Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area: management plan 2022

About Environment and Climate Change Canada’s protected areas and management plans

What are Environment and Climate Change Canada’s protected areas?

Environment and Climate Change Canada establishes marine and terrestrial National Wildlife Areas for the purposes of conservation, research and interpretation. National Wildlife Areas are established to protect migratory birds, species at risk, and other wildlife and their habitats. National Wildlife Areas are established under the authority of the Canada Wildlife Act and are, first and foremost, places for wildlife. Migratory Bird Sanctuaries are established under the authority of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and provide a refuge for migratory birds in the marine and terrestrial environment.

How has the federal government’s investment from Budget 2018 helped manage and expand Environment and Climate Change Canada’s National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries?

The Nature Legacy represents a historic investment over five years of $1.3 billion dollars to help Environment and Climate Change Canada expand its national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries, pursue its biodiversity conservation objectives and increase its capacity to manage its protected areas.

According to the Budget 2018, Environment and Climate Change Canada will be conserving more areas, and have more resources to effectively manage and monitor the habitats and species found inside its protected areas

What is the size of the Environment and Climate Change Canada protected areas network?

The current Protected Areas Network consists of 55 National Wildlife Areas and 92 Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, comprising more than 14 million hectares across Canada.

What is a management plan?

A management plan provides the framework in which management decisions are made. It is intended to be used by Environment and Climate Change Canada staff to guide decision making on the monitoring of wildlife and enhancement to it’s habitat, the enforcement of regulations, the maintenance of facilities, and permitting. Management is undertaken in order to maintain the ecological integrity of the protected area and to maintain the attributes for which the protected area was established. Environment and Climate Change Canada prepares a management plan for each protected area in consultation with Indigenous Peoples, the public and other stakeholders.

A management plan specifies activities that are allowed and identifies other activities that may be undertaken under the authority of a permit. It may also describe the necessary improvements needed in the habitat, and specify where and when these improvements should be made. A management plan identifies Aboriginal rights and allowable practices specified under land claims agreements. Further, measures carried out for the conservation of wildlife must be consistent with any law respecting wildlife in the province in which the protected area is situated.

What is protected area management?

Management includes monitoring wildlife, maintaining and improving wildlife habitat, periodic inspections, enforcement of regulations, as well as the maintenance of facilities and infrastructure. Research is also an important activity in protected areas; hence, Environment and Climate Change Canada staff carries out or coordinates research in some sites.

The series

All of the National Wildlife Areas are to have a management plan. The management plans should be initially reviewed 5 years after the approval of the first plan, and every 10 years thereafter.

To learn more

To learn more about Environment and Climate Change Canada’s protected areas, please visit our website at National wildlife areas or contact the Canadian Wildlife Service.

Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area

Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area (NWA) is made up of 22 small and low-lying islands surrounded by marshes and aquatic grass beds distributed along a 10-kilometre stretch of the St. Lawrence River and that are part of the towns of Contrecœur and Lavaltrie. Created in 1981 by Environment and Climate Change Canada (at the time Environment Canada), the purpose of this NWA is to conserve a remarkable network of emergent and submerged grass beds as well as islands with high nesting potential for waterfowl in the Montreal region.

With its landscape of grassy plains, the NWA area is dotted with low-lying alluvial islands that are exposed to seasonal water level variations of the St. Lawrence and are largely submerged during the spring freshet.These islands are covered mainly by high grasses and, in some cases, by a few trees such as willows, silver maples and red ashes. Some of them are entirely covered with the reed canarygrass, an invasive plant that is suitable for waterfowl nesting.

Wetlands populated with cattails, bulrushes, arrowheads and submerged water-milfoil beds lie around the islands, linking them together. Hundreds of ducks and waterbirds feed there during breeding and migration. The NWA is home to about 205 plant species, at least 78 bird species and 12 mammal species.

At the time of the NWA’s creation and up to the mid-1990s, the Contrecœur archipelago supported the highest breeding pair density of gadwalls in Quebec as well as being an important nesting site for other waterfowl species. Even today, the NWA and the other islands of the archipelago still seem to be a significant nesting site for the gadwall and other dabbling duck species, including the mallard, the Northern pintail and the black duck. Other waterfowl species frequent the area, particularly the Canada goose and diving duck species such as the ring-necked duck, the common merganser and the common goldeneye. Other birds observed there include, the American bittern, the Virginia rail, the marsh wren, the red-winged blackbird, the swamp sparrow and the yellow warbler. The archipelago additionally supports a number of mammals, including the muskrat, the striped skunk, the raccoon, the red fox, along with a few species of shrews, voles and bats.

For conservation reasons, access to the land portion of the NWA’s islands is prohibited. However, fall hunting for migratory birds and sport fishing from a boat are permitted around the islands.

The NWA is exposed to a number of threats and presents various management challenges^{Footnote 1} , including transportation and service corridors (related to shoreline erosion), pollution, invasive or otherwise problematic species, diseases and genes, human presence and disturbance, natural system modifications, climate change and extreme weather events, residential and commercial development (shoreline) and scientific knowledge gaps.

The goals of this management plan are to: 1) protect and enhance significant habitats for species at risk, priority bird species and other wildlife species; 2) reduce the impact of human activities on the NWA; 3) consolidate the NWA’s land holdings and promote natural habitat conservation on adjacent lands in order to foster connectivity and improve ecological conditions; 4) ensure ecological monitoring of the NWA and improve knowledge on wildlife species and their habitats; 5) promote awareness among the public and regional communities about the conservation of the NWA, wildlife species and their habitats.

This management plan will be implemented over a 10-year period based on priorities and available resources.

For greater certainty, nothing in this management plan shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

1. Description of the protected area

Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area is approximately 10 kilometres long and covers an area of roughly 300 hectares in the St. Lawrence River between the riverside towns of Contrecœur and Lavaltrie, of which it is part. It is made up of 22 of the 38 islands forming the Contrecœur archipelago, which are located on either sides of the St. Lawrence Seaway. This protected area was created in 1981 by Environment and Climate Change Canada (at the time Environment Canada) to protect a remarkable network of emergent and submerged grass beds as well as islands with high nesting potential for waterfowl in the Montreal region, including the gadwall (Anas strepera). At the NWA’s creation and up to the mid-1990s, the Contrecœur archipelago was an important nesting site of the gadwall in Quebec since it supported the highest breeding pair density of the species in Québec (Mercier et al., 1986; Giroux and Rail, 1995; Armellin and Mousseau, 1998). The NWA and the archipelago still seem to be a major nesting site for the gadwall and other dabbling duck species, including the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), the northern pintail (Anas acuta) and the black duck (Anas rubripes) (Rivard et Giguère, 2014), but this remains to be confirmed. Figure 1 and Table 1 summarize the general information about this NWA.

This protected area contains 22 low-lying alluvial islands (Figures 1 and 2), many of which become fully submerged during the spring freshet. Certain areas of the islands are made up of highlands and buttes formed by deposits from the seaway dredging (Pilon et al., 1980). The submerged and emergent grass beds, low marshes and wet meadows make up the bulk of the NWA’s plant life. The reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) is found here, which is an plant that completely covers certain islands and is suitable for waterfowl nesting. Also found here are submerged water-milfoil beds that lie around the islands, linking them together.

The NWA also contains some shrub and tree swamps (Pilon et al., 1980; Armellin and Mousseau, 1998; Labrecque and Jobin, 2013). The treed areas consist mainly of willows (Salix sp.), ashes (Fraxinus sp.) and a few eastern cottonwoods (Populus deltoides) and silver maples (Acer saccharinum) (Mercier et al., 1986; Armellin and Mousseau, 1998).

^a Environment Canada, 2005a
^b IUCN, 2008
^c Source of the names of vertebrate wildlife species: MFFP, 2018a
^d Source of the names of plants species: Brouillet et al., 2010+ (VASCAN, names accepted)

Some islands in the Contrecœur archipelago have multiple names. Table 2 gives the naming or namings chosen for each of them and the names used in the various documents consulted. In addition, some of the islands acquired when the NWA was created do not have names and have not been named by Quebec’s Commission de toponymie. Also, a number of them have never been entered into the land register. Also, the size and shape of the islands may have changed since the creation of the NWA due to natural changes (e.g. changes in the aquatic grass beds, sedimentation, erosion) or human-induced changes (e.g. dredging deposits) that have occurred in recent years.

Total area of the islands = 298.33 (ha)

^a Commission de toponymie du Québec, 2018. These names were used in preparing this management plan.
^b EnviroServices, 2011
^c Argus, 1992

1.1 Regional context

Îles de Contrecœur NWA is formed from a string of islands located in the St. Lawrence River and that are part of the towns of Contrecœur and Lavaltrie. Contrecœur, which has roughly 6,900 residents and covers 61.6 km², is located in the Regional County Municipality (RCM) of Marguerite-d’Youville, in northern Montérégie. Originally an agriculturally based municipality, Contrecœur has seen the arrival of a number of iron and steel companies over the past few decades, stimulating its industrial and economic development (Ville de Contrecœur, 2015). Its riverside location and closeness to the St. Lawrence Seaway favoured the establishing of such companies and the development of port activities. This port orientation will soon be strengthened by the extension of the port terminal (addition of a container terminal). The town also has two marinas. Moreover, residential construction there is booming: it is estimated that, within 10 years, Contrecœur may have 1,500 additional dwellings.

Lavaltrie, which has roughly 13,700 residents and covers about 70 km², is located in the RCM of D’Autray, in southern Lanaudière. Once a holiday resort, the town now has an urban and rural residential orientation and also has many attractions including its pier for launching various watercraft, its boardwalk and its Victorian houses (Ville de Lavaltrie, 2015).

Moreover, the region has a high-quality natural environment with its islands, surrounding water and its many wooded stretches conducive to many tourism and outdoor activities such as nature observation, pleasure boating, fishing and hunting. The islands immediately southwest of the NWA belong to the company ArcelorMittal. Also, the municipal woods, designated as “natural heritage” and protected by the municipal authorities, have good tourism potential (MRC de Marguerite-D’Youville, 2018). The regional stakeholders are particularly interested in enhancing the natural areas, especially at the edges of the NWA. Pilot activities for a river shuttle and animated cruises on the St. Lawrence were established in 2013 and offered in 2014. They were not renewed in 2015, but could be continued later. Also, some conservation groups are working together on raising public awareness and protecting the NWA, including Nature Québec, which is a partner of the Important Bird Area (IBA) program, and the Comité ZIP des Seigneuries, which provides interpretation activities from a boat.

