(DRAFT FOR REVIEW) - Global Forest Watch Canada

A Global A Global Forest Forest Watch Canada Report
Atlas of Canada’s
Intact Forest
Landscapes
(DRAFT FOR REVIEW)
Wynet Smith
Peter Lee
Matt Hanneman
Jeannette Gysbers
Ryan Cheng

Atlas of Canada’s Intact
Forest Landscapes
By:
Wynet Smith
Peter Lee
Matthew Hanneman
Jeannette Gysbers
Ryan Cheng
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
ISBN: ___
©Global Forest Watch Canada, 2009
Cover Design: Matt Hanneman, Peter Lee, Jeannette Gysbers
Report Design and Layout: Jeannette Gysbers
Map Design and Layout: Matt Hanneman
Photos: All photos by Global Forest Watch Canada, unless otherwise noted
Citation: Smith W, Lee PG, Hanneman M, Gysbers JD, Cheng R. 2009. Atlas of
Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes. Edmonton, Alberta: Global Forest Watch
Canada. 88 pp.

Dragonfly on maple leaves, Killarney Provincial Park, ON (06/2005)
Canada’s forests are, for the most part, publicly owned.
Canadians want to know about the state of the country’s
forests. The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers
recently reported that “Canadians are demanding more
information, more options, more involvement in decision
making, and more equitable sharing of benefits,” and that
“policy makers, decision makers, and the public need tools
to define and measure progress toward sustainable forest
management.” The public expects open and transparent
decision-making with respect to forest resources as well
as an ability to participate in decisions being made about
resource use. The demands for more information on
forests in Canada indicate the general recognition of a
growing need for a broad range of data on forests to
improve forest policy and decision-making.
Sustainable forest management, a policy priority of
Canadian governments and the forest industry, is
information-intensive and requires a broad range of
timely, up-to-date information for landscape planning and
management and for better monitoring, reporting, and
verification. Sustainable forest management requires data
Natural Resources Canada. 00 . The state of Canada’s forests
00 – 00 : Forest industry competitiveness. Natural Resources Canada,
Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa. 79 pp.
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM). 00 . Criteria and
indicators of sustainable forest management in Canada: national status
00 . Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa.
Wang S. 00 . Managing Canada’s forests under a new social contract.
The Forestry Chronicle 8 : 8 – 90.
World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development. 9.
Our forests, our future. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
0 pp.
Siry JP, Cubbage FW, Ahmed MR. 00 . Sustainable forest management:
global trends and opportunities. Forest Policy and Economics
7: – .
Hickey GM, Innes JL, Kozak RA, Bull GQ, Vertinsky I. 00 .
Monitoring and information reporting for sustainable forest management:
an inter-jurisdictional comparison of soft law standards. Forest
Policy and Economics 9: 97– .
Preface
that extend beyond the scope of traditional government
forestry departments and across the boundaries of
provincial and territorial jurisdictions. An expanded
information base requires a stakeholder approach and
institutional reforms to facilitate partnerships7 and genuine
collaboration8 amongst a range of actors, including
9 0
industry, government and researchers.
Unfortunately, Canada’s ability to meet concerns and
respond to commitments has often been hampered by
outdated forest inventories and information systems.
Dr. Richard R. Schneider pointed out in his 00 book on
Alberta’s forests, Alternative Futures: Alberta’s Boreal Forests
at the Crossroads, “the public has had remarkably little
access to information about these forests. Moreover, the
information that does get widely disseminated comes from
government and industry sources that generally convey
the message that all is well.” There has also often been
jurisdictional differences with regards to the availability
of information about Canadian forests. Fortunately, data
availability has recently improved, Global Forest Watch
Canada has been a contributor to this improvement in
forest information.
For the past decade, Global Forest Watch Canada has
worked to compile existing data and to also create new
data on the state of Canada’s forests to contribute to more
sustainable forest management. We have created this atlas
on Canada’s intact forest landscapes using data we have
generated along with other available data and information.
It is part of our national series of projects focused on
intact forest landscapes and anthropogenic changes to our
important forest ecosystems.
7 Wang S. 00 . Managing Canada’s forests under a new social contract.
The Forestry Chronicle 8 : 8 – 90.
8 Wang S. 00 . Wicked problems and metaforestry: is the era of
management over? The Forestry Chronicle 78: 0 – 0.
9 Yamasaki SH, Kneeshaw DD, Munson AD, Dorion F. 00 .
Bridging boundaries among disciplines and institutions for effective
implementation of criteria and indicators. The Forestry Chronicle
78: 87– 9 .
0 Hickey GM. 00 . Regulatory approaches to monitoring sustainable
forest management. International Forestry Review :89–98.
Gillis M, Omule AY, Brierly T. 00 . Monitoring Canada’s forests:
the national forest inventory. The Forestry Chronicle 8 : – .
Schneider RR. 00 . Alternative Futures: Alberta’s Boreal Forests
at the Crossroads. Edmonton AB: Alberta Centre for Boreal Research.
pp.
13 Smith W, Lee P. 2007. Global Forest Watch Canada: influencing
forest policy with information. The Forestry Chronicle 8 : 8 - 88.

Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments
and industry hold more detailed data and information,
but many key datasets are not made readily available
to the public for proprietary reasons as well as other
considerations. Global Forest Watch Canada’s focus on
using satellite imagery that is freely available from the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
Natural Resources Canada and other sources, allowed us to
create consistent data (albeit at a coarse resolution), which
has enabled us to map and evaluate intact forest landscapes
and recent anthropogenic changes to Canada’s forest
ecozones.
Our atlas focuses on Canada’s last intact forest landscapes
and examines some of their key conservation values,
as well as key indicators of threats to their future
conservation.
Global Forest Watch Canada has created this atlas to assist
Canadians in their efforts to sustainably manage their
important forest resources.
Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), Liard River Hotsprings
Provincial Park, BC (08/2006)

This project, and many of its data components, was funded
by the Ivey Foundation, Limited Brands, Alberta Ecotrust,
the EJLB Foundation, the International Boreal Conservation
Campaign (through a contract with the Boreal Songbird
Initiative), the Canadian Boreal Initiative, the Conservation
Biology Institute, and an anonymous donor. Their
support is gratefully acknowledged. In addition: through a
contract with Environment Canada, we were able to map
recent anthropogenic disturbances within large regions of
woodland caribou range; and, through a contract with the
International Institute for Sustainable Development, we
were able to collect and analyze a variety of data.
We thank the 00+ reviewers from across Canada who
have provided comments on our intact forest landscape
mapping, on our anthropogenic change mapping and on
our recently published Atlas of Alberta (Parts I and II).
These individuals, organizations and agencies are specifically
acknowledged in the relevant publications available at
www.globalforestwatch.ca.
Acknowledgements
We thank those whose valuable feedback and information
contributed to improvements made during the development
of this specific project:
Anita De Wolfe, Francisca Olaya, David Bruinsma, Sina
Sultani, and Robert Boraas provided assistance with analyzing
satellite imagery for disturbances.
Dr. Justina Ray (Wildlife Conservation Society Canada)
provided much valuable advice and guidance throughout
the preparation of this atlas. Dr. Fiona Schmiegelow, Dr.
Charles Drever and Aran O’Carroll provided strategic
advice. We are very grateful to the federal, provincial and
territorial governments who made geospatial data available.
The authors thank the suppliers of satellite and other imagery.
The Landsat satellite images used in this work were
obtained from NASA, the Global Land Cover Facility at
the University of Maryland, Geogratis (Natural Resources
Canada), Dr. Don Leckie (Pacific Forestry Centre), and
Landsat.org

1. Introduction ... 1
Table of Contents
Mapping Canada’s Changing Intact Forest Landscape ... 1
The importance of intact forest landscapes ... 2
Technical notes on GFWC’s intact forest landscapes methodology and data ... 4
Purpose and Structure of the Atlas ... 5
2. Intact forest landscapes ... 6
Overview ... 6
Tree cover ... 8
Regional analyses ... 10
Ecozone analysis ... 10
Provincial and territorial analysis ... 10
Aboriginal treaties and settled land claims analysis ... 26
Cumulative access in Canada’s forest ecozones ... 29
Recent anthropogenic changes to Canada’s forest landscapes (1990-2001) ... 32
Fragmentation as a result of recent anthropogenic change ... 36
Recent anthropogenic changes (1990-2001) adjacent to intact forest landscape fragments ... 39
3. The best of what’s left ... 41
Soil organic carbon ... 42
Net biome productivity ... 44
Wetlands ... 46
Lakes and rivers ... 48
Potential old growth ... 50
Species diversity ... 52
Reptile and amphibian species ranges ... 52
Bird species ranges ... 54
Mammal species ranges ... 56
Tree species ranges ... 58
Woodland caribou ... 60
Where is the best of what’s left? ... 62
Protected areas ... 66
4. Conclusion ... 69
Glossary ... 70
Appendix 1. Who is GFWC? ... 73
Appendix 2. Methods ... 74
A. Intact forest landscapes ... 74
B. Cumulative access and recent anthropogenic change ... 76
Appendix 3. Data ... 77
A. List of Landsat images used in intact forest landscape mapping ... 77
B. List of species (reptiles and amphibians, mammals, and birds) used in species diversity analysis ... 82

List of Maps
Map 1. Forest Ecozones of Canada ... 3
Map 2. Intact Forest Landscapes of Canada ... 7
Map 3. Tree Cover of Canada ... 8
Map 4. Intact Forest Landscapes of Canada: Regional Map Index ... 12
Map Sheet I ... 13
Map Sheet II ... 14
Map Sheet III ... 15
Map Sheet IV ... 16
Map Sheet V ... 17
Map Sheet VI ... 18
Map Sheet VII ... 19
Map Sheet VIII ... 20
Map Sheet IX ... 21
Map Sheet X ... 22
Map Sheet XI ... 23
Map Sheet XII ... 24
Map Sheet XIII ... 25
Map 5. Aboriginal Treaties, Land Claims and Communities and Intact Forest Landscapes of Canada ... 27
Map 6. Cumulative Anthropogenic Access in Canada’s forest ecozones ... 31
Map 7. Anthropogenic Change (1900-2001) within Canada’s Forest Ecozones ... 33
Map 8. Ecodistricts of Canada’s Forest Ecozones by Percent Anthropogenic Change (1900-2001) ... 34
Map 9. Watersheds of Canada’s Forest Ecozones by Percent Anthropogenic Change (1900-2001) ... 35
Map 10. Ecodistricts of Canada’s Forest Ecozones by Percent Fragmented as a Result of Recent Anthropogenic
Change (1900-2001) ... 37
Map 11. Watersheds of Canada’s Forest Ecozones by Percent Fragmented as a Result of Recent Anthropogenic
Change (1900-2001) ... 38
Map 12. Intact Forest Landscapes (5,000 to 50,000 ha) by Percent Anthropogenic Change (1990-2001)
Occurring Within 20 Kilometres ... 40
Map 13. Soil Organic Carbon Within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes ... 43
Map 14. Net Biome Productivity Within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes ... 45
Map 15. Wetlands Within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes ... 47
Map 16. Lakes and rivers Within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes ... 49
Map 17. Potential Old-growth Within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes ... 51
Map 18. Reptile and Amphibian Species Within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes ... 53
Map 19. Bird Species Within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes ... 55
Map 20. Mammal Species Within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes ... 57
Map 21. Tree Species Within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes ... 59
Map 22. Caribou Occurrence Within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes ... 61
Map 23. Example Analysis: Combined Conservation Value Within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes ... 64
Map 24. Example Analysis: Combined Conservation Value Within Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes
(Protected Areas) ... 65
Map 25. Protected Areas of Canada ... 67

List of Figures
Figure 1. Example: satellite images and GFWC’s extracted changes ... 32
List of Tables
Table 1. Canada’s intact forest landscapes by size class ... 6
Table 2. Intact forest landscape (IFL): treed and treeless area by ecozone ... 8
Table 3. Forest ecozones: treed and treeless area ... 8
Table 4. Intact forest landscapes by forest ecozone ... 10
Table 5. Intact forest landscapes by province/territory ... 11
Table 6. Intact forest landscapes by Aboriginal treaty ... 28
Table 7. Cumulative access by forest ecozone ... 29
Table 8. Cumulative access in forest ecozones by jurisdiction ... 29
Table 9. Intact forest landscapes fragments adjacent to recent anthropogenic change (1900-2001) by
province ... 39
Table 10. Soil organic carbon content within intact forest landscapes ... 42
Table 11. Net biome productivity of intact forest landscapes (2000-2003) ... 44
Table 12. Wetlands within intact forest landscapes ... 46
Table 13. Wetlands within intact forest landscapes by jurisdiction ... 46
Table 14. Intact forest landscapes within watersheds of varying densities of lakes and major rivers ... 48
Table 15. Potential old growth deciduous, mixed, and conifer forest areas within intact forest landscapes
by jurisdiction ... 50
Table 16. Number of common, endangered, threatened and vulnerable taxa used in species diversity
analyses ... 52
Table 17. Total intact forest landscape area covered by varying levels of reptile and amphibian species
diversity ... 53
Table 18. Total area covered by varying levels of bird species diversity ... 54
Table 19. Total area covered by varying levels of mammal species diversity ... 56
Table 20. Total area covered by varying levels of tree species diversity ... 58
Table 21. Extent of woodland caribou occurrence in jurisdictions and intact forest landscapes ... 60
Table 22a. The seven key Where is the Best of What’s Left? ecological values and their categorization and
ranking ... 63
Table 22b. Individual species diversity ranks that were combined for the species diversity ecological
value ... 63
Table 23. Total protected area (permanent and interim) by ecozone ... 68
Table 24. Status of intact forest landscapes with regards to protected area status ... 68
8 | Introduction

Mapping Canada’s Changing
Intact Forest Landscape
Canadian forests are important both ecologically and
economically as forests and other woodland cover
percent, or 0 million hectares, of the country’s landmass.
Map on page 9 illustrates the extent of Canada’s tree
cover. Canada has fifteen ecozones, eleven of which are
considered forest ecozones (see Map ). These eleven
ecozones total just over 80 million hectares.
As with other countries, Canada’s forest ecosystems are not
static and have changed over time. These changes result
from both human and non-human causes. As Canadians
attempt to manage their forests for a range of values, more
information on the amount and types of change to our
forests is essential. Global Forest Watch focuses its efforts
on the provision of spatial data and maps towards this end.
During the past decade, Global Forest Watch Canada
(GFWC) has been mapping Canada’s forest landscapes.
In 000, Global Forest Watch Canada and the World
Resources Institute published Canada’s Forests at a Crossroads:
An Analysis in the Year 2000. This report mapped some
basic indicators of the condition of, and change occurring
in, Canada’s forests.
In 00 , GFWC released the report Canada’s Large Intact
Forest Landscapes, which was based on an analysis of satellite
imagery that mapped Canada’s remaining large intact forest
landscapes, which we defined as areas of at least 50,000
Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada. 999. A National Ecological
Framework for Canada. Available at: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/
ecostrat/intro.html ( /0 / 009)
See various reports on Canada’s ecozones, including: ( ) Statistics
Canada. 007. Human Activity and the Environment: Annual Statistics
007 and 008. Catalogue no.: - 0 -XWE. Available at: http://
www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/ - 0 -XIE/ 007000/part .htm
( /0 / 009). ( ) Natural Resources Canada. The State of Canada’s
Forests (various annual reports, 99 - 008). Available at: http://
bookstore.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/searchpubs_e.php?ResearchNetworkIDs=RN
0 &PubLanguageID=PL ( /0 / 009).
3 Smith W, Lee P. 2007. Global Forest Watch Canada: influencing forest
policy with information. The Forestry Chronicle 8 : 8 - 88.
Smith W, Lee P, eds. 000. Canada’s Forests at a Crossroads: An Assessment
in the Year 000. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
Available at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/publications_and_maps.
htm ( /0 / 009).
1. Introduction
Birch and conifer forest near Chibougamau, QC (10/2004)
hectares ( 00 km ) within forest ecozones that contain
forest and non-forest ecosystems minimally disturbed by
human activity.
Building upon this work, GFWC then released a report
in 00 titled Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A First
Approximation which mapped the first approximation of
intact forest landscapes and forest fragments, that is, areas
of forest less than 0,000 hectares in size. We used satellite
imagery to map smaller areas of Canada’s forests that
could be considered intact forest landscapes. These areas
ranged from ,000 to 0,000 hectares ( 0- 00 km ) for the
temperate forest ecozones and 0,000 to 0,000 hectares
( 00- 00 km ) for the boreal and taiga ecozones.
Since the completion of that report, GFWC received
funding to refine this analysis and to map even smaller
areas of potentially intact forest landscapes. This project,
entitled “Where is the best of what’s left?” used satellite
The intact forest landscape concept was advanced (and primarily
originally funded) through the World Resources Institute, following
definitions developed by Greenpeace Russia, Socio-Ecological Union
International, and Biodiversity Conservation Center. A large intact forest
landscape is defined by those groups as an area with the following characteristics:
(i) it is situated within a forest zone; (ii) it is at least 0,000 ha;
(iii) it contains a contiguous mosaic of natural ecosystems which may
or may not be of different types; (iv) it is not broken or fragmented by
infrastructure; (v) it does not display signs of significant transformation
caused by human activity. There are a number of additional assumptions
and decision rules that have been used in the actual mapping of large
intact forest landscapes.
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 1

imagery to map areas down to ,000 hectares ( 0 km ) for
temperate forest ecozones and down to ,000 hectares ( 0
km ) for boreal/taiga ecozones.
GFWC’s newest dataset based on this work, “Canada’s
Forest Landscape Fragments: A Second Approximation”
( 009) provides a national perspective as well as forest
ecozone and regional perspectives. This dataset was created
by analyzing Landsat imagery from over multiple years,
generally ranging from 988 to 00 , but up to 00 for
some regional areas.
GFWC has not previously published a comprehensive
compilation of the results, nor analysis regarding how
intact forest landscapes intersect with important ecological
and social values that should be considered in sustainable
forest management. That is one purpose of this Atlas, as
discussed in more detail below.
Global Forest Watch Canada’s rationale for our work is
multifold:
•
•
•
The pace and scale of human activity in Canada is
significant. In fact, several governments in Canada are
of the opinion that some major regions have “reached
a tipping point;”
Concern about the economic, environmental and social
impacts of human use of forest regions is increasing in
Canada and world-wide; 7
Monitoring and understanding the locations,
concentrations and rates of human use in forest
ecozones in efficient and effective ways will serve
to better inform sustainable forest management
decision making; 8
Previous and ongoing research on and monitoring of
Canada’s remaining intact forest landscapes, albeit detailed
and sophisticated in many cases, is incomplete, not publicly
available, local in scale, or species- or sector-specific: there
is a need to report on broader national perspectives.
( ) Alberta Government. 008. Land-use Framework. Available at:
http://www.landuse.alberta.ca/ ( /0 / 009). ( ) Nova Scotia Department
of Natural Resources. 997. Towards Sustainable Forestry: A
Position Paper. Working Paper, 997-0 . Available at: http://www.gov.
ns.ca/natr/publications/forpubs.htm ( /0 / 009).
7 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N,
eds.). 00 . Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends,
Volume , Chapter : Forest and Woodland Systems. Available at:
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document. 90.aspx.
pdf ( /0 / 009).
8 Gillis M, Omule AY, Brierly T. 00 . Monitoring Canada’s forests:
the national forest inventory. The Forestry Chronicle 8 : – .
2 | Section 1. Introduction
The importance of intact forest
landscapes
Fallen tree in cedar grove, BC (05/2006)
Remaining tracts of relatively undisturbed, intact natural
forest are important for several reasons:
Conservation value. Small patches of undisturbed
forest landscapes are an important component of
conservation strategies, especially where they are the only
option. 9 However, large patches of natural forest landscape
provide sufficient area for natural ecological processes
which shape the forest ecosystem and provide habitat
for more species 0 and for far-ranging species, such as
woodland caribou and grizzly bears.
Ecosystem goods and services values. Intact
forest landscapes provide a range of ecosystem services,
such as water purification, climate regulation, and carbon
storage.
9 Smaller patches provide habitat for a wide range of species and
are sometimes the only remaining forest landscapes in an ecological or
administrative unit.
0 Lindenmayer D, Fischer J. 00 . Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape
Change: An Ecological and Conservation Synthesis. Washington:
Island Press. 8 pp.
Nogueran R with contributions by Bryant DA, Strittholt J, Kool J.
00 . Low access forests and their level of protection in North America.
Washington DC: World Resources Institute. pp. Available online
at: http://pubs.wri.org/northamericalowaccessforests-pub- 7 .html
( /0 / 009).
Anielski M, Wilson S. 00 . Counting Canada’s Natural Capital:
assessing the real value of Canada’s boreal ecosystems. A report of
the Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development and the Canadian
Boreal Initiative. 90 pp. Available online at: http://www.borealcanada.
ca/research-cbi-reports-e.php (undergoing revision: /0 / 009).
Map 1 - key data sources:
•
Terrestrial ecozones: Agriculture and Agri-Foods
Canada. 1999. A National Ecological Framework for
Canada. Available at: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/
ecostrat/intro.html (10/09/2008).

