This data set includes the locations of all known seabird colonies along the coast of British Columbia, and provides a compilation of the population estimates of seabirds breeding at those colonies since 1980, and historical estimates prior to 1980 for some colonies. It does not include an estimate of the numbers of juvenile birds or non-breeders in the population.The rationale for developing this inventory was the recognized need for a product that could assist with: coastal zone and conservation area planning; emergency response to environmental emergencies and identifying areas of potential interactions between seabirds and anthropogenic activities. In addition, the data used to develop the document provides a baseline to compare with future seabird population estimates in order to measure the impacts of shifts in composition, abundance and/or distribution of prey, and climatic and oceanographic changes. The database is not a substitute for on-site surveys usually required for environmental assessment.Here we present data on the breeding colony population estimates of the 17 species of seabirds (including two storm petrels, three cormorants, one gull, and eight alcids) and one shorebird (Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani) that breed on the coast of British Columbia. Over 5.5 million colonial birds are currently estimated to nest at 649 sites (Rodway et al. 2024). Five species (Cassin's Auklets Ptychoramphus aleuticus, Fork-tailed Storm-petrels (Hydrobates fucatus), Rhinoceros Auklets Cerorhinca monocerata, Ancient Murrelets Synthliboramphus antiquus, and Leach's Storm-petrels (Hydrobates leucorhous), comprise the vast majority of that population, although Black Oystercatchers (Haematopus bachmani), Pigeon Guillemots (Cepphus columba), and Glaucous-winged Gulls (Larus glaucescens), nest at the most sites. Marbled Murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus), which nest on the mossy limbs of mature and old-growth trees within the coastal forests, are not included in this database, due to their dispersed nesting habit.The population estimates presented in this database are compiled from the results of several surveys. Many of the seabird breeding colonies in British Columbia have been known for more than 50 years, but because of the remoteness of the sites, visits to them have been rare. The majority of the data are the results of comprehensive inventories of colonial nesting seabirds along the British Columbia coastline conducted between 1974 and 1977 by the British Columbia Provincial Museum (BCPM; now Royal British Columbia Museum ) and between 1980 and 1989 by the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment and Climate Change Canada (CWS). The goal of the BCPM surveys was to explore the entire BC coast to identify seabird nesting sites. Reliable, quantitative data were gathered on the breeding populations of all surface-nesting seabird species and rough estimates of population sizes were made for burrow-nesting species. The goal of the CWS survey program was to establish baseline estimates of breeding populations of burrow-nesting species in BC using standardized survey techniques to allow future comparisons and monitoring of those populations. During the 1980s, repeat surveys of surface-nesting species were also conducted by CWS in most regions of the BC coast. A few colonies on small remote islands were not visited during those surveys. Therefore, for some colonies the most current population estimates are from the first complete survey of the BC coastline, carried out by the Royal British Columbia Museum in the mid 1970’s.Since 1989, surveys have been conducted by CWS on some alcid, cormorant and gull colonies along the BC coast, and results have been included in the dataset (data entry ongoing). As well as data from CWS surveys, we have attempted to obtain recent data from all other sources including Parks Canada, Transport Canada, the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, the City of Vancouver, the Bamfield Marine Station, and the Laskeek Bay Conservation Society. Since 2000, inventories of nesting BlackOystercatchers have been conducted in some regions of the coast by Parks Canada and partners (Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, and Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve) and results have been included in the dataset (data entry ongoing). A long time series of nesting Black Oystercatcher data collected by Laskeek Bay Conservation Society in the Laskeek Bay area of the East Coast of Moresby Island has also been included in this dataset.

The distribution of nesting areas for bird colonies in coastal British Columbia showing relative abundance (RA) by season and overall relative importance (RI). RI is based on project region and not on the province as a whole. Number counts for various species in the colony location are provided. CRIMS is a legacy dataset of BC coastal resource data that was acquired in a systematic and synoptic manner from 1979 and was intermittently updated throughout the years. Resource information was collected in nine study areas using a peer-reviewed provincial Resource Information Standards Committee consisting of DFO Fishery Officers, First Nations, and other subject matter experts. There are currently no plans to update this legacy data.