For the purpose of conserving and protecting breeding birds, access to the NWA’s islands is prohibited. However, fall hunting of migratory birds and fishing are permitted around the NWA’s islands from a boat.

1.2 Historical background

1.2.1 Prehistoric period

Like the other islands of the St. Lawrence, the Contrecœur islands were likely used as a stopover or a seasonal camp by Aboriginal peoples before the arrival of Europeans. However, since this archipelago has not been the subject of an archeological study, the identity of the territory’s occupants and its occupation period are unknown (Mercier et al., 1986).

1.2.2 Historic period

Aboriginals and European settlement

It is known, however, that since the 1700s, the Odanak and Wôlinak Abenakis, who settled near the Saint-François and Bécancour rivers, used the Contrecœur archipelago for harvesting the black ash (Fraxinus nigra) and the sweet grass (vanilla grass, Anthoxanthum nitens) for their basketry and for hunting waterfowl (M. Durand, Odanak’s Environment and Lands Office, pers. comm., 2015). It is also hard to find information on the use of the Contrecœur archipelago by the first French colonists. Besides, very little is known about the islands’ early forests other than they disappeared in the early 18th century to make way for pastures (De Repentigny, 1988). In fact, as of 1712, Contrecœur’s landowners were raising farm animals on the islands, a usage that continued into the 20th century (Rheault et al., 1981).

The French settled on the south shore of the St. Lawrence from 1667, the year when Antoine Pécaudy, Sieur de Contrecœur, Captain of the Carignan-Salières regiment, founded a settlement there about 52 kilometres downstream from Montreal. A seigniory two leagues wide along the river and two leagues deep was then officially granted to him in 1672 by the intendant Jean Talon, on behalf of the King of France (Ville de Contrecœur, 2015). That grant included the islands at the front of the seigniory (De Repentigny, 1988).

In addition, Île Mousseau was an integral part of the seigniory awarded by Jean Talon in 1672 to Sieur Margane de Lavaltrie on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, whereas Île Saint-Ours was granted to Sieur de Saint-Ours in 1674, as an integral part of the seigniory of the same name, obtained two years earlier (De Repentigny, 1988).

Development of the town of Contrecœur

It was in the early 1900s that the first shoe factories were built, transforming the town’s economic landscape, which until then was limited to a few craftsmen and merchants providing services to the local farmers. That industry caused the urban population to increase and diversified the local economy. In the late 1950s, the parish saw the arrival of major iron and steel companies, which firmly rooted Contrecœur’s industrial orientation (Ville de Contrecœur, 2015). The town of Contrecœur was created in 1997 with the merging of the parish and the village of Contrecœur.

The Archipelago’s abundance

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Contrecœur archipelago was known province-wide for being particularly abundant in certain waterfowl species, including the gadwall (Mercier et al., 1986; Giroux et al., 1995). There are little recent data on this subject, but this territory certainly presents a high nesting potential for waterfowl and is probably still a unique site for waterfowl reproduction in the greater Montreal area.

Sport fishing is a major activity in this archipelago, which has always been greatly used by fishermen. Also, commercial fishing for the lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) was engaged in there until 2012. Additionally, since 2015, commercial fishing for the common carp (Cyprinus carpio) has been done with fishing gear that helps protect the copper redhorse (Moxostoma hubbsi) (C. Côté, MFFP-Lanaudière, pers. comm., 2015) around the islands.

It is in the fall, during the waterfowl hunting period, that human activity is most intense in the archipelago. The site is greatly favoured by waterfowl hunters, who go especially to the Chenal des Chasseurs and the northwest edge of the archipelago (Lehoux et al., 1985 in De Repentigny, 1988; J. Rodrigue, CWS, pers. comm., 2015).

National Wildlife Area

Since development pressures are very high and steadily increasing in the suburbs of the Quebec metropolis, whether through vacationing, recreation or urbanization, the NWA status of this wildlife territory is paramount.

In 1974, to preserve this critical place for waterfowl reproduction in the Montreal metropolitan area, the Government of Canada acquired several islands of the Contrecœur archipelago. It first purchased Grande Île and then other islands and islets. The territory thus acquired was given National Wildlife Area status on May 28, 1981. Île Mousseau was acquired in 1985 (De Repentigny, 1988) and incorporated into the NWA, whereas Île Saint-Ours, owned by the Government of Canada since 1961, was given Migratory Bird Sanctuary (MBS) status in 1986 and then incorporated into the NWA in 1996. Its MBS status was dropped at that point (R. Langevin, CWS, pers. comm., 2014).

In addition, the NWA already included certain adjacent islands, namely Île au Dragon, Île aux Branches, Île à Brillant, Île à Bonin, Île aux Veaux and Île Heureuse, owned by the company ArcelorMittal (formerly Sidbec-Dosco) under a legal agreement established in 1978 (De Repentigny, 1988). That agreement expired in 1998 and was not renewed (CWS, 2003).

The Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment and Climate Change Canada (at the time Environment Canada) carried out the first Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area management plan in 1986 (Mercier et al, 1986) and a conservation plan in 2003 (CWS, 2003).

1.3 Land ownership

All the lands making up the Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area are owned by the Government of Canada and are managed by Environment and Climate Change Canada.

1.4 Facilities and infrastructure

Among the facilities and infrastructure within the NWA (Table 3 and Figures 3 to 7), there are three navigation aids, namely a leading light on the shoals near La Lisière Boisée island (Figure 4), a reference light (shore lignt) on the southern tip of Île Saint-Ours and a landmark on the northern tip of the same island (Figure 5). Also, an ice-monitoring camera is installed on a tower at the west end of Île Mousseau (Figure 6). These facilities all belong to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and require only periodic monitoring. In addition, there are two masonry foundations for old leading lights that are now dismantled, one near the leading light mentioned in Table 3, the other on Île de Saint-Chef (Figure 7). Those structures, although decommissioned, are major landmarks for mariners. A second leading light is on the archipelago’s shoals outside the NWA. Traces of contaminants are still present at the base of the masonry foundation on Île de Saint-Chef (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2018). That site presents no significant environmental issues (EnviroServices, 2011).

2. Ecological resources

2.1 Terrestrial and aquatic habitats

2.1.1 Topography and physical geography

The NWA consists primarily of low-lying alluvial islands usually flooded in the spring and during part of the summer. The water level is usually at the lowest in October and highest in April. There can be a difference of 1.5 metre between these two extremes (Morin and Bouchard, 2000). Other islands consist partly of highlands that, in some places, include buttes formed of deposits from the seaway dredging. Some lower areas of these islands, especially around the periphery, are flooded in the spring. The soil texture varies within the archipelago, ranging from clay to silt loam to sand (CWS, 2003).

The types of habitats in the NWA can vary from year to year depending on water level and island erosion. They can also vary within the same year, especially in the spring during the freshet and in the summer when there are more emerging marshes (Labrecque and Jobin, 2013).

The islands in the Contrecœur region are highly exposed to shoreline erosion (Figure 8). This occurs especially on the islands near the seaway, including the unnamed islands (lots 574 to 577), Île Duval and Île Saint-Ours (east shore) (De Repentigny, 1988). Before the introduction of the voluntary program for reducing the speed of boats using the seaway, there was over 10 kilometres of shoreline greatly affected by erosion (Argus, 1992). Since then, that erosion has been reduced by over 55% (Dauphin and Lehoux, 2004; Richard, 2010).

2.1.2 Vegetation

The Contrecœur archipelago is part of the hardwood zone of the maple/bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) stand. It is ecological region 1a of the plaine du bas Outaouais et de l’archipel de Montréal (Saucier et al., 2011).

These islands are essentially covered with plant beds made up of submerged and emerging vegetation, low marshes that are flooded for most of the summer and wet meadows. They also have shrub and tree swamps. The treed areas are located mainly on the west shore of Île Saint-Ours and, to a lesser degree, on Grande Île, Île Duval and La Lisière Boisée island. They are made up of willows, ashes and a few Eastern cottonwoods and silver maples (Pilon et al., 1980, Armellin and Mousseau, 1998 and Mercier et al., 1986 in Rivard and Giguère, 2014).

An analysis of changes in the wetlands of the Contrecœur region shows a drying out of these environments, mainly through the filling of the canals between the islands (Jean and Létourneau, 2011). In fact, between 1990 and 2002, many changes were seen in these environments. Low marshes turned into either high marshes (flooded during the spring freshet) dominated by the reed canarygrass and the European reed (Phragmites australis), or into shrub swamps. Also seen, but to a lesser degree, are high marshes and tree swamps turning into low marshes, especially on Île Saint-Ours where tree swamps and shrub swamps turning into high marshes are also seen (Jean and Létourneau, 2011).

In 2002, the reed canarygrass was very abundant in the NWA, and the European reed showed a remarkable increase (Jean and Létourneau, 2011).

The driest lands in the NWA, made up of wet meadows and swamps, cover an area of about 55 hectares (Figure 9). Those sectors, which used to be farmed, received sediments from the seaway dredging (De Repentigny, 1988).

2.2 Wildlife species

2.2.1 Invertebrates

In 2004, a group of freshwater mussels (Unionidae family) were surveyed essentially through the gathering of dead specimens found on the shorelines of the NWA’s islands. Eighty-one percent of the shells gathered, all species combined, were empty and therefore could have been carried by the current or the ice (A. Paquet, MFFP, pers. comm., 2015). That survey identified seven native freshwater mussel species in the waters around the NWA (Rivard and Giguère, 2014; A. Paquet, MFFP, pers. comm., 2015), including the eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata) and the eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata). These two species, which are widespread and abundant, are experiencing competition from exotic mussel species (Rivard and Giguère, 2014). Five other freshwater mussel species less common in Quebec were also identified: the plain pocketbook (Lampsilis cardium) and the black sandshell (Ligumia recta), rare in Quebec, as well as the elephant ear (Elliptio crassidens), the spike (Elliptio dilatata) and the hickorynut (Obovaria olivaria), the latter three being likely to be designated as threatened or vulnerable by the province (Paquet et al., 2005 in Rivard and Giguère, 2014; A. Paquet, MFFP, pers. comm., 2015). All the shells of the latter species were empty, indicating that the live individuals were probably upstream from the NWA.

