Page 1
The Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage Site Planning Area: Global and Canadian Boreal/
Regarding Key Ecological Criteria
By: Peter Lee
In consideration of the Pimachiowin Aki plannning area as a potential World Heritage Site, significant ecological aspects of the area from a global Boreal and Taiga Biome perspective include:
1) Freshwaters2) Soil organic carbon3) Representattice land and tree cover4) Southern location
Significant ecological aspects of the area from a Canadian Boreal and Taiga Ecozones perspective include:
1) Freshwaters2) Overall boreal/taigi biodiversity3) Bird species diversity4) Woodland caribou5) Soil organic carbon6) Southern location7) Intact forest landscapes.
Page 3
2
The Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage Site Planning Area: Global and Canada Boreal/Taiga Perspectives
Regarding Key Ecological Criteria
Prepared for Pimachiowin Aki Corporation
By:
Peter Lee
Matt Hanneman
©Global Forest Watch Canada, 2010
Cover Design: Jeannette Gysbers
Map Design and Layout: Matt Hanneman
Citation: Lee PG and M Hanneman. 2010. The Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage Site Planning
Area: Global and Canada Boreal/Taiga Perspectives Regarding Key Ecological Criteria.
Global Forest Watch Canada. International Year of Sustainable Development for All
Publication No. 4. 139 pp.
Page 5
4
Table of Contents
Section 1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 12
4BBackground ................................................................................................................... 12 UNESCO’s requirements for comparative analysis ..................................................... 12 5BPimachiowin Aki –Planning Area ................................................................................ 13
17BGlobal Boreal Perspectives ....................................................................................... 18 18B19BCanada Boreal/Taiga Ecozones and Boreal Shield Ecozone Perspectives ............... 18 Pimachiowin Aki Comparison with other Potential World Heritage Sites in the
Boreal/Taiga Biome .................................................................................................. 18
1BSection 2. Methods .......................................................................................................... 19
8BStudy Areas ................................................................................................................... 19 The Data ........................................................................................................................ 19
Notes on the Data ...................................................................................................... 19 List of Key Geospatial Data of Ecological Criteria Used in This Report ................. 20 Other Datasets ........................................................................................................... 21
11BAnalyses ........................................................................................................................ 22 20BGlobal and Canada Boreal Shield perspectives ........................................................ 22 21BConservation Values Index of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes .......................... 22
2BSection 3. Results ............................................................................................................. 26
12BGlobal Perspectives ....................................................................................................... 26 22BFreshwaters and Freshwater Density by Watershed ................................................. 26 23BLand Cover................................................................................................................ 31 24BTree Density .............................................................................................................. 37 25BSoil organic carbon ................................................................................................... 41
13BCanada Boreal/Taiga Ecozones and Boreal Shield Perspective ................................... 44 26BFreshwater Surface Area, Shoreline Length and Aquatic Density by Watershed .... 45
27BLand Cover................................................................................................................ 50 28BTree Density .............................................................................................................. 60 29BSoil Organic Carbon ................................................................................................. 65 31BBiodiversity in Canada and in Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes .......................... 69 32BKey focal species (woodland caribou) ...................................................................... 78
14BGross Anthropogenic Land Surface Impacts and Intact Forest Landscapes................. 80
35BGlobal ........................................................................................................................ 80
36BCanada....................................................................................................................... 89 38BProtected Areas ........................................................................................................... 114
Global Protected Areas ........................................................................................... 114
Canada Protected Areas .......................................................................................... 115 Examples of Comparable World Heritage Sites (Inscribed and Tentative in
Boreal/Taiga Biome) ................................................................................................... 116
Global Comparables (using global data)................................................................. 117
Page 6
5
Canada Comparisons (using detailed data) ............................................................. 129
Other potential comparables but for which no spatial data was located or site is
likely not in Boreal/Taiga Biome ............................................................................ 135
3BSection 4. Conclusions .................................................................................................. 136
15BSignificant/Outstanding aspects of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area from a global
Boreal/Taiga Biome perspective ................................................................................. 136 39B40BAA. Freshwaters ........................................................................................................ 136 41BB. Soil Organic Carbon ........................................................................................... 136 42BC. Representative land cover and tree cover ........................................................... 136 D. Southern Location .............................................................................................. 136
16BSignificant/Outstanding aspects of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area from a Canada
Boreal/Taiga Ecozones perspective and a Canada Boreal Shield perspective ........... 137 43BA. Freshwaters ........................................................................................................ 137 B. Overall Boreal/Taiga Biodiversity ..................................................................... 137 C. Bird Species Diversity ........................................................................................ 137 D. Woodland Caribou ............................................................................................. 138 E. Soil Organic Carbon ........................................................................................... 138 F. Southern Location ............................................................................................... 138 G. Intact Forest Landscapes .................................................................................... 138
List of Maps
Map 1. Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage site planning area 14
Map 2. Pimachiowin Aki site planning area within the Boreal Shield Ecozone and within
the globe’s Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome 15
Map 3. Pimachiowin Aki project planning area within the three continents containing the
globe’s Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome 16
Map 4. Freshwaters of the world’s Boreal/Taiga Biome 28
Map 5. Freshwater density by watershed of the World’s Boreal/Taiga Biome 29
Map 6. Freshwater density by watershed of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 30
Map 7. Land cover of the world’s Boreal/Taiga Biome 35
Map 8. Land cover (generalized) of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 36
Map 9.Tree density categories of the world’s Boreal/Taiga Biome 39
Map 10.Tree density categories of the of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 40
Page 7
6
Map 11. Soil Organic Carbon of the World’s Boreal/Taiga Biome 43
Map 12. Canada’s Boreal/TaigaEcozones, Boreal Shield Ecozone and the Pimachiowin
Aki planning area 44
Map 13.Freshwaters of Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone 46
Map 14. Freshwater density by watershed of Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone 47
Map 15. Freshwaters of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 48
Map 16. Freshwater density by watershed of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 49
Map 17. Land cover of Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone 58
Map 18. Land cover of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 59
Map 19a. Tree density categories of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, Boreal Shield
Ecozone and Pimachiowin Aki 62
Map 19b. Map 19b. Tree density categories of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, Boreal
Shield Ecozone and Pimachiowin Aki 63
Map 20. Tree density categories of Pimachiowin Aki 64
Map 21. Soil Organic Carbon content of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 67
Map 22. Soil Organic Carbon content of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 68
Map 23. Overall biodiversity of Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and within the
Pimachiowin Aki planning area 72
Map 24. Bird diversity of Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and within the Pimachiowin
Aki planning area 73
Map 25. Mammal diversity of Canada, Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and of the
Pimachiowin Aki planning area 74
Map 26. Bird diversity of Canada, Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and of the
Pimachiowin Aki planning area 75
Map 27. Reptile/Amphibian diversity of Canada, Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and of
the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 76
Map 28. Tree diversity of Canada, Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and of the
Pimachiowin Aki planning area 77
Page 8
7
Map 29. Woodland caribou current occurrence of Canada, Canada’s Boreal Shield
Ecozone and of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 79
Map 30. Nightlight of the Circum-Boreal/Taiga Biome and of the Pimachiowin Aki
planning area 81
Map 31. Nightlight of North America, Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and of the
Pimachiowin Aki planning area 82
Map 32. Nightlight of Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and of the Pimachiowin Aki
planning area 83
Map 33. Human footprint of the Circum-Boreal/Taiga Biome and of the Pimachiowin
Aki planning area 85
Map 34. The Largest 3 Intact Forest Landscapes of the Circum-Boreal/Taiga Biome
88
Map 35. Cumulative anthropogenic access of the Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and of
the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 92
Map 36. Cumulative anthropogenic access of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 93
Map 37. Intact Forest Landscapes of the Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and of the
Pimachiowin Aki planning area 96
Map 38. Soil Organic Carbon within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes 103
Map 39. Net Biome Productivity within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes 104
Map 40. Wetlands within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes 105
Map 41. Lakes and rivers within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes by watershed 106
Map 42.Potential Old-growth Forests within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes by
watershed 107
Map 43. Bird species within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes 108
Map 44. Reptile and amphibian species within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes 109
Map 45. Mammal species within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes 110
Map 46. Tree species within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes 111
Page 9
8
Map 47. Caribou occurrence within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes 112
Map 48. Combined Conservation Values within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscape 113
Map 49. Protected Areas (IUCN I-IV) within Circum-Boreal/Taiga Biome 114
Map 50. Protected Areas within Canada 115
Comparable Sites
Map 51a. Pimachiowin Aki: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 118
Map 51b. Pimachiowin: Aki Soil Organic Carbon 118
Comparable Sites: Sweden
Map 52a.High Coast: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 119
Map 52b. High Coast: Soil Organic Carbon 119
Comparable Sites: Russian Federation
Map 53a. Central Lake Baikal: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 120
Map 53b. Lake Baikal: Soil Organic Carbon 120
Map 54a. Central Sikhote-Alin: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 121
Map 54b. Central Sikhote-Alin: Soil Organic Carbon 121
Map 55a. Nature Park “Lena Pillars:” Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 122
Map 55b. Nature Park “Lena Pillars:” Soil Organic Carbon 122
Map 56a. Virgin Komi: Forest: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 123
Map 56b. :Virgin Komi Forest: Soil Organic Carbon 123
Map 57a. :Volcanoes: of Kamchatka: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 124
Map 57b. :Volcanoes: of Kamchatka: Soil Organic Carbon 124
Page 10
9
Comparable Sites: Canada (using global data)
Map 58a. Gros Morne: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 125
Map 58b. Gros Morne: Soil Organic Carbon 125
Map 59a. Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini: Freshwaters and Intact
Forest Landscapes 126
Map 59b. Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini: Soil Organic Carbon
126
Map 60a. Nahanni: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 127
Map 60b. Nahanni: Soil Organic Carbon 127
Map 61a. Wood Buffalo: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 128
Map 61b. Wood Buffalo: Soil Organic Carbon 128
Comparable Sites: Canada (using detailed data)
Map 62a. Pimachiowin Aki: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 130
Map 62b. Pimachiowin: Aki Soil Organic Carbon 130
Map 63a. Gros Morne: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 131
Map 63b. Gros Morne: Soil Organic Carbon 131
Map 64a. Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini: Freshwaters and Intact
Forest Landscapes 132
Map 64b. Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini: Soil Organic Carbon
132
Map 65a. Nahanni: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 133
Map 65b. Nahanni: Soil Organic Carbon 133
Map 66a. Wood Buffalo: Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes 134
Map 66b. Wood Buffalo: Soil Organic Carbon 134
Page 11
10
List of Tables
Table 1a. Conservation Values Index for Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes: the seven
key ecological values and their categorization and ranking 24
Table 1b. Conservation Values Index for Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes: the four key
species groups and their categorization and ranking 25
Table 2. Freshwater area and freshwater density by watershed of the World’s
Boreal/Taiga Biome and of Pimachiowin Aki 27
Table 3. Land Cover of the World’s Boreal/Taiga Biome and of Pimachiowin Aki 34
Table 4.Tree density categories of the World’s Boreal/Taiga Biome and of Pimachiowin
Aki 37
Table 5. Soil Organic Carbon of the World’s Boreal/Taiga Biome and of Pimachiowin
Aki 42
Table 6a. Freshwater area and freshwater density by watershed of Canada’s Boreal Shield
Ecozone and of Pimachiowin Aki 45
Table 6b. Freshwater area, shoreline length and shoreline length density of Canada’s
Boreal Shield Ecozone and of Pimachiowin Aki 45
Table 7. Land Cover of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, Boreal Shield Ecozone and of
Pimachiowin Aki 56
Table 8. Tree density categories of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, Boreal Shield
Ecozone and Pimachiowin Aki 61
Table 9. Soil organic content of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, Canada’s Boreal
Shield Ecozone and Pimachiowin Aki 65
Table 10. Number of common, endangered, threatened and vulnerable taxa in the dataset
70
Table 11. Biodiveristy of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, the Boreal Shield Ecozone
and the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 70
Table 12. Intact Forest Landscapes 87
Table 13. Cumulative anthropogenic access within Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones,
Boreal Shield Ecozone and the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 91
Table 14. Intact forest landscapes of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, Boreal Shield
Ecozone and the Pimachiowin Aki planning area 95
Page 12
11
Table 15. Comparison of World Heritage Sites (Inscribed and Tentative in Boreal/Taiga
Biome) using three ecological values ( Freshwaters, Soil Organic Carbon and Intact
Forest Landscapes) 116
List of Figures
Figure 1. Hierarchy of scales used in this report (global, boreal/taiga, Canadian, boreal
shield ecozone, and site-specific) regarding key ecological criteria 17
Figure 2. Proportion of Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome Land Cover by Continent 33
Figure 3. Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome and Pimachiowin Aki Land Cover by Continent
33
Page 13
12
Section 1. Introduction
4BBackground
Pimachiowin Aki Corporation is assembling various data and information and
undertaking analysis with the objective of understanding and describing both the
“representative” character and the possible unique or outstanding values of the
Pimachiowin Aki landscape ecosystem in the context of the Boreal Shield ecozone, the
broader boreal forest in North America and Canada and the boreal forest globally. This
information is used to develop a nomination document for submission to the World
Heritage Committee seeking inscription of lands within the Pimachiowin Aki planning
area as a World Heritage Site.
Global Forest Watch Canada (GFWC) was retained to develop maps and analyses of
focused natural or ecosystem aspects of the area that can contribute to a better
understanding of Pimachiowin Aki’s characteristics and values and in this manner
supports the World Heritage Site nomination processes. In addition, GFWC has included
some comparative analysis with other existing and potential World Heritage Sites
throughout the world’s Boreal / Taiga Biome.
UNESCO’s requirements for comparative analysis
A comparative analysis with other existing and potential World Heritage Sites is
necessary to demonstrate Pimachiowin Aki’s Outstanding Universal Value in terms of
the natural values.The basic UNESCO document regarding World Heritage Sites is called
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention,
January 2008 edition (UNESCO 2008).1 It says in its section on requirements for the
nomination:
Paragraph 132.3 Justification for Inscription: This section shall indicate the
World Heritage criteria (see Paragraph 77) under which the property is
proposed, together with a clearly stated argument for the use of each criterion.
Based on the criteria, a proposed Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (see
paragraphs 49- 53and 155) of the property prepared by the State Party shall
make clear why the property is considered to merit inscription on the World
Heritage List. A comparative analysis of the property in relation to similar
properties, whether or not on the World Heritage List, both at the national and
international levels, shall also be provided. The comparative analysis shall
explain the importance of the nominated property in its national and international
context. Statements of integrity and/or authenticity shall be included and shall
1 UNESCO. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris:
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, 2008.
Page 14
13
demonstrate how the property satisfies the conditions outlined in paragraphs 78-
95.
This general statement is followed up in more detail by the two advisory bodies to the
World Heritage Committee, namely the IUCN – The World Conservation Union
(regarding natural criteria), and ICOMOS – the International Council on Monuments and
Sites (regarding cultural criteria).
The IUCN committee says, in part, (IUCN 2007):2
Some key principles to be considered in preparing a global Comparative Analysis are:
- The analysis should be as rigorous and objective as possible and should always
maintain a global scope, keeping aside issues of “national pride” (e.g. “this
property is the best in the country”) which could distort the objectivity of the
analysis.
- It should be supported by the best scientific information available both at the
national and international levels. Grey literature, such as unpublished reports
and management documents, can be used as long as copies of the articles and
publications are referenced in the nomination file.
- Thematic studies should be referred to where they exist, but as background
context for the development of a full analysis.
- The use of global assessments on conservation priorities, such as Conservation
International’s Biodiversity Hotspots or WWF’s 200 Ecoregions, is very useful
and can provide valuable information on the importance of a property. However,
they have not been specifically prepared to respond to the question of outstanding
universal value. For the purpose of preparing a Global Comparative Analysis it is
recommended to give priority to the use of global assessments that can assist in
defining how unique a property is at the global level.
5BPimachiowin Aki –Planning Area
The Pimachiowin Aki Planning Area (Map 1) encompasses 42,505 km2 The area includes
two provincial parks, Atikaki in Manitoba and Woodland Caribou in Ontario, which are
adjacent to and overlapping with extensive First Nation traditional lands.
It is important to keep in mind that the boundaries of an area to be nominated have yet to
be determined. First Nation community land use plans and studies such as this one will
guide and support the development of the area to be proposed for nomination.
The Pimachiowin Aki planning area lies within the southern portion of the world’s
Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome (Maps 2 and 3). Due to differing boreal region boundaries in
Canada, the Pimachiowin Aki planning area lies within the Boreal Shield Ecozone (Map
2).There is only 14.5% (2.2 million km2) of the world’s Boreal / Taiga Biome south of
2 IUCN. World Heritage Nominations for Natural Properties. Gland: IUCN, 2007.
Page 15
14
the northern boundary of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area (53.35 North), 9.8% of this
amount lies in Canada and 2.7% of that portion in Canada (40,147 km2) is within the
Pimachiowin Aki planning area.