Map 1.

Recreational, aesthetic, spiritual and heritage
values. As human populations grow and natural forest
is converted to other uses, remaining tracts of relatively
undisturbed forest are increasingly valued for their natural
heritage, spiritual values, and recreational/wilderness
opportunities.
Economic value. Subsidence economies, especially
those involving Aboriginal peoples or tourism, depend on
intact forest landscapes. Tourism, for example, is the
world’s largest industry (and nature/heritage tourism is
the fastest growing component of the tourism sector
worldwide). Although economic information specific
to tourism in forests is not available, expenditures in
Canada do depend on sustaining forests’ natural capital.
In the United States, the Forest Service has estimated
that recreational activities in national forests contribute
$ 0 billion annually to the GDP, that wild, roadless lands
generate an average value of $ .87 per visitor day, and
that the economic value of recreation on the million
acres of roadless areas in US national forests totals $ 00
million annually.
It is important to map remaining intact forest landscapes
within Canada’s forest ecozones in order to provide better
information for balancing industry needs and values with
the need for recognition of non-market values, many of
which are associated with relatively undisturbed forests.
Mapping forest fragments provides a baseline from which
future assessments of changes to Canada’s remaining forest
fragments can be made and from which further analysis
can be performed to assist forest conservation planning
and decision-making.
Cheakamus Lake, BC (08/2005)
World Travel and Tourism Council. 008. Progress and Priorities
007/ 008. Available at: http://www.wttc.org/bin/pdf/original_pdf_
file/finpp_2007.pdf (14/04/2009).
Worbets B, Berdahl L. 00 . Western Canada’s natural capital:
toward a new public policy framework. Available at: http://www.cwf.
ca/V2/files/natcap.pdf (14/04/2009).
Kreiger DJ. 00 . The Economics of Forest Ecosystem Services:
A Review. Analysis for the Wilderness Society. Washington, DC. 0 pp.
Available online at: http://wilderness.org/files/Economic-Value-of-Forest-Ecosystem-Services.pdf
( /0 / 009).
4 | Section 1. Introduction
Technical notes on GFWC’s intact
forest landscapes methodology
and data
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 0-70 years (logging, mining operation sites,
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 0,000 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 0-70 years ago often become
invisible on satellite imagery and indistinguishable from
the natural dynamics of the forest. The maps of Canada’s
intact forests in Section are based primarily on the visual
interpretation of 988- 00 Landsat images, and some
imagery from the 00 - 00 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.

There are some differences between maps and figures in
this Atlas compared to the maps and figures published
in 00 and 00 . 7 Besides the mapping of smaller
intact forest landscapes, there are a few other factors. One
important change in our work involved the use of different
northern boundaries for the forest landscapes. For the
00 analysis, GFWC used a globally derived treeline
boundary. For the 00 and 009 analysis GFWC used
the forest ecozone boundaries as the northern boundary.
The million hectare difference in the total area of intact
forest landscapes between the 00 data and the 009
data is only partially explained ( 0 million hectares) by the
mapping of smaller forest fragments. The majority, 9
million hectares, is due to using a different map projection
for the 009 area calculations. The 00 and 00 analyses
used a standard Lambert Conformal Conic Projection.
The new 009 dataset used the Albers Equal-Area conic
projection, which is consistent with Statistics Canada,
who have concluded that Albers is more appropriate for
calculating land area. The remaining million hectare
difference is due to a combination of factors, including
using more detailed lake and island datasets as well as
interpretation improvements (and differences due to using
a different selection of Landsat imagery).
For further details on our intact forest landscape mapping
methodology, please see Appendix .
Lee P, Aksenov D, Laestadius L, Nogueron R, Smith W. 00 .
Canada’s large intact forest landscapes. Edmonton, Alberta: Global
Forest Watch Canada. 8 pp.
7 Lee P, Gysbers JD, Stanojevic Z. 00 . Canada’s Forest Landscape
Fragments: A FirstApproximation (A Global Forest Watch Canada
Report). Edmonton, Alberta: Global Forest Watch Canada. 97 pp..
Purpose and Structure of the
Atlas
This atlas of Canada’s intact forests is the direct result
of Global Forest Watch Canada’s project to map the best
remaining forest landscapes of Canada. The objective
for this atlas is to provide visually compelling maps and
information of Canada’s intact forest landscapes as well as
a selection of key indicators related to conservation values
in these areas. The Atlas provides an update on what is
happening to Canada’s forests and where to find the best
of what’s left.
Section 1 introduces Canada’s changing forests, intact
forest landscapes and why they are important, and the
purpose and structure of the Atlas.
Section 2 of the Atlas describes the concepts of intact
forest landscapes in more detail. It also contains maps and
key facts about Canada’s forests and intact forests, at both
national and regional/provincial levels.
Section 3 looks at the “best of what’s left” in intact forest
landscapes in terms of key ecological values. The intact
forest landscapes are evaluated and mapped with overlays
and analyses of key ecological values including soil organic
carbon, wetlands, lakes and major rivers, old growth
forests, species diversity, and key focal species. A final
map combines all of these ecological values indicators and
identifies potential key opportunities for sustainable forest
management in Canada.
Section 4 provides an overview of the current state of
Canada’s protected area network and how this network
intersects with the distribution of Canada’s forest
landscapes.
Section 5 concludes with a summary of the project and its
major findings, implications of this work, lessons learned
and future research recommendations.
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 5

Overview
This section provides a series of maps
that illustrates both a national and
regional perspective on the distribution of
Canada’s intact forest landscapes, a map
that shows the distribution of tree cover
within intact forest landscapes, and the
key results of our analysis.
Canada’s intact forest landscapes, as
mapped by GFWC, are located where
there is the least amount of human
impact. To highlight the inverse, this
section also includes a map of cumulative
access within Canada’s forest ecozones
and maps of changes in Canada’s forest
landscape between 990 and 00 .
As well as providing analysis and maps in the context of
jurisdictions and forest ecozones, some additional analysis
and maps are provided in the context of ecodistricts in
order to understand finer levels of distributions of intact
forest landscapes and anthropogenice changes to forest
landscapes. Ecodistricts are subdivisions of ecoregions,
which in turn are subdivisions of ecozones and they are
characterized by distinctive assemblages of landform,
relief, surficial geologic material, soil, water bodies,
vegetation, and land uses.
Map illustrates the distribution of intact forest landscapes
within Canada. GFWC’s analysis has identified 488 million
hectares of intact forest landscape in Canada within the
eleven forest ecozones. This represents 7 % of the total
area of these ecozones.
It is important to note that GFWC has mapped a range of
intact forest landscapes in terms of size. GFWC defines a
large intact forest landscape as any area of at least 0,000
hectares ( 00 km ) within a forest ecozone that contains
forest and non-forest land cover minimally disturbed
by human economic activity. An intact forest landscape
fragment is any area between ,000 to 0,000 hectares ( 0
to 00 km ) in a temperate forest ecozone and between
,000 and 0,000 hectares ( 0 to 00 km ) in a boreal/taiga
forest ecozone.
6 | Section 2. Intact forest landscapes
2. Intact forest landscapes
Table 1. Canada’s intact forest landscapes by size class.
Size class (ha)
Number of Area (ha)
intact forest Polygons of Islands
landscape 1,000 ha and considered
polygons larger intact
Total area
(ha)
%
Total
area
250,000 89 425,570,450 298,292 425,868,742 87.2
Total 7,359 485,948,580 2,247,246 488,195,826 100.0
Table provides statistics on the relative size of Canada’s
intact forest landscapes. A total of million hectares
(87%) of all intact forest landscapes are 0,000 hectares
or larger while another . million hectares are between
0,000 and 00,000 hectares in size.
There are . million hectares of ,000 to ,000 hectare
intact forest landscape fragments and 7.9 million hectares
of ,000 to 0,000 hectare intact forest landscape
fragments in temperate forest ecozones.
There are also just over 00,000 hectares of intact forest
landscapes in islands smaller than ,000 hectares. Islands
were considered a special case for identification because
of their setting in an aquatic environment (marine and
freshwater). There are also many islands of larger size
that are considered part of the total area of intact forest
landscapes.
Map 2 - key data source:
•
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada.
2009. Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A
Second Approximation. Available at: http://www.
globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/datawarehouse.
htm (15/05/2009).

Map 2.

Tree cover
As shown in Map , Canada’s forest ecozones are not
completely covered with forest (defined as tree cover of
more than 0%), thus neither are intact forest landscapes.
As evident in Table , approximately % of intact forest
landscapes are actually forested.
Six ecozones (Atlantic Maritime, Boreal
Shield, Hudson Plains, the Montane
Cordillera, Taiga Plains and Boreal
Plains) have more than 0% forest
cover within their intact forest. The
Taiga Cordillera ecozone is the least
forested with only 0% tree cover and
the Mixed Wood Plains ecozone is the
second least forested at %.
GFWC’s analysis reveals that the overall
percentage of tree cover in intact forest
landscapes is almost the same as the
overall percentage of tree cover in
forest ecozones (see Tables and ).
However, there are some exceptions:
•
•
Although the Mixed Wood Plains
ecozone is only % tree covered
in general, over % of its intact
forest landscape area is treecovered.
Both the Pacific Maritime and
the Taiga Cordillera ecozones
have high proportions of nontreed
areas within intact forest
landscapes compared to the other
ecozones. The Pacific Maritime has
just under 0% tree cover in intact
The Spectrum Range in northern British Columbia (08/2006)
8 | Section 2. Intact forest landscapes
Table 2. Intact forest landscapes (IFL): treed and treeless area by ecozone.
Ecozone
Total IFL
area (ha)
Treed area
(ha)
Treeless area
(ha)
Percent
treed
Percent
treeless
Atlantic Maritime 1,836,928 1,704,961 131,967 92.2 7.2
Boreal Cordillera 44,540,877 19,266,120 25,274,757 43.3 56.8
Boreal Plains 27,517,456 19,062,822 8,454,634 69.3 30.7
Boreal Shield 127,849,511 97,431,966 30,417,545 76.2 23.8
Hudson Plains 36,797,505 24,819,293 11,978,212 67.5 32.6
Mixed Wood Plains 175,258 116,555 58,703 66.5 33.5
Montane Cordillera 26,672,966 13,806,738 12,866,228 51.8 48.2
Pacific Maritime 14,380,619 4,287,111 10,093,508 29.8 70.2
Taiga Cordillera 26,125,048 2,625,891 23,499,157 10.1 90.0
Taiga Plains 48,124,275 29,926,595 18,197,680 62.2 37.8
Taiga Shield 134,175,383 60,631,459 73,543,924 45.2 54.8
Total 488,195,825 273,679,511 214,516,314 56.1 43.9
Table 3. Forest ecozones: treed and treeless area.
Ecozone
Total area
(ha)
Treed area
(ha)
Treeless area Percent
(ha) treed
Percent
treeless
Atlantic Maritime 20,151,483 16,766,636 3,384,846 83.2 16.8
Boreal Cordillera 47,071,039 20,782,040 26,289,000 44.2 55.9
Boreal Plains 74,062,933 42,446,471 31,616,462 57.3 42.7
Boreal Shield 188,640,692 146,991,133 41,649,559 77.9 22.1
Hudson Plains 37,565,744 25,141,285 12,424,459 66.9 33.1
Mixed Wood Plains 11,339,105 2,643,525 8,695,580 23.3 76.7
Montane Cordillera 48,975,931 31,587,882 17,388,049 64.5 35.5
Pacific Maritime 20,873,620 9,109,313 11,764,307 43.6 56.4
Taiga Cordillera 26,695,320 2,766,180 23,929,140 10.4 89.6
Taiga Plains 65,773,771 40,690,528 25,083,243 61.9 38.1
Taiga Shield 139,314,737 61,444,990 77,869,747 44.1 55.9
Total 680,464,374 400,372,056 280,092,319 58.8 41.2
Map 3 - key data sources:
•
•
forest landscapes despite having % tree cover overall
throughout the ecozone. The Taiga Cordillera has 0%
tree cover throughout the entire ecozone and 0% tree
cover in intact forest landscapes.
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada.
2009. Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A
Second Approximation. Available at: http://www.
globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/datawarehouse.
htm (15/05/2009).
Tree canopy cover: DeFries R, Hansen M, Townshend
JRG, Janetos AC, Loveland TR. 2000. 1 Kilometer
Tree Cover Continuous Fields, 1.0, Department of
Geography, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland, 1992-1993. Available at: http://glcf.umiacs.
umd.edu/data/treecover/ (14/04/2009).

Map 3.

Regional analyses
The following pages present maps and analyses on an
ecozone and a provincial basis. These results highlight the
variation in area of intact forest landscapes (see Tables
and ). The distribution of the intact forest landscapes are
illustrated regionally in Map Sheets I-XIII; Map provides
the regional index for these maps.
Ecozone analysis
The Boreal Cordillera, Taiga Cordillera, Taiga Shield and
Hudson Plains are the most intact of the eleven forest
ecozones, with each having over 9 % of their total land
area in intact forest landscapes.
The Boreal Shield, the largest forest ecozone in Canada, is
8% intact. By contrast, the the Boreal Plains is only 7%
( . million ha) intact.
The four temperate forest ecozones (Atlantic Maritime,
Mixed Wood Plains, Montane Cordillera and Pacific
Maritime) account for just under 9% of the intact forest
landscapes in Canada. However, given the relatively small
areas of these ecozones, the proportion of intact forest
landscapes is of more importance than the total area.
The Mixed Wood Plains of southern Ontario and Québec
is not only the smallest forest ecozone, it is also the least
intact (see Map on page 7 and Map Sheet XI). It has no
large intact forest landscapes and only %, or 7 , 8 ha,
is made up of intact forest landscape fragments of ,000 to
0,000 ha.
The Atlantic Maritime Ecozone is the second least intact
forest ecozone. Only 9% (or . 7 million ha) of its area
Table 4. Intact forest landscapes (IFL) by forest ecozone.
Ecozone
Ecozone area
(ha)
10 | Section 2. Intact forest landscapes
Total area of
intact forest
landscapes (ha)
Ecozone:
percent
intact
comprises intact forest landscapes (see Map and Map
Sheet XIII), most of which (80%) is made up of intact
forest landscape fragments versus large intact forest
landscapes.
Relative to the Mixed Wood Plains and Atlantic Maritime
ecozones, the Montane Cordillera and Pacific Maritime
ecozones retain a greater degree of intact forest landscapes
( % and 9% respectively).
Provincial and territorial analysis
There is significant variation in the percentage of
intact forest landscapes by jurisdiction in Canada. Four
jurisdictions - Québec, Northwest Territories, Ontario and
British Columbia - each contain over 0% of the total area
of large intact forest landscapes. Together, they contain
% of all of Canada’s intact forest landscapes.
Manitoba and the Yukon Territory each contain about
9- 0% of Canada’s intact forest landscapes. Thus, six
jurisdictions contain approximately 80% of Canada’s intact
forest landscapes.
Five other jurisdictions contain relatively little intact forest
landscape. Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia each
contain less than % while Nunavut has % and Alberta
has %. Newfoundland and Labrador contains less than
7% of Canada’s intact forest landscapes.
The territories have relatively high proportions of their
forest ecozones in intact forest landscapes: the Yukon has
9 % intact, the Northwest Territories has 87% intact and
Nunavut has 00% intact. Together, the three territories
account for almost 9% of the total intact
forest landscapes in Canada.
Proportion
of total IFL
area (%)
Atlantic Maritime 20,151,483 1,836,928 9.1 0.4
Boreal Cordillera 47,071,039 44,540,876 94.6 9.1
Boreal Plains 74,062,933 27,517,456 37.2 5.6
Boreal Shield 188,640,692 127,849,511 67.8 26.2
Hudson Plains 37,565,744 36,797,504 98 .0 7.5
Mixed Wood Plains 11,339,105 175,258 1.5 >0.1
Montane Cordillera 48,975,931 26,672,966 54.5 5.5
Pacific Maritime 20,873,620 14,380,619 68.9 3.0
Taiga Cordillera 26,695,320 26,125,048 97.9 5.4
Taiga Plains 65,773,771 48,124,275 73.2 9.8
Taiga Shield 139,314,737 134,175,383 96.3 27.5
Total 680,464,374 488,195,825 71.7 100.0
Alberta has almost 0 million ha of intact
forest landscape, which represents 9% of
its forest ecozone area. This percentage
places Alberta in tenth place in terms of
percent intactness compared to the other
provinces and territories. Alberta’s 0
million ha represents % of Canada’s total
intact forest landscapes.
British Columbia has 9 .7 million ha
of land area within forest ecozones.
Approximately 8 million ha are considered
intact, of which 0 million ha are large