Moreover, exotic freshwater mussels were observed during that survey, even though no count was done. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) widely dominated the population of the shellfish beds surveyed, but no shells of the quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis), another exotic species in the fluvial section of the St. Lawrence, were seen (Rivard and Giguère, 2014).

2.2.2 Fish

In the waters adjacent to the NWA, 36 fish species were identified (MFFP-SLGO, 2015). These include the yellow perch (Perca flavescens), the walleye (Sander vitreus), the sauger (Sander canadensis), the northern pike (Esox lucius), the lake sturgeon, the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), the smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), the common carp, the trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus), the logperch (Percina caprodes), the white sucker (Catostomus commersonii), the pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) and even the longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus) in addition to a number of minnow and shiner species, such as the spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) and the bridle shiner (Notropis bifrenatus), a species likely to be designated threatened or vulnerable in Quebec (MFFP-SLGO, 2015). The river redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum), which is designated vulnerable in Quebec and of special concern in Canada, and the copper redhorse (Moxostoma hubbsi), which is designated threatened in Quebec and endangered in Canada, also frequents the channels of the Îles de Contrecœur islands (DFO, 2012).

The Contrecœur archipelago supports the spawning grounds of nine fish species, namely the bowfin (Amia calva), the common carp, the northern pike, the brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), the pumpkinseed sunfish, the largemouth bass, the golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), the yellow perch and the black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) (Massé and Mongeau, 1976 in CWS, 2003).

2.2.3 Amphibians and reptiles

Seven anuran species were identified in the NWA territory in 2004: the American toad (Anaxyrus americanus), the spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), the wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus), the mink frog (Lithobates septentrionalis), the leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), the green frog (Lithobates clamitans) and the American bullfrog (Lithobathes catesbeianus) (Rivard and Giguère, 2014). These species are largely distributed on the NWA territory, but not very abundant.No reptile species were seen during those surveys.

2.2.4 Birds

The Contrecœur archipelago is an important site for wildlife in the Montreal region. Among the St. Lawrence archipelagos located between Montreal and Sorel, it has already been and is maybe still one of the most important habitat for waterfowl reproduction. The Contrecœur archipelago and shores are recognized as an important bird area (IBA). A survey conducted in the NWA in 2004 identified 78 birds species, which is only a fraction of the bird species observed in this protected area during the year (Rivard and Giguère, 2014). Besides, about 85 bird species were reported by birdwatchers in the Contrecoeur archipelago between 1993 and 2004 (Larivée, 2014 : 1993 to 2004 ÉPOQ data) and in 2014 and 2016 (eBird, 2016^{Footnote 2} ).

Migration

There are little recent data on the use of the NWA by waterfowl, since most studies on the subject date back to more than 15 years ago (Rivard and Giguère, 2014). It seems however that this protected area and the Contrecoeur islands act as a migration stopover for avian species that nest in the north, such as the Canada goose (Branta canadensis), which is particularly abundant during the spring migration (J. Rodrigue, pers. comm., 2015; Rivard et Giguère, 2014) and for many duck species, particularly the mallard, the black duck and several other dabbling duck species that also nest there (see Nesting below). The archipelago is also used by diving ducks such as the ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), greater scaup (Aythya marila), lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) and common merganser (Mergus merganser) (Rivard and Giguère, 2014; Larivée, 2014; eBird, 2016).

Nesting

There are little recent data about the waterfowl nesting in the NWA, since most of the studies on the subject were performed between the 1970s and the 1990s. In the 1970s, a study on the gadwall, a newly established species in Quebec at that time, showed that this duck was mainly found in the St. Lawrence Valley, west of Trois-Rivières, in the spring and fall, while nesting birds occurred on islands in the Montréal area, notably the Contrecoeur islands (Cantin et al., 1976). In May 1975, a survey counted 322 duck nests in this archipelago, about half of which belonged to the gadwall and a quarter belonged to the pintail. A mean of 2.62 nest per hectare was counted on islands covered with wildlands and a maximal density of 8.7 nests per hectare on certain of these islands (Cantin and Ringuet, 1978). A subsequent work revealed that, among the archipelagos of the St. Lawrence located between Lake Saint-François (upstream of Montréal) and Trois-Rivières, the Contrecoeur archipelago was the most productive with a mean density of 3.3 duck nests per hectare (Bélanger, 1989). Between 1990 and 1992, however, the number of nests found in the NWA was half that of 1975 (Giroux et al., 1992). In order to maximize the hatching success, a control of duck nest predators was carried out (Giroux et al., 1992; Giroux et al., 1995). In 1994, 342 nests were counted across the NWA, which represented an increase from the previous years, but this increase appeared to be generalized in the islands of the freshwater St. Lawrence and could not be attributed only to the predator control (Giroux et al., 1995). In the early 1990s, the gadwall and the pintail were the predominant nesting duck species, followed by the mallard and the northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) (Giroux et al., 1992; Giroux et al., 1995; Lehoux, 2006).

In the 1970s, the breeding ducks of the Contrecœur archipelago preferred high lands not submerged in the spring, the northern part of the archipelago (particularly île Saint-Ours) and the small islands covered with wildlands (in comparison with inhabited or grazed islands). They most often used dense grasses, primarily the reed canarygrass (Cantin and Ringuet, 1978). However, the ducklings were raised in the channels and marshes of the archipelago’s southern islands. The adults did not hesitate to move their broods five kilometres in order to raise them in the dense grass beds that provided suitable food sources and cover for the ducklings (De Repentigny, 1988).

More recently, surveys conducted in 2004, 2007 and 2008 identified nine dabbling duck species that nest in the NWA, namely the mallard, gadwall, northern pintail, black duck, American widgeon (Anas americana), northern shoveler, blue-winged teal (Anas discors), green-winged teal (Anas crecca) and wood duck (Aix sponsa) (Rivard and Giguère, 2014). Several diving duck species were also observed, among which the greater scaup, lesser scaup, common goldeneye and bufflehead, but this protected area provides few habitats suitable to most of these species. The ring-necked duck and the hooded merganser are likely to find suitable nesting habitats in the area, but nesting of the species have not been documented (Rivard and Giguère, 2014). Lastly, the Canada goose is a confirmed breeder in the NWA (Rivard and Giguère, 2014; J. Rodrigue, CWS, pers. comm., 2015).

Besides waterfowl, a number of other avian species breed in this protected area. During the reproduction period, there are the Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata), the American woodcock (Scolopax minor) and the spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularius) (Rivard and Giguère, 2014). The red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), the bank swallow (Riparia riparia) (see 2.3 Species at Risk), the American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), the common gallinule (Gallinula galeata), the pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) and the Virginia rail (Rallus limicola) raise their young in the archipelago (De Repentigny, 1988; Rivard and Giguère, 2014). The black tern (Chlidonias niger), which reproduced in the archipelago until 2005-2006, was not identified there during surveys done in 2010 (Latendresse and Brousseau, 2010). This species seems to be experiencing a serious decline in Quebec, even though it does not yet have any precarious status in that province or in Canada. Moreover, the Îles de Contrecœur islands are also used as a feeding area by the great blue heron (Ardea herodias), but no heron nesting grounds have been established here, the closest one being on Île Bouchard in front of the municipalities of Verchères and Saint-Sulpice (A. Desrosiers, FAPAQ-Quebec in CWS, 2003).

Among the passerines, besides the bank swallow already mentioned, the most abundant are the swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) and the song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and they likely nest in the NWA. The barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) also frequents the protected area (see 2.3 Species at Risk) (Rivard and Giguère, 2014).

Several years ago, there were four colonies of ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) in the archipelago, but there are only two left, outside the NWA. The colony on Île Saint-Ours was estimated at 11,268 pairs in 2000. It has been gone from this island since 2001 and appears to have mostly relocated to Îlet à Lefebvre and Île Hervieux (9,173 and 5,503 pairs respectively in 2012) (P. Brousseau, CWS, pers. comm., 2015). The presence of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) on Île Saint-Ours could be the reason for that relocation, but human disturbance could also be the cause. Ring-billed gulls on Île Hervieux may be detrimental to the vegetation, including plant species wih a precarious status, due mainly to their acidic droppings. They also cause cleanliness issues in some municipalities, including Lavaltrie. The potential impacts of the gulls in the NWA should be monitored.

The colony of common terns (Sterna hirundo) on Île Saint-Ours, whose population was estimated at 25 pairs in 1999, seems to be gone as well and has not been seen elsewhere in the archipelago (G. Chapdelaine and J.-F. Rail, pers. comm., 2002 in CWS, 2003).

Also, the double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) nests on Îlet à Lefebvre, near the NWA (Rivard and Giguère, 2014).

2.2.5 Mammals

Targeted micromammal surveys identified five species in the NWA: the short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), the masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), the meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) and the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) (Rivard and Giguère, 2014).

Acoustic surveys for chiroptera confirmed the presence of at least three bat species in the NWA territory or environs (Rivard and Giguère, 2014). The big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) and the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) were identified with certainty. Bats of the genus myotis represent the greatest number of recordings. It is probably the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) or the northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), but given the strong similarities in the sound characteristics of these two species, it was impossible to confirm the identity of the species. However, based on the ecological preferences of these species, it was probably the little brown bat, which inhabits a broad range of habitats, often near towns (Tremblay and Jutras, 2010). All these species likely use the Îles de Contrecœur NWA as a feeding site because that protected area does not provide any potential hibernation site for them (Rivard and Giguère, 2014).