There are likely at least two important issues regarding this area’s global, hemispheric
and national positioning within the southern portion of the world’s Boreal Forest / Taiga
Biome:
1. UAnthropogenic impacts U: Southern portions of the Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome are
more heavily impacted by anthropogenic activities than northern portions as they
generally provide the greatest opportunities for renewable resource (e.g., logging
and agriculture) extraction and use, which results in more anthropogenic access;
2. UBiodiversityU: Southern portions of the Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome have the
highest concentrations of above-ground diversity of species of mammals, birds,
reptiles and amphibians, but have, in many cases, lower populations of some
individual species (e.g., woodland caribou, wolverine).
Map 1. Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage site planning area.
Page 16
15
Ma
p 2
. P
ima
ch
iow
in A
ki p
roje
ct
pla
nn
ing
are
a w
ith
in th
e B
ore
al S
hie
ld E
cozo
ne
and
within
th
e g
lob
e’s
Bo
rea
l F
ore
st
/ T
aig
a B
iom
e.
Page 17
16
Ma
p 3
. P
ima
ch
iow
in A
ki p
roje
ct
pla
nn
ing
are
a w
ith
in th
e th
ree
con
tine
nts
con
tain
ing
the
glo
be
’s B
ore
al F
ore
st /
Taig
a B
iom
e.
Page 18
17
6BSpecific Purpose of This Project
To map and analyze the Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage Site planning area in the
context of a hierarchy of scales: global, boreal/taiga, Canadian, boreal shield ecozone,
and site-specific perspectives regarding key ecological criteria (Figure 1) and to compare
the Pimachiowin Aki site to a selection of other potential World Heritage Sites in the
Boreal/Taiga Biome.
Figure 1. Hierarchy of scales used in this
report (global, boreal/taiga, Canadian, boreal
shield ecozone, and site-specific) regarding
key ecological criteria.
Page 19
18
7BSelected Key Ecological Criteria
A short list of five key ecological values was selected based on the availability of global
geospatial data and an additional set of three key ecological values were selected for the
Canada Boreal/Taiga and Boreal Shield perspectives. From a global and Canada
boreal/taiga perspective, these ecological values include: physical and biological values,
and a selection of land cover, aquatic and terrestrial values. Based on the results of the
analyses using these values, three key ecological values were selected that indicate the
global significance of the Pimachiowin Aki site in order to compare Pimachiowin Aki
with a selection of other potential World Heritage sites in the Boreal/Taiga Biome.
The key ecological criteria that were selected for this mapping and analysis project
include:
17BGlobal Boreal Perspectives
- Freshwater surface area;
- Freshwater density by watershed;
- Land cover;
- Tree density;
- Soil organic carbon.
18B19BCanada Boreal/Taiga Ecozones and Boreal Shield Ecozone Perspectives
Same as Global Boreal Perspectives, plus:
- Bird Species Diversity;
- Biodiversity (Trees, Birds, Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians);
- Key focal species (woodland caribou).
In addition, the Gross Anthropogenic Land Surface Impacts (Human Footprint) and Intact
Forest Landscapes were assessed using the datasets on gross anthropogenic land surface
impacts and intact forest landscapes. Detailed analyses of key ecological values and a
Conservation Values Map within the intact forest landscapes of Canada’s Boreal Shield
Ecozone were also conducted.
Pimachiowin Aki Comparison with other Potential World Heritage Sites in the Boreal/Taiga Biome
- Freshwater
- Soil organic carbon
- Intactness
Page 20
19
1BSection 2. Methods
8BStudy Areas
- UPimachiowin Aki: U This study area is defined and geospatial data supplied by the
Pimachiowin Aki Corporation and primarily includes two provincial parks –
Atikaki Provincial Park (Manitoba), Woodland Caribou Provincial Park (Ontario)
– and five First Nations territories-Pikangikum, in Ontario and Poplar River,
Pauingassi, Little Grand Rapids and Bloodvein River in Manitoba.
- UGlobal Boreal/Taiga Biome: U This study area includes the Boreal/Taiga Biome as
defined and mapped by World Wildlife Fund (Available
at: HUhttp://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/item1267.html UH). The
geospatial dataset is available
at: HUhttp://www.worldwildlife.org/science/data/item6373.html U.
- UCanada Boreal/Taiga Ecozones: Consists of these seven ecozones: Boreal Shield,
Boreal Plains, Boreal Cordillera, Taiga Shield, Taiga Plains, Taiga Cordillera,
Hudson Plains, as defined and mapped by Government of Canada, Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, Ecological Stratification Working Group (Available
at: HUhttp://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/intro.html).
- Canada Boreal Shield Ecozone: As defined and mapped by Government of
Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ecological Stratification Working
Group (Available at: HUhttp://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/intro.html UH).
The Data
Notes on the Data
Why were these data selected?
In several cases, different datasets were used depending on the scale. For example, the
global intact forest landscapes dataset was used for the global perspective while the more
detailed, up-to-date intact forest landscapes dataset was used for the Canada perspective:
similarly for land cover, freshwater surface area, shoreline length, aquatic density by
watershed, boreal/taiga boundaries. However, there are challenges in obtaining equally
reliable spatial data of similar resolution to represent these key ecological values. And
there is a paucity of global geospatial data.
There is a need, in studies such as this, for equivalent-scale data to make global and
national comparisons.
Page 21
20
What are some of the resolution and other issues associated with the
data?
- Generalized landcover categories;
- Often mis-categorizations of local areas;
- Coarse scale;
- Generalized range distribution for species.
List of Key Geospatial Data of Ecological Criteria Used in This Report
Biodiversity: K Freemark, H Moore, DM Forsyth, ARE Sinclair, D White, T Barrett, RL
Pressey. 1999. Identifying Minimum Sets of Conservation Sites for Representing
Biodiversity in Canada: A Complementarity Approach. (Available
at: Hhttp://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/download/Ecosystems/ H)
Freshwater Surface Area and Aquatic Density by Watershed: Lehner, B. and P. Döll
(2004): Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and
wetlands. Journal of Hydrology 296/1-4: 1-22. Available
at: Hhttp://www.worldwildlife.org/science/data/item1877.html H)
Hydrosheds (for defining major rivers): B Lehner, K Verdin, Andy Jarvis. 2008.
HydroSHEDS. Technical Documentation. Version 1.1 (Available
at: Hhttp://www.worldwildlife.org/science/projects/freshwater/item1991.html
Key Focal Species (woodland caribou): Woodland caribou range: Canadian BEACONs
Project, University of Alberta. 2007. Occurrence of Woodland and Barren-Ground
Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and Herds of Woodland Caribou in the Boreal Region of
Canada. PDF map available
at: Hhttp://www.beaconsproject.ca/PDFs/BEACONs%20Caribou%20Map%20061407.pdf
Land cover: Two datasets were used, one for the Global and North America perspective
(Hansen, M., R. DeFries, J.R.G. Townshend, and R. Sohlberg (1998), UMD Global Land
Cover Classification, 1 Kilometer, 1.0, Department of Geography, University of
Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 1981-1994. Global Land Cover
Facility, Hwww.landcover.orgH) and one for the Canada perspective (Multi-temporal land
cover maps of Canada using NOAA AVHRR 1-km data from 1985-2000. Available
at: Hhttp://www.geogratis.ca/geogratis/en/download/thematic0.html H).
Net Biome Productivity: Dataset from Dr. Jing Chen. 2007. University of Toronto. (pers.
comm.)
Potential Old-growth Forests: Derived from two data sources: 1) Land cover of Canada:
Multi-Temporal Land Cover Maps of Canada using NOAA AVHRR 1-km data from
1985-2000. Available at: Hhttp://www.geogratis.ca/geogratis/en/download/thematic0.html H.
Page 22
21
2) Fire: Canadian Forestry Service/Canadian fire management agencies (Yukon, Birtish
Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, Newfoundland and
Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island). 2003. National Fire
Database (NFDB). (Pers. comm., Canadian Forestry Service)
Soil organic carbon: Dataset available on request from C. Tarnacoi from paper: C.
Tarnocai, J. G. Canadell, E. A. G. Schuur, P. Kuhry, G. Mazhitova, and S. Zimov. 2009.
Soil organic carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 23. 11 pp.
Tree cover: DeFries, R., M. Hansen, J.R.G. Townshend, A.C. Janetos, and T.R. Loveland.
2000. Kilometer Tree Cover Continuous Fields. Version: 1.0. Department of Geography,
University of Maryland. College Park, Maryland. Product Coverage Date: 1992-1993.
Available at: http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/data/treecover/
Watersheds: HYDRO1k Elevation Derivative Database. 2010. Earth Resources
Observation and Science (EROS) Center. Available
at: Hhttp://eros.usgs.gov/#/Find_Data/Products_and_Data_Available/gtopo30/hydro
Wetlands: Peatlands of Canada database; Tarnocai, C; Kettles, I M; Lacelle, B.
Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 4002, 2002.
Other Datasets
Protected Areas
- Global Protected Areas: World Database on Protected Areas. 2010. 2010 WPDA
Annual Release. Available at: Hhttp://www.wdpa.org/Default.aspx
- Canada Protected Areas: Lee, P. and R. Cheng. 2011. Canada’s Terrestrial
Protected Areas Status Report 2010: Number, Area and Naturalness. Edmonton,
Alberta: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2011 Year of Forests Publication #5. 67
pp.. Available at: Hwww.globalforestwatch.caH)
Gross Anthropogenic Land Surface Disturbances and Intact Forest Landscapes
- Human Footprint/Cumulative Access: Two datasets were used, one for the Global
and North America perspective (EW Sanderson, M Jaiteh, MA Levy, KH Redford,
AV Wannebo, and G Woolmer. The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild.
BioScience October 2002 / Vol. 52 No. 10. 891-904. Available
at: Hhttp://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/wild_areas/ H) and one for the Canada
perspective (Lee PG, Hanneman M, Gysbers JD, Cheng R. 2010. Cumulative
access in Canada’s forest ecozones. Edmonton, Alberta: Global Forest Watch
Canada 10th Anniversary Publication #2. 7 pp. Available
at: Hwww.globalforestwatch.ca H.
Page 23
22
- Intact Forest Landscapes: Two datasets were used, one for the Global and North
America perspective (Potapov P., Yaroshenko A., Turubanova S., Dubinin M.,
Laestadius L., Thies C., Aksenov D., Egorov A., Yesipova Y., Glushkov I.,
Karpachevskiy M., Kostikova A., Manisha A., Tsybikova E., Zhuravleva I. 2008.
Mapping the World's Intact Forest Landscapes by Remote Sensing. Ecology and
Society, 13 (2). Available at: Hhttp://www.intactforests.org/data.ifl.html H) and one
for the Canada perspective (PG Lee, Smith W, Hanneman M, Gysbers JD, Cheng
R. 2010. Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes. Edmonton, Alberta: Global
Forest Watch Canada 10th Anniversary Publication #1. 70 pp. Available
at: Hwww.globalforestwatch.ca H).
Conservation Values Index of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes
- Conservation Values Index of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes: Available on
request from Global Forest Watch Canada ( [email protected] H).
11BAnalyses
20BGlobal and Canada Boreal Shield perspectives
All global datasets selected for this project were analyzed from the global, North
America, Canada and Pimachiowin Aki perspectives. The additional Canada-specific
datasets were analyzed from the Canada Boreal/Taiga, Canada Boreal Shield and
Pimachiowin Aki perspectives.
21BConservation Values Index of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes
As the Conservation Values Index of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes has not yet been
published by Global Forest Watch Canada, a description of the development of this index
follows:
Global Forest Watch Canada’s approach in developing a Conservation Values Index of
Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes involved the following steps. (We have noted in
italics areas where this approach likely requires improvement.).
- Canada’s forest landscapes that remain ecologically intact (>50,000 ha) and the
remaining intact forest landscape fragments (5,000-50,000 ha for boreal ecozones;
1,000-50,000 ha for temperate ecozones) were initially selected as the primary
units of analysis.
- A short list of seven key ecological values (Soil Organic Carbon; Net Biome
Productivity; Species Diversity - Combined Trees, Birds, Mammals, Reptiles and
Page 24
23
Amphibians; Key focal species – woodland caribou; Potential Old-growth;
Aquatic density per watershed, and; Wetlands) (see Table 1) was selected based
on the availability of geospatial data. These ecological values included: physical
and biological components, a range of species groups, a focus on climate
amelioration values, a selection of wetland, aquatic and terrestrial values.
It is important to emphasize that there are other ecological values that may be
considered “key” and for which there is available geospatial data (e.g.,
topographic diversity). In addition, there are challenges in obtaining equally
reliable spatial data of similar resolution to represent these key ecological values.
They could, indeed, be misleading with respect to prioritizing conservation efforts.
This is one reason why we are presenting this merely as an approach.
- Data for each of the seven key ecological values was acquired and clipped to the
boundary of intact forest landscapes and the intact forest landscape fragments,
subjected to a ranking process, and assigned into a 1- km grid. The resulting
values were then combined into a single conservation value index.
Overlaying datasets of vastly differing resolutions reduces the validity of the
resulting product.
- Each of the seven key ecological values were ranked (see Ranking column in
Tables 1a and 1b), based on an assumed even spread of relative ecological values
(see Categories column in Tables 1a and 1b), between 1 (lowest in ecological
value) and 5 (highest in ecological value). For all seven ecological values, ranks
were determined by classifying their particular unit of measurement into a
maximum of 5 quantile classes (each class, or quantile, contains an approximately
equal number, or count, of features).
There are many other categorization options (e.g., equal interval; standard
deviation; natural breaks). This approach is subject to scrutiny without a strong
justification of the rankings based on relative ecological values. For example, the
justification for equating a Rank 1 of carbon with a Rank 1 of number of species
of trees would need to be explicitly documented.
- The ranked ecological values were then combined into a single conservation value
index by summing their geographical coincidence. In other words, the 1 km grids
of each ecological value were overlayed and added to calculate the combined
value.
There is an implicit bias when the values are combined into a single index. For
example, a portion of caribou range that intersects other values receives a high
ranking but loses its value for caribou if treated in isolation.
Page 25
24
- The resulting range of numerical sums within the conservation value index grid
was then grouped into five quantile classes in order to illustrate focal areas that
may warrant enhanced conservation and stewardship attention.
Some indicators were not mapped because broad-scale inventories (i.e., at the
scale of interest of this atlas) are either not logistically feasible or just haven’t
been undertaken in enough localized areas.
Table 1a and b. Conservation Values Index for Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes
Table 1a. The seven key ecological variables and their categorization and ranking..
Table 1b below.
Page 26
25
Table 1b.The four key species groups and their categorization and ranking.
Page 27
26
2BSection 3. Results
12BGlobal Perspectives
Five key ecological values were mapped and analyzed:
- Freshwater surface area;
- Freshwater density by watershed;
- Land cover;
- Tree density;
- Soil organic carbon.
22BFreshwaters and Freshwater Density by Watershed
The global Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome contains 614,560 km2 (61,456,037 ha) of large
waterbodies ≥ 0.1 km2 (Table 2 and Maps 4 and 5). Even though North America’s Boreal
Forest / Taiga Biome is only 2/3 (67.4%) the size of Asia’s, it contains almost four times
the area of large waterbodies at 405,947 km2). Large waterbodies comprise 8.0% of the
Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome of North America, 1.6% of Asia’s and 3.7% of Europe’s.
Large waterbodies comprise a larger portion of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area (Map
6), at 9.5%, than for the globe’s Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome as a whole and than for any
continent’s Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome.
Similarly, substantially greater percentages of the watersheds within the Pimachiowin
Aki planning area (Map 6) have a large portion of their area as large waterbodies – 20%
for the Pimachiowin Aki planning area versus 14.5% for North America, 3.5% for Asia
and 6.8% for Europe (Map 5).
The Data
Freshwater Surface Area and Aquatic Density by Watershed:
Source: World Wildlife Fund. Available
at: Hhttp://www.worldwildlife.org/science/data/item1877.html H).
Reference: Lehner, B. and P. Döll (2004): Development and validation of a global
database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. Journal of Hydrology 296/1-4: 1-22.
This dataset is comprised of two levels of attributed data: Level 1 (GLWD-1) and Level
2 (GLWD-2). Level 2 (GLWD-2) is comprised of the shoreline polygons of permanent
open water bodies with a surface area ≥ 0.1 km2, excluding the waterbodies contained in
GLWD-1. The approx. 250,000 polygons of GLWD-2 are attributed as lakes, reservoirs
and rivers. GLWD-1 comprises the shoreline polygons of the 3067 largest lakes (area ≥
Page 28
27
50 km2) and 654 largest reservoirs (storage capacity ≥ 0.5 km
3) worldwide. It is important
to keep in mind that there are much more detailed freshwater datasets at a national level
for Canada, however, a globally-consistent dataset was required to make global
comparisons.