intact forest landscapes and 7.7 million ha are intact forest
landscape fragments. British Columbia’s intact forest
landscapes account for almost % of Canada’s total intact
forest landscapes – the fourth highest percentage overall
after Québec, the Northwest Territories and Ontario.
British Columbia has the largest amount of intact forest
landscape fragments of all provinces and territories.
In Saskatchewan, of million ha of forest ecozone
area are considered intact, which represents 7 % of the
total forest ecozone area. The province has just over %
of the total intact forest landscapes in Canada. Trees cover
just over 77% of the large intact forest landscapes and
almost 78% of the intact forest landscape fragments.
Manitoba has .8 million ha (or
8 %) of intact forest landscape
area within its 7.9 million ha of
forest ecozone.
Ontario has . million ha of
intact forest landscapes in its 98.9
million ha of forest ecozone area
(representing 7% of the total
area). The province has the third
highest percentage (almost 9%)
of Canada’s intact forest landscape
fragments, after British Columbia
and Québec.
Québec has the largest total area
composed of forest ecozones:
0. million ha in total. Of
this area, 9 . million ha (70%)
is composed of intact forest
landscapes.
East of Québec City, QC (10/2004)
Prince Edward Island has only 9 ,000 ha of forest
ecozone area, none of which is intact. New Brunswick
has 7. million ha of forest ecozone area, of which only
7,000 ha (or %) are intact. These provinces only
contain intact forest landscape fragments; there are no
large intact forest landscapes of at least 0,000 hectares.
Nova Scotia fares slightly better than New Brunswick.
It contains . million ha of forest ecozones of which
9 ,000 ha (or 7%) are intact forest landscapes. Of this,
7 ,000 ha (almost 7 %) are large intact forest landscapes
while 9,000 ( %) are intact forest landscape fragments.
Table 5. Intact forest landscapes by province/territory.
Province
Forest
ecozone area
(ha)
Intact forest
landscape
area (ha)
Percent of
forest ecozones
covered by
intact forest
landscapes
Proportion
of total
intact forest
landscapes
area (%)
Alberta 50,672,649 19,974,967 39.4 4.1
British Columbia 94,709,033 58,119,773 61.4 11.9
Manitoba 57,883,340 46,764,179 80.8 9.6
New Brunswick 7,299,874 257,178 3.5 0.1
Newfoundland and
Labrador
39,022,812 33,620,392 86 .2 6.9
Northwest Territories 95,539,825 83,556,502 87.5 17.1
Nova Scotia 5,562,603 943,188 17.0 0.2
Nunavut 10,786,309 10,744,947 99.6 2.2
Ontario 98,953,976 66,372,280 67 .1 13.6
Prince Edward Island 593,012 0 0 0
Québec 130,430,760 91,374,828 70.1 18.7
Saskatchewan 41,158,212 31,092,779 75.5 6.4
Yukon Territory 47,851,969 45,371,883 94.8 9.3
Total 680,464,374 488,195,825 71.2 100.0
Map 4 & Map Sheets I-XIII - key data sources:
•
•
•
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada.
2009. Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A Second
Approximation. Available at: http://www.globalforestwatch.
ca/datawarehouse/datawarehouse.htm (15/05/2009).
Land cover: Multi-temporal land cover maps of Canada using
NOAA AVHRR 1-km data from 1985-2000. Available at: http://
www.geogratis.ca/geogratis/en/download/thematic0.html
(14/04/2009).
Terrestrial ecozones: Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada.
1999. A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Available
at: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/intro.html
(14/04/2009).
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 11

Map 4.

Aboriginal treaties and settled land claims analysis
Aboriginal people have rights and legal status concerning
forested lands due to their historical presence in what
is now Canada, and to the entrenchment of Aboriginal
and treaty rights in the Constitution Act, 98 . However,
although Aboriginal and treaty rights (including rights
to fish, trap and hunt) were recognized in section 35 of
the Constitution Act of 98 , these rights continue to be
clarified and resolved today through negotiated treaties
and court decisions. This situation exists in part because
courts have declared that existing Aboriginal rights “must
be interpreted flexibly so as to permit their evolution over
time” (R v. Sparrow, [ 990] S.C.R. 07 ). The outcomes
of these processes on Aboriginal rights, treaties, and land
claims have the potential to change the way forests in
Canada are owned and managed in the future.
Map shows the locations of Aboriginal treaties and
land claims in relation to the distribution of intact forest
landscapes. Table (page 8) provides a summary of
the area of intact forest landscape within each treaty. As
the study area of GFWC’s project only covered the
forest ecozones, the statistics do not refer to the complete
coverage of land claim and treaty area in Canada.
Three historic treaty areas each have over 90% of their
area covered by intact forest landscapes: Treaties ( 908),
9 ( 9 9/ 0), and 0 ( 90 ). These three treaty areas
Smith W. and P. Lee, eds. Canada’s Forests at a Crossroads: An Assessment
in the Year 000. (World Resources Institute and Global Forest
Watch Canada.) Victoria BC: Beacon Hill Communications Gp. Inc.
Available at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca ( /0 / 009).
26 | Section 2. Intact forest landscapes
Bird feather, SK (10/2005)
comprise just over 0% of all the historic treaties and
almost % of all the intact forest landscapes within all
historic treaties.
Six other historic treaties have 0% to 90% of their area
covered by intact forest landscape: Treaties ( 87 ),
( 87 ), ( 889), 8 ( 899), 9 ( 90 /0 ), ( 9 ). These
six treaty areas comprise almost % of all the historic
treaties and 0% of intact forest landscapes within all
historic treaties.
Canada has more than 7,0 7, hectares of modern
settled land claims with Aboriginal people. Of these land
claims, 7, 78,70 hectares – or % of the entire area
– are composed of intact forest landscapes.
Map 5 - key data sources:
•
•
•
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada.
2009. Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A
Second Approximation. Available at: http://www.
globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/datawarehouse.
htm (15/05/2009).
Land cover: Multi-temporal land cover maps of Canada
using NOAA AVHRR 1-km data from 1985-2000. Available
at: http://www.geogratis.ca/geogratis/en/download/
thematic0.html (14/04/2009).
Aboriginal Treaties and Land Claims: Canada Centre for
Cadastral Management, Geomatics Canada, Natural
Resources Canada. 2008. National Framework Canada
Lands Administrative Boundaries Level 1. Available at:
http://www.geogratis.ca/ (14/04/2009).

Map 5.

Table 6. Intact forest landscapes by Aboriginal treaty.
Treaty name
28 | Section 2. Intact forest landscapes
Treaty area
(ha)
Intact forest
landscapes
(ha)
Percent
intact
Treaty 1 1871 4,907,721 152,192 3.1
Treaty 2 1871 8,747,873 1,184,207 13.5
Treaty 3 1873 12,638,255 7,510,679 59.4
Treaty 4 1874 19,306,653 1,025,279 5.3
Treaty 5 1875 16,648,621 12,364,512 74.3
Treaty 5 1908 34,177,287 32,470,547 95.0
Treaty 6 1876 29,904,766 3,506,947 11.7
Treaty 6 1889 3,252,415 2,486,204 76.4
Treaty 7 1877 10,848,100 1,110,174 10.2
Treaty 8 1899 84,875,431 51,548,905 60.7
Treaty 9 1905/06 23,021,590 15,337,147 66.6
Treaty 9 1929/30 35,658,471 35,415,555 99.3
Treaty 10 1906 20,504,188 19,449,598 94.9
Treaty 11 1921 97,839,956 67,901,986 69.4
Peace and Friendship Treaties 12,681,597 1,176,727 9.3
Manitoulin Island Treaty 1862 306,600 51,144 16.7
Robinson-Huron 1850 6,327,792 2,672,369 42.2
Robinson-Superior 1850 8,394,349 4,003,855 47.7
Upper Canada Treaties 8,373,831 387,928 4.6
Chekonein (Shonghees) 30 April 1850 3,311 0 0.0
Chewhaytsum (Beecher Bay) 1 May 1850 6,508 12 0.2
Chilcowitch (Songhees) 30 April 1850 1,371 13 0.9
Kakyaakan (Beecher Bay) 1 May 1850 5,246 0 0.0
Kosampson (Esquimalt) 30 April 1850 5,017 0 0.0
North Saanich 11 February 1852 22,226 0 0.0
Quakeolth (Kwakiutl) 8 February 1851 4,085 97 2.4
Queackar (Kwakiutl) 8 February 1851 4,084 330 8.1
Saalequun (Nanaimo, Nanoose) 23 December 1854 4,076 0 0.0
Soke (Sook) 1 May 1850 32,380 440 1.4
South Saanich (Malahat) 7 February 1852 4,959 0 0.0
Swengwhung (Songhees) 30 April 1850 2,234 0 0.0
Teechamitsa (Songhees) 29 April 1850 5,499 0 0.0
Whyomilth (Songhees) 30 April 1850 5,067 0 0.0
Williams Treaties 1923 4,845,873 1,163,369 24.0
Total 1 443,367,433 260,920,216 58.8
1 As the study area of GFWC’s project only covered the 11 forest ecozones, these statistics do not refer
to the complete coverage of land claim and treaty area in Canada.

Cumulative access in Canada’s forest ecozones
Powerlines near Saguenay, QC (10/2004)
Cumulative access is the combined impact of industrial
activities, which include, but are not limited to, roads,
mines, clearcuts, wellsites, pipelines, transmission lines, and
agricultural clearings.
GFWC has analyzed the extent to which Canada’s forest
ecozones have been impacted by human activities. GFWC’s
cumulative access layer was compiled by analyzing Landsat
(TM and ETM) satellite images for the period 988 to
00 . All visible infrastructure and other human activities
on the images were mapped and buffered by 00 metres.
Map provides a national picture of the cumulative extent
of access within Canada’s forest ecozones. Table 7 presents
the area and percentage results of access by forest ecozone
as well as nationally.
The results indicate that just over percent of the total
area of Canada’s forest ecozones is accessed. From a
Table 7. Cumulative access by forest ecozone.
Forest ecozone
Ecozone
area (ha)
Area of
ecozone
accessed
(ha)
Percent
of
ecozone
accessed
Atlantic Maritime 20,151,483 15,399,153 76.4
Boreal Cordillera 47,071,039 2,236,683 4.8
Boreal Plains 74,062,933 33,355,347 45.0
Boreal Shield 188,640,692 45,948,003 24.4
Hudson Plains 37,565,744 600,800 1.6
Mixed Wood Plains 11,339,105 8,536,603 75.3
Montane Cordillera 48,975,931 19,811,286 40.5
Pacific Maritime 20,873,620 5,689,362 27.3
Taiga Cordillera 26,695,320 499,065 1.9
Taiga Plains 65,773,771 9,620,222 14.6
Taiga Shield 139,314,737 3,915,278 2.8
Total 680,464,374 145,611,802 21.4
regional perspective, the most accessed are the eastern
Atlantic Maritime and the Mixed Wood ecozones, with
each being more than 7 % accessed. The Boreal Plains
and the Montane Cordillera ecozones are also significantly
accessed at % and 0%, respectively.
The most northern and remote forest ecozones (the Boreal
Cordillera, the Taiga Shield, the Taiga Cordillera and the
Hudson Plains) each have less than % cumulative access.
Table 8 provides statistics on the percentage of accessed
forest ecozone by Province. Four jurisdictions – Alberta,
British Columbia, Ontario and Québec – contain almost
77% of Canada’s accessed forest ecozone area.
The three maritime provinces (New Brunswick, Prince
Edward Island and Nova Scotia) each have over 70% of
their forest ecozones accessed. Alberta is the fourth most
accessed province at 7%.
Six jurisdictions – British Columbia, Ontario, Québec,
Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Manitoba
– each have between 0% and % of their forest ecozone
area accessed. The Northwest Territories, Yukon and
Nunavut each have less than % of their forest areas
accessed.
Table 8. Cumulative access in forest ecozones by jurisdiction.
Province/territory
Provincial/
territorial
forest
ecozone area
(ha)
Area of
forest
ecozone
accessed
(ha)
Percent
of forest
ecozone
accessed
New Brunswick 7,299,874 5,911,681 81.0
Prince Edward
Island
593,012 437,852 73.8
Nova Scotia 5,562,603 3,948,814 71.0
Alberta 50,672,649 23,837,235 47.0
British Columbia 94,709,033 31,385,860 33.1
Ontario 98,953,976 25,727,265 26.0
Québec 130,430,760 30,875,057 23.7
Saskatchewan 41,158,212 6,730,055 16.4
Newfoundland and
Labrador
39,022,812 4,512,746 11.6
Manitoba 57,883,340 5,909,506 10.2
Northwest
Territories
95,539,825 4,243,873 4.4
Yukon 47,851,969 2,090,600 4.4
Nunavut 10,786,309 1,258 0.0
Total 680,464,374 145,611,802 21.4
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 29

30 | Section 2. Intact forest landscapes
Map 6 - key data sources:
•
•
Cumulative anthropogenic (primarily industrial) access
dataset (“Canada Access- Combined”) created by Global
Forest Watch Canada. 2009. Available at: http://www.
globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/datawarehouse.
htm (14/04/2009).
Terrestrial ecozones: Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada.
1999. A National Ecological Framework for Canada.
Available at: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/
intro.html (14/04/2009). (Forest ecozones are those
11 terrestrial ecozones that have 15% or more forest
cover and include: Atlantic Maritime, Mixed Wood
Plains, Boreal Cordillera, Boreal Plains, Boreal Shield,
Hudson Plains, Taiga Cordillera, Taiga Plains, Taiga Shield,
Montane Cordillera, Pacific Maritime.)

Map 6.

Recent anthropogenic changes to Canada’s forest landscapes
(1990-2001)
As well as mapping and analyzing
long term cumulative access due to
human activities within Canada’s
forest ecozones, GFWC has also
mapped recent industrial-caused
changes for a large study area, for
which we measured the amount
and rate of industrial change over
time. GFWC selected a ,89 ,000
km study area that covers %
of Canada’s forest ecozones. This
study area was selected as it is an
“interface” zone, where major
industrial activities are advancing
into intact forest landscapes.
GFWC employed a standard
methodology to detect
anthropogenic changes throughout
these forested landscapes. Satellite images of earlier years
(from the 98 to 99 period) were compared to more
recent scenes (from the 000 to 00 period) to measure
the changes to forest landscapes for an approximately -
year period ( 990- 00 ).
This study area includes portions of eight jurisdictions (British Columbia,
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, Yukon and
Northwest Territories) and portions of six forest ecozones (Montane
Cordillera, Taiga Plains, Boreal Plains, Boreal Shield and Hudson Plains).
32 | Section 2. Intact forest landscapes
A
Maps 7-9 - key data sources:
•
•
•
B C
Figure 1. Example: satellite images and GFWC’s extracted changes. (A) September 15, 1990;
(B) September 16, 1999; (C) GFWC’s extracted changes. (Landsat images, Path 45/Row 22)
Maps 7-9 show that within some jurisdictions and
ecological units there is significant recent anthropogenic
change. For example:
• Alberta, Ontario and Québec have had more than
a 0% change in a number of their ecodistricts
(five, five and three, respectively) in the 12 year
period within the study area.
• Ontario has had eleven watersheds and Québec
has had five watersheds more than 10% changed
during the year period).
Anthropogenic change data: unpublished 2008 Global
Forest Watch Canada data mapped from Landsat
imagery - multi-spectral scanner.
Watersheds (Fundamental Drainage Areas):
Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada,
Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, The Atlas of
Canada. 2003. National Scale Frameworks Hydrology -
Drainage Areas, Canada. Available at: http://geogratis.
cgdi.gc.ca/download/frameworkdata/drainage_areas/
(14/04/2009).
Terrestrial ecozones: Agriculture and Agri-Foods
Canada. 1999. A National Ecological Framework for
Canada. Available at: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/
ecostrat/intro.html (14/04/2009).

Map 7.

Map 8.

Map 9.

Fragmentation as a result of recent anthropogenic change
In addition to amount of change, fragmentation is an
important measure of the impact of anthropogenic
changes within ecological units. Fragmentation is the
breaking up of a habitat, ecosystem or landscape into
smaller, disconnected pieces. Although natural disturbances
fragment the landscape, human activities are also agents of
fragmentation. Examples of anthropogenic fragmentation
include roads, cleared lands, urbanization and other human
developments. Some conservationists identify habitat
destruction (and its by-product, habitat fragmentation) by
humans as the major cause of species extinctions in recent
human history.
( ) Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. What is Forest Fragmentation
and Why is it Important? Available online at: http://birds.cornell.
edu/bfl/gen_instructions/fragmentation.html (2) Saunders D, Hobbs
RJ, Margules CR. 99 . Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation:
a review. Conservation Biology, ( ): 8- . ( ) Harrison S, Bruna
E. 999. Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: What do
we know for sure? Ecography : - .
( ) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 00 . Ecosystems and
Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute,
Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.
org/documents/document. .aspx.pdf ( /0 / 009). ( ) Tilman D,
Lehman CL, Nowak MA. 99 . Habitat destruction and the extinction
debt. Nature 7 ( 9 ): - . ( ) Wilcox BA, Murphy DD. 98 . Conservation
strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. American
Naturalist : 879-887. See also: ( ) Wilcove DS, McLellen CH, Dobson
A. 98 . Habitat fragmentation in the Temperate Zone. Pp 7- in:
Soule M (ed.). Conservation Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates
Inc. 8 pp. ( ) Harris LD. 988. The nature of cumulative impacts
on biotic diversity of wetland vertebrates. Environmental Management
( ): 7 - 9 . ( ) Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR. 99 . Biological
consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation
Biology ( ): 8- . (7) Meffe GK, Carroll CR (and contributors). 99 .
Principles of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates
Inc. 00 pp. (8) Hunter ML. 99 . Fundamentals of Conservation Biology.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science Inc. 8 pp.
36 | Section 2. Intact forest landscapes
Clearcuts and roads north of Kakwa, AB (07/2004)
Using the assessment of anthropogenic changes to forest
landscapes for the 990 to 00 period described in
the previous section, the amount of fragmentation was
analyzed within ecodistricts and within watersheds.
The amount of fragmentation was calculated as follows:
Change Area + Fragmented Area
x
Total Forest Ecozone Area
100
Maps 0 and show that Alberta has a much higher
amount of fragmentation within both ecodistricts and
watersheds than any other province or territory within
the study area. If the anthropogenic changes over the
year study period were considered as the only historic
disturbances in Alberta’s forest regions, 9 out of 99
ecodistricts (8. million ha) and out of 08 watersheds
(7.7 million ha) would have more than 0% of their area
no longer considered to be large intact forest landscapes
(> 0,000 ha).
Maps 10-11 - key data sources:
•
•
•
Anthropogenic change data: unpublished 2008 Global
Forest Watch Canada data mapped from Landsat imagery
- multi-spectral scanner.
Watersheds (Fundamental Drainage Areas): Government
of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Canada Centre
for Remote Sensing, The Atlas of Canada. 2003. National
Scale Frameworks Hydrology - Drainage Areas, Canada.
Available at: http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/download/
frameworkdata/drainage_areas/ (14/04/2009).
Terrestrial ecozones: Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada.
1999. A National Ecological Framework for Canada.
Available at: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/
intro.html (14/04/2009).