The archipelago also provides favourable habitats for the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), mainly the northwest shores of the Devant l’Église, Hurteau, La Grande Île, Ronde, Richard, de Saint-Chef, Saint-Ours, Mousseau and Lavaltrie islands (Armellin and Mousseau, 1998). Among the terrestrial predators in the NWA, the raccoon (Procyon lotor), the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), the American mink (Neovison vison) and the red fox (CWS, 2003) are seen regularly. A study conducted on the Îles de Contrecœur islands between 1990 and 1992 showed that these predators affect the survival of waterfowl broods and that reducing the mammals that prey on duck nests results in a significant increase in nesting success (Giroux et al., 1992). This is why predator trapping was done in the archipelago, notably between 1998 and 2009 (SDLA and Turgeon, 1998; SDLA, 2009).

2.3 Species at Risk

Table 4 lists the species at risk or with a precarious status that frequent Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area and adjacent areas and that are likely to use the NWA at some point during the year.

Sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis) nesting was reported on Île Saint-Ours in 1991, 1992 and 2004 (Rivard and Giguère, 2014; CWS, 2003). Two bank swallow colonies were identified on this island (M. Labrecque, Nature-Québec, pers. comm., 2015; Nature Québec, 2014). The barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) was also seen in the NWA during surveys carried out in June 2004 (Rivard and Giguère, 2014).

Adult and young Caspian terns (Hydroprogne caspia) were seen in the NWA in 2005. Indicators of Nelson’s sparrow (Ammodramus nelsoni) nesting on the Contrecœur archipelago were reported in 2000, but there has been no recent mention of these species for this sector (SOS-POP, 2013). Also, the presence of the short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) was previously reported in the NWA in the 1970s (De Repentigny, 1988), but there is no recent report of that species in the NWA (SOS-POP, 2013).

Acoustic surveys carried out in the NWA revealed the presence of the hoary bat, a species likely to be designated threatened or vulnerable in Quebec, and bats of the genus myotis. In the latter case, it was impossible to identify the species (see section 2.2.5), but it could be the little brown bat or the northern myotis, both species being designated endangered in Canada (Rivard and Giguère, 2014).

In the waters adjacent to the NWA, the river redhorse and the copper redhorse frequent the channels and aquatic grass beds between the islands (DFO, 2012). The latter is endemic to the Richelieu River and that section of the St. Lawrence. Another fish species, the bridle shiner, frequents essentially the same type of habitat and was observed in 1970, 2001 and 2010 (MFFP-SLGO, 2015). The lake sturgeon (Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence populations), also present in the waters around the NWA, is considered by COSEWIC to be threatened and is likely to be designated threatened or vulnerable in Quebec. As for indigenous freshwater mussels, three of the species identified in the waters around the NWA, the elephant ear, the spike and the hickorynut, are likely to be designated threatened or vulnerable in Quebec, the last being also considered as endangered in Canada by the COSEWIC.

Lastly, the NWA supports three plant species that are threatened or vulnerable or likely to be designated as such in Quebec, namely the green dragon (Arisaema dracontium), the old switch panicgrass (Panicum virgatum) and the Leconte’s violet (Viola sororia, var. affinis) (Sabourin, 2004).

^a Species at Risk Act of Canada (Species at Risk Public Registry, 2018)
^b Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC, 2018)
^c Quebec Act Respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Species (MELCC, 2018 and MFFP, 2018b)
^d Species likely to be designated threatened or vulnerable in Quebec (MELCC, 2018 and MFFP, 2018b)
^e Population unspecified.

2.4 Invasive species

Invasive plant species are widely distributed in the NWA (CWS, 2003). According to plant surveys carried out in 2000 and 2001, eight plant species deemed invasive are present in the NWA. The most common species is the reed canarygrass, which is occurring in the wild both as native and exotic forms that are difficult to distinguish (Grobec, 2006). Also found are the curly-leaved pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), the flowering-rush (Butomus umbellatus) and the purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), the latter having a moderate abundance (CWS, 2003). These three species are exotic. Another invasive exotic plant is currently very abundant and increasing: the European reed. In 2010, that species covered an area of 34 hectares in the Contrecœur archipelago (i.e. roughly 11% of the archipelago) (Tougas-Tellier et al., 2013).

The waters adjacent to the NWA also support invasive exotic species, including the Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), an aquatic plant (CWS, 2003), and the zebra mussel, which is apparently well established in the channels where the waterflow is low. That species has been responsible for the rapid decline in a number of indigenous mussel populations since 2006 (Gillis and Mackie, 1994 and Paquet et al., 2005 in Rivard and Giguère, 2014). Another exotic invertebrate was identified in the waters adjacent to the NWA, namely the American or rusty crayfish (Orconectes limosus), which displaced certain indigenous crayfish species (including O. virilis and O. propinquus) and now accounts for over 90% of the crayfish observed in the Contrecœur archipelago (CWS, 2003). The round gobie (Neogobius melanostomus), an exotic fish species, is also present in the waters adjacent to the NWA (CWS, 2003; MFFP-SLGO, 2015).

3. Threats and management challenges

Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area is exposed to a number of threats and presents various management challenges, including transportation and service corridors (connected with shoreline erosion), pollution, invasive or otherwise problematic species, diseases and genes, human presence and disturbance, natural system modifications, climate change and extreme weather events, residential and commercial development (shorelines), and scientific knowledge gaps. These threats and management challenges are described below in order of relative importance based on current knowledge and determined using an analysis tool developed by the CWS (Baril, 2014). The naming and classification of the threats and the assessment of their importance are based on the threat classification system of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2012; see also Salafsky et al., 2008).

3.1 Transportation and service corridors

3.1.1 Shoreline erosion

Shoreline erosion is one of the most serious threats to the ecological health of Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area (CWS, 2003). In the early 2000s, Dauphin and Lehoux (2004) calculated that nearly half of the shorelines in the archipelago, i.e. 14.6 kilometres out of 29.7 kilometres, were under erosion, including one kilometre that was severely eroded. According to these authors, the most affected shorelines retreated 87 metres between 1964 and 2002 (2.29 m/year), which was then the highest erosion rate in the archipelagos between Montreal and Berthier-Sorel, including the Îles de la Paix. In the Contrecœur archipelago, the high erosion areas were primarily on the islands exposed to the seaway, including Île Saint-Ours and Île Duval as well as the Îlets à Lacroix (Dauphin and Lehoux, 2004; CWS, 2003). This kind of erosion can lead to a loss of important habitats for the breeding birds. It can also affect the islands serving as a barrier against waves and as a protection for the large grass beds used as a rearing area by waterfowl.

The erosion of the Îles de Contrecœur islands is apparently partly attributable to wave action caused by commercial navigation (CWS, 2003), although a number of natural factors (waves, currents, ice, shore soil and slope) and human-induced factors (water level control) can enter into this process. It appears that navigation and water level fluctuations are leading factors in the erosion rate of the banks of the St. Lawrence River (Richard, 2010). On one hand, the river’s water balance is hard to control or predict. On the other hand, very low water levels have a major impact on the retreating banks because the dried clay becomes more crumbly and thus more subject to erosion when the water rises again (Richard, 2010).

Environment and Climate Change Canada monitored the erosion of the islands in this sector between 1998 and 2002 (Dauphin and Lehoux, 2004) and again between 2005 and 2010 (Richard, 2010). The average rate of retreat of certain shoreline stretches went from 1.76 m/year between 1998 and 2002 (Dauphin and Lehoux, 2004) to 1.04 m/year between 2005 and 2010 (Richard, 2010). Since 2000, the voluntary ship-speed-reduction measures proposed by the marine industry have helped reduce the shoreline erosion rate, which remains high even so. Other protection measures need to be considered due to the still high erosion rate and the risks of important habitat losses and disappearance of species at risk or with a precarious status (e.g. the green dragon, the bank swallow).

3.2 Pollution

3.2.1 Industrial effluents

In the St. Lawrence Vision 2000 Action Plan, water pollution related to metallurgical activities in the region was identified as an area where it was a priority to take action for reducing the toxicity of the effluents (CZS, 2003). Considerable efforts have been made to reduce the pollution from effluents in Contrecœur and elsewhere along the St. Lawrence. Since 1970, contamination of the water, sediments and biological resources from toxic substances has dropped in the St. Lawrence (Lacroix, 2005). However, contaminants connected with industrial activities in Contrecœur may still persist in the sediments (Pelletier et al., 2014).

3.2.2 Contaminated sediments

In certain channels of the Contrecœur archipelago (including the Chenal des Chasseurs), the sediments are highly contaminated with heavy metals and PCBs (Procéan Environnement inc., 2002). In fact, toxic effect threshold overages have been reported there for concentrations of PCBs and heavy metals such as zinc, cadmium, chromium, copper and mercury. According to S. Blais (ECCC, pers. comm., 2016), analysis of the surface sediments carried out in 2013 and 2015 in the channel separating Île aux Veaux and Île aux Rats from the southern shore have revealed numerous exceedances of the management criteria for the St. Lawrence sediments established by Environment Canada and the Quebec Department of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks (EC and MDDEP, 2007). In fact, high concentrations of cadmium, copper, nickel, mercury, PCB, chlorinated dioxins and furans, and of numerous polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were observed. Moreover, very high concentrations of zinc, chromium, lead, and petroleum hydrocarbons (c10-c50) were also observed (S. Blais, ECCC, pers. comm., 2016). Finally, high concentrations of butyltins (toxic biocides applied to the hulls of ships to prevent organisms from clinging) – the highest in the fluvial section – were measured in the sediments around Île aux Rats; the concentrations greatly exceeded the potential effects threshold for aquatic fauna (Pelletier et al., 2014).

3.2.3 Domestic and urban waste water

Sewage discharges from the upstream municipalities along the St. Lawrence can affect the water quality around the archipelago. The St. Lawrence water quality is greatly declining between Varennes and Sorel, due to bacterial contamination of the water coming from treatment plants located upstream from Contrecœur that are discharged into the river without being disinfected (Hébert, 2013). The water of the St. Lawrence Seaway and north of it are particularly affected. However, the water quality south of the seaway is good or satisfactory, which was also true around the archipelago in the summers of 2008 to 2010 (Hébert, 2013). Moreover, new toxic substances such as nonylphenols (surfactants) and antibiotics (SSLMC, 2008) from the municipal waste water have appeared in the St. Lawrence. The actual impact of water quality on the wildlife and aquatic ecosystems adjacent to the NWA is unknown.