Watersheds Data Source
Source: World Wildlife Fund. (Available
at: Hhttp://www.worldwildlife.org/science/projects/freshwater/item1991.html.
Reference: B Lehner, K Verdin, Andy Jarvis. 2008. HydroSHEDS. Technical
Documentation. Version 1.1.
Table 2. Freshwater area and freshwater density by watershed of the World’s Boreal/Taiga Biome and of
Pimachiowin Aki.
Boreal/Taiga region
Total Boreal/Taiga area (ha)
Area of water bodies
1 (ha)
% of region
% of Boreal/ Taiga biome
3
# of watersheds
2
# watersheds 0-5% covered by water
# watersheds 5-15% covered by water
# watersheds >15% covered by water
North America 508,325,474 40,594,670 8.0 2.7 1624 832 556 236
Asia 753,668,765 11,960,322 1.6 0.8 2314 2007 226 81
Europe 239,305,545 8,901,046 3.7 0.6 718 549 120 49
Total 1,501,299,784 61,456,037 4.1 4.1 4656 3388 902 366
Pimachiowin Aki 4,226,554 401,437 9.5 0.0 29 11 12 6
1Water bodies extracted from WWF Global Lakes and Wetlands Database GLWD - Level 1 and 2:
Lehner, B. and P. Döll (2004): Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. Journal of Hydrology 296/1-4: 1-22.
NOTE: Level 1 (GLWD-1) comprises the shoreline polygons of the 3067 largest lakes (area ≥ 50 km2) and 654 largest reservoirs (storage capacity ≥ 0.5 km3) worldwide, and includes extensive attribute data. Level 2 (GLWD-2) comprises the shoreline polygons of permanent open water bodies with a surface area ≥ 0.1 km2 excluding the waterbodies contained in GLWD-1. The approx. 250,000 polygons of GLWD-2 are attributed as lakes, reservoirs and rivers.
Hhttp://www.worldwildlife.org/science/data/item1877.html
2Global watersheds from HYDRO1K
database:
Hhttp://eros.usgs.gov/#/Find_Data/Products_and_Data_Available/gtopo30/hydro
3WWF Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World:
Citation: Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. D'Amico, I. Itoua, H.E. Strand, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Loucks, T.F. Allnutt, T.H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J.F. Lamoreux, W.W. Wettengel, P. Hedao, and K.R. Kassem. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth (PDF, 1.1M) BioScience 51:933-938.
Hhttp://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/item1267.html
Page 29
28
Map 4
. F
reshw
ate
rs o
f th
e w
orld
’s B
ore
al/T
aig
a B
iom
e.
Page 30
29
Ma
p 5
. F
resh
wate
r d
en
sity b
y w
ate
rshe
d o
f th
e W
orld
’s B
ore
al/T
aig
a B
iom
e.
Page 31
30
Ma
p 6
. F
resh
wate
r d
en
sity b
y w
ate
rshe
d o
f th
e P
ima
chio
win
Aki pla
nnin
g a
rea.
Page 32
31
23BLand Cover
The dataset used for global land cover contains 14 land cover types (Figures 2 and 3,
Table 3 and Map 7). Globally, there are three dominant land cover types that, together,
comprise 65.4% of all land cover types in the Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome – Woodlands,
Wooded Grassland/Shrubland and Evergreen Needleleaf Forest (order of dominance)
(see Definitions below). In North America, the same three land cover types comprise
70.1% of all land cover types, but in a different order of dominance -- Woodland,
Evergreen Needleleaf Forest and Wooded Grassland/Shrubland.
Two land cover types comprise 84.0% of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area – Evergreen
Needleleaf Forest (45.9%) and Woodlands (38.1%) (Figure 3; Map 8). This is reflective
of the southern boreal positioning of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area.
The Data
Source: Global Land Cover Facility: Available at: www.landcover.org.
Reference: MC. Hansen, RS Defries, JRG. Townshend and R Sohlberg. Global land
cover classification at 1 km spatial resolution using a classification tree approach. Int. J.
Remote Sensing, 2000, vol. 21, no. 6 & 7, 1331–1364.
Definitions of the three major land cover types (in order of dominance)
Woodlands: lands with herbaceous or woody understories and tree canopy of >40% and
<60%. Trees exceed 5m in height and can be either evergreen or deciduous.
Wooded Grasslands/Shrublands: lands with herbaceous or woody understories and tree
canopy cover of >10% and <40%. Trees exceed 5m in height and can be either evergreen
or deciduous.
Evergreen Needleleaf Forests: lands dominated by trees with a per cent canopy
cover >60% and height exceeding 2m. Almost all trees remain green all year. Canopy is
never without green foliage.
Definitions of the 14 land cover types:
Evergreen Needleleaf Forests: lands dominated by trees with needle leaves and a per
cent canopy cover >60% and height exceeding 5m. Almost all trees remain green all year.
Canopy is never without green foliage.
Evergreen Broadleaf Forests: lands dominated by trees with needle leaves and a per
cent canopy cover >60% and height exceeding 5m. Almost all trees remain green all year.
Canopy is never without green foliage.
Page 33
32
Deciduous Needleleaf Forests: lands dominated by trees with needle leaves and a per
cent canopy cover >60% and height exceeding 5m. Trees shed their leaves
simultaneously in response to cold seasons.
Deciduous Broadleaf Forests: lands dominated by trees with needle leaves and a per
cent canopy cover >60% and height exceeding 5m. Trees shed their leaves broad
simultaneously in response to dry or cold seasons.
Mixed Forests: lands dominated by trees with a per cent canopy cover >60% and height
exceeding 5m. Consists of tree communities with inter- interspersed mixtures or mosaics
of needleleaf and broadleaf forest types. Neither type has <25% or >75% landscape
coverage.
Woodlands: lands with herbaceous or woody understories and tree canopy cover of >40%
and <60%. Trees exceed 5m in height and can be either evergreen or deciduous.
Wooded Grasslands/Shrublands: lands with herbaceous or woody understories and tree
canopy cover of >10% and <40%. Trees exceed 5m in height and can be either evergreen
or deciduous.
Closed Bushlands or Shrublands: lands dominated by bushes or shrubs. Bush and
shrub per cent canopy cover is >40%. Bushes do not exceed 5m in height. Shrubs or
bushes can be either evergreen or deciduous. Tree canopy cover is <10%. The remaining
cover is either barren or herbaceous.
Open Shrublands: lands dominated by shrubs. Shrub canopy cover is >10% and <40%.
Shrubs do not exceed 2m in height and can be either evergreen or deciduous. The
remaining cover is either barren or of annual herbaceous type.
Grasslands: lands with continuous herbaceous cover and <10% tree or shrub canopy
cover.
Croplands: lands with >80% of the landscape covered in crop-producing fields. Note
that perennial woody crops will be classified as the appropriate forest or shrubs land
cover type.
Barren: lands of exposed soil, sand, rocks, snow or ice which never have more than 10%
vegetated cover during any time of the year.
Urban and Built-up: land covered by buildings and other man-made structures. Note
that this class will not be mapped from the AVHRR imagery but will be developed from
the populated places layer that is part of the Digital Chart of the World (Danko 1992).
Water bodies: oceans, seas, lakes, reservoirs, and rivers. Can be either fresh or salt water.
Page 34
33
Figure 2. Proportion of Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome Land Cover by Continent.
Figure 3. Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome and Pimachiowin Aki Land Cover by Continent.
Proportion of Boreal/Taiga land cover by continent
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Wat
er
Everg
reen
Nee
dlelea
f For
est
Everg
reen
Bro
adleaf
For
est
Dec
iduo
us N
eedlelea
f For
est
Dec
iduo
us B
road
leaf F
ores
t
Mixed
For
est
Woo
dlan
d
Woo
ded
Gra
ssland
Close
d Shr
ubland
Ope
n Shr
ubland
Gra
ssland
Cro
plan
d
Bare
Gro
und
Urb
an a
nd B
uilt
North America
Europe
Asia
Boreal/Taiga by percent land cover
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Wate
r
Eve
rgre
en N
eedlelea
f For
est
Eve
rgre
en B
road
leaf F
ores
t
Deci
duou
s Nee
dleleaf
For
est
Deci
duou
s Bro
adlea
f Fore
st
Mixed
Fore
st
Wood
land
Wood
ed G
rass
land
Clo
sed S
hrubl
and
Ope
n Shr
ubland
Gra
ssland
Cro
plan
d
Bar
e Gro
und
Urb
an a
nd Built
Perc
en
t o
f B
ore
al/
Taig
a l
an
d c
over
are
a
Asia
Europe
North America
Pimachiowin Aki
Page 35
34
Table 3. Land Cover of the World’s Boreal/Taiga Biome and of Pimachiowin Aki.
Boreal Biome2 Asia Europe North America Pimachiowin Aki
Land Cover1 Area (km
2) Area (km
2)
% of continent
% of biome land cover Area (km
2)
% of continent
% of biome land cover Area (km
2)
% of continent
% of biome land cover Area (km
2)
% of Pim. Aki
% of biome land cover
Water 692,157 166,799 2.2 24.1 127,535 5.4 18.4 397,823 7.8 57.5 3,484 8.2 0.5 Evergreen Needleleaf Forest 2,742,784 1,068,653 14.0 39.0 503,160 21.2 18.3 1,170,971 23.0 42.7 19,476 45.9 0.7 Evergreen Broadleaf Forest 19 19 0.0 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 Deciduous Needleleaf Forest 514,132 513,973 6.7 100.0 159 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 Deciduous Broadleaf Forest 74,792 20,023 0.3 26.8 46,666 2.0 62.4 8,103 0.2 10.8 0 0.0 0.0
Mixed Forest 1,232,890 567,312 7.4 46.0 405,775 17.1 32.9 259,803 5.1 21.1 73 0.2 0.0
Woodland 3,968,517 1,892,640 24.9 47.7 601,824 25.4 15.2 1,474,053 28.9 37.1 16,153 38.1 0.4
Wooded Grassland 3,153,127 1,801,843 23.7 57.1 423,140 17.8 13.4 928,144 18.2 29.4 2,819 6.6 0.1
Closed Shrubland 1,192,169 680,381 8.9 57.1 38,371 1.6 3.2 473,417 9.3 39.7 77 0.2 0.0
Open Shrubland 621,506 367,253 4.8 59.1 35,526 1.5 5.7 218,727 4.3 35.2 0 0.0 0.0
Grassland 738,323 475,488 6.2 64.4 109,263 4.6 14.8 153,572 3.0 20.8 363 0.9 0.0
Cropland 101,569 46,646 0.6 45.9 51,982 2.2 51.2 2,941 0.1 2.9 4 0.0 0.0
Bare Ground 49,545 11,099 0.1 22.4 24,993 1.1 50.4 13,453 0.3 27.2 0 0.0 0.0
Urban and Built 7,318 3,376 0.0 46.1 3,729 0.2 51.0 213 0.0 2.9 0 0.0 0.0
Total 15,088,848 7,615,505 100.0 50.5 2,372,123 100.0 15.7 5,101,220 100.0 33.8 42,449 100.0 0.3
1AVHRR Global Land Cover Classification
Citation: Hansen, M., R. DeFries, J.R.G. Townshend, and R. Sohlberg (1998), UMD Global Land Cover Classification, 1 Kilometer, 1.0, Department of Geography, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 1981-1994.
Source: Global Land Cover Facility, www.landcover.org.
2WWF Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World:
Citation: Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. D'Amico, I. Itoua, H.E. Strand, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Loucks, T.F. Allnutt, T.H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J.F. Lamoreux, W.W. Wettengel, P. Hedao, and K.R. Kassem. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth (PDF, 1.1M) BioScience 51:933-938.
Hhttp://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/item1267.html
Page 36
35
Ma
p 7
. L
an
d c
ove
r o
f th
e w
orld
’s B
ore
al/T
aig
a B
iom
e.
Page 37
36
Ma
p 8
. L
an
d C
ove
r (g
en
era
lize
d)
of th
e P
imach
iow
in A
ki p
lan
nin
g a
rea
.
Page 38
37
24BTree Density
The global tree density dataset was categorized into 6 classes (<10%; 10-24%; 25-49%;
50-74%; >75%; non-vegetated) (Table 4 and Map 9). Globally, 53.4% of the Boreal
Forest / Taiga Biome has a tree density of 25-74% while 49.1% of North America’s
Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome has a tree density of 25-74%, and 68.7% of the Pimachiowin
Aki planning area has a tree density of 25-74% (Map 10). Pimachiowin Aki planning
area has more of its area covered by high density tree cover (>75%) at 18.3%, than
Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones (10.4%). The higher tree density in the Pimachiowin
Aki planning area is reflective of its location in the southern Boreal Taiga.
The Data
Source: Global Land Cover Facility (GLCF): Available at:
http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/data/treecover/.
Reference: DeFries, R., M. Hansen, J.R.G. Townshend, A.C. Janetos, and T.R. Loveland
(2000), 1 Kilometer Tree Cover Continuous Fields, 1.0, Department of Geography,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 1992-1993.
Data Description
Characterization of terrestrial vegetation from the Advanced Very High Resolution
Radiometer (AVHRR) on the global to regional scale has traditionally been accomplished
using classification schemes with discrete numbers of vegetation classes. Representation
of vegetation into a limited number of homogeneous classes does not account for the
variability within land cover, nor does the portrayal recognize transition zones between
adjacent cover types. An alternative paradigm to describing land cover as discrete classes
is to represent land cover as continuous fields of vegetation characteristics using a linear
mixture model approach. This prototype data set contains 1km cells estimating:
1. Percent tree cover: Percentage cover for two layers representing leaf longevity
(evergreen and deciduous)
2. Percentage cover for two layers estimating leaf type
(broadleaf and needleleaf)
Each pixel in the layers has a value between 10 and 80 percent. These layers can be
directly used as parameters in models or aggregated into more conventional land cover
maps.
Page 39
38
Table 4.Tree density categories of the World’s Boreal/Taiga Biome and of Pimachiowin Aki.
Boreal Biome2 Asia Europe North America Pimachiowin Aki
Tree cover1 Area (km
2) Area (km
2)
% of continent
% of biome land cover Area (km
2)
% of continent
% of biome land cover Area (km
2)
% of continent
% of biome land cover Area (km
2)
% of Pim. Aki
% of biome land cover
<10% 2,968,903 1,669,301 21.9 56.2 273,459 11.5 9.2 1,026,143 20.1 34.6 1,540 3.6 0.1
10-24% 2,023,777 950,525 12.5 47.0 223,591 9.4 11.0 849,661 16.7 42.0 2,928 6.9 0.1
25-49% 4,024,902 2,105,837 27.7 52.3 568,332 24.0 14.1 1,350,733 26.5 33.6 9,712 22.9 0.2
50-74% 4,022,806 2,076,665 27.3 51.6 794,207 33.5 19.7 1,151,934 22.6 28.6 19,405 45.8 0.5
>75% 1,705,563 737,830 9.7 43.3 435,174 18.3 25.5 532,559 10.4 31.2 7,774 18.3 0.5
Non-vegetated 341,795 74,491 1.0 21.8 76,973 3.2 22.5 190,331 3.7 55.7 1,014 2.4 0.3
Total 15,087,746 7,614,649 100.0 50.5 2,371,736 100.0 15.7 5,101,361 100.0 33.8 42,373 100.0 0.3
1Tree Cover Continuous Fields
Citation: DeFries, R., M. Hansen, J.R.G. Townshend, A.C. Janetos, and T.R. Loveland (2000), 1 Kilometer Tree Cover Continuous Fields, 1.0, Department of Geography, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 1992-1993
Source: Global Land Cover Facility, www.landcover.org.
2WWF Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World:
Citation: Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. D'Amico, I. Itoua, H.E. Strand, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Loucks, T.F. Allnutt, T.H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J.F. Lamoreux, W.W. Wettengel, P. Hedao, and K.R. Kassem. Te rrestrial Ecoregions of the Wo rld: A New Map of Life on Earth. BioScience 933 51 (11).
Hhttp://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/item1267.html
Page 40
39
Ma
p 9
.Tre
e d
ensity c
ate
go
r
ies o
f th
e W
orld
’s B
ore
al/T
aig
a B
iom
e.
Page 41
40
Ma
p 1
0.T
ree
den
sity c
ate
go
ries o
f th
e o
f th
e P
ima
ch
iow
in A
ki p
lann
ing
are
a.
Page 42
41
25BSoil organic carbon
It is estimated that nearly 30% of the earth’s soil organic carbon is locked in tundra and
boreal ecosystems.3 Approximately 75% of Canada consists of these ecosystems, which
suggests that Canada contains a very significant portion of the world’s stored carbon.
