follow-up report public consultation pafit 2018-2023 modified · mffp –follow-up report public...

Follow-up report public consultation PAFIT 2018-2023 modified

Direction générale du secteur nord-ouest July 6th, 2020

MINISTÈRE DES FORÊTS, DE LA FAUNE ET DES PARCS

Development Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs Direction générale du secteur nord-ouest 1121, boulevard Industriel, C. P. 159 Lebel-sur-Quévillon (Québec) J0Y 1X0 Téléphone : 819 755-4838 Télécopieur : 819 755-3541 Courriel : [email protected]

Distribution This publication is designed for two-sided printing and only available online at http://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/forets/consultation/pafi/index.jsp.

© Gouvernement du Québec Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs Dépôt légal – Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, 2015 Dépôt légal – Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, 2015 ISBN 978-2-550-87066-1(pdf)

mailto:[email protected]

http://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/forets/consultation/pafi/index.jsp

MFFP –FOLLOW-UP REPORT PUBLIC CONSULTATION–PAFIT 2018-2023 modified

Produced July 6th, 2020 iii

Table of Contents

1. Context ............................................................................................................................... 1

2. Objectives of the Public Consultation .................................................................................. 1

3. Management Units Included in the Public Consultation ....................................................... 1

4. Consultation Process and Main Comments Received ......................................................... 2

5. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................15

List of Table

Table 1 – Number of Organizations and People Who Commented ............................................ 3

Table 2 – Main Comments Received ......................................................................................... 4

List of Annex

Annex 1 – Public Notice ............................................................................................................16


Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs Produced July 6th, 2020 1

1. Context The Sustainable Forest Development Act (LADTF) (L.R.Q., c. A-18.1) that has been in force since April 1st, 2013, gives the ministre des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (MFFP) the responsibility of developing operational and tactical integrated forest management plans (PAFIO and PAFIT) and special management plans (PAS). It also requires that these plans, including development based on the principle of ecosystem management, be subject to a public consultation.

2. Objectives of the Public Consultation Public consultation on the PAFIO was held from January 6th to February 20th, 2020. The public was invited during this period to comment on the management unit plan managed by the Directorate General of the Northwest sector, Units 026-61, 026-62, 026-63, 026-64, 026-65, 026-66, 085-51, 085-62, 086-52, 086-63, 086-64, 086-65, 086-66, 087-51, 087-62, 087-63 and 087-64. The plan that was submitted for public consultation revealed the operational planning of the region’s forestry resource development. More specifically, the plan includes changed or added potential intervention sectors and the potential location of roads and other infrastructures to be built or to be improved. Public consultation on forest management plans aims to:

Promote a better understanding on the part of the public of the management of

Quebec’s public forests, and more specifically, forest management planning; allow the public to comment on the proposed forest management plans and where possible, to incorporate the expressed interests, values and needs;

Respond to the public’s desire to be informed and heard and to see its interests,

values and needs taken into account in forest management decisions;

Reconcile the divergent interests of the many forest land and resource users;

Harmonize forest management with the public’s values and needs; Enable the Ministry to make the best decisions possible under the circumstances.



3. Management Units Included in the Public Consultation

The Directorate General of the Northwest sector is responsible for the forest planning of management units illustrated below.

4. Consultation Process and Main Comments Received

Public consultation on 2018-2023 integrated forest management plans tactical (PAFIT) was held from January 6th to February 20th, 2020. A Public Notice was published in some local and regional media to invite the public to participate in the consultation. A press release was also written and sent out on the newswire. Targeted invitations were also sent to certain individuals who expressed an interest in being informed of the consultations, as well as some associations and local and regional organizations.

Here is the list of media in which Public Notice was issued before the consultation period:

Médias

La Sentinelle

Le Citoyen Abitibi-Est et Ouest

The Nation



4.1. Number of Organizations and People Who Commented

Comments were made on behalf of various organizations or staff members within the context of the PAFIO public consultation. Table 1 below indicates the type and number of respondents for the management unit subject to the consultation.