Map 10.

38 | Section 2. Intact forest landscapes Map 11.

Recent anthropogenic changes (1990-2001) adjacent to intact forest
landscape fragments
Intact forest landscape fragments have been
disconnected from larger areas of intact forest
landscapes. To determine which fragments
may be most threatened by potential future
expansion of current human activities, we
examined the amount of recent anthropogenic
change for the 990 to 00 period that
occurred within a 0 km radius of forest
landscape fragments.
Map illustrates the relationship between
intact forest landscape fragments and recent
anthropogenic changes adjacent to (that is,
within 0 km of) them. Table 9 provides the
statistics based on this analysis. These statistics
show that the area of intact forest landscape
fragments which are adjacent to recent
anthropogenic changes is highest in Ontario
and Québec.
Table 9. Intact forest landscapes fragments adjacent to recent anthropogenic change (1900-2001) by province.
0-10% change within 20 km radius >10% change within 20 km radius Total
Number of
intact forest
landscape
fragments
Percent
intact forest
landscape
fragments
Area of
intact forest
landscape
fragments
(ha)
Clearcuts in southern British Columbia (06/2006)
Number
of intact
forest
landscape
fragments
Percent
intact forest
landscape
fragments
Area of
intact forest
landscape
fragments
(ha)
Number
of intact
forest
landscape
fragments
Area of
intact forest
landscape
fragments
(ha)
Alberta 299 97 3,999,556 8 3 93,361 307 4,092,917
British
Columbia
190 99 2,710,777 2 1 28,914 192 2,739,691
Manitoba 135 100 2,044,573 0 0 0 135 2,044,573
Northwest
Territories
84 100 1,088,566 0 0 0 84 1,088,566
Ontario 248 74 3,735,451 86 26 1,253,560 334 4,989,011
Québec 228 72 3,157,375 88 28 1,309,448 316 4,466,823
Saskatchewan 99 97 1,504,970 3 3 59,029 102 1,563,999
Total 1,283 87 18,241,267 187 13 2,744,312 1,470 20,985,579
Map 12 - key data sources:
•
•
Anthropogenic change data: unpublished 2008 Global
Forest Watch Canada data mapped from Landsat
imagery - multi-spectral scanner.
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada.
2009. Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A
Second Approximation. Available at: http://www.
globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/datawarehouse.
htm (14/04/2009).
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 39

40 | Structure of the Atlas Map 12.

Section contained maps of Canada’s intact forest
landscapes and a basic analysis of the extent and
distribution of these areas. It also provided some key
information on the distribution of these areas by ecozones
and provinces, and in terms of tree cover.
Section examines the extent and distribution of these
intact forest landscapes in relation to key ecological values.
In effect, this section attempts to establish a possible
methodology for identifying what can be called “the best
of what’s left,” that is, the most valuable of these areas
from an ecological perspective. This section also includes
a map of existing interim and fully protected areas to
illustrate where intact forest landscapes are protected
already and where gaps remain.
Although intact forest landscapes have intrinsic value in
themselves, identifying “where is the best of what’s left?”
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 “where is the best of what’s left?” 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. More consultation with
Canadians is required in order to identify, categorize and
prioritize key ecological values.
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.
3. The best of what’s left
Cedar trees near Whistler, BC (08/2005)
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 in this
section is not an exhaustive study on this topic.
GFWC selected and mapped, in -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). For more
information on how we performed our analysis, please see
page .
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 41

Soil organic carbon
It is estimated that nearly 0% of the earth’s soil organic
carbon is locked in tundra and boreal ecosystems.
Approximately 7 % 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 for our “best of what’s left”
mapping.
Map 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
amount of soil carbon are expressed in terms of billions
of tonnes.
Canada’s 9 million hectares of intact forest landscapes
contain just over 77 billion tonnes of organic carbon
within its soils (see Table 0). Approximately one-half of
the intact forest landscapes of Canada contain almost 88%
( .8 B tonnes) of the organic carbon present in all of
the intact forest landscape soils. Most of this soil organic
carbon is within just two jurisdictions – Ontario and the
Northwest Territories.
Natural Resources Canada. 007. 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
( /0 / 009)
42 | Section 3. The best of what's left
Map 13 - key data sources:
•
•
Canadian Shield rock outcrop (little soil organic carbon) in Ontario
(06/2005)
Table 10. Soil organic carbon content within intact forest
landscapes.
Soil organic carbon
category (kg/m2 )
Area of intact
forest landscape
(ha)
Organic carbon
content (billion
tonnes)
0.00 - 6.9 90,336,418 3.57
6.9 - 12.1 65,299,339 6.21
12.1 - 19.7 77,745,913 12.04
19.7 - 45.8 108,780,390 32.34
45.8 - 356.7 127,152,849 123.46
Total 469,314,909 177.62
Soil organic carbon: Tarnocai C, Lacelle B. 1996. Soil Organic
Carbon Digital Database of Canada. (Pers. comm.)
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009.
Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A Second Approximation.
Available at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/
datawarehouse.htm (14/04/2009).

Map 13.

Net biome productivity
Net biome productivity (NPB) is the net carbon balance
of forest landscapes and is the difference between carbon
dioxide (CO ) uptake by assimilation and CO 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 displays net biome productivity within Canada’s
intact forest landscapes. Table provides a summary of
the total area of intact forest landscapes according to their
carbon status.
Over million ha or % of Canada’s intact forest
landscapes are identified as major carbon sinks while over
million ha are major carbon sources, according to
000- 00 data. Another 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.
44 | Section 3. The best of what's left
Table 11. Net biome productivity of intact forest landscapes
(2000-2003).
Carbon
(g of carbon / m2 / year)
Intact area (ha) Percent of IFL
Major carbon source
(-1,170 - -6)
116,921,600 34.0
Neutral carbon flux
(-6 - 26)
115,608,400 33.6
Major carbon sink
(26 - 784)
111,714,600 32.5
Map 14 - key data sources:
•
•
Fire-killed trees, north of Hinton, AB (06/2004)
Net Biome Productivity: Dr. Jing Chen. 2007. University of
Toronto. (pers. comm.)
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009.
Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A Second Approximation.
Available at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/
datawarehouse.htm (14/04/2009).

Map 14.

Wetlands
photo?
Wetland in northeastern Ontario (06/2005)
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
% of the planet’s wetlands.
Map illustrates wetland distribution in relation to the
occurrence of intact forest landscapes. Table contains
data on the percentage of wetlands per 00 ha, the total
wetland area and the percentage found within 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, as evident in Table . The
provinces with the highest proportion of wetlands within
their intact forest landscapes are Ontario ( %), Manitoba
( 0%), and Alberta ( %). The jurisdictions with the least
wetland area are Prince Edward Island (0%), Yukon ( %),
British Columbia ( %), and Nunavut ( %).
Atlas of Canada. 00 . Wetlands. Available at: http://atlas.nrcan.
gc.ca/site/english/learningresources/theme_modules/wetlands/index.
html ( /0 / 009)
46 | Section 3. The best of what's left
Table 12. Wetlands within intact forest landscapes.
Percent wetland per
100 hectares
Approximate
wetland area (ha)
Percent of
IFL area
1 - 8 2,176,506 0.5
9 - 15 6,278,527 1.3
16 - 28 9,357,124 1.9
29 - 40 16,750,277 3.4
41 - 100 52,747,191 10.8
Total 87,309,625 17.9
Table 13. Wetlands within intact forest landscapes by
jurisdiction.
Province
Approximate
wetland area
(ha)
IFL area (ha)
Percent of
IFL area
Alberta 4,851,702 19,974,967 24.3
British Columbia 1,804,756 58,119,773 3.1
Manitoba 18,475,950 46,764,179 39.5
New Brunswick 32,836 257,178 12.8
Newfoundland
and Labrador
4,980,315 33,620,392 14.8
Northwest
Territories
13,279,182 83,556,502 15.9
Nova Scotia 162,567 943,188 17.2
Nunavut 576,907 10,744,947 5.4
Ontario 29,020,653 66,372,280 43.7
Prince Edward
Island
0 0 0.0
Québec 8,832,961 91,374,828 9.7
Saskatchewan 4,312,536 31,092,779 13.9
Yukon Territory 964,861 45,371,883 2.1
Total 87,295,225 488,195,825 17.9
Map 15 - key data sources:
•
•
Land cover of Canada: Multi-Temporal Land Cover Maps
of Canada using NOAA AVHRR 1-km data from 1985-2000.
Available at: http://www.geogratis.ca/geogratis/en/download/
thematic0.html (14/04/2009).
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009.
Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A Second Approximation.
Available at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/
datawarehouse.htm (14/04/2009).

Map 15.

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 lakes larger than
00 square kilometres. The Great Lakes, straddling the
Canada-US boundary, contain 8% of the world’s fresh
lake water. Canada has two of the world’s 7 largest rivers
(Mackenzie and St. Lawrence) in terms of drainage area,
length and volume of discharge.
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 .
Table shows a range of lake and major river densities
within watersheds along with the amount of intact forest
landscape within each watershed category. 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 “best of what’s left” 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).
Environment Canada. 008. Lakes. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.
ca/water/en/nature/lakes/e_lakesl.htm ( /0 / 009)
Environment Canada. 008. Rivers. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.
ca/water/en/nature/rivers/e_riv.htm ( /0 / 009)
48 | Section 3. The best of what's left
Table 14. Intact forest landscapes within watersheds of
varying densities of lakes and major rivers.
Percent of watershed Area of intact forest landscapes
covered by lakes and rivers within watershed (ha)
0.0 - 1.0 51,183,000
1.1 - 2.6 76,053,100
2.7 - 5.1 70,452,300
5.2 - 9.7 111,884,800
9.8 - 38.7 158,379,200
Map 16 - key data sources:
•
•
Frosty morning near Chibougamau, QC (10/2004)
Hydrology: Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada,
Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, The Atlas of Canada. 2008.
National Scale Frameworks Hydrology - Drainage Network,
Canada. Available at: http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/download/
frameworkdata/hydrology (14/04/2009).
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009.
Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A Second Approximation.
Available at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/
datawarehouse.htm (14/04/2009).

Map 16.

Potential old growth
Cedar grove, BC (06/2006)
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 980-
000 were deleted from GFWC’s intact forest
landscapes data layer. The residual treed area within
intact forest landscapes was termed potential oldgrowth
forest.
According to our analysis, there are almost 0 million
hectares of potential old growth forest in Canada’s intact
forest landscapes.
50 | Section 3. The best of what's left
Table 15. Potential old growth deciduous, mixed, and conifer forest
areas within intact forest landscapes by jurisdiction.
Province
Deciduous
area (ha)
Mixedwood
area (ha)
Coniferous
area (ha)
Total area
(ha)
Alberta 181,800 4,670,200 2,192,100 7,044,100
British
Columbia
71,200 8,819,300 30,409,300 39,299,800
Manitoba 15,800 1,535,900 11,039,100 12,590,800
New
Brunswick
1,000 160,100 36,190,300 36,351,400
Newfoundland
and Labrador
10,100 998,500 12,226,900 13,235,500
Northwest
Territories
5,500 1,136,900 15,601,100 16,743,500
Nova Scotia 32,100 594,400 4,801,400 5,427,900
Nunavut 0 0 22,409,100 22,409,100
Ontario 47,400 8,166,200 13,972,000 22,185,600
Prince Edward
Island
0 0 39,989,500 39,989,500
Québec 76,600 5,646,600 74,800 5,798,000
Saskatchewan 29,800 2,158,300 292,500 2,480,600
Yukon
Territory
0 791,400 0 791,400
Total 471,300 34,677,800 189,198,100 224,347,200
Map 17 - key data sources:
•
•
•
Land cover of Canada: Multi-Temporal Land Cover Maps
of Canada using NOAA AVHRR 1-km data from 1985-2000.
Available at: http://www.geogratis.ca/geogratis/en/download/
thematic0.html (14/04/2009).
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)
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009.
Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A Second Approximation.
Available at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/
datawarehouse.htm (14/04/2009).

Map 17.

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, major species groups, each with
a large variety of native common and rare species
Species diversity: Environment Canada. 999. Dataset and
report (Freemark K, Moore H, Forsyth DM, Sinclair ARE,
White D, Barrett T, Pressey RL. 999. Identifying minimum
sets of conservation sites for representing biodiversity in Canada:
A complementarity approach. Technical Report Series No.
xxx, Canadian Wildlife Service, Headquarters, Environment
Canada, Ottawa K A 0H ). Available at: ftp://ftp.geogratis.
gc.ca/Ecosystems/ ( /0 / 009).
Reptile and amphibian species ranges
As evident in Table 7, the intact forest landscape area
covered by the two highest reptile and amphibian diversity
categories (those with more than 0 species per ecodistrict)
is approximately million hectares. These are mostly
located in southern Canada, as evident in Map 8.
Map 8 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.
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.
52 | Section 3. The best of what's left
Table 16. Number of common, endangered, threatened and vulnerable
taxa used in species diversity analyses.
Status
Taxonomic
Common Endangered Threatened Vulnerable Total
Group
Mammals 123 5 5 19 152
Birds 342 14 7 20 383
Amphibians 37 2 0 7 46
Reptiles 33 2 4 7 46
Trees1 ? ? ? ? ?
Total 535 23 16 53 627
1 The original database did not contain information on numbers of tree species
within each category.
Map 18 - key data sources:
•
•
(reptiles and amphibians; birds; mammals; trees), were
selected to to provide variation within the animal and plant
kingdoms. The species (excluding trees) consist of 7 taxa
of common and rare species (see list in Appendix and
summary in Table ).
Table 17. Total intact forest landscape (IFL) area covered by
varying levels of reptile and amphibian species diversity.
Number of species in ecodistrict 1 IFL area (ha)
0 – 2 158,459,300
3 – 4 83,533,100
5 – 10 169,408,600
11 – 19 46,556,100
20 – 41 9,820,600
1 For this analysis, all the intact 1-km grid cells within each
ecodistrict were assigned the same value range (the total
number of species in that ecodistrict).
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 No. xxx,
Canadian Wildlife Service, Headquarters, Environment Canada, Ottawa K1A
0H3). Available at: ftp://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/Ecosystems/ (14/04/2009).
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009. Canada’s
Forest Landscape Fragments: A Second Approximation. Available at:
http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/datawarehouse.htm
(14/04/2009).

Map 18.

Bird species ranges
As evident in Table 8, the total intact forest landscape
area with the highest bird species diversity category is
approximately million hectares; these areas are mostly
located in southern Canada.
Map 9 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.
Table 18. Total area covered by varying levels of bird species
diversity.
Number of Species in Ecodistrict 1 Area (ha)
38 – 81 69,473,600
82 – 114 90,716,000
115 - 144 130,559,600
145 - 168 114,762,300
169 - 218 62,266,200
1 For this analysis, all the intact 1-km grid cells within each
ecodistrict were assigned the same value range (the total number
of species in that ecodistrict).
54 | Section 3. The best of what's left
Map 19- key data sources:
•
•
Black-backed woodpecker
Gerald Romanchuk
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 No. xxx,
Canadian Wildlife Service, Headquarters, Environment Canada,
Ottawa K1A 0H3). Available at: ftp://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/
Ecosystems/ (14/04/2009).
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009.
Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A Second Approximation.
Available at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/
datawarehouse.htm (14/04/2009).

Map 19.

Mammal species ranges
As evident in Table 9, the intact forest landscape area
covered by the highest mammal species diversity category
is approximately 8 million hectares; these areas are mostly
located in southern Canada.
Map 0 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.
Table 19. Total area covered by varying levels of mammal
species diversity.
Number of Species in Ecodistrict 1 Area (ha)
10 – 28 35,175,100
29 – 34 121,108,600
35 – 39 139,218,600
40 – 44 104,350,600
45 – 71 67,924,800
1 For this analysis, all the intact 1-km grid cells within each
ecodistrict were assigned the same value range (the total number
of species in that ecodistrict).
56 | Section 3. The best of what's left
Map 20 - key data sources:
•
•
Dragomir Vujnovic
Grizzly bear mother and cub, Willmore Wilderness Park, AB (05/2008)
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 No. xxx,
Canadian Wildlife Service, Headquarters, Environment Canada,
Ottawa K1A 0H3). Available at: ftp://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/
Ecosystems/ (14/04/2009).
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009.
Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A Second Approximation.
Available at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/
datawarehouse.htm (14/04/2009).

Map 20.

Tree species ranges
As shown in Table 0, the total area covered by the highest
tree species diversity category is approximately million
hectares; these high diversity areas are mostly located in
southern Canada.
Map 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.
The intact forest landscapes in northern Taiga Ecozones,
and all of the Boreal Cordillera contain ecodistricts with
the lowest numbers of reptile and amphibian species.
Table 20. Total area covered by varying levels of tree species
diversity.
Number of Tree Species
in Ecodistrict1 Area within intact Percent of
forest landscapes intact forest
(ha)
landscapes
1 – 11 113,569,027 23.26
12 – 18 214,294,390 43.90
19 – 23 77,397,090 15.85
24 – 37 68,527,651 14.04
37 – 76 12,703,653 2.60
1 For this analysis, all the intact 1-km grid cells within each
ecodistrict were assigned the same value range (the total
number of species in that ecodistrict).
58 | Section 3. The best of what's left
White spruce in northern Ontario (2003)
Map 21 - key data sources:
•
•
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 No. xxx,
Canadian Wildlife Service, Headquarters, Environment Canada,
Ottawa K1A 0H3). Available at: ftp://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/
Ecosystems/ (14/04/2009).
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009.
Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A Second Approximation.
Available at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/
datawarehouse.htm (14/04/2009).

Map 21.