Most of the organic carbon found in Canadian soils occurs at mid and high latitudes
(northward from the southern limit of the boreal forest) where cryosolic and organic soils
dominate. Since much of Canada’s boreal and taiga is covered by intact forest
landscapes, these areas are important repositories of soil organic carbon, especially in
peatlands. Consequently, soil organic carbon was selected as a key ecological value.
Map 11 illustrates the distribution of soil organic carbon within the world’s Boreal/Taiga
Biome and within the Pimachiowin Aki site (Table 5). The distribution of carbon in soils
is identified as kilograms of carbon per square metre and is classified into five categories.
The average Soil Organic Content of the Pimachiowin planning area is higher than for
Asia, Eurpoe and North America’s Boreal/Taiga Biome (Table 5).
The western portion of the Pimachiowin Aki site has a significantly high amount of Soil
Organic Carbon in comparison to most of the rest of the Boreal/Taiga Biome.
The Data
Source: Global Gridded Surfaces of Selected Soil Characteristics (IGBP-DIS). Available
at: http://webmap.ornl.gov/wcsdown/wcsdown.jsp?dg_id=569_1.
Reference: Global Soil Data Task Group. 2000. Global Gridded Surfaces of Selected Soil
Characteristics (IGBP-DIS). [Global Gridded Surfaces of Selected Soil Characteristics
(International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme - Data and Information System)]. Data
set. Available on-line [http://www.daac.ornl.gov] from Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A.
These data surfaces were generated using data from the 6 miscellaneous FAO land units:
DS (dunes or shifting sands), ND (no data), RK (rock debris or desert detritus), ST (salt
flats), WR (inland water or ocean) and GL (glacier). The Global Gridded Surfaces of
Selected Soil Characteristics (IGBP-DIS) data set contains 7 data surfaces: soil-carbon
density, total nitrogen density, field capacity, wilting point, profile available water
capacity, thermal capacity, and bulk density.
All the surfaces are global, at a resolution of 5x5 arc-minutes, in ASCIIGRID format for
ARC INFO. Each file contains a single ASCII array in a geographic (lat/long) projection.
The ascii files consist of header information containing a set of keywords, followed by
cell values in row-major order.
3 Natural Resources Canada. 2007. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations. Sensitivities to Climate Change in Canada:
Soil Organic Carbon. Online at: http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/sensitivities/8_e.php
Page 43
42
These data surfaces were generated by the SoilData System, which was developed by the
Global Soil Data Task of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Data
and Information Services (DIS). The SoilData System generates soil information and
maps for geographic regions at soil depths and resolutions selected by the user. Derived
surfaces of selected soil characteristics are suitable for modeling and inventory purposes.
The data surfaces are also distributed as part of the Global Soil Data Products CD-ROM.
The SoilData System uses a statistical bootstrapping approach to link the pedon records
in the Global Pedon Database to the FAO/UNESCO Digital Soil Map of the World. It can
generate maps and output data sets for a range of original and derived soil parameters,
such as carbon and nitrogen density, thermal conductivity, and water-holding capacity,
for any part of the world at user-selected depth ranges. The digital output can be at any
resolution (in increments of 5').
Table 5. Soil Organic Carbon of the World’s Boreal/Taiga Biome and of Pimachiowan Aki.
Region Total Area (km
2) SOC
1 mass (t)
Average SOC content (kg/m
2)
Asia 7,528,893 163,696,203,163 21.7
Europe 2,271,211 62,546,652,608 27.5
North America 4,853,896 125,618,828,480 25.9
Pimachiowin Aki 41,874 1,262,429,914 30.1
1GLOBAL GRIDDED SURFACES OF SELECTED SOIL CHARACTERISTICS (IGBP-DIS)
Global Soil Data Task Group. 2000. Global Gridded Surfaces of Selected Soil Characteristics (IGBP-DIS). [Global Gridded Surfaces of Selected Soil Characteristics (International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme - Data and Information System)]. Data set. Available on-line [http://www.daac.ornl.gov] from Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A. doi:10.3334/ORNLDAAC/569
Page 44
43
Ma
p 1
1.
Soil
Org
an
ic C
arb
on
co
nte
nt
of
the o
f th
e P
imach
iow
in A
ki p
lan
nin
g a
rea
.
Page 45
44
13BCanada Boreal/Taiga Ecozones and Boreal Shield Perspective
Map 12 shows the location of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area within Canada’s boreal
Shield Ecozone.
Eight key ecological values were mapped and analyzed:
- Freshwater surface area;
- Freshwater density by watershed;
- Land cover;
- Tree density;
- Soil organic carbon.
- Bird Species Diversity;
- Biodiversity (Trees, Birds, Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians);
- Key focal species (woodland caribou).
Map 12. Canada’s Boreal/TaigaEcozones, Boreal Shield Ecozone and the Pimachiowin Aki planning area.
Page 46
45
26BFreshwater Surface Area, Shoreline Length and Aquatic Density by Watershed
Freshwaters comprise 9.5% of Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and a very similar
percentage (8.8%) of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area (Tables 6a and 6b; Maps 13 to
16). This means the Pimachiowin Aki planning area is very representative of Canada’s
Boreal Shield from the aspect of freshwater area. Similarly with shoreline length,
Pimachiowin Aki planning area is very representative of Boreal Shield (4.8 m/ha and 4.6
m/ha, respectively).
Table 6a. Freshwater area and freshwater density by watershed of Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and of
Pimachiowin Aki.
Region Total area (ha) Area of water bodies
1 (ha) % of region
# of watersheds
2
# watersheds
0-5% covered by
water
# watersheds
5-15% covered by
water
# watersheds
>15% covered by
water
Boreal Shield Ecozone 188,647,741 17,931,130 9.5 317 138 136 43
Pimachiowin Aki 4,246,029 374,824 8.8 12 1 8 3
Table 6b. Freshwater area, shoreline length and shoreline length density of Canada’s Boreal Shield
Ecozone and of Pimachiowin Aki
Region Total area (ha) Length of Shoreline
3
(m) Shoreline per ha (m/ha)
# of watersheds
2
# watersheds with 0-4 m of shoreline/ha
# watersheds with 4-6 m of shoreline/ha
# watersheds with >6 m of shoreline/ha
Boreal Shield Ecozone 188,647,741 870,977,897 4.6 317 112 166 39
Pimachiowin Aki 4,246,029 20,436,647 4.8 12 2 6 4
1Atlas of Canada 1,000,000 National Frameworks Data, Hydrology - Drainage Network V6.0 (2008)
Hhttp://geogratis.gc.ca/download/frameworkdata/hydrology/analytical/drainage_network/
2Atlas of Canada 1,000,000 National Frameworks Data, Hydrology – Drainage Areas V6.0 (2008)
Hhttp://geogratis.gc.ca/download/frameworkdata/drainage_areas/
3Shoreline length was derived by combining the above 2 sources to calculate coastal and inland lakes/rivers shore length:
NOTE: Linear river length was multiplied by 2 to calculate shoreline length
Page 47
46
Ma
p 1
3.F
resh
wate
rs o
f C
an
ada
’s B
ore
al S
hie
ld E
cozo
ne.
Page 48
47
Ma
p 1
4.
Fre
sh
wa
ter
de
nsity b
y w
ate
rsh
ed
of
Can
ada
’s B
ore
al S
hie
ld E
cozo
ne
.
Page 49
48
Ma
p 1
5.
Fre
sh
wa
ters
of
the
Pim
ach
iow
in A
ki p
lan
nin
g a
rea
.
Page 50
49
Ma
p 1
6.
Fre
sh
wa
ter
de
nsity b
y
wa
ters
he
d
of
the
P
imach
iow
i
n A
ki
pla
nnin
g
area
.
Page 51
50
27BLand Cover
The land cover dataset used for the Canada Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, Boreal Shield and the
Pimachiowin Aki planning area contains 31 Class 1 land cover types (Table 7; Map 17
displays 13 land cover types which were created by amalgamating several of the original
31 Class 1 land cover types).
In Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, of the collapsed Class 2 cover types, there are three
major non-water cover types that, together, comprise 60.0% of all the Boreal/Taiga
Ecozones – Evergreen Needleleaf, Mixedwood and Wetland/Shrubland (order of
dominance) (see Definitions below). These same three comprise 66% of all the
Boreal/Taiga Ecozones and same three dominate the Pimachiowin Aki planning area.
However, they comprise 85% of the Pimachiowin area with Evergreen Needleleaf alone
comprising 74% of the area. This is reflective of the southern Boreal Shield Ecozone
positioning of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area (Table 7; Map 18).
The Data
Source: Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada / Earth Sciences Sector /
Canada Centre for Remote Sensing. 2005. Multi-Temporal Land Cover Maps of Canada
using NOAA AVHRR 1-km data from 1985-2000. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Available at:
ftp:\ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca\AD\EMS\Multi_temporal_Landcover1985_2000
Definitions of the four major land cover types (in order of dominance):
Everegreen Needleleaf Forest: Land occupied by forest containing more than 80%
needleleaf trees.
Mixed Forest: Land occupied by forest containing 20-80% evergreen needleleaf or
deciduous broadleaf trees (determined as the percentage of the number of the trees
present, not as tree crown density). Due to the low resolution of the data, pixels may
contain a mosaic of needleleaf and broadleaf cover types.
Wetland/Shrubland: Land covered mainly by low (less than 1 metre in height) to
intermediate woody shrubs (woody vegetation generally less than 2-3 m high). Generally
the proportion of high shrubs is higher than in the Barren Land classes (2.4). May include
broadleaf tree canopy in early regeneration stages after perturbations. Most of the large
wetlands occur in these classes.
Water: Land covered with liquid water.
Definitions of the 31 Land Cover Types:
1. Forest Land: Land dominated by vegetation with a tree (woody plants with a height
exceeding approximately 5 metres in most cases) crown density (percentage of the
surface covered by projected tree crown perimeters) greater than 10%.
Page 52
51
1.1. Everegreen Needleleaf Forest: Land occupied by forest containing more than
80% needleleaf trees.
1.1.1. High Density [1]: Evergreen needleleaf forest (southern boreal; see Rowe,
1972) with crown density of the needleleaf species above approximately
60%. Often contains small water bodies in the landscape. Occasionally, it
contains stands with less than 80% needleleaf trees (higher proportion of
water compensates spectrally for the increased proportion of broadleaf trees).
1.1.2. Medium Density: Evergreen needleleaf forest with crown density of the
needleleaf species between approximately 40-60% . Due to the low
resolution of the data, the pixels may include a mosaic of denser and thinner
tree cover.
1.1.2.1. Southern Forest [2]: Medium density evergreen needleleaf forest
which often occurs within, or adjacent to, high density forest (1.1.1
above). In most cases, it has a higher proportion of broadleaf trees or
shrubs (woody plants less than 2-3 m high) than the high density forest.
Occurs mostly in the southern part of the boreal forest zone.
Occasionally may be confused with younger high density needleleaf
tree canopies (higher reflectance of the young needleleaf trees
compensates for the higher reflectance of broadleaf trees in the stands).
1.1.2.2. Northern Forest [3]: Medium density evergreen needleleaf forest
with shrubs and lichens commonly present in the understory. Occurs in
the northern part of the boreal forest zone but in some cases, patches
are found in more southern areas after old perturbations such as fire.
1.1.3. Low Density: Evergreen forest with crown density of the needleleaf
species approximately 10-40%. Due to the low resolution of the data, pixels
may contain a mosaic of denser and lower tree cover, including openings
such as cutovers or others.
1.1.3.1. Southern Forest [4]: Low density evergreen needleleaf forest with a
higher proportion of broadleaf trees or shrubs species than high density
forest (1.1.1 above). Occurs mostly in the southern part of the boreal
forest zone, with some latitudinal overlaps with northern low density
forest where broadleaf species are more abundant. Occasionally may be
confused with younger higher density needleleaf trees canopies (higher
reflectance of the young needleleaf trees compensates for the high
reflectance of broadleaf trees in the low density stands). In some cases
it may also be confused with treed wetlands.
1.1.3.2. Northern Forest [5]: Low density evergreen needleleaf forest with
shrubs and lichens commonly present in the understory. Occurs mostly
in the northern part of the boreal forest zone. When the tree crown
density is low (near 10%), this class may consist of treed muskeg or
wetlands. Occasionally, it may contain lower tree crown density (less
than 10%, south of the treeline) or treeless cover (north of the treeline)
where abundant water bodies are present (water reflectance has a
similar effect as a denser needleleaf tree cover). In some cases (mostly
after perturbations (burns) or on more humid sites), there is some
Page 53
52
latitudinal overlap with southern forest (1.1.3.1) because of the
similarity of the ground cover (especially regarding low shrubs).
1.2. Deciduous Broadleaf Forest [6]: Concentrated occurrence of deciduous
broadleaf forest, generally with a high crown density. In Quebec and Ontario,
this class represents primarily the shade-tolerant hardwood species (maples,
yellow birch). Due to the low resolution of AVHRR data, most of the broadleaf
forest elsewhere in Canada is included in the mixed forest classes (mainly mixed
broadleaf, class #10, see 1.3.5).
1.3. Mixed Forest: Land occupied by forest containing 20-80% evergreen needleleaf
or deciduous broadleaf trees (determined as the percentage of the number of the
trees present, not as tree crown density). Due to the low resolution of the data,
pixels may contain a mosaic of needleleaf and broadleaf cover types.
1.3.1. Mixed Needleleaf Forest [7]: Mixed forest with the proportion of
evergreen needleleaf trees exceeding approximately 60% (as % of all trees
present). Occasionally may contain a higher proportion of needleleaf trees
(>80% of the tree population) but in a younger canopy (higher reflectance of
the young needleleaf trees compensates for the higher reflectance of
broadleaf trees in older stands).
1.3.2. Mixed Intermediate Forest [8]: Mixed forest with the proportion of
evergreen needleleaf (or deciduous broadleaf) trees approximately 40-60%
(as proportion of all trees present). The proportion of needleleaf trees may be
higher in young stands (higher reflectance of the young needleleaf trees
compensates for the higher reflectance of broadleaf trees in older stands).
1.3.3. Mixed Intermediate Uniform Forest [9]: Mixed intermediate forest with
a relatively uniform distribution of trees in the landscape, typically with a
higher crown density.
1.3.4. Mixed Intermediate Heterogenous Forest [10]: Mixed intermediate
forest with a lower crown density or forest with a patchy distribution of trees
in the landscape, typically after old disturbance (due to natural or human
intervention). Patches may vary in size from tens to hundreds of metres. This
class generally contains younger canopies.
1.3.5. Mixed Broadleaf Forest [10]: Mixed forest with the proportion of
deciduous broadleaf trees exceeding approximately 60% (as % of all trees
present). Due to the low resolution of AVHRR data, most of the broadleaf
forest in Canada is included in this mixed class.
1.4. Burns: Land previously occupied by forest which was subject to fire as visible
on the Landsat imagery. At present it may contain broadleaf or needleleaf trees
with a tree crown density of less than 10% or standing dead trees. Occasionally
this category may contain vegetated landscape with concentrations of water
bodies. Depending on site conditions, fire intensity and age, land cover after
burns may be quite variable. It varies from bare soil to vegetation cover
approaching low density forest canopy. This is the reason why some burns or
parts of burns, after few years, are classified as low density northern forest with a
shrubby ground cover; or as another type of open land. Usually, the typical
patchy pattern of post-burn cover types is diagnostic. Burn classes are more
reliable in the northern forest types where vegetation regrowth is slower while in
Page 54
53
more southern areas, the change from burn to other classes can be quite rapid
(within <4 years).
1.4.1. Low Green Vegetation Cover [11]: Burns with small amounts of green
vegetation present, probably burned within the last 5 years (but depends on
the fire intensity and site). Standing dead trees are commonly present.
1.4.2. Green Vegetation Cover [12]: Burns with greater amount of green
vegetation present, implying earlier fires or more favourable site conditions.
Also may occur near the perimeter of the burns when adjacent to undisturbed
vegetation.
2. Open Land: Land with a tree crown density of less than 10%.
2.1. Transition Treed Shrubland [13]: Land in which tree crown density is usually
below 10%. This class contains many past disturbances, mainly fires. It occurs
mainly in northern boreal forest (see Rowe, 1972), but is occasionally found in
more southern areas following disturbance. It may include significant proportions
of shrubs.
2.2. Wetland/Shrubland: Land covered mainly by low (less than 1 metre in height)
to intermediate woody shrubs (woody vegetation generally less than 2-3 m high).
Generally the proportion of high shrubs is higher than in the Barren Land classes
(2.3). May include broadleaf tree canopy in early regeneration stages after
perturbations. Most of the large wetlands occur in these classes.