Table 1 – Number of Organizations and People Who Commented

Information Meetings

Date January 27th January 28h January 29th January 30th

Place

2709, boulevard du Curé-McDuff, Beaucanton

99, boulevard Matagami, Matagami

650, 3e Rue, Chibougamau

500, place Quévillon, Lebel-sur-Quévillon

Number of Participants

7 3 21 7

Number of people who have consulted the plans at Directorate General offices in the Northwest sector

0

Number of People or Organizations That Have Made Comments

Number of Individuals

(Staff Members) Number of organizations Total

0 5 5

4.2 Main Comments Received

Given the number of comments received and in order to facilitate follow-up, the MFFP has chosen to reveal the comments received in table form. This facilitates the retrieval of information, while allowing one to see the overall main concerns expressed by those who participated in the public consultation. This also allows for an understanding of some of the MFFP’s answers through its comments and to therefore have an overview of the follow-up that will be conducted. Hence, Table 2 indicates the comments received and summarizes the analysis conducted by the Ministry.


Produced July 6th, 2020 4

Table 2 – Main Comments Received

# Comments and/or changes requested MFFP’s responses and follow-up

Comments expressed by Chantiers Chibougamau Ltd. (CCL) - MU 026-61, 026-62, 026-63, 026-64, 026-65 and 026-66

1 A lot of information of relevance to the new forest regime and the ensuing forestry plans and operations is available on the websites of the MFFP, the BMMB and the Chief Forester. CCL, on its own website, also provides information on its activities (e.g. FHVC, dispute resolution process, etc.). Having said this, although the tactical forest plan (PAFIT) currently in force briefly describes the most significant planning inputs, and in most cases refers readers to the different possible resources for additional information on certain key elements (e.g. the office of the Chief Forester for additional information on current calculations, link to information sheets explaining the main aims of the new forest regime, etc.), there is no such reference provided for other key elements, including the Sustainable forest management strategy and the Paix des braves agreement. These elements are mentioned in the tactical plan, but there are no references to more complete documentation. When the 2018-2023 tactical plans are reviewed, CCL would like to ensure that special attention is also given to clarifying all the “related documents”, which should be referenced in the plan summary to ensure that the public is well aware that they exist, and to facilitate access to them on request.

The organization should also ensure that the changes made to the 2018-2023 tactical plan provide more evidence of compliance with indicators 7.5.1 and 7.5.2.

The version of the tactical plan to which the comments refer is not the modified 2018-2023 tactical plan, but rather the 2013-2018 tactical plan renewed in 2018-2023.

However, in the 2018-2023 modified tactical plan, references are provided for all the key elements, including the Sustainable forest management strategy and the Paix des braves among others.

The 2018-2023 version of the modified tactical plan can be found by clicking on the following link: https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/les-forets/amenagement-durable-forets/consultation-public-partenaires/consultation-plans-damenagement-forestier-integre/nord-du-quebec-fevrier-2020/

2 Chantiers Chibougamau ltée does well with the consultations for which it is responsible (harmonization), and the consultations on the operational plans and the tactical plans are run in accordance with the spirit that

In light of this comment, we checked the availability of documentation on consultations relating to the guidelines on the selection, implementation and operation of local forests. We found that one hyperlink had broken when this section of our website was

https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/les-forets/amenagement-durable-forets/consultation-public-partenaires/consultation-plans-damenagement-forestier-integre/nord-du-quebec-fevrier-2020/







governs them, i.e. providing an opportunity for interested parties to make comments as part of an open process, and ensuring that a consultation report that documents the comments made and how they are considered is produced within a reasonable time. Having said this, some consultations on subjects relating to strategic planning have been organized by the MFFP since 2002, but there were no subsequent reports that would allow the participants to see the extent to which their concerns were taken into account. For example, there are no consultation reports on the MFFP’s website, or the links to them are broken; the link to the consultation report from the page on local forest consultations leads to the consultation document, not the report). There is therefore no feedback (which is provided for in the eighth element of the Principles of the Consultation Policy currently in force since February 2003, namely that “the public is informed of the consultation results and the Minister’s decisions are explained”.) This is also provided for in the draft Consultation Policy on which consultations were held in 2017, but which has not yet been adopted. Feedback is also one of the basic components of true, sustained participation. This principle of public participation, recognized in the scientific literature and in line with the definitions given above, is therefore missing from the MFFP’s current practice for consultations on strategic issues. We consider this non-compliance to be minor, because other, very important principles are applied, including openness to a broad audience and clarity of the process.

updated.

The link has since been repaired and the information is once again available.

Regarding the other elements mentioned in the comment, the draft Consultation Policy will shortly be available and will clarify certain aspects, including reporting rules for consultations on the MFFP orientations and strategic planning. In addition, the MFFP still intends to work in collaboration with companies that obtain forestry certification. The information in the comment supports ongoing improvements to the spirit of this collaboration.




