. 2008. Scientific review for the identification of critical habitat for the boreal population of woodland caribou (*Rangifer tarandus caribou*) in Canada. August 2008. Ottawa: Environment Canada. 80 pp. + 192 p. appendices Government of Quebec. 2021 a. Monitoring system for forest caribou populations in Quebec and mountain caribou in Gaspésie 2020-2031: summary document, Ministry of Forests, Wildlife and Parks, Directorate of Expertise on Terrestrial Wildlife, Herpetofauna and Avifauna, 16 pp. Government of Quebec. 2021 b. Literature review on the factors involved in the decline of forest caribou populations in Quebec and mountain caribou in Gaspésie, Ministry of Forests, Wildlife and Parks, Directorate of Expertise on Terrestrial Wildlife, Herpetofauna and Avifauna, 244 pp. + 15p. appendices Ministry of the Environment, the Fight against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks (MELCCFP). 2023. The Quebec Natural Heritage Data Center — Information document, Government of Quebec, Quebec, 32 pp. Schaefer, J.A., Veitch, A.M., Harrington, F.H., Harrington, F.H., Brown, W.K., Theberge, J.B., & Luttich, S.N. 2001. Fuzzy structure and spatial dynamics of a declining woodland caribou population. *Oecologia*, 126 (4), 507—514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420000555 Schaefer, J.A., & Wilson, C. C. 2002. The fuzzy structure of populations. *Canadian Journal of Zoology*, 80 (12), 2235—2241. https://doi.org/10.1139/z02-184 Szor, G, and G. Gingras. 2020. Aerial inventory of forest caribou (*Rangifer tarandus caribou*) in the James Bay, Rupert and La Grande sectors, Nord-du-Québec, in winter 2020, Ministry of Forests, Wildlife and Parks, Direction de la gestion de la fauna du Nord-du-Québec, 31 p.**This third party metadata element was translated using an automated translation tool (Amazon Translate).**

## #Mise with caution and limitations of data use: * ** The report by Lesmerises and St-Laurent (2018) must be cited when using this file (see Literature section). ** * The distribution area of the mountain caribou population of Gaspesia in this file represents the state of knowledge on the use of land by montane caribou between 1988 and 2016. * Information on the distribution of the Gaspesie mountain caribou population in this file represents the state of knowledge on land use by montane caribou between 1988 and 2016. * Information on the distribution of the Gaspesie mountain caribou population in this file represents the state of knowledge on the use of land by montane caribou between 1988 and 2016. * Information on the distribution of the Gaspesie mountain caribou population in this file represents the state of knowledge on land use by mountain caribou between 1988 and 2016. * Information on the distribution of local population does not allow us to establish with certainty that caribou are absent in territories outside of this range. * The range is subject to change, depending on the new telemetry data that will be acquired, the refinement of our local knowledge and the changes in the patterns of land use by caribou. ## #Description of the range of the local population of woodland caribou, mountain ecotype, population of Gaspesie The data represent the range of woodland caribou, mountain ecotype, population of Gaspesie (hereinafter mountain caribou of Gaspesie). The file contains the polygon and the name assigned to the population, the period covered by the telemetry data used during the delimitation exercise, and the date of the last update. The information contained in the file of occurrences of species in a precarious situation of the Quebec Natural Heritage Data Center (CDPNQ) is also present in the file (CDPNQ occurrence number, French, English and scientific name of the species, the type of occurrence, the rank of precariousness (rank S) and the status under the Act Respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Species, see MELCCFP 2023 for a description of these fields.). ## #Contexte of the publication The Ministry of the Environment, the Fight against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks (hereinafter MELCCFP) is responsible for the monitoring and management of mountain caribou in Gaspésie (Government of Quebec, 2021 a, b). The local population has been identified as the appropriate monitoring and management scale for this species since each population may face different threats depending on the habitat and socio-economic context in which it is found (Environment Canada, 2008). The local population is defined as a group of caribou occupying a defined territory that is spatially distinct from the territories occupied by other caribou groups. The dynamics of the local population are determined primarily by local factors influencing birth and mortality rates, rather than by the contributions or losses resulting from immigration or emigration between groups. As a result, the distribution area of the local population of mountain caribou in Gaspésie is defined as the geographic area where a group of individuals exposed to similar factors influencing their demographics live and which meets the needs of their life cycle during a given period of time (e.g. calving, rutting, wintering). In 2018, Lesmerises and St-Laurent produced the report *Influence of the rate of habitat disturbance, regional coyote abundance, and predator control on the demographic parameters of the Gaspesia-Atlantic caribou population* report presented to the Canadian Wildlife Service (Environment Canada). One of the objectives of the report was to delineate the range of this population. The MELCCFP uses the distribution area delimited by Lesmerises and St-Laurent (2018) as part of the monitoring and management of mountain caribou in Gaspésie. For any questions related to the Lesmerises and St-Laurent report (2018), please contact Mr. St-Laurent ([Martin-hugues_St-laurent@uqar.ca] (mailto: Martin-hugues_St-laurent@uqar.ca)). ## #Méthodologie in a nutshell The methodology below is a summary of that described in Lesmerises and St-Laurent (2018). Telemetry data from three follow-ups carried out during different periods of time were used (1988-1991, 1998-2008 and 2013-2016). The caribou were equipped with VHF collars during the first two follow-ups. Aerial flights were carried out at various times in order to locate the caribou. During the follow-up from 2013 to 2016, the caribou were equipped with GPS/Argos collars programmed to acquire locations every 2 or 3 hours depending on the collar model used. The range of the mountain caribou population in Gaspesie was defined by estimating a minimum convex polygon comprising 99% of telemetry locations plus a 10 km buffer zone. Finally, the parts superimposed on the St. Lawrence River were removed. ## #Littérature Environment Canada. 2008. Scientific review for the identification of critical habitat for the boreal population of woodland caribou (*Rangifer tarandus caribou*) in Canada. August 2008. Ottawa: Environment Canada. 80 pp. + 192 pp. appendices. Government of Quebec. 2021 a. Monitoring system for forest caribou populations in Quebec and mountain caribou in Gaspésie 2020-2031: summary document, Ministry of Forests, Wildlife and Parks, Directorate of Expertise on Terrestrial Wildlife, Herpetofauna and Avifauna, 16 pp. Government of Quebec. 2021 b. Literature review on the factors involved in the decline of forest caribou populations in Quebec and mountain caribou in Gaspésie, Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction of expertise on terrestrial fauna, herpetofauna and avifauna, 244 pp. + 15p. appendices Lesmerises, F. and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2018. Influence of the rate of habitat disturbance, regional coyote abundance, and predator control on the demographic parameters of the caribou population in Gaspesia-Atlantique. Scientific report submitted to Environment Canada — Canadian Wildlife Service, Rimouski (Quebec). 22 pp. + 8 appendices. Ministry of the Environment, the Fight against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks (MELCCFP). 2023. The Quebec Natural Heritage Data Center — Information document, Government of Quebec, Quebec, 32 pp.**This third party metadata element was translated using an automated translation tool (Amazon Translate).**