Woodland caribou
Table 21. Extent of woodland caribou occurrence in jurisdictions and intact forest
landscapes.
Province
Total caribou
occurrence area
(ha)
Percent of
total
Area of caribou
occurrence within
intact (ha)
Percent within
intact forest
landscapes
Alberta 22,557,904 4.1 11,131,554 49.3
British Columbia 36,972,609 6.8 27,222,147 73.6
Manitoba 41,151,652 7.5 37,178,828 90.3
Newfoundland and
Labrador
34,996,859 6.4 29,973,042 85.6
Northwest Territories 110,577,020 20.3 81,904,788 74.1
Nunavut 57,087,498 10.5 10,351,202 18.1
Ontario 56,552,508 10.4 53,101,030 93.9
Québec 112,916,094 20.7 84,435,308 74.8
Saskatchewan 33,854,932 6.2 29,824,085 88.1
Yukon Territory 38,886,439 7.1 36,621,014 94.2
Total 545,553,515 100.0 401,742,998 73.6
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.
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
umbrella species. 7 As well, relatively recent occurrence
extent information is available for woodland caribou.
Lambeck RJ. 997. Focal Species: A Multi-Species Umbrella for
Nature Conservation. Conservation Biology ( ):8 9-8 .
7 Canadian Council on Ecological Areas. 00 . Designing Protected
Areas: Wild Places for Wild Life – Proceedings Summary of the Canadian
Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA) and Circumpolar Protected
Areas Network (CPAN) Workshop, September 9- 0, 00 , Yellowknife,
Northwest Territories. Available at: http://www.ccea.org/Downloads/
en_archive 00 _workshop 00 .pdf#page=88 ( /0 / 009)
60 | Section 3. The best of what's left
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 0 of 7 woodland
caribou herds across Canada’s
boreal region were considered
to be not self-sustaining. 8
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 longterm,
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 . Québec and the Northwest Territories each
contain over 0% of the woodland caribou occurrence
within intact forest landscapes (see Table ).
8 Environment Canada. 2008. Scientific Review for the Identification
of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou),
Boreal Population, in Canada. August 008. Ottawa: Environnent
Canada. 7 pp. plus 80 pp Appendices. Available at: https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=
7
( /0 / 009).
Map 22 - key data sources:
•
•
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.
Intact forest landscapes: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009.
Canada’s Forest Landscape Fragments: A Second Approximation.
Available at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/datawarehouse/
datawarehouse.htm (14/04/2009).

Map 22.

Where is the best of what’s left?
Our approach in mapping the best of what’s left involved
the following steps. (We have noted in italics areas where
this approach likely requires improvement.).
•
•
•
•
Forest landscapes that remain ecologically intact
(> 0,000 ha) and the remaining intact forest landscape
fragments ( ,000- 0,000 ha for boreal ecozones;
,000- 0,000 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 Amphibians; Key focal species – woodland
caribou; Potential Old-growth; Aquatic density per
watershed, and; Wetlands) (see Table a) 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 -
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,
based on an assumed even spread of relative ecological
values, between (lowest in ecological value) and
(highest in ecological value). For all seven ecological
values, ranks were determined by classifying their
particular unit of measurement into a maximum of
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).
62 | Section 3. The best of what's left
•
•
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
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
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.
Maps and show that Ontario and Northwest
Territories have the largest area of intact forest landscapes
that contain the highest combined conservation value.
The Boreal Shield, Hudson Plains and Taiga Plains are the
ecozones with the largest area of intact forest landscapes
that contain the highest combined conservation value.
Maps 23-24 - key data sources:
•
•
Seven key ecological values: see data sources for maps
13-22.
Protected areas: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009.
Protected areas of Canada. Unpublished dataset.

Table 22a. The seven key Where is the Best of What’s Left? ecological values and their categorization and ranking.
Key Ecological Value Units Description Categories Ranking
Soil Organic Carbon kg of carbon / m 2 Amount of carbon in the soils 0.00 - 6.9 1
6.9 - 12.1 2
12.1 - 19.7 3
19.7 - 45.8 4
Net Biome Productivity g of carbon / m 2 / year Net carbon balanace of forest
landscapes
Potential Old-growth
Forests
Species Diversity -
Combined Trees, Birds,
Mammals, Reptiles
and Amphibians
Intact treed land cover
not burned between
1980 and 2000
Average species
diversity rank
Based on forest land and
transition treed shrubland
categories circa 2000 not burned
between 1980-2000
45.8 - 356.7
Major carbon source
5
(-1,170 - -6) 1
Neutral carbon flux (-6 - 26) 3
Major carbon sink (26 - 784) 5
Potential old-growth based on
treed intact forests not recently
burned
5
Nearest whole value of the average species diversity rank.
Individual diversity ranking was derived from quantile classification
of number of species as shown in table 22b below.
Key focal species Caribou occurence Present caribou occurrence Caribou occurrence 5
Aquatic Density per
Watershed
Percent per watershed Lakes and major rivers 0.0 - 1.0 1
1.1 - 2.6 2
2.7 - 5.1 3
5.2 - 9.7 4
9.8 - 38.7 5
Wetlands Percent per watershed Bogs, fens, swamps and marshes 1 - 8 1
9 - 15 2
16 - 28 3
29 - 40 4
41 - 100 5
Table 22b. Individual species diversity ranks that were combined for the species diversity ecological value.
Species Diversity - Number of species Based on ranges 1 - 11 1
Trees
12 - 18 2
19 - 23 3
24 - 37 4
38 - 76 5
Species Diversity - Number of species Based on ranges 38 - 81 1
Birds
82 - 114 2
115 - 144 3
145 - 168 4
169 - 218 5
Species diversity - Number of species Based on ranges 10 - 28 1
Mammals
29 - 34 2
35 - 39 3
40 - 44 4
45 - 71 5
Species diversity Number of species Based on ranges 0 - 2 1
- Reptiles and
3 - 4 2
Amphibians
5 - 10 3
11 - 19 4
20 - 41 5
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 63
1
2
3
4
5

Map 23.

Map 24.

Protected areas
Protected areas provide an important and unique
contribution to the conservation of natural capital. They
act as benchmarks by which we can assess the sustainability
of uses on the broader landscape and marine environment
and measure the impacts of climate change. They conserve
representative samples of natural areas and preserve
ecological features and processes. They provide habitat for
a diversity of wildlife. They support important regional
goals, from community recreation and health to land claims
settlements. Adequately connected and buffered protected
areas are at the core of ecosystem-based management.
Canada recognizes the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature’s definition of protected areas
as “an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the
protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and
of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed
through legal or other effective means.” 9
Protected areas are a high priority for Canadians. Protected
areas in Canada are managed for multiple values, including
resource conservation, public education, preservation of
culturally significant sites, research, and wildlife and habitat
conservation.
Canada currently has over 80 million hectares of protected
area and almost 9 million hectares of interim protected
area for a total of 9. million hectares of protected
area. This area amounts to % of Canada’s 998.9 million
hectares of land area.
Recognizing the important role of protected areas,
GFWC has compiled an updated protected area data layer
which includes both permanent and interim protected
areas (see Map ). We have analyzed our intact forest
landscapes data layer in relation to this protected area
layer to examine how much protection exists for retaining
Canada’s remaining intact forest landscapes. This analysis is
presented in Tables and (page 8).
We present results from our analysis in two forms. The
first focuses on the total area protected within each forest
ecozone. The second focuses on the area and percentage
of protected areas and intact forest landscapes.
Table shows the status of each forest ecozone in terms
of total area protected. The results show that two
9 Environment Canada. 00 . Canadian Protected Areas Status Report
000- 00 . Available at: http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/publications/habitat/cpa-apc/index_e.cfm
(08/09/ 008).
66 | Section 3. The best of what's left
ecozones are more than 20% protected (Pacific Maritime
and Taiga Plain) while another four (Montane Cordillera,
Taiga Cordillera, Boreal Cordillera and Taiga Shield) are
more than % protected. The Mixed Wood Plain, Atlantic
Maritime, Boreal Plain and Boreal Shield all have less than
0% of their area with protected status, with the Mixed
Wood Plain being least protected at %.
Table presents results for the area of intact forest
landscape layer in relation to protected areas and for
area and percentage of protected areas in intact forest
landscapes. The table highlights that protected areas are
often composed largely of intact forest landscapes, with
the exception of protected areas in the Mixed Wood Plains.
The Taiga Cordillera, Boreal Cordillera, the Taiga Shield,
the Hudson Plains and the Montane Cordillera have
more than 90% of their protected areas in intact forest
landscapes. In four other ecozones (Boreal Plains, Boreal
Shield, Pacific Maritime, Taiga Plains), more than 75% of
the protected area is composed of intact forest landscape
while the the Atlantic Maritime’s protected area is only
0% intact forest landscapes and the Mixedwood Plains’
protected area is only 8% intact forest landscapes.
When examined from the perspective of what percentage
of intact forest landscapes are protected, the results
indicate that intact forest landscapes in some ecozones are
considerably less protected than in some other ecozones.
The ecozones with the smallest percentage of intact
forest landscapes in protected areas are the Mixed Wood
Plains ( 0%), Boreal Shield ( 0%) and Hudson Plains
( 0%). By contrast, four ecozones (the Atlantic Maritimes,
the Montane Cordillera, the Pacific Maritime and the
Taiga Plains) have more than % of their intact forest
landscapes protected.
The average percent protection for intact forest landscapes
is %. This is higher than the overall average of %
protection for the forest ecozones (see Table ).
However, it is clear that challenges for the protection of
intact forest landscapes in some ecozones remain (e.g.,
Boreal Shield, Mixedwood Plain, Hudson Plains and Taiga
Shield).
Map 25- key data source:
•
Protected areas: Global Forest Watch Canada. 2009.
Protected areas of Canada. Unpublished dataset.

Map 25.

Table 23. Total protected area (permanent and interim) by ecozone.
Ecozone
Permanent
Area protected (ha)
Interim Total
Total area (ha) % protected
Atlantic Maritime 1,077,304 42,285 1,119,590 20,151,483 5.6
Boreal Cordillera 6,412,359 1,129,240 7,541,598 47,071,039 16.0
Boreal Plains 5,212,957 772,739 5,985,697 74,062,933 8.1
Boreal Shield 10,571,946 5,663,738 16,235,684 188,640,692 8.6
Hudson Plain 4,018,806 362,447 4,381,254 37,565,744 11.7
Mixed Wood Plains 232,304 0 232,304 11,339,105 2.0
Montane Cordillera 9,358,515 0 9,358,515 48,975,931 19.1
Pacific Maritime 5,338,845 0 5,338,845 20,873,620 25.6
Taiga Cordillera 2,491,935 2,014,476 4,506,411 26,695,320 16.9
Taiga Plain 2,935,265 11,859,264 14,794,529 65,773,771 22.5
Taiga Shield 2,738,299 15,529,834 18,268,133 139,314,737 13.1
Total 80,483,691 38,785,425 119,269,116 988,918,117 12.1
Table 24. Status of intact forest landscapes with regards to protected area status.
Forest ecozone
Intact forest
landscapes (ha)
68 | Section 3. The best of what's left
Protected intact
forest landscapes
area (ha)
Protected intact
forest landscapes
(%)
Protected areas
in intact forest
landscapes (%)
Atlantic Maritime 1,836,928 558,635 30.4 49.9
Boreal Cordillera 44,540,876 7,392,763 16.6 98.0
Boreal Plains 27,517,456 5,038,505 18.3 84.2
Boreal Shield 127,849,511 12,800,923 10.0 78.8
Hudson Plains 36,797,504 4,104,907 11.2 93.7
Mixed Wood Plains 175,258 17,808 10.2 7.7
Montane Cordillera 26,672,966 8,533,894 32.0 91.2
Pacific Maritime 14,380,619 4,680,965 32.6 87.7
Taiga Cordillera 26,125,048 4,440,821 17.0 98.5
Taiga Plains 48,124,275 12,592,778 26.2 85.1
Taiga Shield 134,175,383 17,591,326 13.1 96.3
Total 488,195,825 77,753,325 15.9 88.6

Whitebark pine, Bas-Saint-Laurent, QC (08/2004)
Sustainable management needs to occur at a range of
scales. In order to achieve sustainable forest management
at the forest landscape level, as well as provincial and national
levels, it is necessary to assemble and assess key forest
conservation data, such as on forest intactness, forest
fragmentation, anthropogenic disturbances, forest extent,
forest structure, and species information. The intact forest
landscape and human-change data generated by Global
Forest Watch Canada’s work will continue to assist in the
broader effort to achieve sustainable forest management at
multiple scales.
The maps and data in this Atlas highlight that Canada
contains globally significant intact forest landscapes in both
its boreal and temperate forests. However, the maps of
cumulative access illustrate that large areas of Canada’s forest
landscapes have undergone significant transformation,
including much recent change (between 990 and 00 )
resulting from an expansion of industrial activities. Thus,
Canada has both challenges and opportunities in terms of
its remaining forest resources and how to manage them
sustainably for a range of ecological and human values.
As evident in the protected areas maps (Maps - ) and
tables (Tables - ) in Section , Canada has a solid
foundation for its protected areas network. However, given
the extent of its publicly-owned forest lands, Canada has
an opportunity to expand its system of protected areas
to more adequately protect the wildlife, habitat and other
ecological values contained in its remaining intact forest
landscapes.
GFWC’s goal is to help achieve more sustainable forest
management through the provision of maps and data. In
the interests of transparency and accountability, our policy
is to make data products that result from our work freely,
easily and widely available for others to use and refine.
4. Conclusion
GFWC has undertaken mapping intact forest landscapes
at smaller and smaller scales as there has been no other
attempt to map intact forest landscapes for all of Canada’s
forest ecozones using consistent national data. In addition
to being one of few attempts world-wide to map remaining
intact forest landscapes within such a large forest region
( .8 million hectare area), the mapping of recent human
caused changes (mainly industrial) in .9 million km of
forest lands may be one of the largest geographic areas
mapped in the world for anthropogenic change using such
a detailed and fine-scale methodology.
GFWC has identified a number of key challenges, however,
to the provision of accessible data for sustainable forest
management. These lessons include:
• The availability of up-to-date medium-high resolution,
cloud free satellite imagery at reasonable cost may
be the major limiting factor in future updates and
refinements to this work.
•
Some intensive anthropogenic disturbances, such as
narrow seismic lines, and many older anthropogenic
disturbances cannot be detected on more readily
available and affordable satellite imagery. Therefore,
we have almost certainly overestimated the amount of
remaining intact forest landscapes.
GFWC recognizes that conducting a project of this magnitude
(mapping of intact forest landscapes within the
80 million hectares of Canada’s forest ecozones cannot
be achieved error-free. Thus, we continue to encourage
reviewers and users of our data to send us comments.
In the future, it would be desirable to both refine and expand
upon our work. An obvious approach to refinement
would be to use more detailed regional datasets of key
conservation values and to formalize and expand a consultation
process to rank various values.
An important future research direction would be to map
and analyze various existing and future threats to Canada’s
intact forest landscapes, including industrial activities and
the effects of global warming.
It would also be useful to incorporate the results of this
and similar studies into social, economic, and environmental
analyses to aid in the improvement of forest management
and conservation decisions.
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 69

Aboriginal Treaties: The Government of Canada and
the courts understand treaties between the Crown and
Aboriginal people to be solemn agreements that set out
promises, obligations and benefits for both parties. Starting
in 70 , in what was to eventually become Canada, the
British Crown entered into solemn treaties to encourage
peaceful relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
people. Over the next several centuries, treaties were
signed to define, among other things, the respective rights
of Aboriginal people and governments to use and enjoy
lands that Aboriginal people traditionally occupied. Treaties
include historic treaties made between 70 and 9 and
modern-day treaties known as comprehensive land claim
settlements. Treaty rights already in existence in 98
(the year the Constitution Act was passed), and those that
arose afterwards, are recognized and affirmed by Canada’s
Constitution.
Anthropogenic changes/disturbances: All changes or
disturbances caused by humans, including (but not limited
to): clearcut logging, salvage logging in burned areas, road
building, reservoir construction, agricultural clearing, and
petroleum and natural gas exploration and development.
Disturbance: Any moderately isolated event in time
that disrupts the structure of a population, community
or ecosystem, and which modifies the availability of the
resources in the substrate or in the physical environment.
In many types of naturally-functioning intact forest
landscapes, disturbances such as fires, pests and diseases
are spontaneous events that shape the landscape. Human,
or anthropogenic, disturbances, such as the fragmentation
of landscapes and ecosystems by roads and land use, differ
ecologically from natural disturbances.
Focal Species: The species identified as being most
sensitive to a threat in the landscape is termed the “focal”
species. For example, the most area-limited species is used
Canada Indian and Northern Affairs. 000. Treaties With Aboriginal
People in Canada. March 000. Available at: http://www.ainc-inac.
gc.ca/pr/info/is 0_e.html ( 0/0 / 009)
Biology Online: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Biome
( 0/0 / 009)
Haeussler S, Kneeshaw D. 00 . Comparing forest management to
natural processes. In Burton PJ, Messier C, Smith DW, Adamowicz WL,
eds. Towards sustainable management of the boreal forest. Ottawa, ON:
National Research Council Research Press. Pp. 07- 8.
70 | Glossary
Glossary
to define the minimum areas required for various habitat
patches, and the most dispersal-limited species defines
the configuration of patches and the characteristics of
connecting vegetation. It is assumed that because the
most demanding species are selected, a landscape designed
and managed to meet their needs will encompass the
requirements of all other species similarly threatened.
Forest: Forest is a minimum area of land of 0.0 - .0
hectares with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking
level) of more than 0- 0 per cent with trees with the
potential to reach a minimum height of - metres at
maturity in situ. A forest may consist either of closed
forest formations where trees of various storeys and
undergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground or
open forest. Young natural stands and all plantations which
have yet to reach a crown density of 0- 0 per cent or tree
height of - metres are considered to be forest, as are
areas normally forming part of the forest area which are
temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention
such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected
to revert to forest.
Forest Ecozones and Ecodistricts: Forest Ecozones:
Canada has a defined hierarchical classification of
ecosystems. At a simple level there are 20 ecozones: fifteen
terrestrial and five marine. An ecozone is an area of the
earth’s surface that represents a large ecological zone and
has characteristic landforms and climate. Each ecozone
is distinguished from others by its unique mosaic of
plants, wildlife, climate, landforms, and human activities.
Ecozones are useful for general national reporting and for
placing Canada’s ecosystem diversity in a North American
or global context. Of the 0 ecozones, there are that
Lambeck RJ. 997. Focal Species: A Multi-Species Umbrella for
Nature Conservation Author(s): Source: Conservation Biology ( ):
8 9-8 .
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 00 .
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 (Annex – Definitions). Available at: http://
unfccc.int/files/meetings/workshops/other_meetings/application/
pdf/ cp7.pdf ( 0/0 / 009).
( ) Natural Resources Canada. 00 . Atlas of Canada – Terrestrial
Ecozones. Available online at: http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/ecology/framework/terrestrialecozones
( 0/0 / 009). ( )
Terrestrial Ecozones of Canada. As defined and mapped by Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada. 00 . Available online at: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/
cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/gis_data.html ( 0/0 / 009).