2.2.1. High Density [14]: The cover density of shrubs is higher than 60%. Many
wetlands are in this class.
2.2.2. Medium Density [15]: Mixture of shrubs (approximately 40-60%) and
herbaceous cover. Some wetlands are in this class (especially fens).
2.3. Grassland [16]: Land with herbaceous (non-woody) vegetation cover, tree or
shrub cover being less than 10%. This class is limited to the prairie region.
2.4. Barren Land: Land containing usually less than 10% of tree crown density. It
often contains shrubs, mainly low shrubs (less than 1 m in height), lichen,
herbaceous vegetation cover, bare soil, rock, or small water bodies. It is found
mostly north of the treeline, but also in mountainous regions and after
disturbance in more southern areas. In barren land classes, reflectance depends
on the proportions of five main cover types: shrubs, lichens, herbaceous species,
bare soil (rock outcrop) and water bodies. The subcategories are differentiated by
the dominance of one or more of these cover types.
2.4.1. Shrub and Lichen Dominated: Barren land in which shrubs and lichen
are the dominant cover type. Generally, the shrubs are lower than in the
Wetland/Shrubland classes (2.2). The two classes (2.4.1.1 and 2.4.1.2) have
a latitudinal gradient. They occur mainly north of the treeline, but also in
northern boreal forest or mountainous areas sparsely treed.
2.4.1.1. Lichen and others [17]: Varying amount of land cover in which
lichen exert a strong effect on reflectance. In northern boreal forest
(Rowe, 1972), it may represent low to very low density needleleaf
forest with lichen understory. North of the treeline, this class may also
include abundant water bodies. This class has a latitudinal gradient.
Reflectances are lowered by trees in northern boreal forest, and by
small water bodies, or rock outcrops north of the treeline.
Page 55
54
2.4.1.2. Shrub/Lichen Dominated [18]: Shrub-dominated barren land in
which lichen exerts some effect on reflectance. South of the treeline,
trees are occasionally present in this class. This class has also a
latitudinal gradient. It occurs mainly north of the tree line, but also in
mountainous areas or in northern boreal forest, mostly after
perturbations.
2.4.2. Treeless: Barren land occurring north of the treeline, but also in
mountainous areas.
2.4.2.1. Heather and Herbs [19]: Treeless barren land in which shrubs, herbs
and lichen are the prevalent vegetation cover. The landscape typically
consists of a pattern of shrubs, lichen, herbs, bare soil, and rock
outcrops.
2.4.2.2. Low Vegetation Cover [20]: Treeless barren land in which vegetation
cover (shrubs, lichen, herbs) do not exceed approximately 40% of the
ground cover.
2.4.2.3. Very Low Vegetation Cover [21]: Treeless barren land in which
vegetation cover (shrubs, lichen, herbs) do not exceed approximately
20% of the ground cover area.
2.4.2.4. Bare soil and rock [22]: Treeless barren in which bare soil and rock
outcrop is the prevalent land cover. Patches of snow cover may occur.
3. Developed Land
3.1. Cropland: Land covered with herbaceous (typically annual) crops which may
contain a small proportion (less than 10%) of trees or shrubs.
3.1.1. High Biomass [23]: Cropland dominated by crops with higher biomass,
due to cover type (e.g., corn) or climate (adequate precipitation). May
contain small proportions of other vegetation types (less than 10%).
3.1.2. Medium Biomass [24]: Cropland dominated by crops with medium
biomass, due to cover type or climate (subhumid). This class occurs in the
prairie region.
3.1.3. Low Biomass [25]: Cropland dominated by crops with lower biomass,
due to cover type (e.g., grain) or climate (semiarid region). This class occurs
in the prairie region.
3.2. Mosaic Land: Land containing a mix of cropland, forest, shrubland, grassland or
built-up areas in which no one component comprises more than about 70% (by
area) of the landscape.
3.2.1. Cropland-Woodland [26]: Mosaic land in which cropland is more
prevalent than forest cover (mostly broadleaf deciduous forest). Depending
on the region, lower cropland biomass may be compensated for by a higher
proportion of forest. Occasionally, this class may occur in areas where
herbaceous vegetation replaces the cropland component (e.g., in parks).
3.2.2. Woodland- Cropland [27]: Mosaic land in which tree cover (mostly
needleleaf species) and shrubs are more prevalent than cropland. This class
occurs in the prairie region in the medium biomass region.
3.2.3. Cropland-Other [28]: Mosaic land in which cropland is more prevalent
than other cover types. These could be forest, shrubland, or built-up areas.
Page 56
55
Compared to Cropland-Woodland (3.2.1), the common characteristic of
these cover types is lower green biomass.
3.3. Urban and Built-up [29]: Land covered by buildings and other man-made
structures. In most cases, built-up areas are spectrally similar to various
unvegetated or low-vegetated cover types. For larger cities, this class was
therefore imported from another data base. However, confusion with other
classes occurs for smaller urban areas.
4. Non-Vegetated Land: Land covered with water (in solid or liquid form).
4.1. Water [30]: Land covered with liquid water.
4.2. Snow/ ice [31]: Land covered with permanent ice or snow.
Page 57
56
Table 7. Land Cover of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, Boreal Shield Ecozone and of Pimachiowin Aki.
ID Land cover1 CLASS 1 CLASS 2
Boreal/ Taiga
2 area
(km2)
Boreal Shield
2 area
(km2)
Boreal shield land cover as % of boreal/ taiga land cover
% of boreal shield
Pim Aki area (km
2)
Pim Aki land cover as % of boreal shield land cover
% of Pim aki
1 Forest Land:Evergreen Needleleaf:High Density Forest Land Evergreen Needleleaf 434,232 332,735 76.6 17.1 11,927 3.6 28.1
2 Forest Land:Evergreen Needleleaf:Medium Density:Southern Forest Forest Land Evergreen Needleleaf 506,231 266,747 52.7 13.7 7,004 2.6 16.5
3 Forest Land:Evergreen Needleleaf:Medium Density:Northern Forest Forest Land Evergreen Needleleaf 283,734 25,086 8.8 1.3 241 1.0 0.6
4 Forest Land:Evergreen Needleleaf:Low Density:Southern Forest Forest Land Evergreen Needleleaf 434,766 185,312 42.6 9.5 10,256 5.5 24.1
5 Forest Land:Evergreen Needleleaf:Low Density:Northern Forest Forest Land Evergreen Needleleaf 706,087 105,332 14.9 5.4 2,140 2.0 5.0
6 Forest Land:Deciduous Broadleaf Forest Land Deciduous Broadleaf 18,524 12,898 69.6 0.7 0 0.0 0.0 7 Forest Land:Mixedwood:Mixed Needleleaf Forest Land Mixedwood 106,319 82,649 77.7 4.2 1,257 1.5 3.0
8 Forest Land:Mixedwood:Mixed Intermediate:Uniform Forest Land Mixedwood 90,832 84,731 93.3 4.4 11 0.0 0.0
9 Forest Land:Mixedwood:Mixed Intermediate:Heterogenous Forest Land Mixedwood 361,748 185,258 51.2 9.5 2,397 1.3 5.6
10 Forest Land:Mixedwood:Mixed Broadleaf Forest Land Mixedwood 232,345 121,798 52.4 6.3 21 0.0 0.0
11 Forest Land:Burns:Low Green Vegetation Cover Forest Land Burns 111,499 33,451 30.0 1.7 441 1.3 1.0
12 Forest Land:Burns:Green Vegetation Cover Forest Land Burns 116,175 34,003 29.3 1.7 437 1.3 1.0
13 Open Land:Transition Treed Shrubland Open Land Transition Treed Shrubland 467,621 104,910 22.4 5.4 3,714 3.5 8.7
14 Open Land:Wetland/Shrubland:High Density Open Land Wetland/Shrubland 265,255 65,812 24.8 3.4 563 0.9 1.3
15 Open Land:Wetland/Shrubland:Medium Density Open Land Wetland/Shrubland 89,752 11,292 12.6 0.6 0 0.0 0.0
16 Open Land:Grassland Open Land Grassland 538 68 12.6 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
17 Open Land:Barren Land:Shrub and Lichen Dominated:Lichen and others Open Land Barren Land 188,267 4,813 2.6 0.2 4 0.1 0.0
18 Open Land:Barren Land:Shrub and Lichen Dominated:Shrub/Lichen Dominated Open Land Barren Land 472,317 29,747 6.3 1.5 90 0.3 0.2
19 Open Land:Barren Land:Treeless:Heather and Herbs Open Land Barren Land 82,689 484 0.6 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
20 Open Land:Barren Land:Treeless:Low Vegetation Cover Open Land Barren Land 15,432 38 0.2 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
21 Open Land:Barren Land:Treeless:Very Low Vegetation Cover Open Land Barren Land 6,957 347 5.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
22 Open Land:Barren Land:Treeless:Bare soil and rock Open Land Barren Land 39,829 119 0.3 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
23 Developed Land:Cropland:High Biomass Developed Land Cropland 38,693 1,311 3.4 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 24 Developed Land:Cropland:Medium Biomass Developed Land Cropland 57,437 412 0.7 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 25 Developed Land:Cropland:Low Biomass Developed Land Cropland 399 55 13.8 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
26 Developed Land:Mosaic Land:Cropland-Woodland Developed Land Mosaic Land 50,370 6,165 12.2 0.3 0 0.0 0.0
27 Developed Land:Mosaic Land:Woodland- Cropland Developed Land Mosaic Land 22,731 1,157 5.1 0.1 0 0.0 0.0
28 Developed Land:Mosaic Land:Cropland-Other Developed Land Mosaic Land 1,121 1,041 92.9 0.1 0 0.0 0.0
29 Developed Land:Urban and Built-up Developed Land Urban and Built-up 1,422 1,227 86.3 0.1 0 0.0 0.0
0 Non-Vegetated Land:Water Non-Vegetated Land Water 633,856 248,188 39.2 12.7 1,967 0.8 4.6
31 Non-Vegetated Land:Snow/ ice Non-Vegetated Land Snow/ ice 15,332 246 1.6 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Total 5,852,510 1,947,432 33.3 100.0 42,470 2.2 100.0
Page 58
57
1Rasim Latifovic (2005). Multi-Temporal Land Cover Maps of Canada using NOAA AVHRR 1-km data from 1985-2000. Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Earth Sciences Sector, Canada Centre for Remote
Sensing. 1985-2000
2National Ecological Framework:
http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/intro.html
http://www.ecozones.ca/english/
Page 59
58
Ma
p 1
7.
La
nd
cove
r of
Can
ada
’s B
ore
al S
hie
ld E
cozo
ne.
Page 60
59
Ma
p 1
8.
La
nd
cove
r of
the
Pim
ach
iow
in A
ki p
lann
ing
are
a.
Page 61
60
28BTree Density
The global tree density dataset was categorized into 6 classes (<10%; 10-24%; 25-49%;
50-74%; >75%; non-vegetated) (Table 8 and Map 19a). Globally, 53.4% of the Boreal
Forest / Taiga Biome has a tree density of 25-74% while 49.1% of North America’s
Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome has a tree density of 25-74%, and 68.7% of the Pimachiowin
Aki planning area has a tree density of 25-74% (Maps 19b and 20).
The Data
Source: Global Land Cover Facility (GLCF): Available at:
http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/data/treecover/. Reference: DeFries, R., M. Hansen, J.R.G.
Townshend, A.C. Janetos, and T.R. Loveland (2000), 1 Kilometer Tree Cover
Continuous Fields, 1.0, Department of Geography, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland, 1992-1993.
Characterization of terrestrial vegetation from the Advanced Very High Resolution
Radiometer (AVHRR) on the global to regional scale has traditionally been accomplished
using classification schemes with discrete numbers of vegetation classes. Representation
of vegetation into a limited number of homogeneous classes does not account for the
variability within land cover, nor does the portrayal recognize transition zones between
adjacent cover types. An alternative paradigm to describing land cover as discrete classes
is to represent land cover as continuous fields of vegetation characteristics using a linear
mixture model approach. This prototype data set contains 1km cells estimating:
1. Percent tree cover: Percentage cover for two layers representing leaf longevity
(evergreen and deciduous)
2. Percentage cover for two layers estimating leaf type
(broadleaf and needleleaf)
Each pixel in the layers has a value between 10 and 80 percent. These layers can be
directly used as parameters in models or aggregated into more conventional land cover
maps.
Page 62
61
Table 8. Tree density categories of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, Boreal Shield Ecozone and Pimachiowin Aki
Boreal Biome2 Asia Europe North America Pimachiowin Aki
Tree density1 Area (km
2) Area (km
2) % of continent
% of biome land cover
Area (km
2)
% of continent
% of biome land cover
Area (km
2)
% of continent
% of biome land cover
Area (km
2)
% of Pim. Aki
% of biome land cover
<10% 2,968,903 1,669,301 21.9 56.2 273,459 11.5 9.2 1,026,143 20.1 34.6 1,540 3.6 0.1
10-24% 2,023,777 950,525 12.5 47.0 223,591 9.4 11.0 849,661 16.7 42.0 2,928 6.9 0.1
25-49% 4,024,902 2,105,837 27.7 52.3 568,332 24.0 14.1 1,350,733 26.5 33.6 9,712 22.9 0.2
50-74% 4,022,806 2,076,665 27.3 51.6 794,207 33.5 19.7 1,151,934 22.6 28.6 19,405 45.8 0.5
>75% 1,705,563 737,830 9.7 43.3 435,174 18.3 25.5 532,559 10.4 31.2 7,774 18.3 0.5
Non-vegetated 341,795 74,491 1.0 21.8 76,973 3.2 22.5 190,331 3.7 55.7 1,014 2.4 0.3
Total 15,087,746 7,614,649 100.0 50.5 2,371,736 100.0 15.7 5,101,361 100.0 33.8 42,373 100.0 0.3
1Tree Cover Continuous Fields
Citation: DeFries, R., M. Hansen, J.R.G. Townshend, A.C. Janetos, and T.R. Loveland (2000), 1 Kilometer Tree Cover Continuous Fields, 1.0, Department of Geography, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 1992-1993
Source: Global Land Cover Facility, www.landcover.org.
2WWF Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World:
Citation: Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. D'Amico, I. Itoua, H.E. Strand, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Loucks, T.F. Allnutt, T.H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J.F. Lamoreux, W.W. Wettengel, P. Hedao, and K.R. Kassem. Te rrestrial Ecoregions of the Wo rld: A New Map of Life on Earth. BioScience 933 51 (11).
http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/item1267.html
Page 63
62
Ma
p 1
9a
. T
ree
de
nsity c
ate
go
rie
s o
f n
ort
he
rn p
ort
ion o
f N
ort
h A
me
rica
, B
ore
al S
hie
ld E
cozon
e a
nd
Pim
ach
iow
in A
ki.
Page 64
63
Ma
p 1
9b
. T
ree
de
nsity c
ate
go
rie
s o
f C
ana
da
’s B
ore
al/T
aig
a E
co
zo
nes,
Bo
rea
l S
hie
ld E
co
zo
ne
an
d P
imach
iow
in A
ki.
Page 65
64
Ma
p 2
0.
Tre
e d
en
sity c
ate
go
rie
s o
f P
ima
chio
win
Aki.
Page 66
65
29BSoil Organic Carbon
It is estimated that nearly 30% of the earth’s soil organic carbon is locked in tundra and
boreal ecosystems.4 Approximately 75% of Canada consists of these ecosystems, which
suggests that Canada contains a very significant portion of the world’s stored carbon.
Most of the organic carbon found in Canadian soils occurs at mid and high latitudes
(northward from the southern limit of the boreal forest) where cryosolic and organic soils
dominate. Since much of Canada’s boreal and taiga is covered by intact forest
landscapes, these areas are important repositories of soil organic carbon, especially in
peatlands. Consequently, soil organic carbon was selected as a key ecological value.
Map21 and 22 illustrate (and see Table 9) the distribution of soil organic carbon within
Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and within the Pimachiowin Aki site, respectively. The
distribution of carbon in soils is identified as kilograms of carbon per square metre and is
classified into five categories.
Pimachiowin Aki has a significantly high an amount of Soil Organic Carbon in
comparison to Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones and in comparison to Canada’s Boreal
Shield Ecozone (66.5 kg/m2, 44.7 kg/m
2 and 45.6 kg/m
2 , respectively) (Table 9).
The Data
Source: Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Available at:
http://webmap.ornl.gov/wcsdown/dataset.jsp?ds_id=569. Reference: Tarnocai, C., J. G.
Canadell, E. A. G. Schuur, P. Kuhry, G. Mazhitova, and S. Zimov (2009), Soil organic
carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region, Global Biogeochem. Cycles,
23, GB2023.