## Information document concerning the results of threat analysis This document provides additional information to better understand, use, and appreciate the threat data produced as part of the integrated recovery approach. These highlight the sectors where threats have the most significant impacts on the occurrences of the [Quebec Natural Heritage Data Center (CDPNQ)] (https://www.quebec.ca/gouvernement/gouvernement-ouvert/transparence-performance/indicateurs-statistiques/donnees-especes-situation-precaire). # #Quelles data included in the analyses? The analyses target the following 36 wildlife elements (species): * Amphibians: swamp frog, western chorus frog, four-toed salamander, purple salamander (Adirondack and Appalachian pop.), mountain dusky salamander (Appalachian pop.), dusky mountain salamander (Appalachian pop.), northern dusky salamander; * Mammals: pygmy weasel, Cooper's lemming vole, rock vole, northern bat, eastern pygmy bat, eastern pygmy bat, little flying squirrel (pop. from the plains of the Great Lakes), small brown bat, eastern pipistrelle; * Birds: falcon Peregrine anatum/tundrius, tundrius piping plover, melodus piper plover, bald eagle; * Fish: mad cat, copper redhorse, river knight, northern sunfish, sand stinger, gray rock digger, rock digger, rock digger, northern rock digger, northern lamprey, northern lamprey, grass minnow, brass minnow; * Reptiles: northern collared snake, brown snake, northern watersnake, spotted snake, green snake, spiny softshell turtle, wood turtle, geographic turtle, blanding turtle, musky turtle. Other species could be added to the analyses, including floristic species and migratory bird species protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (S.C. 1994, c. 22). Threats: Threats are activities that, by their location, intensity, or time in which they occur, generate stress (see next section) that affects elements of biodiversity. In total, the available data concern 14 threats: * Dense residential and urban areas; * Dense residential and urban areas; * Open air garbage dumps and storage; * Ski resorts; * Annual agriculture (field crops); * Perennial agriculture; * Perennial agriculture; * Other agriculture; * Other agriculture; * Other agriculture; * Other agriculture; * Other agriculture; * Other agriculture; * Open pit mining; * Open pit mines; * Quarries and sand pits; * Total removal of forest cover; * Partial removal of forest cover; * Artificial regeneration of stands; * Burden of nutrients; * Boating. Stress: Threat-induced stress represents the mechanism by which the threat affects biodiversity. The threats monitored are, with some exceptions, those that induce two types of stress: ecosystem conversion and ecosystem degradation. The following stresses are not considered in these analyses: individual mortality (except for boating), indirect effects on the ecosystem (fragmentation), and life cycle disturbance (disturbance; except for boating). For example, the results presented consider the degradation of the ecosystem linked to sustainable agriculture, but not the mortality of individuals caused by mowing (e.g. in wood turtles or short-eared owls). # #Méthode of impact calculation * The method used to calculate the impact on occurrences is presented in the document Integrated Recovery Approach for Threatened or Vulnerable Species — Development of a New Tool for Conservation Planning; * For the values of grid squares for a given threat, the layer represents a 10 km x 10 km grid in which the threat impact ratings for each occurrence are added together. The color of the grid squares gets darker and darker when the cumulative impact values are higher. # #Quelle is standardized classification used for analysis? The threats analyzed were defined according to the Standardized Classification of Threats Affecting Biodiversity — Definitions for the Quebec Conservation Data Center (CDC) v1.0 published in 2021. # #D 'where does the analysis data come from? The list of data sources used to analyze threats based on the given stress (a threat can be followed by more than one data source when it is responsible for more than one stress) can be downloaded here below.**This third party metadata element was translated using an automated translation tool (Amazon Translate).**

Sightings data were collected by the Mingan Island Cetacean Study (MICS) from 1980 to 2008 with annual surveys realised in the Gulf of St. Lawrence between the end of may and early november. Surveys were conducted using inflatable boats enabling the close approaches necessary to photograph and biopsy blue whales. The aim of this project was to provide additional information for designating blue whale critical habitat as required under the Canadian Species at Risk Act. For more details consult the following report: Ramp, C. and Sears, R. 2013. Distribution, densities, and annual occurrence of individual blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada from 1980-2008. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/157. vii + 37 p. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2012/2012_157-eng.html Data of blue whale sightings, collected by the MICS, have been analysed per km of effort in 3 x 3 km grid cells in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for the 2000-2008 period.