3 The 2018-2023 tactical plans that are currently in force (the renewed 2013-2018 tactical plans) are available publicly but provide little information on monitoring results from previous periods. They present only a history of work carried out between 2008 and 2013 (with no explanations of divergences – see section 6.1) and monitoring data for the seven VOITs (values, objectives, indicators and targets) chosen for the period in question. However, other objectives were also in force during previous planning periods (e.g. protection and development objectives – PDOs). Some data for the Nord-du-Québec region is missing from the 2008 to 2013 reviews produced by the office of the Chief Forester: e.g. monitoring data for rutting rates and loss of productive areas. CCL has its own monitoring system and presents its results to the integrated land and resource management panel every year, but the general public is not aware that this information is available. As a result, the reviews that were available publicly during the audit did not cover all the monitoring elements required under 8.2. The audit team was able to access a preliminary version of the 2018-2023 modified tactical plans, dated 2018, and noted that the proposed content had been improved significantly and should fulfill most of the above requirements.

Section 9 on monitoring of the 2018-2023 modified tactical plans describes the monitoring actions carried out by the MFFP to verify the achievement of objectives and compliance with directives arising from the forest management strategy.

This section focuses in particular on compliance monitoring and efficiency monitoring carried out in the forest operations zone at relatively short intervals, after the work has been completed by the organization concerned.

Comments expressed by Resolute forest products - MU 087-62, 087-63 and 087-64

4 Table 1: Profile of forest certification in Nord-du-Québec and Map 1: Profile of forest certification in the Nord-du-Québec region:

Resolute FP has the SFI area certificate in MU 08762 (BCL has a certificate for its own operations only -> this information needs to be checked with BCL)

The proposed changes will be incorporated into the 2018-2023 tactical plans.




Table 9: Holders of biomass harvesting permits in Nord-du-Québec: Should Boralex’s annual plan be included in this table?

Boralex does not currently have an annual plan in the Nord-du-Québec area. However, since biomass is available, it has occasionally received direct agreement contracts.

Tactical plans for management units 087-62, 087-63 and 087-64

Map 9: Location of high conservation value forests (FHVC) by management unit and Map 10: Location of large core forest (GHE) by management unit:

MU 08762 is no longer certified by FSC; is it still relevant to include the FHVC and GHE maps? In addition, no FHVC is shown on map 9.

The proposed changes will be incorporated into the 2018-2023 tactical plans. There is no need to include the FHVC and GHE maps.

Concerns expressed by an outfitter with a lease of exclusive rights – MU 026-66, lac Hébert

5 Section 6.7.4 Wildlife Resources on page 58: Our exclusive rights outfitting territory (Pourvoirie Lac Hébert) is not even mentioned! Please correct this. See the reasons below.

Page 149, table of target alteration level: target alteration is high. We are not in favour of this objective. Our outfitting operation is located in a FHVC and should be protected. See the reasons below. Our three main concerns are cited here and are not set out in the tactical plan as presented. They are: 1 – protection of landscapes 2 – peace and quiet and 3 – continued inaccessibility of the lake.

The allowable cut calculations will take place in the near future for the period in question (2023-2028). Your comments will be taken into account when we reassess the alteration threshold.

1-Protection of landscapes: It seems that isolation, the area’s wild, natural appearance, absence of human-induced noise and diverse wildlife are the basic elements sought by clients who choose sites that must be accessed by seaplane.

In the amended 2018-2023 tactical plans, the table of issues identified by the Chapais-Chibougamau local land and resource management panel in Schedule C includes the visual framework, citing the need to maintain landscape quality at sites of strategic value for tourism, including the cottages and bodies of water that are identified, and certain roads and trails.

In addition, the Pourvoirie Lac Hébert has always been able to bring its concerns to the outfitters’ representative on the Chapais-Chibougamau integrated land and resource management panel.




It should also be noted that, pursuant to the Regulation respecting the sustainable development of forests (RADF), visual frameworks and protection measures are currently applied around outfitting operations. In section 8.1, objective 5.02.1 of table 16, management objectives and applicable solutions, provides information on the methods available to the MFFP to achieve the objective.

2-Peace and quiet during the months of outfitting operations (late May to mid-September): For the same reasons, clients do not want to hear noise from forest roadwork or harvesting operations during their stay (which is costly).