Estimates of organic carbon pools in soils of the permafrost region were calculated using
the NCSCD (C. Tarnocai et al., 2007, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, Ottawa; available at
http://wms1.agr.gc.ca/NortherCircumpolar/northercircumpolar.zip, hereinafter referred to
as Tarnocai et al., unpublished data, 2007).
This database contains over ten thousand polygons, with each polygon (mapping unit)
containing one or more named soils or soil taxa that form the basis for determining the
carbon pools. Data for North America and Europe are available in digital form in local
soil databases that have been compiled from existing soil survey maps. For remote areas
in North America, where detailed soil maps are unavailable, pedon, climate, and
vegetation data, together with high-quality LANDSAT imagery, were used to delineate
polygons. For Russia, Greenland, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and Svalbard spatial
soil information was digitized as it was only available as hard copy maps.
4 Natural Resources Canada. 2007. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations. Sensitivities to Climate Change in Canada:
Soil Organic Carbon. Online at: http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/sensitivities/8_e.php
Page 67
66
Data used to calculate carbon content (kg m2) were derived from multiple pedon
databases (the pedon, or soil profile, is the basic soil unit used for describing, sampling,
and classifying soils). The North American portion of the NCSCD was built up using
1038 pedons from northern Canada and 131 pedons from Alaska. The Eurasian portion of
the NCSCD includes a newly assembled database containing soil organic carbon content
data for 253 Russian pedons.
Table 9. Soil organic content of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and
Pimachiowin Aki.
Region Total Area (km2) Soil Area
2 (km
2)
% soil area SOC
1 mass (t)
SOC content (kg/m
2)
Boreal Ecozones 5,806,320 4,693,504 80.8 209,664,405,188 44.7
Boreal Shield 1,892,052 1,435,226 75.9 65,483,343,663 45.6
Pimachiowin Aki 42,460 26,142 61.6 1,738,963,069 66.5
1Citation: Tarnocai, C., J. G. Canadell, E. A. G. Schuur, P. Kuhry, G. Mazhitova, and S. Zimov (2009), Soil organic carbon
pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 23, GB2023, doi:10.1029/2008GB003327.
2Soil area calculated by multipying the polygon area by the summed percent of soil types
Page 68
67
Ma
p 2
1.
Soil
Org
an
ic C
arb
on
co
nte
nt
of
Can
ad
a’s
Bo
rea
l S
hie
ld E
cozo
ne
.
Page 69
68
Ma
p 2
2.
Soil
Org
an
ic C
arb
on
co
nte
nt
of
the P
ima
ch
iow
in A
ki p
lann
ing
are
a.
Page 70
69
30B
31BBiodiversity in Canada and in Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes
Canada’s biodiversity was assessed for 796 species of birds, mammals, amphibians,
reptiles, fish, plants, mollusks and Lepidoptera (Tables 10 and 11; Maps 23 to 28). The
biodiversity of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga ecozones, expressed as numbers of bird, mammal,
reptile/amphibian and tree species per ecodistrict, ranges from 46 to 214 birds (average of
137.5), 10 to 55 mammals (average of 37.3), 0 to 38 reptiles/amphibians (average of 5.3.
and 3 to 68 trees (average of 17.6) (Tables 10 and 11).
The biodiversity of the Boreal Shield Ecozone is similar to the broader Boreal/Taiga
Ecozones for average bird and mammal species per ecodistrict but substantially greater
for average reptile/amphibian and tree species per ecodistrict (73% and 39% higher,
respectively) (Tables 10 and 11).
The biodiversity of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area is similar to the Boreal Shield
Ecozone for average reptile/amphibian and tree species per ecodistrict but more than 20%
higher for mammal species and more than 30% higher for average bird species per
ecodistrict (Tables 10 and 11).
Biodiversity indices were calculated and mapped for ecodistricts by first summing the
ratio of species number and total number of Canadian species for the 4 groups available
(birds, mammals, rept/amph, and trees). This number was then divided by 4 (number of
species groups) to get the "absolute" species diversity index (based on highest possible
number of species in Canada) on a scale from 0-1. This number was then divided by the
highest absolute index of all ecodistricts to get the "relative" species diversity (relative to
the highest species diversity among ecodistrics) on a scale of 0 - 1. Maps 23-28 show that
the Pimachiowin Aki planning area contains some ecodistricts with very high
biodiversity, in the context of all the Boreal/Taiga Ecozones. In particular, all the
ecodistricts of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area contains very high bird species per
ecodistrict.
These two biodiversity items (general and birds) are significant ecological features of the
Pimachiowin Aki planning area in the context of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga ecozones and the
Boreal Shield Ecozone.
The Data
Source: Geogratis. Available at: http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/download/Ecosystems/
Reference: Environment Canada. 1999. Dataset and report (Freemark K, Moore H,
Forsyth DM, Sinclair ARE, White D, Barrett T, Pressey RL. 1999. Identifying minimum
sets of conservation sites for representing biodiversity in Canada: A complementarity
approach. Technical Report Series, Canadian Wildlife Service, Headquarters,
Environment Canada, Ottawa).
Page 71
70
Range data for 796 taxa came from two sources. The ranges of terrestrial mammals,
birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, plants, molluscs and lepidoptera listed as endangered,
threatened, or vulnerable by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada were provided by Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
The ranges of ‘common’ (i.e. not listed by COSEWIC) mammals, birds, amphibians and
reptiles were digitized from published range maps. Where range-maps specified winter-
only ranges for birds these areas were not included in our analyses. Although marine
species were excluded from our analyses, some coastal bird species that also breed inland
were included.
Table 10. Number of common, endangered, threatened and vulnerable taxa in the dataset in Canada.
Status
Taxonomic Group Common Endangered Threatened Vulnerable Total
Mammals 123 5 5 19 152
Birds 342 14 7 20 383
Amphibians 37 2 0 7 46
Reptiles 33 2 4 7 46
Fish - 4 15 39 58
Plants - 33 36 38 107
Molluscs - 1 1 0 2
Lepidoptera - 1 0 1 2
Total 535 62 68 131 796
Table 11. Biodiveristy of ecodistricts within Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, the Boreal Shield Ecozone
and the Pimachiowin Aki planning area.
Boreal/Taiga Ecozones Birds Mammals Rept/Amph Trees SAR (Cosewic 1999)
Number of ecodistricts 526 526 526 526 526
Minimum # of species 46 10 0 3 0
Maximum # of species 214 55 38 68 34
Average 137.5 37.3 5.2 17.6 3.9
Standard Deviation 38.8 7.8 5.1 8.7 2.6
Boreal Shield Birds Mammals Rept/Amph Trees SAR (Cosewic 1999)
Number of ecodistricts 147 147 147 147 147
Minimum: 66 10 0 7 0
Maximum: 211 55 38 68 34
Mean: 138.0 35.0 9.0 24.5 3.8
Standard Deviation: 31.9 10.9 7.3 11.2 4.0
Pimachiowin Aki Birds Mammals Rept/Amph Trees SAR (Cosewic 1999)
Number of ecodistricts 6 6 6 6 6
Minimum: 143 37 7 19 4
Maximum: 198 46 13 31 9
Mean: 182.2 42.8 10.8 26.5 6.0
Standard Deviation: 18.7 3.2 2.0 4.0 1.9
Page 72
71
Note: Biodiversity index for ecodistricts was calculated by first summing the ratio of species number and total number of Canadian species for the 4 groups available (birds, mammals, rept/amph, and trees). This number was then divided by 4 (number of species groups) to get the "absolute" species diversity index (based on highest possible number of species in Canada) on a scale from 0-1. This number was then divided by the highest absolute index of all ecodistricts to get the "relative" species diversity (relative to the highest species diversity among ecodistrics) on a scale of 0 - 1.
Number of Canada's bird species: 426
http://canadianbiodiversity.mcgill.ca/english/species/index.htm
Number of Canada's tree species: 180
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/environment/forest/forestcanada/trees/1
Number of Canada's amphibian species: 44
http://canadianbiodiversity.mcgill.ca/english/species/index.htm
Number of Canada's reptile species: 42
http://canadianbiodiversity.mcgill.ca/english/species/index.htm
Number of Canada's mammal species: 194
http://canadianbiodiversity.mcgill.ca/english/species/index.htm
Page 73
72
Ma
p 2
3.
Ove
rall
bio
div
ers
ity o
f C
an
ad
a’s
Bo
real S
hie
ld E
cozo
ne
an
d w
ith
in th
e P
imachio
win
Aki p
lan
nin
g a
rea
.
Page 74
73
Ma
p 2
4.
Bird
div
ers
ity o
f C
an
ad
a’s
Bo
real S
hie
ld E
cozo
ne
and
with
in t
he
Pim
ach
iow
in A
ki pla
nnin
g a
rea
.
Page 75
74
Ma
p 2
5.
Ma
mm
al d
ive
rsity o
f C
an
ad
a, C
an
ad
a’s
Bo
rea
l S
hie
ld E
co
zo
ne
an
d o
f th
e P
ima
ch
iow
in A
ki p
lan
nin
g a
rea
.
Page 76
75
Ma
p 2
6.
Bir
d
div
ers
ity o
f C
an
ad
a,
Ca
na
da’s
B
ore
al
Sh
ield
E
co
zo
ne
a
nd
of th
e
Pim
ach
iow
in
Aki pla
nnin
g
are
a.
Page 77
76
Ma
p 2
7.
Re
ptile
/Am
ph
ibia
n d
ive
rsity o
f C
an
ad
a,
Ca
na
da’s
Bo
rea
l S
hie
ld E
co
zo
ne
a
nd
of th
e
Pim
ach
iow
in A
ki
pla
nnin
g a
rea.
Page 78
77
.
Ma
p 2
8.
Tre
e
div
ers
ity o
f C
an
ad
a,
Ca
na
da’s
B
ore
al
Sh
ield
E
co
zo
ne
a
nd
of th
e
Pim
ach
iow
in
Aki pla
nnin
g
are
a.
Page 79
78
32BKey focal species (woodland caribou)
Woodland Caribou occurrence in Canada has declined substantially in the last 100 years.
The Pimachiowin Aki planning area now occupies a significant portion of the very
southern extent of that occurrence (Map 29).
Page 80
79
Ma
p 2
9.
Wood
lan
d
ca
ribo
u c
urr
en
t o
ccu
rre
nce
of
Ca
na
da
, C
an
ad
a’s
Bo
rea
l S
hie
ld E
co
zo
ne
a
nd
of th
e
Pim
ach
iow
in A
ki
pla
nnin
g a
rea.
Page 81
80
33B 34B
14BGross Anthropogenic Land Surface Impacts and Intact Forest Landscapes
35BGlobal
Nightlights
As shown by night-time light emissions captured by satellites in Maps 30, 31 and 32, the
Pimachiowin Aki planning area and indeed the Boreal / Taiga Biome has little light
emissions, reflective of the relatively lightly-populated, intensive energy-consuming and
light-emitting human activities. The Pimachiowin Aki planning area is, in fact, on the
fringe of the world’s and North America intensive light-emitting zones caused by human
activities.
The Data
Source: Marc Imhoff of NASA GSFC and Christopher Elvidge of NOAA NGDC.
Available at: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=1438
Reference: NASA. 2000. Visible Earth
The image of Earth’s city lights was created with data from the Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program (DMSP) Operational Linescan System (OLS). Originally designed to
view clouds by moonlight, the OLS is also used to map the locations of permanent lights
on the Earth’s surface.
The brightest areas of the Earth are the most urbanized, but not necessarily the most
populated. (Compare western Europe with China and India.) Cities tend to grow along
coastlines and transportation networks. The United States interstate highway system
appears as a lattice connecting the brighter dots of city centers. In Russia, the Trans-
Siberian railroad is a thin line stretching from Moscow through the center of Asia to
Vladivostok. The Nile River, from the Aswan Dam to the Mediterranean Sea, is another
bright thread through an otherwise dark region.
Even more than 100 years after the invention of the electric light, some regions remain
thinly populated and unlit. Antarctica is entirely dark. The interior jungles of Africa and
South America are mostly dark, but lights are beginning to appear there. Deserts in
Africa, Arabia, Australia, Mongolia, and the United States are poorly lit as well (except
along the coast), along with the boreal forests of Canada and Russia, and the great
mountains of the Himalaya.
Page 82
81
.
Ma
p 3
0.
Nig
htlig
ht o
f th
e C
ircu
m-
Bo
rea
l/T
aig
a
Bio
me a
nd
of
the
P
imach
iow
in
Aki pla
nnin
g
are
a.
Page 83
82
.
Ma
p 3
1.
Nig
htlig
ht o
f N
ort
h A
me
rica
, C
an
ada
’s B
ore
al S
hie
ld E
co
zo
ne
and
of
the
Pim
ach
iow
in A
ki p
lan
nin
g a
rea
.
Page 84
83
Ma
p 3
2.
Nig
htlig
ht o
f C
an
ad
a’s
B
ore
al
Sh
ield
E
co
zo
ne
a
nd
of th
e
Pim
ach
iow
in
Aki pla
nnin
g
are
a.
Page 85
84
Human Footprint within Boreal Forest/Taiga Biome
Similar to the previous section (Nightlights) the Human Footprint map (Map 33) shows
little human footprint in the Boreal/Taiga Biome, especially in Canada.
The Data
Source: Last of the Wild Data Version 1, 2002 (LWP-1): Global Human Footprint
Dataset (Geographic). Wildlife Conservation (WCS) and Center for International Earth
Science Information Network (CIESIN).. Available at: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu
Reference: Sanderson, E.W., Jaiteh, M., Levy, M.A., Redford, K.H., Wannebo, A.V.,
Woolmer, G., 2002. The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience 52, 891–
904.
The Human Footprint index represents a continuum of expected human influence on the
intactness, “naturalness”, and function of natural communities based on population
density, land transformation, accessibility, and electrical power infrastructures. The
Human Footprint index is global, incorporates a range of human activities, and has been
used as a reasonable global proxy of “naturalness”.
Page 86
85
Ma
p 3
3.
Hu
ma
n
foo
tprin
t of
the
Circu
m-
Bo
rea
l/T
aig
a
Bio
me a
nd
of
the
P
imach
iow
in
Aki pla
nnin
g
are
a.
Page 87
86
Global Intact Forest Landscapes
Three of the world’s five largest contiguous intact forest landscapes occur in Canada and
these occur in the Boreal-Taiga Biome (Table 12; Map 34). Pimachiowin Aki is mostly
located in Canada’s three largest intact forest landscapes.
The Data
Source: Greenpeace, WRI & IFL Mapping Team. Available at:
http://www.intactforests.org/data.ifl.html
Reference: Potapov P., Yaroshenko A., Turubanova S., Dubinin M., Laestadius L., Thies
C., Aksenov D., Egorov A., Yesipova Y., Glushkov I., Karpachevskiy M., Kostikova A.,
Manisha A., Tsybikova E., Zhuravleva I. 2008. Mapping the World's Intact Forest
Landscapes by Remote Sensing. Ecology and Society, 13 (2)
This map (and dataset) is the first global assessment of intact forest landscapes based on
the latest available satellite imagery (2000-2004). It shows the remaining blocks of forest
landscapes larger than 500 sq km unfragmented by roads, settlements, major rivers
affected by substantial human use, pipelines, power lines etc. These forest landscapes are
natural ecosystems which are mostly forested but also contain swamps and other non-
forested ecosystems and which are without significant visible signs of human impact such
as logging, human-caused fires or other forms of clearings. This map was based mostly
on the base of 2000-2002 Landsat images, some areas was updated on the base of 2003-
2004 Landsat, IRS and Aster images.
This map was prepared by Greenpeace with the participation of Biodiversity
Conservation Center (Russia), International Socio-Ecological Union and Luonto-Liitto
(Finnish Nature League). As additional materials that were used for cross-verification of
the map also were used following publications: “The last intact forest landscapes of
Northern European Russia” (Greenpeace and GFW, 2001); “Remaining wildlands of the
Northern forests” (GFW, 2002, unreviewed draft); Atlas of Russia’s intact forest
landscapes (GFW, 2002).
Page 88
87
Table 12. Intact Forest Landscapes
Region IFL area (km2)
World 13,141,876.0
Boreal biome 5,057,028.2
Pimachiowin Aki 34,770.4
1st Largest IFL (S. America)
590,577.3
French Guiana, Guyana, Suriname, Brazil
2nd Largest IFL (N. America)
486,817.5
Canada
3rd Largest IFL (N. America)
419,557.0
Canada
4th Largest IFL (S. America)
359,436.3
Venezuela, Brazil
5th Largest IFL (N. America)
290,074.8
Canada
Largest 5 total 2,146,462.9
World IFL citation:
Potapov P., Yaroshenko A., Turubanova S., Dubinin M., Laestadius L., Thies C., Aksenov D., Egorov A., Yesipova Y., Glushkov I., Karpachevskiy M., Kostikova A., Manisha A., Tsybikova E., Zhuravleva I. 2008. Mapping the World's Intact Forest Landscapes by Remote Sensing. Ecology and Society, 13 (2)
Page 89
88
Ma
p 3
4.