3.2.4 Accidental spills

A great many merchant ships and pleasure craft use the St. Lawrence Seaway every year. Therefore, they come close to the NWA. The town of Contrecœur has a municipal wharf, an 80-slip marina and a 60-slip nautical park across from the NWA (Marina Québec, 2018), which adds to the already heavy traffic. Also, many ships connected with the industrial and harbour operations sail to Contrecœur. An accidental spill of hydrocarbons or other chemicals from these boats into the water washing the archipelago could have serious impacts on the aquatic species, their habitats and the ecosystems of the NWA. The closeness of the industrial and port facilities of the Montreal area exposes this protected area to a spill of this kind. Toxic substances spilled upstream in the St. Lawrence could quickly reach the NWA, given the speed of the current and the narrowness and shape of this alluvial section, which would leave little time for an emergency intervention.

3.3 Invasive or otherwise problematic species, diseases and genes

3.3.1 Invasive plants and problematic animals

Eight potentially invasive plant species were reported on the Contrecœur archipelago in 2000 and 2001 (CWS, 2003). The flowering rush, the reed canarygrass and the purple loosestrife were the most commonly observed species. The European reed was not very abundant at that time. However, in 2010, this species covered roughly 34 hectares in the archipelago (Tougas-Tellier et al., 2013). In fact, recent on-site observations show that this exotic species now forms a number of large colonies on various islands of the NWA (B. Roberge, CWS, pers. obs., 2016). In the grass beds around the islands, one exotic plant, the Eurasian water milfoil, is also present (CWS, 2003). Some of these species, including the European reed, are very invasive and can bring about changes in habitat biodiversity. For example, on Île Saint-Ours, European reed colonies threathen to wipe out some plant species in precarious status such as the old switch panicgrass (B. Roberge, CWS, pers. comm., 2016).

Also, in the waters adjacent to the NWA, the presence of exotic fish such as the round gobie can alter the indigenous fish communities. Exotic invertebrates, including zebra and quagga mussels and the American crayfish, can also alter the ecosystems and supersede the indigenous species.

Moreover, terrestrial predators like the red fox, the striped skunk and the raccoon can occasionally reach the NWA islands. These mammals can reduce the waterfowl populations by preying on the eggs and nestlings. Studies conducted on the Contrecœur archipelago showed that predator control was able to increase waterfowl nesting success (Giroux et al., 1992; Giroux et al., 1995). That measure has already been used to limit the impacts of these animals on waterfowl broods in the NWA (SDLA and Turgeon, 1998; SDLA, 2009).

3.3.2 Canada Goose, population of the temperate regions

Groups of Canada geese are regularly seen in the islands of the NWA. This species is increasingly present in the region during the summer. They can be resident individuals, which are copious in the Îles de Verchères, near Contrecœur (Giroux et al., 2001; CZS, 2003). Those individuals, which belong to the temperate regions population, nest in the NWA (P. Brousseau and J. Rodrigue, CWS, pers. comm., 2015; Giroux et al., 2001). They look for the herbaceous meadows located near the water and sheltered from predators. This species can impact the environment, including through grazing, which fosters shoreline erosion, and through its droppings, which cause cleanliness issues (Environment Canada, 2005b). Those impacts are probably low in the NWA, but should be monitored. Moreover, the Canada goose can use the same resting and nesting habitats as certain waterbird species and other waterfowl species.

3.4 Human presence and disturbance

Human-induced disruptions, such as those caused by picnickers, campers and recreational boaters going ashore on the NWA’s islands and from powerboat traffic in the adjacent waters, are sources of stress for the NWA (CWS, 2003). In fact, visitors accessing this protected area, despite the regulation prohibiting access to it, may leave their garbage on the islands, trample the vegetation, alter the environment through their fire and campsite remnants and disturb the breeding birds or species at risk or with a precarious status like the bank swallow (Nature Québec, 2014). Those visitors can also trample nests, disturb broods, create access paths for predators and impact waterfowl reproduction success. The risks of disrupting the breeding birds, primarily waterfowl, are particularly high in the spring and early summer (mid-May to mid-July) during nesting, the period when there is an influx of recreational boaters around the islands.

Heavy traffic from recreational boats (rowboats, kayaks, personal watercraft, sailboats) and transport vessels on the waters adjacent to the NWA is also a source of disruption for the bird broods. A pilot experiment with inter-shore shuttles between Lavaltrie and Contrecœur and cruises in inflatable craft in the channels around the islands was conducted in 2013 and 2014. It was not extended into 2015, but activities of this sort could be a source of disruption for birds and impact the aquatic ecosystems, even though they also help raise the public’s awareness about the importance of the NWA and resource protection.

Motorized traffic on the waters adjacent to the islands is also a threat to the aquatic ecosystems around the NWA. For example, the presence of boats can result in gasoline or traces of gasoline being discharged into the water. The movement of boats in shallow areas also causes the contaminated sediments to be stirred up and resuspended. Also, pleasure boating can contribute to shoreline erosion as well as exotic and invasive species transportation, disturb ducklings, and destroy grass beds, which provide important habitats to various animals, including the copper redhorse, an at-risk fish species.

3.5 Natural system modifications

3.5.1 Dams and water management or use

Management of the St. Lawrence water levels is a sizeable problem for Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area because the wet meadows and aquatic grass beds are environments likely to be the most affected by the expected water-level drop connected with the Great Lakes water level control and with climate change (CWS, 2003; Roy and Boyer, 2011). That water-level drop could bring about an evolution of these environments towards shrub or tree strata, which are less favourable for open-country species (Jean and Létourneau, 2011). Also, a sudden rise in the water level during the waterfowl and waterbird nesting period can jeopardize the reproduction success of those species (CWS, 2003).

3.6 Climate change and extreme weather events

Climate change has been identified as a stress factor that can impact Îles de Contrecœur NWA (CWS, 2003). It can bring about changes in the NWA’s ecosystems. Increased water evaporation and decreased water inflow caused the water level in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River to drop between 1990 and 2001. The low water levels reported in the summers of 1995, 1999 and 2001 significantly impacted Lake Saint-Pierre, including the dynamics of the wetlands and the size of the aquatic habitats (SSLMC, 2008). The expected water level reductions in the Montreal and Sorel areas combined with climate-change scenarios could substantially alter the vegetation structure of the Contrecœur archipelago (CWS, 2003). However, since climate change is a large-scale threat that is external to the NWA, its impact is difficult to assess, and the response capability remains limited.

3.7 Residential and commercial development

The Contrecœur region, neighbouring on Montreal, is exposed to tremendous pressure from residential and commercial development. In fact, the population of Contrecœur went from 1,435 residents in 1951 to 5,678 residents in 2006, a 264% increase (Ville de Contrecœur, 2012), and passed the 6,000-residents mark in 2015. Also, the development of 1,500 new dwellings is expected over the next 10 years (Ville de Contrecœur, 2015). Occupation of the territory also results in shoreline artificialization, which is an issue along the St. Lawrence. Moreover, the size of the anthropogenic areas around the NWA increased 15% between 1964 and 1997 (Labrecque and Jobin, 2013). Over the next few years, large industrial, commercial and residential projects are expected, including the expansion of the Contrecoeur port terminal (Port de Montréal, 2016). Some industrial complexes occupy huge areas on the shores of the St. Lawrence and limit the expansion of natural habitats and certain animal species. These large complexes can also impact the aquatic ecosystems. Expansion of the inhabited and industrial areas occurs to the detriment of the natural terrestrial environments (e.g. wildlands, riparian strips, woodlands) used as corridors for animal species that enter or leave the NWA. All the anthropogenic structures between Highway 132 and Highway 30 further isolate this insular protected area.

3.8 Scientific snowledge gaps

Current knowledge on the NWA’s ecosystems is sometimes insufficient or obsolete, including about the current use of this protected area by waterfowl species during nesting and migrating periods, the vegetation and habitats in general, the ecology of the at-risk species and the impact of certain threats on the flora and fauna (e.g. pollution, hunting and poaching, presence of visitors). The available data does not always make it possible to adequately assess the NWA’s ecological health or fully support decision-making for managing the habitats and wildlife.

4. Goals and objectives

4.1 Vision

Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area protects important habitats for species at risk, priority bird species and other wildlife species. Priority bird species are those identified in the Bird Conservation Strategy for Bird Conservation Region 13 in Quebec Region: Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (Environment Canada, 2013).

4.2 Goals and objectives

The following goals and objectives are intended to define the vision of the management plan, taking into account the threats and management challenges. These goals and objectives will be achieved through the actions set out in Table 5 (Management Approaches for Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area), which will be implemented based on available resources.

Goal 1: Protect and enhance significant habitats for species at risk, priority bird species and other wildlife species.

Objectives:

1.1 Protect the habitats of the NWA’s priority birds, including waterfowl populations.
1.2 Maintain the populations of species at risk or with a precarious status and their habitats.
1.3 Reduce the impacts of shoreline erosion caused by wave action from passing boats on the NWA’s habitats.
1.4 Limit the impacts of invasive species and, as needed, predators in the NWA.
1.5 Limit the impacts of changes in the ecosystems.

Goal 2: Reduce the impact of human activities on the NWA.

Objectives:

2.1 Post adequate signage about the NWA boundaries to protect the fauna and flora from the impact of human activities (e.g. disturbance from recreational boaters, swimming, fishing).
2.2 Promote awareness among the regional population and the public about the NWA’s mission and applicable regulations in order to reduce the number of incidents related to regulatory non-compliance.
2.3 Document and, if possible, limit the impact of pollution on the NWA’s habitats and species.

Goal 3: Consolidate the NWA’s land holdings and promote natural habitat conservation on adjacent lands in order to foster connectivity and improve ecological conditions.

Objectives:
3.1 Incorporate into the NWA adjacent lands that have ecological value.
3.2 Encourage the protecting of the lands adjacent to the NWA that are important for conservation.
3.3 Inform the managers of the adjacent lands about the concerns pertaining to the use of resources near the NWA.