Since peace and quiet is not tactical in nature, it is not covered by the tactical plan. It is covered by the operational plan, under harmonization of uses.

Given the operational nature of this concern, the outfitter is invited to take part in the public consultations on the operational forest management plans (PAFIOs), either by attending the public information meetings or by contacting the person responsible for the public consultation.

3-Inaccessibility: The new terrestrial access facilities must be kept well away from the area to preserve the validity of an operation that must be accessed by seaplane, and to maintain the wilderness characteristic of the area, to reduce the risk of undesired uses (theft, break-ins, poaching, etc.) and ensure the sustainability of our activities. Clearly, a regular, permanent road network in good condition is quite simply incompatible with our business.

Section 8.1.6 of the amended 2018-2023 version of the tactical plan deals with the main infrastructures and access roads, including, among other things, the preparation of the Access Road Management Plan, which will be structured around the values expressed by the general public and the MFFP’s partners.

For now, table 17 presents the management values and objectives for the forest road network, which were identified by the integrated land and resource management panels during their discussions, and from the consultation and harmonization meetings.

Given the operational nature of this concern, the outfitter is invited to take part in the public consultations on the 2018-2023 operational forest management plans (PAFIOs), either by attending the public information meetings or by contacting the person responsible for the public consultation.




Comments expressed by RYAM - MU 085-51 & MU 085-62

6 We would like to draw your attention to the elements mentioned below, which are mostly minor. Unless otherwise specified, the comments apply to the tactical plans for MU 85-51 and MU 085-62.

PART 1: Section 1.3

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is a registered trademark. The organization should be referred to as the Forest Stewardship Council® (FSC®) when it is first mentioned in a document. We suggest that the ® also be added to the list of acronyms and in section 1.3.


Section 2.1

Tactical plan for 085-51 only: “It should be noted that the Cree community of Waskaganish also uses a portion of this management unit. However, the adapted forest regime from the Paix des braves does not apply there.” So should a description of the community not be included in the plan, specifying the area used by it (traplines)?

A description of the Cree community of Waskaganish will be incorporated into section 2.1 of the 2018-2023 tactical plan for management unit 085-51.

Section 3

CHALLENGE 5: Guideline 2 Objective 2 – Reference to section 8.8?


PART 2:

The title of map 5 and the preceding text implies that the map will show more elements than it in fact shows (EFE, biological refuges, SFI, caribou plan, etc.)

The title of Map 5 will be changed as follows: Map 5: Location of the northern limit and territories protected by large protected areas.

Tactical plan for 085-51 only: Table 7: Check the figure for COS 16. The percentage should not be 100%.

The changes will be made to the 2018-2023 tactical plan for COS 16.




Tactical plan for 085-51 only: Map 6: This map contains too much information. The COS could be identified more clearly simply by including the number, E.g. “6”, instead of “08551_COS6” (e.g. Map 14). The map would also be more useful if it included a typology showing the percentage of forests 7m high or over by COS, based on data from Table 7.

The proposed changes will be incorporated into the 2023-2028 tactical plans

Tactical plan for 085-62 only Section 6.5: “Lastly, individuals may gather firewood from lands in the domain of the State if a permit has been issued to that effect.” Are there a lot of applications for firewood permits in MU 085-62?

So far, there have been no applications for firewood permits specifically for MU 085-62.

However, section 6.5 presents a socioeconomic profile for all MUs in the Nord-du-Québec region.

Section 6.5: Table 9: Does Norforce Énergie Inc. still exist?

At the time the consultation report was written, Norforce Énergie Inc. was still in existence.

Section 6.6: 3rd paragraph

Should the reference to the number of kilometres be the usage layer for the different trails? Add the horse trails (Mont Fenouillet on horseback)

The changes will be made in the 2018-2023 tactical plan.

Section 6.7.3: We would like to have more information on the species selection criteria for Table 10 vs. Appendix B. Some species that we identified in the HCV report are not shown. In addition, it would be interesting to add a column showing vulnerability to forest management, to identify the threats to these species (See Appendix G of the tactical plan for 082-51). Idem for wildlife.

Having said this, the fact that you have identified regional rarities is much appreciated.

This list is produced in collaboration with the people responsible for regional and provincial issues. We have noted your comment and the proposed improvements will be considered for the 2023-2028 tactical plan.