Th
e
La
rgest
3
Inta
ct
Fo
rest
La
ndscap
es o
f th
e
Cir
cu
m-
Bo
rea
l/T
aig
a
Bio
me.
Page 90
89
36BCanada
Cumulative Anthropogenic Access
As a proportion of its total areas, Pimachiowin Aki has much less area disturbed (2.6$)
by roads and industrial activities than either Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones (17%) or
Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone.(24%) (Table 13; Maps 35 and 36).
The Data
Source: Global Forest Watch Canada (listed as Combined Access). Available at:
http://datawarehouse.globalforestwatch.ca/
Reference: Lee PG, Hanneman M, Gysbers JD, Cheng R. 2010. Cumulative access in
Canada’s forest ecozones. Edmonton, Alberta: Global Forest Watch Canada 10th
Anniversary Publication #2. 7 pp. Available at: www.globalforestwatch.ca.
What is Cumulative Access?
Cumulative access is the combined land surface anthropogenic disturbances caused
mainly by industrial activities, which include, but are not limited to, roads, mines,
clearcuts, wellsites, pipelines, transmission lines, and agricultural clearings.
Global Forest Watch Canada (GFWC) has analyzed the extent to which Canada’s forest
ecozones have been impacted by significant human activities. GFWC’s cumulative
access layer was compiled by analyzing Landsat (TM and ETM) satellite images for the
period 1988 to 2006. All visible infrastructure and other human activities on the images
were mapped and buffered by 500 metres.
How was the Cumulative Access dataset created?
GFWC’s Cumulative Access dataset is a by-product of our work on another GFWC
project, Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes.
In order to map Canada’s intact forest landscapes, GFWC first mapped all anthropogenic
disturbances as already mapped in readily available existing datasets (especially roads
datasets) and as seen on Landsat images. All resulting features were mapped as either
linear or polygon features. Then, using Geographic Information Systems software,
GFWC applied buffers to these disturbance datasets. A zone of influence of 500 metres
was applied to local roads (i.e. subdivision roads in a city or gravel roads in rural areas),
airports, mines, pipelines, powerlines, reservoirs, and clearcuts. A zone of influence of
1,000 metres was applied to the Trans-Canada Highway and other principal roads. The
width of the zone of influence was considered conservative, given that many studies have
shown that the effects of disturbance greatly exceed 1,000 metres for birds, predators, and
ungulates, as well as smaller wildlife. For example, one Ontario government study on
Page 91
90
wildlife areas used 5- and 10-kilometre buffers.5 Applying these buffers also helped to
mask errors related to orthorectification problems with Landsat satellite imagery.
The resulting layers of buffered features were combined to create an anthropogenic
disturbance layer. These areas were then removed from further consideration as intact
forest landscapes. Additionally, residual areas smaller than 5,000 hectares for the
boreal/taiga ecozones and smaller than 1,000 hectares for the temperate forest ecozones
were removed according to the threshold sizes selected.
Further details of the methodology are contained within GFWC’s publication: Lee P, JD
Gysbers, and Stanojevic Z. 2006. Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A First
Approximation (A Global Forest Watch Canada Report). Edmonton, Alberta: Global
Forest Watch Canada. 97 pp. (Available at:
http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/FLFs/download.htm).
Why is GFWC making this by-product dataset available?
GFWC’s policy is to make geospatial datasets readily and publicly available, and where
reasonable, free-of-charge. Reasons for this policy include:
- To encourage others, particularly in governments and industry, to do the same.
- To be transparent and to enhance credibility of GFWC products by allowing others to
use and comment on our datasets.
- To encourage others to conduct additional and new analysis, using GFWC’s datasets,
in order to improve Canada’s sustainable forest management decisions.
Although this Cumulative Access dataset was not specifically developed as a stand-alone
dataset, GFWC is making it available due to increasing requests by government agencies
and academics and due to its apparent usefulness for some kinds of analysis (e.g., see:
1: Schindler, D.W. Comprehensive conservation planning to protect biodiversity and
ecosystem services in Canadian boreal regions under a warming climate and increasing
exploitation. Biol. Conserv. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.003; 2) Environment
Canada. 2008. Scientific Review for the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland
Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada. August 2008.
Ottawa: Environment Canada. 72 pp. plus 180 pp Appendices.
5 Davidson RJ, Gray PA, Boyd S, Cordiner GS. 2000. State-of-the-wilderness reporting in Ontario: Models, tools, and
techniques. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol-2: 111-119. Available at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p015_2/rmrs_p015_2_111_119.pdf (15/05/2010)
Page 92
91
What are some of the limitations of the Cumulative Access dataset?
GFWC recommends that users of the dataset become familiar with its creation and
resulting limitations for various desired uses. GFWC notes that there are several
limitations, including:
- The anthropogenic disturbances were mapped from Landsat images of a variety of
dates, although the general period of consistency is in the 1999-2002 range.
- Landsat images are considered to be medium resolution, therefore fine-scale
anthropogenic disturbances were not detected and mapped.
- The 1,000 metre (for primary highways) and 500 metre (for all other anthropogenic
disturbances) buffering that was applied to all linear and polygonal features results in
a coarse-level dataset that may not be appropriate for some analysis.
- Areas shown as having no cumulative access and that are smaller than 5,000 ha for
the boreal/taiga ecozones and smaller than 1,000 ha for temperate forest ecozones
may in fact contain cumulative access. These smaller areas may have been missed in
the mapping as they were not the focus of the original intact forest landscape
mapping project.
Table 13. Cumulative anthropogenic access within Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, Boreal Shield
Ecozone and the Pimachiowin Aki planning area.
Region Total area (ha)
Cumulative access
1 area
(ha) % of area with access
% of boreal/ Taiga ecozone
% of boreal shield
Boreal/taiga ecozones2 579,124,235 96,175,398 16.6 N/A N/A
Boreal shield ecozone2 188,640,692 45,948,003 24.4 7.9 N/A
Pimachiowin Aki 4,246,029 112,095 2.6 0.0 0.1
1Canada access - combined
Cumulative anthropogenic (primarily industrial) access dataset (Combined Access) created by Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009. Available at: www.globalforestwatch.ca.
2National Ecological Framework:
http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/intro.html
http://www.ecozones.ca/english/
Page 93
92
Ma
p 3
5.
Cu
mu
lative
an
thro
pog
en
ic a
ccess o
f th
e C
ana
da’s
Bo
rea
l S
hie
ld E
co
zo
ne
an
d o
f th
e P
imach
iow
in A
ki pla
nnin
g a
rea
.
Page 94
93
Ma
p 3
6.
Cum
ula
tiv
e
an
thro
po
ge
nic
aA
cc
ess o
f th
e
Pim
ach
iow
in A
ki
pla
nnin
g
are
a.
Page 95
94
Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes
Within Canada, the Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage Site planning area comprises 2.2%
of the intact forest landscapes in the Boreal-Shield Ecozone (Table 14; Map 37).
The Data
Source: Global Forest Watch Canada. Available at: www.globalforestwatch.ca
Reference: PG Lee, Smith W, Hanneman M, Gysbers JD, Cheng R. 2010. Atlas of
Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes. Edmonton, Alberta: Global Forest Watch Canada
10th Anniversary Publication #1. 70 pp.
Global Forest Watch’s methodology for mapping intact forest landscapes involves
excluding the following types of disturbances from potential intact forest landscapes:
- Settlements;
- Infrastructure used for communication between settlements and industrial sites; or
for industrial exploitation of natural resources (including roads, railways,
navigable waterways, pipelines, trunk power transmission lines and other linear
disturbances);
- Agricultural lands;
- Territories disturbed by economic activities during the last 30-70 years (logging,
mining operation sites, reservoirs, abandoned agricultural lands, etc.);
- Artificially restored forests, or tree plantations, if their existence can be detected
on Landsat satellite imagery.
The ratio of forest and non-forest ecosystems within intact forest landscapes is not a
factor in whether an area is defined as intact or non-intact. The key criteria are an absence
of disturbed territories and infrastructure objects. Thus, intact forest landscapes may
consist primarily of non-treed ecosystems that are minimally disturbed by human
industrial activity (for example, treeless swamps or alpine and upper sub-alpine rocky
areas in mountains that are fully surrounded by forest). The exception is large water
bodies. Lakes larger than 50,000 hectares are excluded from the forest landscape data to
avoid situations where intact forest landscapes are predominantly water.
It should be noted that some human impacts are invisible from space, such as small forest
roads and paths. Other smaller-scale impacts (including some selective logging) that
occurred more than 30-70 years ago often become invisible on medium-resolution
satellite imagery and indistinguishable from the natural dynamics of the forest. The maps
of Canada’s intact forest landscapes are based primarily on the visual interpretation of
1988- 2002 Landsat images, and some imagery from the 2003-2006 period. Therefore,
only more recent human impacts are recorded, which means that there is some
overestimation of intact forest landscape areas despite the buffer exclusion zones applied
to the disturbance layers that were used to create the intact forest landscape data.
Page 96
95
Table 14. Intact forest landscapes of Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones, Boreal Shield Ecozone and the
Pimachiowin Aki planning area.
Region Total area (ha)
IFL1 area
(ha) % IFL
% of boreal/ Taiga IFL
% of boreal shield IFL
Boreal/taiga ecozones2 579,124,235 443,048,542 76.5 N/A N/A
Boreal shield ecozone2 188,640,692 125,891,126 66.7 21.7 N/A
Pimachiowin Aki 4,246,029 4,122,859 97.1 0.7 2.2
1Intact forest landscapes
Created by Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009. Available at: www.globalforestwatch.ca.
2National Ecological Framework:
http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/intro.html
http://www.ecozones.ca/english/
Page 97
96
Ma
p 3
7.
Inta
ct
Fo
rest
La
ndscap
es o
f th
e C
ana
da
’s
Bo
rea
l S
hie
ld
Eco
zo
ne
an
d
of
the
P
imach
iow
in
Aki pla
nnin
g
are
a.
Page 98
97
37BEcological Values Index Within Intact Forest Landscapes
This section examines a selection of key ecological values within intact forest landscapes.
In effect, this section attempts to establish a possible methodology for identifying what
can be called “key ecological areas.”
Although intact forest landscapes have intrinsic value in themselves, identifying “key
ecological values” within intact forest landscapes is challenging due to the limited
amount of information on most remaining intact areas. It is also difficult to evaluate
trade-offs in various prioritization schemes, as value judgments are required and values
vary widely. In addition, the methodologies that have been developed for identifying and
prioritizing values may not yet be sufficiently refined in order to receive widespread
acceptance.
Because of these challenges, GFWC approached the identification of “key ecological
values” within intact forest landscapes using select indicators as illustrative only.
We do not presume that this is the only, or the best, analytical approach possible. More
detailed data on some indicators internally held by various governments and industrial
sectors could provide a more accurate analysis, regardless of the approach taken.
However, many indicators were not included in our map analysis simply because broad-
scale inventories are not yet available or have not yet been undertaken.
We do not presume, either, that the geographic areas we present in this section are the
only areas that deserve enhanced attention. For example, woodland caribou and grizzly
bear ranges need enhanced attention as these species are in decline in significant areas
nationwide.
Our results are a very broad landscape-scale illustration of focal areas that may warrant
enhanced conservation and stewardship attention. But the approach we take is not an
exhaustive study on this topic.
GFWC selected and mapped, in 1-kilometre grid cells, 7 key ecological values for all of
Canada’s intact forest landscapes: soil organic carbon; net biome productivity; wetlands;
lakes and rivers; potential old-growth; species diversity (reptiles and amphibians, birds,
mammals, trees); and, key focal species (woodland caribou).
Soil Organic Carbon
It is estimated that nearly 30% of the earth’s soil organic carbon is locked in tundra and
boreal ecosystems.6 Approximately 75% of Canada consists of these ecosystems, which
suggests that Canada contains a very significant portion of the world’s stored carbon.
6 Natural Resources Canada. 2007. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations. Sensitivities to Climate Change in Canada:
Soil Organic Carbon. Online at: http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/sensitivities/8_e.php
Page 99
98
Most of the organic carbon found in Canadian soils occurs at mid and high latitudes
(northward from the southern limit of the boreal forest) where cryosolic and organic soils
dominate. Since much of Canada’s boreal and taiga is covered by intact forest
landscapes, these areas are important repositories of soil organic carbon, especially in
peatlands. Consequently, soil organic carbon was selected as a key ecological value.
Map 38 illustrates the distribution of soil organic carbon within intact forest landscapes in
Canada. The distribution of carbon in soils is identified as kilograms of carbon per square
metre and is classified into five categories. The total amounts of soil carbon are expressed
in terms of billions of tonnes.
Canada’s 469 million hectares of intact forest landscapes contain just over 177 billion
tonnes of organic carbon within its soil. Approximately one-half of the intact forest
landscapes of Canada contain almost 88% (155.8 B tonnes) of the organic carbon present
in all of the intact forest landscape soils.
Net Biome Productivity
Net biome productivity (NPB) is the net carbon balance of forest landscapes and is the
difference between carbon dioxide (CO2) uptake by assimilation and CO2 losses through
plant and soil respiration. Areas with a positive NPB balance are carbon sinks and play an
important role in the amelioration of global warming.
Map 39 displays net biome productivity within Canada’s intact forest landscapes.
Over 116 million ha or 24% of Canada’s intact forest landscapes are identified as major
carbon sinks while over 115 million ha are major carbon sources, according to 2000-2003
data. Another 111 million ha are considered to have neutral carbon flux. There is no data
for 144 million ha as only forests and wetlands are considered – no data areas are mostly
lakes, rivers, tundra in the northern portion of the Taiga ecozones and high elevation
areas in the Rocky Mountains.
Wetlands
Wetlands are critical ecological components of forest landscapes. Wetlands sustain more
life than any other ecosystem. Wetlands play a major role in maintaining the stability of
the global environment. They nurture hundreds of different species and provide critical
breeding and rearing habitat for a wide diversity of wildlife. Canada has 14% of the
planet’s wetlands.7
7 Atlas of Canada. 2004. Wetlands. Available at:
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/learningresources/theme_modules/wetlands/index.html
Page 100
99
Map 40 illustrates wetland distribution in relation to the occurrence of intact forest
landscapes. A significant portion (almost 18 %) of Canada’s intact forest landscapes are
comprised of wetlands, primarily peatlands.
Wetlands within Canada’s forest landscapes are not evenly distributed across the country.
The provinces with the highest proportion of wetlands within their intact forest
landscapes are Ontario (44%), Manitoba (40%), and Alberta (24%). The jurisdictions
with the least wetland area are Prince Edward Island (0%), Yukon (2%), British
Columbia (3%), and Nunavut (5%).
Lakes and Rivers
Canada’s intact forest landscapes contain an abundance of freshwater ecosystems,
including lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and wetlands. Canada has more lake area than any
other country in the world, with 563 lakes larger than 100 square kilometres. The Great
Lakes, straddling the Canada-US boundary, contain 18% of the world’s fresh lake water.8
Canada has two of the world’s 17 largest rivers (Mackenzie and St. Lawrence) in terms of
drainage area, length and volume of discharge.9
Since aquatic areas are critical ecological components of forest landscapes, lakes and
major rivers are mapped and analyzed within intact forest landscapes and forest
fragments in Map 41.
The intact forest area(s) within a given watershed may not have the same density of lakes
and rivers as the watershed as a whole; however, for our ecological values analysis, the
areas of intact forest landscapes within each watershed were still all assigned the same
value (i.e., the overall density for that watershed).
Potential Old Growth Forests
Old growth forests often contain endemic native species and are important areas of
atmospheric carbon sequestration and carbon storehouses. Many Canadians highly value
old-growth forests.
Potential old growth deciduous, mixed, and conifer forest areas (the latter separated into
high and low tree-canopy densities) were mapped and analyzed within intact forest
landscapes. Non-treed land cover categories and areas burned between 1980-2000 were
deleted from GFWC’s intact forest landscapes data layer. The residual treed area within
intact forest landscapes was termed potential old-growth forest.
8 Environment Canada. 2008. Lakes. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/nature/lakes/e_lakesl.htm 9 Environment Canada. 2008. Rivers. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/nature/rivers/e_riv.htm
Page 101
100
According to our analysis, there are almost 260 million hectares of potential old growth
forest in Canada’s intact forest landscapes (Map 42).
Species Diversity
The maintenance of biodiversity is a key objective of sustainable forest management.
One important component and measure of biodiversity is species diversity. As species are
not evenly distributed across intact forest landscapes, the number of species within
geographic areas can be assessed and mapped as another key ecological value.