Data Sources: Banque informatisée des oiseaux de mer au Québec (BIOMQ: ECCC-CWS Quebec Region) Atlantic Colonial Waterbird Database (ACWD: ECCC-CWS Atlantic Region).. Both the BIOMQ and ACWD contain records of individual colony counts, by species, for known colonies located in Eastern Canada. Although some colonies are censused annually, most are visited much less frequently. Methods used to derive colony population estimates vary markedly among colonies and among species. For example, census methods devised for burrow-nesting alcids typically rely on ground survey techniques. As such, they tend to be restricted to relatively few colonies. In contrast, censuses of large gull or tern colonies, which are geographically widespread, more appropriately rely on a combination of broad-scale aerial surveys, and ground surveys at a subset of these colonies. In some instances, ground surveys of certain species are not available throughout the study area. In such cases, consideration of other sources, including aerial surveys, may be appropriate. For example,data stemming from a 2006 aerial survey of Common Eiders during nesting, conducted by ECCC-CWS in Labrador, though not yet incorporated in the ACWD, were used in this report. It is important to note that colony data for some species, such as herons, are not well represented in these ECCC-CWS databases at present. Analysis of ACWD and BIOMQ data (ECCC-CWS Quebec and Atlantic Regions): Data were merged as temporal coverage, survey methods and geospatial information were comparable. Only in cases where total counts of individuals were not explicitly presented was it necessary to calculate proxies of total counts of breeding individuals (e.g., by doubling numbers of breeding pairs or of active nests). Though these approaches may underestimate the true number of total individuals associated with a given site by failing to include some proportion of the non-breeding population (i.e., visiting adult non-breeders, sub-adults and failed breeders), tracking numbers of breeding individuals (or pairs) is considered to be the primary focus of these colony monitoring programs.In order to represent the potential number of individuals of a given species that realistically could be and may historically have been present at a given colony location (see section 1.1), the maximum total count obtained per species per site since 1960 was used in the analyses. In the case of certain species,especially coastal piscivores (Wires et al. 2001; Cotter et al. 2012), maxima reached in the 1970s or 1980s likely resulted from considerable anthropogenic sources of food, and these levels may never be seen again. The effect may have been more pronounced in certain geographic areas. Certain sites once used as colonies may no longer be suitable for breeding due to natural and/or human causes, but others similarly may become suitable and thus merit consideration in long-term habitat conservation planning. A colony importance index (CII) was derived by dividing the latter maximum total count by the potential total Eastern Canadian breeding population of that species (the sum of maximum total counts within a species, across all known colony sites in Eastern Canada). The CII approximates the proportion of the total potential Eastern Canadian breeding population (sum of maxima) reached at each colony location and allowed for an objective comparison among colonies both within and across species. In some less-frequently visited colonies, birds (cormorants, gulls, murres and terns, in particular) were not identified to species. Due to potential biases and issues pertaining to inclusion of these data, they were not considered when calculating species’ maximum counts by colony for the CII. The IBA approach whereby maximum colony counts are divided by the size of the corresponding actual estimated population for each species (see Table 3.1.2; approximate 1% continental threshold presented) was not used because in some instances individuals were not identified to species at some sites, or population estimates were unavailable.Use of both maxima and proportions of populations (or an index thereof) presents contrasting, but complementary, approaches to identifying important colonial congregations. By examining results derived from both approaches, attention can be directed at areas that not only host large numbers of individuals, but also important proportions of populations. This dual approach avoids attributing disproportionate attention to species that by their very nature occur in very large colonies (e.g., Leach’s Storm Petrel) or conversely to colonies that host important large proportions of less-abundant species (Roseate Tern, Caspian Tern, Black-Headed Gull, etc.), but in smaller overall numbers. Point Density Analysis (ArcGIS Spatial Analyst) with kernel estimation, and a 10-km search radius,was used to generate maps illustrating the density of colony measures (i.e., maximum count by species,CII by species), modelled as a continuous field (Gatrell et al. 1996). Actual colony locations were subsequently overlaid on the resulting cluster map. Sites not identified as important should not be assumed to be unimportant.