Section 6.7.4:“The caribou as a species is emblematic of the boreal forest and is of particular importance to the First Nations. Four woodland caribou populations are found in the Nord-du-Québec region, including three in the area covered by Chapter 3 of the Paix des braves, namely the populations of Nottaway, Assinica and Témiscamie. The woodland caribou is the subject of a provincial issue described in detail in section 7.2.6.”

The Détour herd uses the area of MU 085-62 and also the area covered by the Paix des braves.

The sentence will be changed in the 2018-2023 tactical plans, and replaced by the following: Four woodland caribou populations are found in the Nord-du-Québec region, namely the Detour, Nottaway, Assinica and Témiamie populations.

Section 6.8 Comment: The FHVC and GHE shown in the tactical plan are those that are currently in force. The GHE may have to be altered during the work of the regional operations group on the Détour woodland caribou herd. When the new contours (if any) are known and finalized, they will be sent to the forest planners for inclusion in the plan.

The new contours, once known and finalized, will be incorporated into the 2023-2028 tactical plan, but in the meantime they will be considered by forest planners for the purposes of the operational plan.

Section 6.8 p 48. The text on exotic species could be moved to a better place, maybe to section 8.6.1?


PART 3: Tactical plan for 085-62 only, Section 7.2.4. Issue 4 – Depletion of the attributes of naturally disturbed forests, or change the list heading and mark 3.

We have noted your comment and the missing issue 4 will be added to the 2018-2023 tactical plan.

Tactical plan for 085-51 Section 7.2.5 Wetlands. The 38% protection should be shown as a result on the “Issue Solution” sheet (we do not understand where the 234 ha comes from). Having said this, given that the target has mainly been achieved, it is not in fact an issue. Protection of rare environments would be more appropriate. We have worked with Ducks Unlimited and the rare wetlands in MU 085-51 and MU 085-62 have been identified in the report. You have a copy of that report and we invite you to consult it.

The 234 ha was the result of a formatting mistake. The result is actually 234,740 ha. This will be corrected.

Our priority was to achieve 12% of protected wetlands. We will re-examine rare elements afterwards.

Integrated land and resource management panel participants are asked to share exceptional elements. RYAM may also do this if it has any specific rate sites in mind, and we will examine them.




Section 7.3.1 Paludification: Link to section 8.1.5 In the 2018-2023 tactical plan, the following sentence will be added at the end of section 7.3.1: The strategy for achieving this objective is presented in section 8.1.5.

Section 7.4 Non-timber forest products: Do we have data on the harvesting of NTFPs in these management units? Blueberries, mushrooms, etc.

The MFFP does not as yet have information on the harvesting of NTFPs.

Other values such as the ONIBI water source could be mentioned. Or perhaps in section 6.7.6, water resource? In addition, forestry measures are applicable and form part of the FHVC. What about groundwater/Esker aquifers?

We have taken note of this and the proposed changes will be incorporated into the 2018-2023 tactical plans.

PART 4:

Tactical plan for 085-62 Table 15: Criterion 6 along with Issues 6.01 and 6.03 should also be shown.

The request for a change will be examined and adjustments will be made as required. Otherwise, we will insert an explanation.

Tactical plan 085-51

Table 16: (Objective 1.07.2) Why tend stands for caribou restoration? Would this not result in access roads being opened, thereby maintaining the disturbance over a longer period? Idem for 1.07.1. We have objectives for eskers, but this issue has not been documented in the past.

In some cases the hardwood component has to be reduced to make the site less attractive to moose and hence to wolves. However, the Woodland and Mountain Caribou Strategy proposed in April 2019 includes an operational approach within which work is concentrated in the first ten years. Most of the forest roads are closed after that time. With regard to eskers, no issues were raised with the VVB integrated land and resource management panel, but the Pikogan community raised it separately, and this is why we included it.

Table 17: Fish habitat – A forest road network in which watercourse crossings do not hinder the free circulation of fish.


Tactical plan 085-51 Table 18: Mistake in the title. Issue 5 is missing (see Tables 15 and 19).

The table will be corrected with the addition of issue 5.

Tactical plan 085-62 Table 19: Should issue 6 be considered?

A lot of consideration has been given to issue 6, but it did not lead to a monitoring indicator. The table presents the indicators for the Issue-Solution sheets. Issue 6 will mostly be monitored through the Paix des braves.




Tactical plan 085-62 8.4.3 Areas of increased timber production. There are no AIPL in this management unit, so is it really necessary to mention them?