Using an available dataset that had been created by ecodistrict units,10 major species
groups, each with a large variety of native common and rare species (reptiles and
amphibians; birds; mammals; trees), were selected to to provide variation within the
animal and plant kingdoms). The species (excluding trees) consist of 627 taxa of common
and rare species.
Bird Species
The total intact forest landscape area with the highest bird species diversity category is
approximately 62 million hectares; these areas are mostly located in southern Canada.
Map 43 illustrates that the intact forest landscapes in southern British Columbia (Pacific
Maritime and Montane Cordillera Ecozones), the Boreal Plains Ecozone of Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the southern Boreal Shield Ecozone of Manitoba, Ontario,
and Québec contain portions of ecodistricts with the highest numbers of bird species.
The intact forest landscapes of the Taiga Shield Ecozone, especially in northern Québec
and northern Labrador contain ecodistricts with the lowest numbers of bird species.
Reptile and Amphibian Species
The intact forest landscape area covered by the two highest reptile and amphibian
diversity categories (those with more than 10 species per ecodistrict) is approximately 56
million hectares. These are mostly located in southern Canada, as evident in Map 45.
Map 44 also illustrates that the intact forest landscapes in southern British Columbia
(Pacific Maritime Ecozone), Ontario (Boreal Shield Ecozone), Québec (Boreal Shield
Ecozone) and Nova Scotia (Atlantic Maritime Ecozone) contain the ecodistricts with the
highest numbers of reptile and amphibian species.
10 Species diversity: Environment Canada. 1999. Dataset and report (Freemark K, Moore H, Forsyth DM, Sinclair ARE,
White D, Barrett T, Pressey RL. 1999. Identifying minimum sets of conservation sites for representing biodiversity in
Canada: A complementarity approach. Technical Report Series, Canadian Wildlife Service, Headquarters, Environment
Canada, Ottawa K1A 0H3). Available at: ftp://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/Ecosystems/
Page 102
101
The ecodistricts with the lowest numbers of reptile and amphibian species in intact forest
landscapes are found in the northern Taiga Ecozones and the Boreal Shield Ecozone of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mammal Species
The intact forest landscape area covered by the highest mammal species diversity
category is approximately 68 million hectares; these areas are mostly located in southern
Canada.
Map 45 illustrates that the intact forest landscapes in southern British Columbia (Pacific
Maritime and Montane Ecozones), northern British Columbia (Boreal Cordillera
Ecozone), western Alberta (Montane Cordillera Ecozone), southern Manitoba (Boreal
Plains and Boreal Shield Ecozones), large areas of southern and north central Ontario
(Boreal Shield and Hudson Plains Ecozones), and small portions of southern Québec
(Boreal Shield Ecozone) contain portions of ecodistricts with the highest numbers of
mammal species.
The intact forest landscapes in northern Taiga Shield Ecozone, especially of Québec, and
the Boreal Shield Ecozone of Newfoundland contain the ecodistricts with the lowest
numbers of mammal species.
Tree Species
The total area covered by the highest tree species diversity category is approximately 13
million hectares; these high diversity areas are mostly located in southern Canada.
Map 46 illustrates that the intact forest landscapes in southern British Columbia (Pacific
Maritime Ecozone), southern Ontario (Boreal Shield Ecozone), small portions of
southern Québec (Boreal Shield Ecozone) and Nova Scotia (Atlantic Maritime Ecozone)
contain ecodistricts with the highest numbers of tree species.
Caribou Occurrence
A species identified as being most sensitive to a threat in a landscape is termed a focal
species. It is assumed that because the most demanding species are selected as focal
species, a landscape designed and managed to meet their needs will encompass the
requirements of all other species similarly threatened.11
Woodland caribou are considered a key focal species because they are wide-ranging,
sensitive to landscape disturbances, and considered by many scientists to be an
11 Lambeck RJ. 1997. Focal Species: A Multi-Species Umbrella for Nature Conservation. Conservation Biology 11(4):849-
856.
Page 103
102
umbrella12 species.13 As well, relatively recent occurrence extent information is available
for woodland caribou.
Information has been available for many years concerning ongoing population declines in
Canada’s herds. A recent science study released by Environment Canada reports that 30
of 57 woodland caribou herds across Canada’s boreal region were considered to be not
self-sustaining.14 A self-sustaining caribou herd is a local population of boreal caribou
that on average demonstrates stable or positive population growth (λ ≥ 1.0) over the short
term, and is large enough to withstand stochastic events and persist over the long-term,
without the need for ongoing intensive management intervention (e.g. predator
management or transplants from other populations.
The remaining occurrences of this sensitive species were mapped and analyzed in relation
to intact forest landscapes; see Map 47. Québec and the Northwest Territories each
contain over 20% of the woodland caribou occurrence within intact forest landscapes.
Combined Ecological Values Index Within Intact Forest Landscapes
Map 48 shows the combined ecological values index within intact forest landscapes in
Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone. Pimachiowin Aki is part of a larger block of the highest
combined ecological values index.
12
13 s: Wild Places for Wild Life – Proceedings Summary of the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA) and
Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN) Workshop, September 9-10, 2003, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.
Available at: http://www.ccea.org/Downloads/en_archive2005_workshop2003.pdf#page=88 14 Environment Canada. 2008. Scientific Review for the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer
tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada. August 2008. Ottawa: Environnent Canada. 72 pp. plus 180 pp Appendices.
Available at: https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1761
Page 106
105
Map 40. Wetlands within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes.
M a p
4 0
Page 114
113
Ma
p 4
8.
Com
bin
ed
Co
nse
rva
tio
n V
alu
es w
ith
in C
ana
da’s
In
tact
Fo
rest
Lan
dsca
pe
s.
Page 115
114
38BProtected Areas
Maps 49 and 50 show Piumachiowin Aki planning area in relation to the world’s
protected areas and Canada’s protected areas.
Global Protected Areas
Ma
p 4
9.
Pro
tecte
d
Are
as
(IU
CN
I-
IV)
with
in
Cir
cu
m-
Bo
rea
l/T
aig
a
Bio
me.
Page 116
115
Canada Protected Areas
Ma
p
50
. P
rote
cte
d
Are
as
with
in
Can
a
da.
Page 117
116
Examples of Comparable World Heritage Sites (Inscribed and Tentative in Boreal/Taiga Biome)
The following pages of maps (Maps 51 to 66) show the Pimochiowin Aki planning area
in comparison to 10 other sites within or partially within Canada and elsewhere in the
World’s Boreal/Taiga Biome. For the Global Comparables section, the Pimachiowin Aki
planning area and the other Canada sites display globally-available datasets for
Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes. For the following Canada Comparables
section, the Pimachiowin Aki planning area uses use more detailed datasets for
Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes.
Table 15 provides a ranking of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area and 10 other World
Heritage Sites (Inscribed and Tentative in Boreal/Taiga Biome) using three ecological
values (Freshwaters, Soil Organic Carbon and Intact Forest Landscapes). The ranking is
based simply on a visual inspection of the maps and a ranking of 1 to 3, with 3 being the
highest rank and 1 the lowest. Only one other site, Wood Buffalo National Park, scored
as high as the Pimachiowin Aki planning area.
Table 15. Comparison of World Heritage Sites (Inscribed and Tentative in Boreal/Taiga Biome) using three
ecological values ( Freshwaters, Soil Organic Carbon and Intact Forest Landscapes).
Freshwaters
Soil Organic Carbon
Intact Forest Landscape Total
Pimachiowin Aki 3 3 3 9
Sweden High Coast 1 1 1 3 Russian Federation Lake Baikal (Inscribed) and Magadansky State Nature Reserve 3 2 2 7
Russian Federation Central Sikhote-Alin 1 2 3 6
Russian Federation Nature Park “Lena Pillars” 3 2 2 7
Russian Federation Virgin Komi Forest 1 2 3 6
Russian Federation Volcanoes of Kamchatka 1 1 3 5
Canada Gros Morne National Park 3 1 3 7
Canada Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini 2 3 3 8
Canada Nahanni National Park 3 1 3 7
Canada: Wood Buffalo National Park 3 3 3 9
Page 118
117
Global Comparables (using global data)
1. Pimachiowin Aki using global datasets
Sweden
2. Sweden High Coast (Inscribed)
Russian Federation
3. Russian Federation Lake Baikal (Inscribed) and Russian Federation Magadansky
State Nature Reserve (Tentative)
4. Russian Federation Central Sikhote-Alin (Inscribed)
5. Russian Federation Nature Park “Lena Pillars” (Tentative)
6. Russian Federation Virgin Komi Forest (Inscribed)
7. Russian Federation Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Inscribed)
Canada
8. Pimachiowin Aki using detailed datasets
9. Canada Gros Morne National Park (Inscribed)
10. Canada Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini (Inscribed)
11. Canada Nahanni National Park (Inscribed)
12. Canada: Wood Buffalo National Park (Inscribed)
Page 119
118
1. Pimachiowin Aki
(Map 51a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 51B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 120
119
2. Sweden High Coast (Inscribed)
(Map 52a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 52B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 121
120
3. Russian Federation Lake Baikal (Inscribed) and Magadansky State
Nature Reserve (Tentative)
(Map 53a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 53B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 122
121
4. Russian Federation Central Sikhote-Alin (Inscribed)
(Map 54a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 54B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 123
122
5. Russian Federation Nature Park “Lena Pillars” (Tentative)
(Map 55a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 55B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 124
123
6. Russian Federation Virgin Komi Forest (Inscribed)
(Map 56a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 56B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 125
124
7. Russian Federation Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Inscribed)
(Map 57a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 57B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 126
125
8. Canada Gros Morne National Park (Inscribed)
(Map 56a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 56B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 127
126
9. Canada Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini
(Inscribed)
(Map 59a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 59B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 128
127
10. Canada Nahanni National Park (Inscribed)
(Map 60a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 60B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 129
128
11. Canada: Wood Buffalo National Park (Inscribed)
Page 130
129
Canada Comparisons (using detailed data)
1. Canada Pimachiowin Aki
2. Canada Gros Morne National Park (Inscribed)
3. Canada Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini (Inscribed)
4. Canada Nahanni National Park (Inscribed)
5. Canada: Wood Buffalo National Park (Inscribed)
Page 131
130
1. Canada Pimachiowin Aki
(Map 62a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 62B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 132
131
2. Canada Gros Morne National Park (Inscribed)
(Map 63a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 63B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 133
132
3. Canada Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini
(Inscribed)
(Map 64a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 64B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 134
133
4. Canada Nahanni National Park (Inscribed)
(Map 65a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 65B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 135
134
Canada: Wood Buffalo National Park (Inscribed)
(Map 66a. Freshwaters and Intact Forest Landscapes; Map 66B: Soil Organic Carbon)
Page 136
135
Other potential comparables but for which no spatial data was located or site is likely not in Boreal/Taiga Biome
Finland Kvarken Archipelago
Finland Saimaa-Pielinen Lake System (Tentative)
Iceland Nupsstadur (Tentative)
Daurian Steppes (Daursky State Biosphere Reserve)
Russian FederationThe Great Vasyugan Mire
Russian Federation The National Park of Vodlozero (Tentative)
Russian Federation Krasnoyarsk Stolby (Tentative)
Russian Federation Golden Mountains of Altai (Inscribed)
Russia: Teberdinskiy Reserve (Tentative)
Page 137
136
3BSection 4. Conclusions
15BSignificant/Outstanding aspects of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area from a global Boreal/Taiga Biome perspective
39B40BAA. Freshwaters
The global Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome contains ~615,000 km2 of large waterbodies ≥
0.1 km2. Even though North America’s Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome is only 2/3 (67%)
the size of Asia’s, it contains almost four times the area of large waterbodies at 406,000
km2. Large waterbodies comprise 8% of the Boreal Forest/Taiga Biome of North
America, but only 2% of Asia’s and 4% of Europe’s Boreal Forest/Taiga Biome.
Large waterbodies comprise a larger portion of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area, at
10%, than for the globe’s Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome as a whole and than for any
continent’s Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome.
Similarly, substantially greater percentages of the watersheds within the Pimachiowin
Aki planning area have a large portion of their area as large waterbodies – 20% for the
Pimachiowin Aki planning area versus 15% for North America, 4% for Asia and 7% for
Europe.
So, Pimachiowin Aki is very significant at continental and global perspectives from this
aspect – amount of area covered by freshwaters as a proportion of the total area.
41BB. Soil Organic Carbon
The average Soil Organic Content of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area (30.1 kg/m2) is
higher than for Asia (21.7 kg/m2), Europe (27.5 kg/m
2) and North America’s (25.9
kg/m2) Boreal/Taiga Biome.
42BC. Representative land cover and tree cover
Two land cover types comprise 84.0% of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area – Evergreen
Needleleaf Forest (45.9%) and Woodlands (38.1%). This is generally reflective of the
southern boreal positioning of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area.
D. Southern Location
There are likely at least two important issues regarding the Pimachiowin Aki planning
area’s global and national positioning within the southern portion of the world’s and
North America’s Boreal Forest/Taiga Biome:
Page 138
137
1. Anthropogenic impacts: Southern portions of the Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome are
more heavily impacted by anthropogenic activities than northern portions and
generally provide the greatest opportunities for renewable resource (e.g., logging
and agriculture) extraction and use;
2. Biodiversity: Southern portions of the Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome have the
highest above-ground diversity of species of mammals, birds, reptiles and
amphibians and plants, but have, in many cases, lower populations of some
individual species (e.g., woodland caribou, wolverine).
The Pimachiowin Aki planning area lies within the southern portion of the world’s
Boreal Forest/Taiga Biome. There is only 15% (2.2 million km2) of the world’s
Boreal/Taiga Biome south of the northern boundary of the Pimachiowin Aki planning
area (53.35 North), 10% of this amount lies in Canada and 3% of that portion in Canada
is within the Pimachiowin Aki planning area.
16BSignificant/Outstanding aspects of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area from a Canada Boreal/Taiga Ecozones perspective and a Canada Boreal Shield perspective
43BA. Freshwaters
Freshwaters comprise 10.5% of Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone and a very similar
percentage (9%) of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area. This means the Pimachiowin Aki
planning area is very representative of Canada’s Boreal Shield from the aspect of
freshwater area. Similarly with shoreline length, Pimachiowin Aki planning area is very
representative of Boreal Shield (5 m/ha and 5 m/ha, respectively).
B. Overall Boreal/Taiga Biodiversity
The Pimachiowin Aki planning area contains some ecodistricts with a very high
biodiversity index, in comparison to Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones and in comparison
to Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone. The biodiversity of the Pimachiowin Aki planning
area is similar to the Boreal Shield Ecozone for average reptile/amphibian and tree
species per ecodistrict but more than 20% higher for mammal species and more than 30%
higher for average bird species per ecodistrict.
C. Bird Species Diversity
All the ecodistricts of the Pimachiowin Aki planning area contains very high numbers of
bird species, in comparison to Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones and in comparison to
Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone.
Page 139
138
D. Woodland Caribou
Woodland Caribou occurrence in Canada has declined substantially in the last 100 years.
The Pimachiowin Aki planning area now occupies a significant portion of the
southernmost extent of that occurrence
E. Soil Organic Carbon
Pimachiowin Aki has a significantly higher amount of Soil Organic Carbon, on a
proportional basis, in comparison to Canada’s Boreal/Taiga Ecozones and in comparison
to Canada’s Boreal Shield Ecozone (67 kg/m2, 45 kg/m
2 and 46 kg/m
2, respectively).
F. Southern Location
The Pimachiowin Aki planning area lies within the southern portion of the world’s
Boreal Forest / Taiga Biome. There is only 15% (2.2 million km2) of the world’s
Boreal/Taiga Biome south of the northern boundary of the Pimachiowin Aki planning
area (53.35 North), 10% of this amount lies in Canada and 3% of that portion in Canada
is within the Pimachiowin Aki planning area.
G. Intact Forest Landscapes
The Pimachiowin Aki planning areas comprises approximately 7% of the largest
contiguous intact forest landscape in the world. It is located at the southern edge of this
intact forest landscape where biodiversity is high but also where threats due to
encroaching industrial uses is also high.
Page 140
139
Who is Global Forest Watch Canada?
Global Forest Watch Canada (GFWC) is an organization whose role is to support the
stewardship and conservation of Canada’s remaining forests, by providing decision
makers and civil society with timely, accurate information on their location, state, and
change. In particular, this mission includes monitoring development activities occurring
within and around Canada’s forests, which influence the current and future conditions of
these ecosystems as well as the people who live within them. We contribute to a shift
toward greater ecological sustainability in the management of natural areas by creating a
compelling visual picture and analysis of current conditions, historical changes and future
trends.
Our vision is that Canada’s forests will be increasingly well-managed through better
information that supports improved decision-making and, thereby, will provide a full
range of benefits for both present and future generations.