Goal 4: Ensure ecological monitoring of the NWA and improve knowledge on wildlife species and their habitats.

Objectives:

4.1 Implement an ecological monitoring plan.
4.2 Determine the gaps in scientific knowledge and fill those that are deemed a priority.

Goal 5: Promote awareness among the public and regional communities about the conservation of the NWA, wildlife species and their habitats.

Objectives:

5.1 Encourage public and regional community outreach and communication activities on the importance of conservation, the role of the NWA and the mission of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service.
5.2 Promote local community awareness of and involvement in the conservation of the NWA and adjacent lands.

4.3 Evaluation

An annual review of the actions implemented and the results achieved will be conducted based on the availability of financial and human resources. That review will help identify future priorities for actions and resource investment. The management plan itself will be re-evaluated five years after it is initially approved and will be reviewed and updated every ten years thereafter.

^a Implementation timeline: 1 (from 0 to 3 years), 2 (from 4 to 6 years), 3 (from 7 to 10 years and beyond)

Note: The priority levels assigned to the actions refer to the implementation timeline and not to their importance in terms of resource conservation. Priorities may change depending on the context and available resources.

5. Management approaches

This section summarizes the approaches and actions presented in Table 5 and that are likely to be used in managing Îles de Contrecœur NWA. However, specific management actions will be determined during the annual planning process and will be implemented based on available human and financial resources and in keeping with the approaches described below.

5.1 Habitat management

Habitat management will focus on conserving important habitats for waterfowl including the gadwall and the Northern pintail, recovering species at risk and protecting their critical habitat, and protecting important habitats for other wildlife species.

Since the NWA is made up of insular environments minimally isolated from the continent, efforts will be made to mitigate the impacts of erosion on the riparian habitats, restore disrupted habitats, document and, if possible, limit the impacts of pollution around the islands, reduce the spread of invasive plant species where applicable, and mitigate human-induced disruptions. Monitoring of the area will also be favoured for limiting the number of incidents related to regulatory non-compliance in the NWA.

5.2 Wildlife management

Wildlife management will be based on the knowledge acquired through surveys and various studies. That knowledge will make it possible to take stock of a number of the NWA’s biodiversity aspects. Monitoring efforts could be carried out to gain a better understanding of and to better manage the waterfowl and waterbird populations that use the NWA. Also, cooperation with various government and university specialists for research or monitoring projects will be favoured to ensure the best possible protection of species at risk. The recommendations provided in species-at-risk recovery programs will guide critical habitat protection in the NWA and surrounding area.

5.3 Monitoring

The implementation of an ecological monitoring program over the next five years is anticipated for assessing the ecological condition of the NWA and gathering information that will be useful in making management decisions. That program will be based on the biological monitorings done internally and in cooperation with regional and provincial collaborators. Ecological monitoring efforts could cover, among other things, habitats, at-risk and priority or representative species of the NWA (e.g. waterfowl) and the ecological and human-induced stresses that the area is subjected to (e.g. shoreline erosion). Cooperation with local stakeholders could be introduced to increase the effectiveness and longevity of the program.

5.4 Research

Knowledge acquisition and research needs have been established for a number of animal and plant species and for the threats and management challenges associated with Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area. In this regard, the updating of a knowledge acquisition plan based on the current NWA conservation plan and on the surveys and studies conducted since that plan was prepared is being considered. One of the priorities is to better document how the NWA is used by the waterfowl including the gadwall and the northern pintail, waterbirds, colonial birds (the ring-billed gull) and the presence of certain species at risk or with a precarious status, including the sedge wren, the Nelson’s sparrow and the bank swallow, as well as plants at risk. It will be very important to gain a better understanding of the extent of the ecological threats that can impact the NWA, including shoreline erosion, the impacts of invasive species, the presence of predators, the potential impacts of water pollution, ecosystem changes and climate change. Lastly, it would also be desirable to acquire knowledge about the insects, benthos and non-vascular plants.

To obtain a permit to conduct research in Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area and to receive instructions regarding the guidelines for research proposals, please contact:

National Wildlife Area – Permit Request
Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service
801-1550 D’Estimauville Avenue
Québec QC G1J 0C3

Email: permisscfquebec@ec.gc.ca

5.5 Public information and outreach

Since public access to Îles de Contrecœur NWA is prohibited except for grass beds (aquatic part of the NWA) for fall hunting of migratory birds, Environment and Climate Change Canada does not authorize outreach activities there. No visitor infrastructure is planned. However, the Department can encourage NWA-related outreach activities from the continent or even aboard watercraft sailing around the islands. Those activities could be carried out by municipalities and conservation organizations, among others, under the authority of a permit.

6. Authorizations and prohibitions

In the interest of the wildlife species and their habitats, human activities are minimized and controlled in NWAs under the Wildlife Area Regulations. These regulations set out the activities that are prohibited (subsection 3[1]) in NWAs and provide mechanisms for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to authorize certain activities that are otherwise prohibited. The regulations also provide the authority for the Minister to prohibit entry into NWAs.

Activities within an NWA are authorized only if notices issued by the Minister have been published in a local newspaper or posted at the entrance or limits of the NWA and are subject to the terms of said notice. However, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change can issue a permit authorizing certain activities.

6.1 Prohibition of entry

Under the Wildlife Area Regulations, the Minister may issue a notice that will be published in a local newspaper or posted at the entrance of any NWA to or on the boundary of any part thereof prohibiting entry to any NWA or part thereof. Such a notice can be issued when the Minister is of the opinion that entry is a public health and safety concern or may disturb wildlife and their habitats.

Due to the sensitivity of the wildlife species and the insular environments, access to the terrestrial portion of Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area is prohibited, unless a permit issued by the Minister is obtained. However, access to the grass beds (aquatic part) bordering on the NWA will be permitted from watercraft for fall hunting of migratory birds and sport fishing, in accordance with the regulations in effect.

The notice prohibiting access is published in local newspapers. Notices may also be posted at the main boat departure sites (boat launch, marinas) in the immediate area of the NWA.

6.2 Authorized activities

Any activity other than the fall hunting of migratory birds and sport fishing around the islands is prohibited in this NWA except under the authority of a permit, including hunting for small or large game animals, snaring, trapping, swimming, fires, picnicking, camping, driving motorized vehicles (e.g. ATVs, motorcycles, snowmobiles), cross-country skiing and snowshoeing.

A permit or authorization could be issued for research activities that align with the priorities set out in the management plan and for activities such as surveys, wildlife enhancement works or habitat restoration.

Since the following activities are consistent with the conservation goals and objectives set out in this management plan, they are permitted in the NWA, but only bordering on the islands and from a watercraft: fall hunting of migratory birds (waterfowl) and sport fishing.

6.2.1 Migratory bird hunting

Waterfowl hunting is an activity that has taken place for a number of decades in the Contrecœur archipelago. Migratory bird hunting is permitted only in submerged grass beds located on the periphery of the NWA (aquatic part) provided that the regulatory requirements respecting time periods, conditions and authorized hunting gear are met. It is not permitted on the terrestrial portion of the NWA’s islands. Rudimentary blinds can be temporarily set up at the edge of the islands for hunting, but they must be removed at the end of the hunting period. Clearing and cutting the vegetation on the islands’ shorelines is not permitted. Garbage must be picked up.

6.2.2 Sport fishing

Sport fishing from a watercraft is acceptable at the edges of the islands after July 15, provided that the breeding birds and their broods are not disturbed and that boats operate very slowly and carefully.

Note: If there is a discrepancy between the information presented in this document and the public notice, the notice shall prevail as a legal instrument.

6.3 Authorizations

Permits and notices authorizing an activity may be issued only if the Minister is of the opinion that the activity is scientific research relating to wildlife or habitat conservation or the activity benefits wildlife and their habitats or will contribute to wildlife conservation, or the activity is otherwise consistent with the criteria and purpose for which the NWA was established, as set out in the most recent management plan.

The Minister may also add terms and conditions to permits in order to minimize the impact of an activity on wildlife and wildlife habitats and for protecting them.

For further information, please consult the Environment and Climate Change Canada “Policy when Considering Permitting or Authorizing Prohibited Activities in Protected Areas Designated under the Canada Wildlife Act and Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994” (December 2011). This policy document is available on the protected areas website at https://www.canada.ca/fr/environnement-changement-climatique/services/reserves-nationales-faune/documents-reference-aires-protegees/politiques-lignes-directrices.html.

All requests for permits or authorizations must be made in writing to the following address:

National Wildlife Area – Permit Request
Environment and Climate Change Canada – Canadian Wildlife Service
801-1550 D’Estimauville Avenue
Québec QC G1J 0C3

Email: permisscfquebec@ec.gc.ca

6.4 Exceptions

The following activities do not require a permit or authorization:

• activities related to public safety, public health or national security that are authorized under another Act of Parliament or activities that are authorized under the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act to protect the health of animals or plants;
• activities related to routine maintenance of NWAs, to the implementation of management plans and to enforcement and conducted by an Environment and Climate Change Canada officer or employee.

6.5 Other federal and provincial authorizations

Depending on the type of activity, other federal or provincial authorizations or permits may be required for undertaking an activity in this NWA.

For further information, please contact the regional office of the appropriate federal or provincial authority.

7. Health and safety

All reasonable efforts will be made to protect the health and safety of the public, including adequately informing visitors of any known or anticipated risk or hazard. Furthermore, Environment and Climate Change Canada staff will take all reasonable and necessary precautions for protecting their own health and ensuring their safety and that of their co-workers. However, visitors (including researchers and contractors) must make all reasonable efforts to become informed about the risks and hazards and must be properly prepared and self-sufficient. Since natural areas involve some dangers, visitors must take proper precautions to ensure their own safety. There are no Environment and Climate Change Canada staff permanently on site in this NWA or services for ensuring ongoing visitor safety. Environment and Climate Change Canada plans to implement a public safety plan to limit the risk of incidents and ensure public safety in the NWA.