The Atlantic Colonial Waterbird Monitoring database captures geo-referenced data collected under the Atlantic Region’s Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) Colonial Seabird Monitoring program, and data collected under CWS’ waterfowl and protected areas programs. These programs collectively monitor 22 species of colonial waterbirds breeding in the Atlantic Region of the following groups: fulmars, shearwaters, storm-petrels, gannets, gulls, terns, alcids, eiders, herons and cormorants, with the primary outcome to update information on the distribution, status, and trends of waterbirds breeding in all four Atlantic provinces. Surveys are conducted using one of three platforms: aerial, boat, or ground. Aerial surveys provide the most cost-effective way of conducting a comprehensive population census of diurnal species visible from air, namely gulls (Herring, Great Black-backed, Ring-billed, Glaucous), Black-legged Kittiwakes, Northern Gannets, terns (Arctic, Common, Roseate, Caspian), cormorants (Greater, Double-crested), Black Guillemots, and Common Eiders.Aerial surveys are also effective in identifying new colonies and provide additional information on how to most effectively conduct boat and ground surveys. Boat and ground surveys are conducted at smaller geographic scales and are necessary to obtain complementary information on the species composition of colonies and correction factors to finalize gull, tern and eider estimates obtained from the aerial surveys. Ground and/or boat surveys are also necessary to conduct colony counts of cliff-nesting birds (murres and fulmars), crevice nesting birds (razorbills and guillemots) and burrow-nesting birds (puffins, storm-petrels, shearwaters). Raw data are captured using various survey methods, including:1) visual estimates, 2) direct counts of number of individuals or apparently occupied sites and/or photo counts, 3) sub-sampling the colony through plot counts and extrapolating the estimated occupied densities over the occupied area which in turn is estimated using a variety of geographic information system approaches (e.g., Wilhelm et al. 2015). Important outcomes for how data are used include informing marine spatial planning, emergency preparedness, impact assessment of various anthropogenic threats, and COSEWIC status assessment (e.g., COSEWIC 2020). Further, these data are regularly used internally or in collaboration with partners to form the basis of peer-reviewed publications on regional, national, and/or global population trends for target species (e.g., Langlois Lopez et al. 2022, Iles et al. 2025).This dataset represents a subset of data collected from surveys led by CWS spanning from 1910 to 2024 and summarized to present, at a given colony, the year and count of birds from the most recent survey, the year and maximum count of birds within the last 20 years (if available), and the year and maximum count of birds ever recorded. In addition, CWS works closely with a variety of partners (e.g., provincial, other federal departments, academic, not-for profit organizations) to supplement colonial waterbird data collected in the Atlantic Region. To request additional census or survey data, please contact CWS.COSEWIC. 2020. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Leach’s Storm-Petrel (Atlantic population) Oceanodroma leucorhoa in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 70 pp. (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry.html). Iles, D.T., S.E. Gutowsky, A.M. Calvert, S.I. Wilhelm, J.-F. Rail, A. Hedd, H.L. Major, A.C. Smith, and G.J. Robertson. 2025. Estimating regional trajectories and trends of seabirds from sparse and inconsistent colony counts: case studies from eastern Canada with Leach’s Storm-Petrel and Atlantic Puffin. Avian Conservation and Ecology 20(2):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-02931-200216Langlois Lopez, S., Bond, A.L., O’Hanlon, N.J., Wilson, J.M., Vitz, A., Mostello, C.S., Hamilton, F., Rail, J.-F., Welch, L., Boettcher, R., Wilhelm, S.I., Anker-Nilssen, T., Daunt, F., and Masden, E. 2022. Global population and conservation status of the Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus. Bird Conservation International, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270922000181Wilhelm, S.I., Mailhiot, J., Arany, J., Chardine, J.W., Robertson, G.J., and Ryan, P.C. 2015. Update and trends of three important seabird populations in the western North Atlantic using a geographic information system approach. Marine Ornithology 43: 211-222.

First Responders identifies the location of ambulance, fire, police and coast guard facilities in British Columbia.

Search Services: General place names, Populated Places and geonames

Boundaries of the National Capital Region since 1959, with the coming into force of the National Capital Act

Legally defined __Municipal__ polygons were drawn from metes and bounds descriptions as written in Letters Patent for Municipalities in the province of British Columbia. In the event of a discrepancy in the data, the metes and bounds description will prevail. Although the boundaries were drawn based on the legal metes and bounds descriptions, they may differ from how regional districts and their member municipalities and electoral areas currently view and/or manage their boundaries. Where discrepancies are noted, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (the custodian) enters into discussion with the local governments whose boundaries are affected. In order to effect a change to the boundary, Cabinet approval is required. This is done through an Order in Council (OIC). While discrepancies to administrative boundaries are being resolved, boundaries may be adjusted on an ongoing basis until the requested changes are completed. The OIC_YEAR and OIC_NUMBER fields indicate the year that the boundary was passed under OIC and its associated number. The AFFECTED_ADMIN_AREA_ABRVN identifies the administrative areas that are affected by the OIC. See all of the administrative areas currently in the [__Administrative Boundaries Management System (ABMS)__](https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/12f0fd64-94d5-422a-832e-6627a2a01702). The complimentary [point dataset](https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/e50b6560-0549-41a6-8035-6b828066692e) that defines the administrative areas is also available. Other individual legally defined administrative area datasets are available from the following records: [Regional Districts](https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/d1aff64e-dbfe-45a6-af97-582b7f6418b9) [Electoral Areas](https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/81940c47-a534-47e0-94d0-947c96a59de4) [Province of British Columbia](https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/a7e32e45-63ae-4f5a-9275-9402b6deebdc) [Islands Trust](https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/df3f5a9f-2dc0-4b9e-b593-fc205933e32d) [Local Trust Areas](https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/cea5f554-f2f7-4cfd-a8f0-63e7c83dc191)

Defined areas allocated by certificate under the British Columbia Wildlife Act to guide outfitters for the purpose of guiding residents, non-residents or non-resident alien hunters to hunt big game species.

Many communities in Canada depend to some extent on forestry and the forest sector. The importance of the forest industry to the regional economy can be assessed using the CanEcumene GIS Database. “Ecumene” is a term used by geographers, meaning “inhabited lands.” A forest ecumene refers to areas where human settlement coincides with forested areas, including locations where people depend on the forest for their livelihood. Populated places in the ecumene database are referenced using natural boundaries, as opposed to administrative or census boundaries, and provide a more suitable means for integrating socio-economic data with ecological and environmental data in a region.An analysis of ecumene labour force data and location of mill facilities resulted in a generalized rendering showing regional dependency of the forest industry. The location of mill facilities layer includes information on mill type (i.e., pulp and saw) and ownership. The sensitivity to forest industry layer shows which forest communities and regions are more sensitive to economic impacts in the forest industry.Two layers are provided: the sensitivity of forest communities and regions to forest industry, and the location of mill facilities.