are generally considered forest ecozones based a minimum
of % tree cover. 7
Forest Landscape: A contiguous mosaic of ecosystems
within Canada’s forested ecozones. A forest landscape
may contain naturally treeless areas (see Intact Forest
Landscape).
Fragmentation: The breaking up of a habitat, ecosystem
or landscape into smaller, disconnected pieces. Although
natural disturbances fragment the landscape, human
activities are also agents of fragmentation. Examples of
anthropogenic fragmentation include roads, cleared lands,
urbanization and other human developments. 8
Intact Forest Landscape Fragment: A remnant of
an intact forest landscape. It is a contiguous mosaic of a
naturally occurring ecosystem, including forest, bog, water,
tundra, and rock outcrops, that is within a forest ecozone,
and that is essentially undisturbed by significant human
influence. A intact forest landscape fragment is different
from an “intact forest landscape” in that it alone may not
be large enough to support viable populations of most
native species associated with the ecosystem and may not
necessarily be large enough to be resilient to edge effects
or to survive most natural disturbance events; a forest
landscape fragment may be of any size. For the purposes
of this Global Forest Watch Canada atlas, intact forest
landscape fragments are between ,000 and 0,000 hectares
for the boreal and taiga ecozones and between ,000 and
0,000 hectares for the temperate forest ecozones.
Indicator: Indicators are statistics or parameters that,
tracked over time, provide information on trends in
the condition of a phenomenon and have significance
extending beyond that associated with the properties
of the statistics themselves. Environmental indicators are
selected key statistics which represent or summarize a
significant aspect of the state of the environment, natural
resource sustainability and related human activities. They
focus on trends in environmental changes, the stresses
causing them, how the ecosystem and its components are
responding to these changes, and societal responses to
prevent, reduce or ameliorate these stresses. Environmental
7 Natural Resources Canada. 000. The State of Canada’s Forests
999- 000. Available at: http://bookstore.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/detail_
e.php?recid= 0 ( 0/0 / 009)
8 ( ) Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. What is Forest Fragmentation
and Why is it Important? Available online at: http://birds.cornell.
edu/bfl/gen_instructions/fragmentation.html (30/04/2009). (2) Saunders
D, RJ Hobbs, and CR Margules. 99 . Biological consequences of
ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology, ( ): 8- .
( ) Harrison S and E Bruna. 999. Habitat fragmentation and large-scale
conservation: What do we know for sure? Ecography : - .
indicators are important tools for translating and delivering
concise, scientifically credible information in a manner that
can be readily understood and used by decision-makers at
all levels of society. 9
Intact Forest Landscape: A contiguous mosaic of
naturally occurring ecosystems in a forest ecozone,
essentially undisturbed by significant human influence.
An intact forest landscape does not necessarily consist of
oldgrowth trees and may not even be entirely forested.
Intact forest landscapes consist of a mosaic of natural
ecosystems including forest, bog, water, tundra, and rock
outcrops.
In some cases, such as the bog-dominated landscapes of
Canada’s taiga ecozones and the mountainous landscapes
of western Canada, only 0- 0% of the total area may
consist of trees. 0 An intact forest landscape has the
following characteristics:
•
•
•
•
It is free from substantial anthropogenic fragmentation
(such as settlements, roads, clearcuts, pipelines,
powerlines, mines, etc.);
It is free from substantial human influence for periods
that ensure that it is formed by naturally occurring
ecological processes (including fires, wind, and pests);
It contains only naturally seeded indigenous plant
species and supports viable populations of most native
species associated with the ecosystem;
It is large enough to be resilient to edge effects and to
survive most natural disturbance events.
Key conservation values: For the purposes of this atlas,
key conservation values include a range of outstanding
and critically important physical (e.g., lakes and rivers) and
biological components (e.g., old-growth forests), a range of
species groups, a focus on climate amelioration values (e.g.,
carbon source and sink areas), and a selection of wetland,
aquatic and terrestrial (intact forest landscapes) values for
which there was spatially explicit Canada-wide information.
Net Biome Productivity: the annual net absorption (or
release) of carbon by forests and wetlands.
9 Environment Canada. What are environmental indicators and why
are they important? Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/
Indicators/what/default.cfm#what ( 0/0 / 009)
0 Lee P, Akesenov D, Laestadius L, Noguerón R, Smith W. 00 .
Canada’s large intact forest landscapes. Edmonton, Alberta: Global
Forest Watch Canada. 8 pp. Available online at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca
( 0/0 / 009).
Chen JM. 008. Net Biome Production dataset ( 9 - 00 ).
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 71

Old-growth forests:
Defining Characteristics: The unifying feature of old-growth is
not age per se, but the set of characteristics shared by most
forest types in the later stages of succession. A key feature
is breakup of the canopy due to the mortality of individual
trees as they reach maturity. This process in turn leads to
the release of understory plants, accumulation of snags
and downed logs, and in some cases, the emergence of
secondary canopy species. Relative to younger stages, old
stands have trees of many ages and sizes and have more
large canopy trees, large snags, and large downed logs.
Overall, structural diversity is highest in old stands, and this
is reflected in unique plant and animal communities as well
as high overall species richness, relative to younger stands.
A Working Definition: Although it would be preferable to
identify old-growth forest stands directly on the basis
of the previously described structural criteria, timber
inventories do not contain the required attributes.
An alternative approach is to develop simple working
definitions of old-growth based on known relationships
between stand age and successional stage. Age-based
definitions of old-growth must be defined separately for
each stand type because tree species mature at different
rates (see table below). Also, it should be understood that
age-based definitions provide only a coarse assessment of
old growth forests. 7 There is substantial variability in the
rate of stand development due to local variations in soil
and climate, among other factors, and timber inventories
Schneider RR. 00 . Alternative Futures: Alberta’s Boreal Forests
at the Crossroads. Edmonton AB: Alberta Centre for Boreal Research.
pp. Old-growth forests chapter available at: http://www.borealcentre.ca/reports/book/8%
0Old% 0growth.pdf ( 0/0 / 009)
Burton P, Kneeshaw D, Coates D. 999. Managing forest harvesting
to maintain old growth in boreal and sub-boreal forests. For. Chron.
7 : - .
Stelfox JB. 99 . Relationships between stand age, stand structure,
and biodiversity in aspen mixedwood Forests in Alberta. Alberta Environmental
Centre, Vegreville, AB. pp. Available at: www.borealcentre.ca/reports/reports.html
( 0/0 / 009)
( ) Burton P, Kneeshaw D, Coates D. 999. Managing forest
harvesting to maintain old growth in boreal and sub-boreal forests.
For. Chron. 7 : - . ( ) Lee P, Hanus S, Grover B. 000. Criteria
for estimating old growth in boreal mixedwoods from standard timber
inventory data. For. Ecol. Manage. 9: - 0.
Stelfox JB. 99 . Relationships between stand age, stand structure,
and biodiversity in aspen mixedwood Forests in Alberta. Alberta Environmental
Centre, Vegreville, AB. pp. (Available at: www.borealcentre.ca/reports/reports.html)
( 0/0 / 009) ( ) Timoney K. 00 . Types
and attributes of old-growth forests in Alberta, Canada. Nat. Areas J.
: 8 - 00.
7 Lee P, Hanus S, Grover B. 000. Criteria for estimating old growth
in boreal mixedwoods from standard timber inventory data. For. Ecol.
Manage. 9: - 0.
72 | Glossary
are known to systematically underestimate the age of older
stands. 8
Protected area: As defined by the International Union of
Nature Conservation (IUCN), a protected area is an area
of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection
and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and
associated cultural resources, managed through legal or
other effective means. 9
Significant human influences: Includes anthropogenic
disturbances that are visible on recent (~ 990 to ~ 00 )
Landsat satellite images and which are identified in
available Canada-wide datasets of linear disturbances and
reservoirs. There are many human uses occurring within
forest landscape fragments that are not detected using
Landsat images. For example: remote camps/lodges/
cottages; off-highway vehicles use; hunting/fishing/
trapping use.
Sustainable forest management: Management that
maintains and enhances the long-term health of forest
ecosystems for the benefit of all living things while
providing environmental, economic, social and cultural
opportunities for present and future generations. 0
Umbrella Species: A wide-ranging species whose
requirements include those of many other species.
8 Cumming S, F Schmiegelow, and P Burton. 000. Gap dynamics
in boreal aspen stands: is the forest older than we think? Ecol. Appl.
0:7 -7 9.
19 (1) FAO - RAP. 2004. RAP Publication 2000/07. Asia-Pacific
Forestry Commission: development of national-level criteria and indicators
for the sustainable management of dry forests of Asia: workshop
report. (Annex 6: Definitions and basic principles of sustainable forest
management in relation to criteria and indicators.) Available at: http://
www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/003/x6896e/
x 89 e0e.htm ( 0/0 / 009). ( ) Environment Canada. 00 . Canadian
Protected Areas Status Report 000- 00 . Available at: http://www.cwsscf.ec.gc.ca/publications/habitat/cpaapc/index_e.cfm
( 0/0 / 009)
0 Canadian Forest Service. 007. Forest conditions, monitoring, and
reporting glossary. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON. Available at:
http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/glossary/ /s ( 0/0 / 009).
Roberge J-M, Angelstam P. 00 . “Usefulness of Umbrella Species
Concept as a Conservation Tool.” Conservation Biology 18(1): 76-85

Appendix 1. Who is GFWC?
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.
Gaspé region, QC (08/2004)
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 73

A. Intact forest landscapes
In undertaking this project, GFWC presumed all forest
landscapes were unfragmented by significant (mainly
industrial) human influence (see Glossary) at the outset of
the study. Once the study area was defined, areas within
the forest ecozones were then eliminated systematically
through a mapping methodology which employed a
stratified approach and increasingly detailed datasets.
Step 1. Setting Study Boundary
We used the Ecozones of Canada to determine the regions
of interest. The study area initially covered all of Canada’s
forest ecozones, for a total of 80 million hectares.
Step 2. Elimination of anthropogenic
disturbed areas using existing datasets
The second step involved the elimination of anthropogenic
disturbances through the use of readily available existing
datasets that identify major industrial and other human
activities (e.g., roads, other linear features, and reservoirs).
This step made it possible to exclude large areas from
further analysis on the basis of affordable information,
which led to substantial savings in work time and in data
costs.
To undertake this work, 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 ,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 ,000 metres for birds, predators, and ungulates,
as well as smaller wildlife. For example, one Ontario
government study on wildlife areas used - and 0kilometre
buffers.
Davidson RJ, Gray PA, Boyd S, Cordiner GS. 000. State-of-thewilderness
reporting in Ontario: Models, tools, and techniques. USDA
Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P- -Vol- : - 9.
74 | Appendix 2. Methods
Appendix 2. Methods
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
,000 hectares for the boreal/taiga ecozones and smaller
than ,000 hectares for the temperate forest ecozones were
removed according to the threshold sizes selected.
A draft map layer of intact forest landscapes was then
generated.
Step 3. Elimination of further disturbed
areas using satellite imagery
The third (and most labour- and time-intensive) step
involved using satellite imagery to identify anthropogenic
disturbances in the candidate intact forest landscapes.
The anthropogenic disturbance layer was overlaid with
the study area layer in order to crop candidate areas.
The manual identification and digitization of additional
anthropogenic disturbances on satellite imagery was
completed in all blocks of ,000+ hectares in the boreal/
taiga ecozones and in all ,000+ hectare blocks for the
temperate ecozones within the study area.
This step allowed us to detect additional industrial
activities, including logging, mining, roads and oil and
gas facilities, for which comprehensive publicly available
digital datasets do not exist. Medium-resolution satellite
imagery was useful for identifying and digitizing a number
of human activities for which publicly available detailed
datasets were not available. For example, we were able to
use Landsat images to identify and eliminate areas affected
by agriculture, forestry, and road building.
Note: Included in the disturbance layers that were manually created
were various types of “cut lines” (relatively narrow, straight, linear disturbances).
The most prevalent of these were the seismic lines that are
mainly associated with oil and gas development and that are pervasive
throughout much of Alberta. The simple decision rule that these linear
disturbances had to be visible in the Landsat imagery to qualify for exclusion
means that many areas mapped as “intact forest landscapes and
forest landscape fragments” may still contain disturbances that are only
clearly visible “on-the-ground.”

Various band combinations were used to enhance visibility
in the satellite images (the most common combination
being , , ). Visual interpretation was normally
performed at a : 0,000– : 0,000 scale. Final checks were
performed at : 0,000- : 00,000 and corrections were
made at : 0,000- : 0,000. Areas associated with the
following main types of human disturbances were excluded
in Step . These areas were excluded only if positive signs
of disturbance could be detected in satellite images:
1. Linear and polygonal infrastructure and
associated zones of influence: roads of
all types; railroads; seismic and other cutlines
clearly visible in satellite images; power lines and
communication lines (assuming there was clearing
of vegetation long the lines); pipelines; recently
completely anthropogenically-converted areas, such
as settlements; built-up populated and industrial
areas; croplands (both current and abandoned); and
reservoirs.
2. Areas affected by land use in addition to
those noted above: clearcuts; all types of mining
and drilling activity areas; and other areas affected by
industrial activity.
After one interpreter completed the visual interpretation of
disturbances, a second interpreter checked the accuracy of
the mapping. Questionable areas were highlighted, checked
and, where necessary, corrected by a third interpreter using
a variety of scales and image dates. Areas of uncertainty
were resolved through discussion within the interpretation
team and by the use of ancillary data.
Digitized linear and polygonal disturbances were buffered
by an automatic process according to the nature of the
disturbance before they were excluded from the dataset.
Residual fragments smaller than the threshold sizes were
eliminated. The result was a secondary draft map layer of
forest landscape fragments.
Analysis was conducted in a Geographic Information
System (GIS) environment using ESRI’s ArcView v.
series and Leica Geosystems’ Geographic Imaging software
(formerly ERDAS). All vector and raster layers were
projected in the Lambert Conformal Conic projection.
This projection is used in ellipsoidal form for large-scale
mapping of regions of predominantly east-west extent,
including many maps in the International Map of the
World ( : ,000,000-scale) series, and for topographic
mapping in many nations.
Step 4. Verification of results
In step four, a combination of field checks, aerial photo
checks, and expert review was conducted to verify the draft
map of forest landscape fragments. Field expeditions were
conducted in the 00 - 007 period in the unfragmented/
fragmented fringe to verify the result of the image
interpretation. Field teams made up of Global Forest
Watch Canada staff were equipped with GPS receivers and
laptop computers containing relevant satellite imagery and
the preliminary draft forest fragments data layer.
The field verification was not based on random or
systematic sampling. Rather, the strategy was to seek out
points that were easily accessible by road or trail near
the unfragmented/fragmented fringe, but which were
within the fragmented area, and which occurred over a
broad geographic range. This process allowed the general
accuracy of the unfragmented/fragmented fringe to be
verified. Areas of uncertainty or difficulty of interpretation
were also examined.
Step 5. Final analysis
GIS analysis of the intact forest landscape data layer was
conducted to assess their status in terms of their area and
distribution by administrative and geographic units.
The result of our step-wise analysis was a final map (GIS)
data layer comprised of a selection of forest landscape
fragments without detectable signs of human disturbance,
larger than ,000 hectares.
Accuracy
The accuracy of the intact forest landscapes map varies
across Canada depending largely on the quality and
quantity of available information, primarily Landsat
imagery. The Landsat imagery that was used as the
basic data source has a pixel resolution of 8. metres.
This means that many small and narrow anthropogenic
disturbances were not detected.
This might be considered by some as a disadvantage or
weakness in the methodology. On the other hand, we
assumed that small and narrow disturbances generally,
but not universally, have less of an ecological impact than
larger disturbances. We concluded that there was value in a
mapping project that uses a consistent data source even if
it discriminates against small disturbances.
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 75

Owing primarily to geometric correction issues, it appears
the maximum error on-the-ground was approximately 00
metres although this is limited to only a few images. We
therefore estimate the overall accuracy of the final dataset
will be in the range of : ,000,000 - : , 00,000.
Overall, the analysis is more likely to overestimate than
underestimate the total area of remaining forest landscape
fragments. This is inherent in the basic approach, which
presumes all areas to be unfragmented by anthropogenic
disturbances unless the opposite can be proven. Signs of
disturbance are more likely to have been missed than to
have been mistakenly found where none exist. However,
it is probable that the both categories of error did occur.
3 For example, there is the difficulty of distinguishing human-caused
forest change such as old clearcuts, areas of selective logging where
there are no roads visible on satellite images. There are other areas of
human use that are not detectable on Landsat images as well, such as
hunting/fishing/trapping locations, remote camps/lodges/cottages, and
other “fly-in” and winter access uses.
B. Cumulative access and recent anthropogenic change
Global Forest Watch Canada prepared a national
cumulative access dataset titled “Canada Access -
Combined” that includes all the disturbances that were
digitized using satellite imagery during the intact forest
landscape and forest fragments mapping process plus other
existing datasets of human access such as roads, mines
and reservoirs. This dataset is currently unpublished and
copyright-restricted.
Global Forest Watch Canada employs a standard
methodology to detect anthropogenic changes throughout
forested landscapes. Because landscape features reflect
distinctive patterns to optical remote sensing platforms,
remote sensing software algorithms, in combination with
human editing, were used to reliably process anthropogenic
change. This methodology is described in detail in previous
Global Forest Watch Canada publications.
The first step is to employ a change detection algorithm
in remote sensing based software; for this analysis we
used Leica Geosystem’s ERDAS Imagine. This algorithm
compares the spectral reflectance of the images in a
spectral band (we chose band ) and, if the values exceed a
set threshold, the area is marked as change. We repeat this
process numerous times, setting the percent differencing
E.g., see: Lee P, Gysbers JD. 008. Recent Anthropogenic Changes
within the Inland Temperate Rainforest of British Columbia: Interim
Report (A Global Forest Watch Canada Report). Edmonton, Alberta:
Global Forest Watch Canada. 9 pp.
76 | Appendix 2. Methods
West of Chapleau, ON. (06/2005)
at different levels in order to best extract these change
features, depending on the image quality. Once this
automated change detection process is completed for
each image, the change detection files are passed on to an
analyst who then manually reviews the images. The first
manual pass over each of the change analysis results is
to identify and remove features which do not represent
anthropogenic change between the time periods. It also
provides the opportunity to identify changes that were
not picked up through the automatic processing. To do
so the image analyst views the earlier and recent period
Landsat images and traces anthropogenic features that
are not visible in the first period image. The general band
combinations for reviewing the images are either false
colour , , or natural colour , , composites.
Another analyst then reviews the completed product and
interprets the image again for any inclusions or exclusions
that should not form part of the dataset. Areas where there
is a discrepancy in interpretation are discussed and resolved
by the analysts, sometimes with the use of ancillary data.