Emergency incidents or situations can be reported to:

• Environmental emergency: ECCC’s Canadian Environmental Emergencies Notification System at 514-283-2333 or 1-866-283-2333, or Quebec Department of Environment and the Fight Against Climate Change at 1-866-694-5454
• regulatory non-compliance and poaching: Enviro-info at 819-938-3860 or 1-800-668-6767
• SOS-Poaching: 1-800-463-2191
• Maritime Rescue (Canadian Coast Guard): 1-800-463-4393/cell: *16
• Sûreté du Québec: 310-4141/cell: *4141
• civil protection: 1-866-776-8345/cell : 911
• forest fires: SOPFEU : 1-800-463-3389
• local authorities (police or fire department): 911

8. Enforcement

The management of NWAs is based on three acts and their regulations:

• the Migratory Birds Act, 1994 and the Migratory Birds Regulations;
• the Canada Wildlife Act and the Wildlife Area Regulations;
• the Species at Risk Act.

Environment and Climate Change Canada’s wildlife enforcement officers are responsible for ongoing surveillance of compliance with the acts and regulations and for conducting investigations, as required.

Below are examples of activities that, if carried out in NWAs without authorization, may constitute an offence:

• accessing the site;
• destroying or disturbing migratory birds, their nests or their eggs;
• possessing a weapon or other instrument that could be used for hunting;
• picnicking or carrying on any other recreational activity outside the areas designated to that end;
• camping;
• lighting a fire;
• removing or damaging any natural artefact, building, fence, poster, sign or other structure;
• dumping or depositing waste or substances likely to reduce the quality of the natural environment;
• letting a pet run free.

9. Plan implementation

The management plan will be implemented over a 10-year period. Annual work plans will be based on priorities and the budgetary framework. Depending on available resources and opportunities, some actions may be brought forward, postponed or cancelled. Environment and Climate Change Canada will promote an adaptive management approach. The implementation of the plan will be evaluated five years after it is published and on the basis of the actions set out in Table 5.

10. Collaborators

Collaboration with local agencies and organizations will be favoured in order to contribute to the protection and conservation of wildlife species and their habitats in Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area. For instance, collaborations may be established or continued with universities and research centres to fill scientific knowledge gaps, with the province to implement species at risk recovery measures, particularly for those species under provincial jurisdiction, and with non-governmental organizations and municipal authorities to increase public awareness about the NWA’s conservation objectives.

The main organizations likely to collaborate in the mission and activities of Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area are listed below.

CEGEP de Sorel-Tracy
3000 De Tracy Boulevard
Sorel-Tracy QC J3R 5B9

Phone: 450-742-6651
Fax: 450-742-1878
Email: info@cegepst.qc.ca

Centre universitaire de Sorel-Tracy (Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières)
3000 De Tracy Boulevard, Suite A2106
Sorel-Tracy QC J3R 5B9

The centre is located on the premises of Cégep de Sorel-Tracy
Phone: 450-742-1991
Fax: 450-742-6485
Email: horscampus.sorel-tracy@uqtr.ca

Club d’ornithologie Sorel-Tracy inc.
Box 1111
Sorel-Tracy QC J3P 7L4
Phone:450-783-2385 (R. Brunet, director)
Email: info@ornitho-soreltracy.org.

Comité ZIP des Seigneuries (Des Seigneuries ZIP Committee)
1095 Notre-Dame Street
Box 353 Saint-Sulpice
QC J5W 4L9
Phone/Fax: 450-713-0887
Email: seigneuries@zipseigneuries.com

Conseil des Abénaquis d’Odanak
104 Sibosis Street
Odanak QC J0G 1H0

Phone: 450-564-2810
Toll free number: 1-888-568-2810
Fax: 450-568-3553

Conseil des Abénaquis de Wôlinak
10120 Kolipaïo Street
Wôlinak QC G0X 1B0

Phone: 819-294-6696
Fax: 819-294-6697

Grand Conseil de la Nation Waban-Aki
10175 Kolipaïo Street
Wôlinak QC G0X 1B0

Phone: 819-294-1686
Fax: 819-294-1689
Email: info@gcnwa.com

Municipalité régionale de comté (MRC) de D’Autray (Regional County Municipality [RCM] of D’Autray)
550 De Montcalm Street, Suite 100
Berthierville QC J0K 1A0

Phone: 450-836-7007
Fax: 450-836-1576

Municipalité régionale de comté [MRC] de Marguerite-D’Youville (Regional County Municipality (RCM) of Marguerite-D’Youville)
609 Marie-Victorin Road
Verchères QC J0L 2R0

Phone: 450-583-3301;
Montreal: 514-856-5701
Fax: 450-583-3592
Email: infomrc@margueritedyouville.ca

Nature Québec (IBA Program)
870 De Salaberry Avenue, Suite 207
Québec QC G1R 2T9

Phone: 418-648-2104
Fax: 418-648-0991
Email: conservons@naturequebec.org

Organisme de bassin versant Richelieu–Saint-Laurent COVABAR
806 Chemin Richelieu
Beloeil QC J3G 4P6

Phone: 450-446-8030
Fax: 450-464-8854
Email: marcel.comire@covabar.qc.ca (coordinator)

Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques (MELCC) du Québec (Quebec Ministry of Environment and Fight against Climate Change) Analysis and Regional Expertise Branch and Quebec Environmental Control Centre – Regional Offices
Longueuil
201 Place Charles-Le Moyne, 2nd Floor
Longueuil QC J4K 2T5

Phone: 450-928-7607
Fax: 450-928-7625
Email: monteregie@mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca

Repentigny
100 Industriel Boulevard
Repentigny QC J6A 4X6

Phone: 450-654-4355
Fax: 450-654-6131
Email: lanaudiere@mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca

Parc nautique de Contrecœur
5280 Marie-Victorin Road
Contrecœur QC J0L 1C0

Phone: 450-587-5495

Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) Suite J-M320 (Judith-Jasmin building)
405 Sainte-Catherine Street East
Montreal QC H2L 2C4

Phone: 514-987-3000
Email: general@uqam.ca

Ville de Contrecœur
5000 Marie-Victorin Road
Contrecœur QC J0L 1C0
François Handfield, Chief Administrative Officer

Phone: 450-587-5901 ext. 239
Email: handfieldf@ville.contrecoeur.qc.ca

Ville de Lavaltrie
1370 Notre-Dame Street
Lavaltrie QC J5T 1M5

Phone: 450-586-2921
Fax: 450-586-3939
Email: mairie@ville.lavaltrie.qc.ca

11. Literature cited

Argus, 1992. Perspectives de restauration et de protection des îles de Contrecœur. Argus Groupe-conseil, 20 p. + maps.

Armellin, A. and P. Mousseau. 1998. Synthèse des connaissances sur les communautés biologiques du secteur d’étude Varennes-Contrecœur: Technical Report: areas of prime concern 10. Environment Canada – Quebec Region, Environmental Conservation, St. Lawrence Centre. Technical Report, 242 p.

Baril, A. 2014. Management tool for national wildlife areas. Two documents: 1) Guide d’utilisation (Users Manual) (10 pp.); 2) Grille d’analyse des menaces et défis de gestion et actions correspondantes (Analysis grid of threats and management challenges and associated actions) (Excel). Tool based on the IUCN threat classification guide: Dec_2012_Guidance_Threats_Classification_Scheme.pdf (see IUCN, 2012). Prepared for Luc Bélanger, Manager, Ecosystem Conservation, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Quebec Region, April 2014.

Bélanger, L., 1989. Potentiel des îles du Saint-Laurent dulcicole pour la sauvagine et plan de protection. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Conservation and Protection, Quebec Region, 76 p. + map.

Brouillet, L., F. Coursol, S.J. Meades, M. Favreau, M. Anions, P. Bélisle and P. Desmet. 2010+. VASCAN, Database of Vascular Plants of Canada. Canadensys (Database consulted October 2018, for plant names.)

Cantin, M., A. Bourget, G. Chapdelaine and W. G. Alliston. 1976. “Distribution et écologie de la reproduction du Canard chipeau (Anas strepera) au Québec”. Naturaliste canadien, 103 : 469-481.

Cantin, M. and I. Ringuet. 1978. Les oiseaux des îles de Contrecœur. Wildlife Canadian Service, Quebec region, Québec, 47 p.

CDPNQ (Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec). 2015. Extractions du système de données pour le territoire de la réserve nationale de faune des Îles-de-Contrecoeur, Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques et Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, Québec. [http://www.cdpnq.gouv.qc.ca/index.htm] (presently not an active link)

Commission de toponymie du Québec. 2018. Banque de noms de lieux du Québec. (Consulted in October 2018.)

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2018. Database of wildlife species assessed by COSEWIC Species search (Consulted in October 2018.)

CWS (Canadian Wildlife Service). 2003. Plan de conservation de la Réserve nationale de faune des îles de Contrecœur. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Quebec Region, 34 p. and 2 appendices.

CZS (Comité ZIP des Seigneuries; Des Seigneuries ZIP Committee). 2003. Plan d’action et de réhabilitation écologique du Comité ZIP des Seigneuries. Published by the Des Seigneuries Area of Prime Concern Committee. Joliette, 131 p. + appendices.

Dauphin, D. and D. Lehoux, 2004. Bilan de la sévérité de l’érosion dans le Saint-Laurent dulcicole et stratégies de protection recommandées pour les rives à plus grande valeur biologique. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Quebec Region.

De Repentigny, L.-G. 1988. Histoire et ressources biologiques de la Réserve nationale de faune des îles de Contrecœur. Canadian Wildlife Service, Quebec Region, 14 p. + references.

DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Copper Redhorse (Moxostoma hubbsi) in Canada, Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, xi + 64 p.

eBird. 2016. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available: (Database consulted October 2016.)

EC and MDDEP (Environment Canada and ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs of Quebec). 2007. Critères pour l’évaluation de la qualité des sédiments au Québec et cadres d’application : prévention, dragage et restauration. 39 p.

Environment Canada. 2013. Bird Conservation Strategy for Bird Conservation Region 13 in Quebec Region – Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Quebec, Quebec, 142 p. + appendices.