The section on areas of increased timber production will be removed from the tactical plan for management unit 085-62.

8.3. Economic analysis – This section is very theoretical and I do not believe it is useful to include it in the plan right now. It seems to us that this should be the number one reason for managing the area. It is a bit embarrassing not to present anything concrete. Overall, sections 8.4 and 8.5 are very difficult to read because they’re very general and don’t really apply to the area. Idem for 8.8.

In this tactical plan, we wanted to present the concept and methodology used for the economic analyses that are currently being carried out, the results of which will be included in the 2023-2028 tactical plan.

Sections 8.4 and 8.5 also present a general overview of the principles underlying the wood production strategy that is currently being prepared, along with the different slvicultural scenarios.

PART 5:

Section 9.4 Below is the schedule of silvicultural treatment monitoring prepared by the region.


APPENDICES

Appendix A:

Map 9: FHVC – Show the protected areas on the map, because they are also FHVC.


Map 11: Incorrect title – These protection blocks were not created as part of the precautionary approach, but as part of the addendum to the Caribou Plan. The Caribou Plan also included the GHE, which should also be shown on the map. All these elements are included in the allowable cut calculation.

The title of Map 11 will be changed as follows: Map 11: Location of forest masses protected by the Woodland Caribou Habitat Protection and Development Plan North of La Sarre and its addendum. Although the GHE help to protect habitat, they will not be added to Map 11 because they are already shown on another theme-based map (Map 10).

Appendix B: Contact our forest ecologist, who has questions regarding the species selection process.

The list is prepared in collaboration with the people responsible for the issue at the regional and provincial levels. A representative of the MFFP will contact the forest ecologist to answer his questions.

APPENCIX G: Proposed VOIT? Was it not adopted? It has in fact been adopted and the proposed changes will be incorporated into the 2018-2023 tactical plans.




Map 14: To compensate for the loss of allowable cut as a result of woodland caribou habitat preservation efforts, would it be possible to release COS89 and treat it as a “standard” COS instead of a “managed” COS? Consider the impact of the local forest and select COS77 and 78 for example?

The choice of types of COS and priorities is reviewed periodically. This element will be considered during the next review.

Tactical plan 085-51 Map 15: The status of COS 4 does not reflect its status under the Caribou Plan addendum or the proposed interim measures. COS 95 has been planned in detail, even though its harvesting priority is level 3.

None of the tactical plan’s figures take into account the local forest and the change to the management unit next April. Do you intend to amend the plan in order to include these adjustments?

Map 15 shows current forest masses within the territory, but does not show their specific protection status.

The amendments and adjustments to take the local forest into account will be made in the 2023-2028 tactical plans.

Comments expressed by Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government

7 It would be important to replace the map of MUs, UTRs and level 3 homogeneous vegetation units (Figure 7 tactical plan-EIJB 2018-2023), by a map showing the MUs, UTRs and level 4 and 5 homogeneous vegetation units (see the map in the attached file).

We have noted the suggestions and the MFFP will analyze them for the 2023-2028 tactical plan.

The level 4 and 5 homogeneous units exhibit more specific regional characteristics and geographic disconnects within the same classification unit. For example the UTRs in EIJB cover 10 level 5 homogeneous units rather than two level 3 homogeneous units. This more detailed characterization of EIJB’s commercial forest can be used among other things to devise silvicultural strategies that are better suited to site ecology and more appropriate economically.



5. Conclusion Public consultations on operational integrated forest management plans are organized annually to receive comments and feedback from organizations and individuals during the validity period of the plans. To examine the operational forest plan, you can contact one of our management units listed below. Unité de gestion de Chibougamau 624, 3e Rue Chibougamau (Québec) G8P 1P1 Téléphone : 418 748-2647 Unité de gestion d’Harricana-Nord 1122, Route 111 Est Amos (Québec) J9T 1N1 Téléphone : 819 444-5238 Unité de gestion de Quévillon 1121, boulevard Industriel, C. P. 159 Lebel-sur-Quévillon (Québec) J0Y 1X0 Téléphone : 819 755-4838 Unité de gestion de Mont-Plamondon 645, 1re Rue Est La Sarre (Québec) J9Z 3P3 Téléphone : 819 339-7623



Annexe 1 – Public Notice

follow-up report public consultation pafit 2018-2023 modified · mffp –follow-up report public...

Documents