Appendix 2. Data
A. List of Landsat images used in intact forest landscape mapping
Note: Landsat TM and ETM+ imagery; exact dates were not available for all images used.
Path Row Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4
2 26 03/07/2000 12/10/1993
2 27 01/07/1999 12/10/1993
3 25 02/09/2002 03/08/1994
3 26 01/10/2001 27/08/2000 31/07/1987
3 27 01/10/2001 24/06/2000 09/09/1990
4 25 21/08/2001 25/08/1988
4 26 05/08/2001 31/08/1990
4 27 21/06/2002 31/08/1990
5 23 16/09/2002 22/07/1999 20/09/1989
5 24 16/09/2002 13/09/2001 06/08/1990
5 25 13/09/2001 06/08/1990
5 26 15/08/2002 13/09/2001 09/08/1991
5 27 15/08/2002 09/08/1991
6 22 20/09/2001 06/09/1993
6 23 20/09/2001 18/08/1992
6 24 20/09/2001 15/06/1992
6 27 20/09/2001 20/07/1987
6 28 22/08/2002 16/06/2001 20/07/1987
6 29 22/08/2002 16/06/2001 17/07/1992
7 22 28/07/2002 21/08/1999 13/09/1987
7 23 28/07/2002 21/08/1999 26/09/1992
7 24 28/07/2002 21/08/1999 26/09/1992
7 25 28/07/2002 26/09/1992
7 28 09/05/2002 04/06/2000 26/09/1992
7 29 22/05/2001 26/09/1992
8 22 27/07/1999 04/07/1988
8 23 01/10/2000 20/09/1987
8 24 14/06/2001 16/06/1993
8 25 29/09/1999 15/09/1991
8 26 13/07/2000 04/07/1988
8 28 13/07/2000 10/05/1991
8 29 13/07/2000 04/07/1988
9 21 19/08/1999 11/09/1987
9 22 19/08/1999 11/09/1987 18/06/2000
9 23 18/06/2000 07/08/1992
9 24 18/06/2000 21/08/1991
9 25 24/08/2001 03/09/1990
9 26 09/09/2001 18/06/2000 16/09/1989
9 27 06/09/2000 07/08/1992
9 28 06/09/2000 07/08/1992
9 29 18/06/2000 18/06/1991
9 30 20/07/2000 18/06/1991
10 20 30/07/2001 01/08/1987
Path Row Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4
10 21 30/07/2001 01/08/1987
10 22 30/07/2001 24/06/1986
10 23 12/08/2000 04/09/1988
10 24 27/09/1999 04/09/1988
10 25 27/05/2001 04/09/1988
10 26 27/09/1999 02/09/1993
10 27 12/08/2000 27/09/1999 02/09/1993
10 28 28/06/2001 21/07/1989
10 29 29/09/2000 19/08/1988
11 20 05/07/2001 09/09/1987
11 21 19/06/2001 09/09/1987
11 22 22/06/2002 09/09/1987
11 23 22/06/2002 06/09/1992
11 24 22/06/2002 16/06/1991
11 25 22/06/2002 16/06/1991
11 26 22/06/2002 16/06/1991
11 27 09/08/2002 16/06/1991
12 20 26/06/2001 27/07/1992
12 22 30/09/2001 04/08/1989
12 23 30/09/2001 30/09/1990
12 24 29/06/2002
12 25 29/06/2002 27/07/1986
12 26 25/05/2001 27/07/1986
12 27 25/05/2001 27/07/1986
12 29 29/09/2000 19/08/1988
13 19 07/08/2002 24/08/1988
13 20 07/08/2002 24/08/1988
13 21 21/09/2001 24/08/1988
13 22 06/07/2002 05/07/1993
13 23 20/06/2002 07/07/1988
13 24 23/06/1905 12/06/1905
13 25 23/06/1905 11/06/1905
13 26 23/06/1905 11/06/1905
13 27 04/08/2001 27/08/1989 23/08/2002
13 28 01/06/2001 06/08/1987
13 29 31/08/1999 16/06/1992
14 21 21/07/1999 09/07/1992
14 22 13/07/2002 19/09/1989
14 23 23/05/2001 19/09/1989
14 24 05/06/2000 30/06/1989
14 25 22/06/1905 30/05/1989
14 26 22/06/1905 08/06/1905
14 27 20/05/2000 10/06/1987
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 77

Path Row Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4
14 28 08/06/2006 01/08/1989
14 29 08/06/2001 13/08/1987
15 19 17/07/2001 06/08/1988
15 20 17/07/2001
15 21 17/07/2001
15 22 15/06/2001 20/07/1991
15 23 30/07/2000 27/07/1990
15 24 19/09/2001 21/09/1987
15 25 19/09/2001 21/09/1993
15 26 23/06/1905 10/06/1905 21/08/2002
15 27 23/06/1905 08/06/1905
15 28 15/06/2001 05/09/1987
15 29 15/06/2001 29/05/1992 28/07/1999
16 19 21/07/2000 12/09/1987
16 21 22/08/2000 10/07/1987
16 22 22/08/2000 05/07/1991
16 23 06/06/2001 11/08/1987
16 24 28/08/2000 25/09/1992
16 25 28/08/2002 25/09/1992 27/05/2006
16 26 25/08/2001 03/08/1990 27/05/2006
16 27 25/08/2001 03/08/1990
16 28 25/08/2001 19/08/1990
16 29 22/08/2000 05/07/2000 07/10/1999 03/08/1990
17 19 10/07/1999 17/07/1993
17 20 15/07/2001 03/07/1988
17 21 15/07/2001 03/07/1988
17 22 18/07/2002 25/07/1990
17 23 18/07/2002 20/06/1989
17 24 13/06/2001 17/06/1988
17 25 13/06/2001 17/06/1988
17 26 12/06/2005 18/07/2002
17 27 18/07/2002 17/06/1988
17 28 15/05/2002 12/07/2000 11/05/1992
17 29 12/07/2000 17/07/1993
18 22 25/07/2002 18/09/1990
18 23 20/08/2000 24/07/1993
18 24 20/08/2000 01/06/1991
18 25 25/07/2002 20/08/1991
18 26 22/05/2002 20/08/1991
18 27 01/05/2002 01/08/1991
18 28 22/05/2002 19/09/1999 01/06/1991
18 29 19/09/1999 25/08/1993
18 30 29/06/2007 03/09/1999 05/05/1987
18 31 10/08/2002 24/06/1988
19 19 29/07/2001
19 21 29/07/2001 29/06/1993
19 22 29/07/2001 13/06/1993
19 23 14/06/2002 03/09/1988
19 24 26/06/2002 25/05/1986
19 25 01/08/2000 01/09/1989
19 26 27/08/2000 1989
19 27 27/08/2000 14/05/1988
19 28 27/08/2000 12/05/1987
78 | Appendix 3. Data
Path Row Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4
19 29 30/10/2000 30/05/1988
19 30 30/08/2001
19 31 30/08/2001 11/08/1991
20 22 07/07/2002 01/07/1991
20 23 21/08/2001 01/07/1991
20 24 14/07/1990
20 26 01/06/2003 04/07/2002
20 27 06/09/2001 20/06/1987
20 28 06/09/2001 03/05/1987
20 29 29/05/2003
21 24 09/08/2000
21 27 24/04/1987
21 28 21/05/2000
22 23 15/07/2000 23/07/1989
22 24 15/07/2000 19/05/1988
22 25 31/05/2001 15/07/2000
22 26 13/06/2001 31/05/2001
22 27 31/05/2001 22/05/1989
23 22 22/07/2000
23 23 10/10/2000 13/07/1991
23 24 29/05/2003 17/07/2002
23 25 11/12/2002 21/06/2001
23 26 10/10/2000 03/07/1996 05/09/1990 27/07/1987
23 27 23/06/2001 06/09/1987
24 23 16/07/2001 13/07/1991
24 24 18/09/2001 13/07/1991
24 26 29/07/2000 21/08/1988
25 21 05/06/2001
25 22 06/06/2001 04/07/1991
25 23 05/06/2001 14/07/1989
25 24 05/06/2001 1989
25 25 05/06/2001 24/10/2000 1989
25 26 04/07/2000 1988
26 21 11/07/2000
26 22 11/07/2000 13/07/1986
26 23 11/07/2000 1986
26 24 11/07/2000 1987
26 25 16/09/2001 1986
26 26 01/07/2002 16/06/1987
27 21 19/08/2000
27 22 03/06/2001 21/08/1986
27 23 04/09/2000 1990
27 24 03/06/2001 02/05/1990
27 25 18/07/2000 01/08/1999 1991
27 26 22/10/2000 01/08/1991
28 20 10/08/2000
28 21 26/08/2000
28 22 07/08/1990
28 23 24/08/1999 07/08/1990
28 24 26/08/2000 1988
28 25 26/08/2000 1988
28 26 15/07/2002 01/08/1990
29 20 05/09/2001 19/06/1987

Path Row Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4
29 21 05/09/2001 19/06/1987
29 22 05/09/2001 26/05/1990
29 23 07/10/2001 1990
29 24 06/07/2002 01/05/1992
29 25 16/05/2001 16/09/1999 03/08/1990
29 26 07/10/2001 30/08/1990
30 20 08/08/2000 14/09/1993
30 21 08/08/2000 05/06/1993
30 22 04/05/2000 08/08/2000 21/08/1990
30 23 24/08/2000 23/09/1999 05/06/1991
30 24 28/09/2001 2000 1990
30 25 13/07/2005 28/09/2001 05/06/1991
30 26 23/09/1999 23/07/1991
31 19 18/08/2001 04/08/1993
31 20 18/08/2001 20/08/1993
31 21 18/08/2001 20/08/1993
31 22 14/07/2000 14/06/1992
31 23 14/07/2000 29/08/1999 26/05/1990
31 24 31/08/1999 31/08/1991
31 25 30/07/2000 31/08/1991
32 18 26/09/2001
32 19 26/09/2001
32 20 26/09/2001 19/07/1999 26/07/1987
32 21 21/07/2000 03/06/1991
32 22 21/07/2000 16/06/1990
32 23 26/09/2001 16/06/1990
32 24 21/09/1999 07/09/1991
32 25 21/09/1999 08/08/1992
33 18 15/07/2001 20/08/1988
33 19 17/09/2001 20/08/1988
33 20 10/06/2000 20/08/1988
33 21 10/07/1999 12/06/1992
33 22 10/07/1999 13/08/1991
33 23 27/08/1999 13/08/1991
33 24 27/08/1999 07/10/1988
33 25 02/07/2002 28/07/2000 15/08/1989
34 17 04/06/2001
34 18 09/07/2002
34 19 20/06/2001
34 20 03/07/2000 19/08/1985
34 21 23/06/2002 19/08/1985
34 22 17/06/2000 1988
34 23 1999 1990
34 24 06/07/2001 29/05/1990
35 16 10/07/2000 26/07/1991
35 17 10/07/2000 26/07/1991
35 18 13/07/2001 10/07/2000 26/07/1991
35 19 11/08/1991
35 20 25/08/1999 05/08/1989
35 21 25/08/1999 05/08/1989
35 22 15/09/2001 1999 11/08/1991 1991
35 23 24/07/1999 04/07/1989
35 24 24/07/1999 26/07/1991
Path Row Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4
36 18 03/09/2000
36 19 03/09/2000
36 20 22/09/2001 02/06/2001 16/09/1990
36 21 09/06/2001 18/08/1991
36 22 22/09/2001 07/08/1993
36 23 18/08/2000 27/05/1990
37 16 27/07/2001 27/06/1993
37 17 29/09/2001 01/09/1988
37 18 29/09/2001 27/06/1993
37 19 29/09/2001 30/08/1987
37 20 29/09/2001
37 21 29/09/2001 30/08/1987
37 22 12/08/2001 30/08/1987
37 23 12/08/2001 08/09/1991
38 19 22/09/1993
38 20 04/09/2001 02/06/1993
38 21 03/08/2001 15/06/1992
38 22 03/08/2001 22/09/1993 15/06/1992
38 23 08/03/2001 23/08/1988
39 16 06/07/2000 02/09/1989
39 17 25/07/2001 02/09/1989
39 18 10/06/2002
39 19 10/06/2002 02/09/1989
39 20 10/06/2002 06/06/1992
39 21 22/09/1999 06/06/1992
39 22 22/09/1999 19/05/1991
39 23 23/08/2000 16/09/1994
40 15 30/06/2001
40 16 30/06/2001
40 18 17/08/2001
40 19 17/08/2001
40 20 17/10/2000 13/06/1989
40 21 13/07/2000 13/06/1989
40 22 17/08/2001 17/10/2000 13/07/2000 22/09/1993
40 23 17/08/2001 13/06/1989
41 15 03/08/1999 31/08/1989
41 16 05/06/2001 05/08/1991
41 17 05/06/2001 25/07/1987
41 18 18/07/1999 05/08/1991
41 19 05/06/2001 05/08/1991
41 20 02/06/2000 11/09/1987
41 21 08/10/2000 1999 1992
41 22 03/08/1999 11/09/1987
41 26 20/09/1999 28/08/1988
42 19 11/06/1992
42 20 21/08/2006 14/05/2002 15/08/2001 11/06/1992
42 21 22/04/2000 09/04/1988
42 22 15/08/2001 13/09/2000 1990
42 25 05/08/2006 28/08/2000 26/07/1985
42 26 15/08/2001 10/09/1990
43 15 18/07/2000 16/06/2000 20/07/1992
43 16 04/09/2000 08/06/1994
43 17 16/06/2000 08/06/1994
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 79

Path Row Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4
43 18 16/06/2000 20/07/1992 13/08/1989
43 19 17/08/1999 06/09/1992
43 20 1999 1993
43 21 23/09/2001 11/10/1993
43 22 23/09/2001 11/09/1988
43 23 06/10/2000 11/09/1988
43 24 23/09/2001 2000 1993
43 25 25/06/2006 06/10/2000 04/09/1991
44 18 13/06/2002
44 20 15/05/2006
44 21 14/09/2001 25/07/1991
44 22 14/09/2001 02/09/1988
44 23 14/09/2001 02/09/1988
44 24 14/09/2001 02/09/1988
44 25 14/09/2001 09/09/1999 02/09/1988
44 26 09/09/1999 14/07/1987
45 15 02/09/2000 16/07/1991
45 16 30/06/2000 16/07/1991
45 17 03/07/2001 07/09/1987
45 18 03/07/2001 15/09/1990
45 19 29/05/2000 15/09/1990
45 20 2000 1990
45 21 16/09/1999 1988
45 22 16/09/1999 15/09/1990
45 23 23/08/2002 1990
45 24 17/08/2000 15/09/1990
45 25 03/07/2001 09/16/1999 24/08/1988
45 26 16/07/2000 2000 1998
46 18 28/09/2001
46 19 06/08/2001 23/05/2001 7/21/1999
46 20 01/10/2002 23/07/1991
46 21 22/08/1999 31/08/1988
46 22 25/09/2000 23/07/1991
46 23 25/09/2000 22/09/1990
46 25 11/08/2001 22/09/1990
46 26 11/08/2001 22/09/1990
47 14 20/07/2002 14/07/1991
47 15 20/07/2002 11/07/1990
47 16 14/09/1999 11/07/1990
47 17 14/09/1999 11/07/1990
47 18 14/09/1999 11/07/1990
47 19 2000 1990
47 20 30/07/2000 2000 1990
47 21 21/08/2002 05/10/2001 1991
47 22 21/08/2002 1999 09/10/1988 1988
47 23 21/08/2002 2001 1999 09/10/1988
47 24 21/08/2002 1999 1988
47 25 05/10/2001 13/09/1990
47 26 30/07/2000 15/08/1991
48 14 24/07/2001
48 15 24/07/2001
48 16 24/07/2001
48 17 13/09/2002
80 | Appendix 3. Data
Path Row Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4
48 18 04/08/1999
48 19 04/08/1999
48 20 04/08/1999 24/08/1992
48 21 04/06/2006 24/08/1992
48 22 23/09/2000 24/08/1992
48 23 23/09/2000 24/08/1992
48 24 23/09/2000 03/10/1989
48 25 23/09/2000 21/07/2000 20/09/1990
48 26 23/09/2000 20/09/1990
49 13 20/08/1988
49 14 12/07/1991
49 15 16/08/2001 10/06/1991
49 16 02/06/1994 28/06/1992
49 17 12/06/1992
49 18 16/08/2001 12/06/1992
49 19 16/08/2001 19/08/1993
49 20 16/08/2001 1999 19/09/1993
49 21 16/08/2001 15/08/1992
49 22 16/08/2001 12/09/1999 15/08/1992
49 23 03/10/2001 12/09/1999 15/08/1992
49 24 03/10/2001 26/06/2000 15/08/1992
49 25 13/08/2000 26/06/2000 07/08/1989
49 26 03/10/2001 07/08/1989
50 13 03/09/1999
50 14 24/09/2001
50 15 24/09/2001
50 16 21/09/2000
50 17 21/09/2000
50 18 21/09/2000 17/07/1999
50 19 21/09/2000
50 20 29/10/2002 10/09/1987
50 22 1999 1992
50 23 1999 1992
50 24 1999
50 25 21/09/2000 16/06/1985
51 13 28/07/1992
51 14 13/08/1992
51 15 11/08/1991
51 16 10/06/1992
51 17 24/06/1991
51 18 21/09/2000 11/08/1991
51 19 14/08/2001
51 20 14/08/2001 03/09/1999 03/09/1988
51 21 14/08/2001 03/10/1993
51 22 15/09/2001 14/08/2001 03/10/1993
51 23 15/09/2001 24/06/2000 29/06/1987
51 24 01/10/2001 14/09/1992
51 25 24/06/2000 17/07/1988
52 13 05/08/2001
52 14 17/07/2000
52 15 17/07/2000
52 16 17/07/2000
52 17 15/07/1999