Environment Canada. 2005a. Protected Areas Manual (Draft). Appendix 5: Selection Criteria for Candidate Areas – National Wildlife Area and Appendix 8: Policy on Establishing and Managing Environment Canada’s Protected Areas (protected area classification system). Prepared by Environment Canada protected area practitioners (Canadian Wildlife Service), December 2005.

Environment Canada. 2005b. For a Better Quality of Life. The Resident Goose. A Newcomer to the Urban Landscape. Environment Canada. Quebec, 7 p.

EnviroServices. 2011. Report – Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of Îles de Contrecœur National Wildlife Area. File 116-059-02. Report submitted to Public Works and Government Services Canada, for Environment Canada, 23 p. + 12 appendices.

Giroux, J.-F., J. Lefebvre, L. Bélanger, J. Rodrigue and S. Lapointe. 2001. “Establishment of a Breeding Population of Canada Geese in Southern Quebec”. Canadian Field Naturalist, 115(1): 75-81.

Giroux, J.-F. and J.-F. Rail. 1995. “Canard chipeau”, pp. 294-297 in Gauthier, J. and Y. Aubry (under the direction of). The Breeding Birds of Québec: Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Southern Quebec. AQGO, SQPO, CWS, Env. Canada, Quebec Region, Montreal, xviii + 1,295 p.

Giroux, J.-F., F. St-Pierre, J. Lefebvre and S. Lapointe. 1995. Contrôle des prédateurs et nidification des canards à la Réserve nationale de faune des îles de Contrecœur en 1994. Département des sciences biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, 11 p. + 10 appendices.

Giroux, J.-F., M. Caron; M. Picard and S. Carrier. 1992. Effet du contrôle des prédateurs sur la nidification des canards à la Réserve nationale de faune des Îles de Contrecœur, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Quebec Region. Unpublished report.

Grobec (Groupe de concertation des bassins versants de la zone Bécancour). 2006. L'Alpiste Roseau (Consulté en novembre 2017.)

Hébert, S. 2013. Water Quality in the Fluvial Section – Physicochemical and Bacteriological Parameters – 3rd edition (PDF, 4 MB), Direction du suivi de l’état de l’environnement, Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Québec, Fact sheet in the series “Monitoring the State of the St. Lawrence River”, St. Lawrence Action Plan, 5 p.

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2012. Threats Classification Scheme (Version 3.2). (Site consulted October 2018.)

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature; Dudley, N., Editor). 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, x + 86 p.

Jean, M. and G. Létourneau. 2011. Changes to the Wetlands of the St. Lawrence River from 1970 to 2002, Environment Canada, Science and Technology Branch, Quebec Water Quality Monitoring and Surveillance, Technical Report no. 511, 302 p.

Labrecque, S. and B. Jobin. 2013. Dynamique des habitats et des pressions périphériques dans les réserves nationales de faune des Îles-de-la-Paix, des Îles-de-Contrecœur, des Îles-de-l’Estuaire et de la Pointe-de-l’Est. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Quebec Region, Quebec, 88 p.

Lacroix, E. 2005. L’état du Saint-Laurent. Des constats encourageants et des défis à l’horizon. Presentation. State of the St. Lawrence Monitoring. St. Lawrence Plan. Environment Canada, Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs du Québec, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Stratégies Saint-Laurent.

Larivée, J. 2014. ÉPOQ Bas-Saint-Laurent (Database; Version February 2014; data 1993-2004). Rimouski, Québec : Club des ornithologues du Bas-Saint-Laurent.

Latendresse, C. and P. Brousseau. 2010. Inventaires de la Guifette noire (Chlidonias niger) le long du fleuve Saint-Laurent, summers of 2005-2006 and 2010. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Quebec Region, 30 p.

Lehoux, D. 2006. Historique des données disponibles sur la sauvagine pour la réserve nationale de faune des îles de Contrecoeur. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service., 6 p.

Marina Québec. 2018. Port de plaisance de Contrecœur and Parc nautique de Contrecœur. [www.marinaquebec.qc.ca/marinas/parc-nautique-de-contrecoeur/] (Sites consulted October 2018.)

MELCC (Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, Government of Quebec). 2018. Lists of threatened or vulnerable plant species or likely to be designated as threatened or vulnerable. [Espèces menacées ou vulnérables au Québec] (Site consulted October 2018.)

Mercier, Y., L.-G. De Repentigny and I. Ringuet. 1986. Plan de gestion de la Réserve nationale de faune des îÎles de Contrecœur, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, 29 p + maps.

MFFP (Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec). 2018a. List of Quebec’s vertebrate fauna. [Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec (LFVQ)] (Consulted in October 2018.)

MFFP (Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec). 2018b. List of wildlife species designated as threatened or vulnerable in Quebec; list of wildlife species likely to be designated threatened or vulnerable in Quebec. [Espèces fauniques menacées ou vulnérables] (Site consulted October 2018.)

MFFP-SLGO (Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec). 2015. Data from the Fish Monitoring Network. St. Lawrence Global Observatory. (Consulted October 2015.)

Morin, J. and A. Bouchard. 2000. Background Information for the Modeling of the Montréal/Trois-Rivières River Reach. Scientific Report RS-100. MSC-Hydrometric Data, Environment Canada, Sainte-Foy, 56 p.

MRC de Marguerite-D’Youville (Regional County Municipality of Marguerite-D’Youville). 2018. (Consulted October 2018.)

Nature Québec. 2014. Plan d’action pour la protection des sites de nidification de l’hirondelle de rivage dans les ZICO du Québec. Carried out as part of the Important Bird Areas in Canada (IBA) program, 64 p. + appendices.

Pelletier, M., M. Desrosiers, S. Lepage and Y. de Lafontaine. 2014. Butyltins in Sediments of the St. Lawrence River. Water Quality Monitoring and Surveillance, Environment Canada, Fact sheet in the series “Monitoring the State of the St. Lawrence River”, St. Lawrence Action Plan, 7 p.

Pilon, C., J.-M. Boisvert, D. Carrière, J. Champagne, P. Chevalier, D. Le Quéré, V. Sicard and G. Sylvain. 1980. Les Îles du Saint-Laurent, de Boucherville à Contrecœur : Environnement biophysique. Montreal: Université de Montréal. Montreal Ecological Research Centre, xvii, 281 p., tabl., fig.

Port de Montréal. 2016. Expanding Project of the Port Terminal at Contrecoeur The Port of Montreal’s expansion: Construction of the new terminal in Contrecœur (Consulted October 2016.)

Procéan Environnement inc. 2002. Analyse de la qualité de l’eau et des sédiments dans le secteur des îles de Contrecœur. Final report. Des Seigneuries ZIP Committee,12 p. and 4 appendices.

Rheault, D., M.-F. Delagrave, M. Goulet and R. Nadeau. 1981. Évaluation du potentiel d’un programme d’interprétation dans les îles de Contrecœur. Report submitted to the Canadian Wildlife Service, 138 p. + appendix.

Richard, L.-P. 2010. Shoreline Erosion in Freshwater Areas. Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada, Fact sheet in the series “Monitoring the State of the St. Lawrence River”, St. Lawrence Action Plan, 8 p. (2009, 2010 and 2011: unpublished data)

Rivard, A. and S. Giguère. 2014. Bilan des inventaires fauniques et floristiques à la Réserve nationale de faune des îles de Contrecœur, 2004 and 2006. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Quebec Region, 36 p. + appendices.

Roy, A. G. and C. Boyer. 2011. Impact des changements environnementaux sur les tributaires du Saint-Laurent, Agro-climatology symposium, CRAAQ. (Consulted October 2018.)

Sabourin, A. 2004. Inventaire des plantes menacées ou vulnérables de la Réserve nationale de faune des Îles-de-Contrecœur. Report submitted for Environment Canada, 9 p.

Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, A.J. Stattersfield, C. Hilton-Taylor, R. Neugarten, S.H.M Butchart, B. Collen, N. Cox, L.L. Master, S. O’Connor and D. Wilkie. 2008. “A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Classifications of Threats and Actions”. Contributed paper, Conservation Biology, Vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 897-911, August 2008.

Saucier, J.-P., A. Robitaille, P. Grondin, J.-F. Bergeron and J. Gosselin. 2011. The Ecological Regions of Southern Quebec (4th version). 1:1,250,000 scale map. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec.

SDLA (Services de Déprédation des Laurentides-Appalaches). 2009. Rapport technique du contrôle de prédateurs effectué à la Réserve nationale de faune des îles de Contrecœur en 2009. Report submitted to the Canadian Wildlife Service – Environment Canada. Quebec, 17 p. and appendices.

SDLA (Services de Déprédation des Laurentides-Appalaches) and S. Turgeon. 1998. Rapport technique du contrôle de prédateurs effectué à la Réserve nationale de faune des îles de Contrecœur en 1998. Report submitted to the Canadian Wildlife Service – Environment Canada. Quebec, 15 p. and appendices.

SOS-POP. 2013. Database on populations of birds with a precarious status in Quebec (version from Sept. 19, 2013). Regroupement QuébecOiseaux, Montreal, Quebec.

Species at Risk Public Registry (Government of Canada). 2018. Species search (Consulted October 2018.)

SSLMC (State of the St. Lawrence Monitoring Committee). 2008. Overview of the State of the St. Lawrence River 2008. St. Lawrence Plan. Environment Canada, Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs du Québec, Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Stratégies Saint-Laurent, 28 p.

Tougas-Tellier M.-A., J. Morin, D. Hatin and C. Lavoie 2013. Impacts des changements climatiques sur l’expansion du roseau envahisseur dans les frayères à grand brochet et à perchaude du fleuve Saint-Laurent. Report submitted to Ouranos, Montreal, 53 p.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2018. Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory. Search By Federal Site Identifier (Consulted October 2018.)

Tremblay, J.A. and J. Jutras. 2010. “Les chauves-souris arboricoles en situation précaire au Québec. Synthèse et perspectives”. Le Naturaliste canadien 134: 29-40.

Ville de Contrecœur. 2015. Contrecoeur sur le fleuve (Consulted October 2015).

Ville de Contrecœur. 2012. Plan d’urbanisme Ville de Contrecœur. Town of Contrecœur. 112 p.

Ville de Lavaltrie. 2015. (Consulted October 2015).