Path Row Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4
52 18 17/07/2000 16/08/1999
52 19 19/09/1999 05/09/1992
52 21 21/06/2002 25/08/1988
52 22 01/09/2000 30/05/2000 25/08/1988
52 23 23/07/2002 19/07/1992
53 13 10/07/1992 07/08/1999
53 16 24/07/1991
53 18 07/08/1999 21/09/1995
53 19 12/08/2001
53 20 06/07/1999 15/09/1993
53 21 12/08/2001 1999 17/08/1994
53 22 06/07/1999 24/06/1992
53 23 06/07/1999 24/06/1992
53 24 12/06/2002 24/06/1992
54 14 07/09/2002
54 15 07/09/2002
54 17 07/09/2002 21/08/1993
54 18 23/09/2002 06/08/2002 03/01/2000 20/07/1987
54 19 16/08/1991
54 21 26/08/1989
54 22 01/09/2000 26/08/1989
54 23 15/03/2002 16/08/1991
55 14 05/08/1999 08/07/1992
55 15 11/09/2001 06/07/1991
55 16 11/09/2001 07/08/1991
55 17 05/08/1999
55 18 05/08/1999
55 19 10/08/2001 05/08/1999
55 20 05/08/1999 09/08/1986
55 21 30/09/2002 24/09/2000 26/10/1991
55 22 10/08/2001 26/10/1991
55 23 10/08/2001 26/10/1991
56 13 11/06/2000
56 14 11/06/2000 11/07/1999
56 16 29/06/1992 09/09/1989
56 17 17/08/2001 29/06/1992
56 18 09/09/1989
56 19 13/09/1999 09/09/1989
56 20 12/08/1999 09/09/1989
57 12 27/08/2002 08/06/2002 09/07/1987
57 13 12/09/2002 09/07/1987
57 14 12/09/2002 01/07/1990
57 15 03/08/1999 17/09/1995
57 16 03/08/1999 17/09/1995
57 17 03/08/1999 17/09/1995
57 18 03/08/1999 18/06/1991
57 19 08/08/2001 03/08/1999
58 14 17/07/2002
58 18 25/06/1991
58 19 15/08/2001 25/06/1991
59 12 16/07/1999 07/07/1993
59 13 02/09/1999 21/08/1992
59 14 21/05/2002 21/08/1992
Path Row Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4
59 15 01/08/1999 21/08/1992
59 16 01/08/1999 21/08/1992
59 17 01/08/1999 24/08/1987
59 18 20/09/2000 01/08/1999
59 19 01/08/1999
60 17 23/08/1990
60 18 13/08/2001 23/08/1990
60 19 09/06/1992
61 12 16/07/2000 18/07/1992
61 13 16/07/2000 18/07/1992
61 14 17/08/2000 27/08/1989
61 15 17/06/2001 22/08/1987
61 16 14/07/1999 22/08/1987
61 17 19/07/2001
61 18 19/07/2001
62 13 31/08/2000 30/06/1992
62 17 26/05/2002 16/08/1994
62 18 08/06/2001 12/07/1993
63 12 31/08/2000 30/06/1992
63 13 31/08/2000 30/06/1992
63 14 31/08/2000 20/08/1993 14/06/1986
63 15 31/08/2000 20/08/1993
63 16 18/06/2002 22/07/1994
63 17 12/08/1990
65 13 18/07/2002 10/07/1999 23/08/1989
65 14 12/09/1999 28/06/1992
65 15 03/08/2002 28/06/1992
66 12 26/08/2002 29/07/1989
66 13 16/09/1995 29/07/1989
66 14 16/09/1995
67 11 30/08/2001 23/06/1985
67 12 27/08/1991
69 11 28/08/2001 07/07/1985
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 81

B. List of species (reptiles and amphibians, mammals, and birds) used
in species diversity analysis
(A) Reptiles (46)
(i) Common Reptiles (33)
Atlantic Ridley Lepidochelys kempi
northern brown snake Storeria dekayi dekayi
Butler’s garter snake Thamnophis butleri
common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis
common snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina
eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus
eastern box turtle Terrapene caolina
fox snake Elaphe vulpina
gopher snake Pituophis melanoleucus
green turtle Chelonia mydas
map turtle Graptemys geographica
milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum
night snake Hypsiglena torquata
northern alligator lizard Gerrhonotus coeruleus
northern water snake Nerodia sipedon
northwestern garter snake Thamnophis elegans
painted turtle Chrysemys picta
plains garter snake Thamnophis radix
queen snake Regina septemvitta
racer Coluber constrictor
redbelly snake Storeria occipitomaculata
ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus
rubber boa snake Charina bottae
sharptail snake Contia tenuis
short-horned lizard Phrynosoma douglassi
smooth green snake Opheodrys vernalis
stinkpot Sternotherus odoratus
timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus
western skink Eumeces skiltonianus
western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis
western garter snake Thamnophis elegans
western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata
western hognose snake Heterodon nasicus
(ii) Endangered Reptiles (2)
blue racer Coluber constrictor foxi
Lake Erie water snake Nerodia sipedon insularum
(iii) Threatened Reptiles (4)
eastern massasauga rattlesnake Sistrurus catenatus
Blanding’s turtle (Nova Scotia) Emydoidea blandingi
spiny softshell turtle Trionyx spiniferus
black rat snake Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta
(iv) Vulnerable Reptiles (7)
eastern hognose snake Heterodon platyrhinos
82 | Appendix 3. Data
eastern short-horned lizard Phrynosoma douglassi
eastern yellow-bellied racer Coluber constrictor flaviventris
northern prairie skink Eumeces septentrionalis
spotted turtle Clemmys guttata
wood turtle Clemmys insculpta
five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus
(B) Amphibians (46)
(i) Common Amphibians (37)
American toad Bufo americanus
blue spotted salamander Ambystoma laterale
bullfrog Rana catesbeiana
clouded salamander Aneides ferreus
diploid grey treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis
northern dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus
eastern newt Notophthalmus viridescens
eschscholtz’s salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii
eastern redback salamander Plethodon cinereus
four-toed salamander Hemidactylium scutatum
green frog Rana clamitans
great plains toad Bufo cognatus
jefferson salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum
long-toe salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum
mink frog Rana septentrionalis
mudpuppy Necturus maculosus
northern leopard frog Rana pipiens
northern cricket frog Acris crepitans
northwestern salamander Ambystoma gracile
pacific tree frog Hyla regilla
pickerel frog Rana palustris
plains spadefoot toad Spea bombifrons
red-legged frog Rana aurora
roughskin newt Taricha granulosa
spotted frog Rana pretiosa
spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer
spring salamander Gyrinophilus porphyriticus
striped chorus frog Pseudacris maculata
tailed frog Ascaphus truei
tetraploid grey treefrog Hyla versicolor
tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum
northern two-lined salamander Eurycea bislineata
western toad Bufo boreas
wood frog Rana sylvatica
Woodhouse’s toad Bufo woodhousei
western redback salamander Plethodon vehiculum
yellow-spotted salamander Ambystoma aculatum

(ii) Endangered Amphibians (2)
Blanchard’s cricket frog Acris crepitans blanchardi
northern leopard frog (B.C. pop.) Rana pipiens
(iii) Threatened Amphibians (0)
(iv) Vulnerable Amphibians (7)
Fowler’s Toad Bufo fowleri
Pacific giant salamander Dicamptodon tenebrosus
smallmouth salamander Ambystoma texanum
northern leopard frog Rana pipiens
coeurd’Alene salamander Plethodon idahoensis
mountain dusky salamander Desmognathus orcophaeus
great basin spadefoot toad Spea intermontanus
(C) Mammals (152)
(i) Common Mammals (123)
Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana
masked shrew Sorex cinereus
dusky shrew Sorex obscurus
vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans
American water shrew Sorex palustris
Bendire’s shrew Sorex bindirii
smokey shrew Sorex fumeus
Arctic shrew Sorex arcticus
Trowbridge’s shrew Sorex trowbridgii
pigmy shrew Microsorex hoyi
short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda
least shrew Cryptotis parva
American shrew-mole Neürotrichus gibbsii
Pacific coast mole Scapanus orarius
hairy-tailed mole Parascalops breweri
star-nosed mole Condylura cristata
little brown bat Myotis lucifugus
Yuma bat Myotis yumanensis
Keen’s bat Myotis keenii
long-eared bat Myotis evotis
long-legged bat Myotis volans
California bat Myotis californicus
small-footed bat Myotis leibii
silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans
Townsend’s big-eared bat Plecotus townsendii
eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus
big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus
evening bat Nycticeius humeralis
red bat Lasiurus borealis
hoary bat Lasiurus cinerus
big free-tailed bat Tadarida macrotis
American pika Ochotona princeps
eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus
snowshoe hare Lepus americanus
Arctic hare Lepus arcticus
white-tailed jack rabbit Lepus townsendii
mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa
eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus
least chipmunk Eutamias minimus
yellow pine chipmunk Eutamias amoenus
Townsend’s chipmunk Entamias townsendii
red-tailed chipmunk Eutamias ruficaudus
woodchuck Marmota monax
yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris
hoary marmots Marmota caligata
Richardson’s ground squirrel Spermophilus richardsonii
Columbian ground squirrel Spermophilus columbianus
Arctic ground squirrel Spermophilus parryii
thirteen-lined ground squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus
Franklin’s ground squirrel Spermophilus franklinii
golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis
grey or black squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
fox squirrel Sciurus niger
American red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Douglas’s squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii
northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus
northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides
olive-backed pocket mouse Perognathus fasciatus
great basin pocket mouse Perognathus parvus
American beaver Castor canadensis
deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus
Sitka mouse Peromyscus sitkensis
white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus
Cascade deer mouse Peromyscus oreas
northern grasshopper mouse Onychomys leucogaster
bushy-tailed wood rat Neotoma cinerea
red-backed vole Clethrionomys rutilus
western red-backed vole Clethrionomys occidentalis
Gapper’s red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi
brown lemming Lemmus lemmus
southern bog lemming Synaptomys cooperi
northern bog lemming Synaptomys borealis
heather vole Phenacomys intermedius
collared lemming Dicrostonyx torquatus
Ungava lemming Dicrostonyx hudsonius
Muskrat Ondrata zibethicus
sagebush vole Lagurus curtatus
Richardson’s water vole Arvicola richardsoni
prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster
singing vole Microtus miurus
meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus
Monane vole Microtus montanus
Townsend’s vole Microtus townsendii
tundra vole Microtus oeconomus
long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus
rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus
chestnut-cheeked vole Microtus xanthognathus
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 83

creeping vole Microtus oregoni
Pacific jumping mouse Zapus trinotatus
western jumping vole mouse Zapus princeps
meadow jumping vole mouse Zapus hudsonius
woodland jumping vole mouse Napaeozapus insignis
American porcupine Erethizon dorsatum
coyote Canis latrans
wolf Canis lupus
Arctic fox Alopex lagopus
red fox Vulpes vulpes
American black bear Ursus americanus
Raccoon Procyon lotor
American marten Martes americana
Fisher Martes pennanti
Ermine Mustela erminea
long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata
least weasel Mustela nivalis
American mink Mustela vison
Wolverine Gulo gulo
American badger Taxidea taxus
western spotted skunk Spilogale gracilis
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis
river otter Lontra canadensis
cougar Felis concolor
lynx Lynx lynx
bobcat Lynx rufus
caribou Rangifer tarandus
mule deer Odocoileus hemionus
white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
moose Alces alces
wapiti Cervus elaphus
pronghorn Antilocapra americana
mountain goat Oreamnos americanus
muskox Ovibos moschatus
bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis
Dall’s sheep Ovis dalli
(ii) Endangered Mammals (5)
Peary Banks Island Rangifer tarandus pearyi
Peary High Arctic Rangifer tarandus pearyi
Vancouver Island marmot Marmota vancouverensis
Marten (Newfoundland) Martes americana
Wolverine (eastern population) Gulo gulo
(iii) Threatened Mammals (5)
Wood bison Bison bison athabascae
Caribou (Low Arctic Peary) Rangifer tarandus pearyi
Woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou
Townsend’s mole Scapanus townsendii
Pacific water shrew Sorex bendirii
(iv) Vulnerable Mammals (19)
Black Tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus
Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus
84 | Appendix 3. Data
Fringed Bat Myotis thysanodes
Gaspé Shrew Sorex gaspensis
Grey fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Grizzly bear Ursus arctos
Keen’s Long-eared bat Myotis keenii
Nuttall’s cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii
Ord’s Kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordii
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus
Plains pocket gopher Geomys bursarius
Polar bear Ursus maritimus
Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans
Spotted bat Euderma maculata
Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis
Woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou
Queen Charlotte’s ermine Mustela erminea haidarum
New Foundland wolverine Gulo gulo
Woodland vole Microtus pinetorum
(D) Birds (383)
(i) Common Birds (342)
American Black Duck Anas rubripes
Green-winged Teal Anas crecca
Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum
American Avocet Recurvirostra americana
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus
American Coot Fulica americana
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus
American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis
American Kestrel Falco sparverius
American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla
American Robin Turdus migratorius
American Wigeon Anas americana
American Woodcock Scolopax minor
Anna’s Hummingbird Calypte anna
Arctic Tern Sterna paradisea
Atlantic Brant Branta bernicla
American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea
American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Barrow’s Goldeneye Becephala islandica
Baird’s Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii
Bank Swallow Riparia riparia
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica
Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii
Black-and-White Warbler Mniotilta varia
Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythopthalmus
Black-billed Magpie Pica pica
Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola
Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis
Bay-breasted Warbler Dendoica castanea

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus
Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus
Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax
Barred Owl Strix varia
Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon
Bewick’s Wren Thromanes bewickii
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater
Black-headed Grosbeak Pheuticus melanocephalus
Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata
Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata
Black Scoter Melanitta nigra
Black Swift Cypseloides niger
Black Tern Chlidonias niger
Blue Grouse Dendragapus obscurus
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Boreal Chickadee Parus hudsonicus
Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia
Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus
Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus
Brandt’s Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus
Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus
Brown Creeper Certhia americana
Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri
Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum
Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens
Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens
Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata
Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola
Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus
Blue-winged Teal Anas discors
Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus
Cassin’s Finch Carpodacus cassinii
Canada Goose Branta canadensis
California Gull Larus californicus
Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope
Canvasback Aythya valisineria
Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus
Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis
Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
Chestnut-backed Chickadee Parus rufescens
Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus
Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum
Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina
Chimney Swift Aeronautes saxatalis
Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera
Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
Clark’s Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana
Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota
Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina
Common Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula
Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula
Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii
Common Loon Gavia immer
Common Merganser Mergus merganser
Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus
Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor
Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis
Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttalii
Common Raven Corvus corax
Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea
Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago
Common Tern Sterna hirundo
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas
Common Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula
Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica
Chuck-will’s-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis
Double-crested Cormorant Pelecanus erythorhynchos
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis
Dickcissel Spiza americana
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens
Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri
Dunlin Calidris alpina
Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis
Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus
Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna
Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe
Eastern Screech Owl Otus asio
Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus
Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus
Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca
Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri
Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan
Gadwall Anas strepera
Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus
Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa
Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla
Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus
Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus
Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus
Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis
Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis
Greater Scaup Aythya marila
Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 85

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera
Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus
Hammond’s Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus
Harris’ Sparrow Zonotrichia querula
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus
Herring Gull Larus argentatus
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus
Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus
Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris
Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus
Hoary Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni
House Wren Troglodytes troglodytes
Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica
Hutton’s Vireo Vireo huttoni
Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides
Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus
Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys
Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus
Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena
Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus
Le Conte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii
Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus
American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica
Long-eared Owl Asio otus
Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla
Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis
Lewis’ Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus
Lesser Snow Goose Chen caerulescens
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia
Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris
McCown’s Longspur Calcarius mccownii
Mew Gull Larus canus
Merlin Falco columbarius
MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei
Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides
Mountain Chickadee Parus gambeli
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura
Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia
Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
Northwestern Crow Corvus caurinus
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus
Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus
86 | Appendix 3. Data
Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula
Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Northern Oriole Icterus galbula
Northern Parula Parula americana
Northern Pintail Anas acuta
Northern Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium gnoma
Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis
Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe
Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata
Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor
Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus
Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata
Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis
Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus borealis
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus
Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica
Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos
Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus
Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator
Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus
Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus
Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus
Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum
Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus
Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus
Purple Martin Progne subis
Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima
Pygmy Nuthatch Sitta pygmaea
Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheuticus ludovicianus
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator
Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis
Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber
Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra
Redhead Aythya americana
Red Knot Calidris canutus
Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicaria
Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus
Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus
Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris
Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus
Red-naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis
Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus mutus
Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus
Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris
Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus
Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus
Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis
Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus
Sabine’s Gull Xema sabini
Sanderling Calidris alba
Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea
Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus
Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla
Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis
Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus
Siberian Tit Parus cinctus
Smith’s Longspur Calcarius pictus
Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis
Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca
Sora Porzana carolina
Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia
Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius
Spruce Grouse Dendragapus canadensis
Sprague’s Pipit Anthus spragueii
Spotted Sandpiper Actitus macularia
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus
Stellar’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri
Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus
Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus caudacutus
Surfbird Aphriza virgata
Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata
Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni
Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana
Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus
Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina
Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi
Townsend’s Warbler Dendroica townsendi
Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor
Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator
Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus
Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura
Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda
Vaux’s Swift Chaetura vauxi
Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius
Veery Catharus fuscescens
Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus
Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina
Viginia Rail Rallus limicola
American Pipit Anthus rubescens
Wandering Tattler Heteroscelus incanus
Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus
White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana
Pacific-slope Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis
Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis
Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis
Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta
Western Screech Owl Otus kennicottii
Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana
White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus
Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus
Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus
White-headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus
Willow Flycatcher Empidonax trailii
Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor
Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus
Williamson’s Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus
Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla
Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes
Wood Duck Aix sponsa
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus
White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis
White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis
White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis
White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera
White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca
Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris
Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius
Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis
Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus anthocephalus
Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata
Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons
Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia
(iii) Endangered Birds (14)
whooping crane Grus americana
northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus
harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus
anatum peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens
GFWC | Atlas of Canada’s Intact Forest Landscapes| 87

urrowing owl Athene cunicularia
spotted owl Strix occidentalis
mountain plover Charadrius montanus
piping plover Charadrius wilsonia
king rail Rallus elegans
loggerhead shrike (Eastern) Lanius ludovicianus
Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii
sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus
prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea
(iv) Threatened Birds (7)
Yellow-breasted chat (B.C.) Icteria virens
sage grouse (Prairie) Centrocercus urophasianus
marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus
loggerhead shrike (Prairie) Lanius ludovicianus
roseate tern Sterna dougallii
hooded warbler Wilsonia citrina
white-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus
(iv) Vulnerable Birds (20)
Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus
Barn Owl Tyto alba
Caspian Tern Sterna caspia
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea
Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis
Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus
Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea
Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis
Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus
Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla
Pacific Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias fannini
Peale’s Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus pealei
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor
Queen Charlotte Goshawk Accipiter gentilis laingi
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus
Ross’ Gull Rhodostethia rosea
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus
Tundra Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius
Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens
88 | Appendix 3. Data