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.

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 Canadian Breeding Bird Census (BBC) Database contains data for 928 breeding bird plot censuses representing all known censuses of breeding birds carried out in Canada during the period 1929–1993. The 928 records in the database represent 640 unique census plots located in all provinces and territories, except Prince Edward Island. The BBC, which was replaced by the current Breeding Bird Survey, is one of the longest-running surveys of bird populations in North America, and was designed to help determine abundance and distribution patterns of bird species. An important feature of the BBC Database is the habitat data associated with each census plot. The most prevalent vegetation species in different layers (canopy, shrub and ground cover) were recorded to reflect the assumption that birds respond principally to vegetative structure.

In 2022, the federal government launched the second phase of the Oceans Protection Plan, a vast interdepartmental program designed to enhance marine safety in Canada by improving our ability to prevent and respond to marine incidents. For the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) of Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), this means filling gaps in our knowledge of marine and coastal bird species. In order to identify these gaps for the province of Quebec, we carried out a prioritization exercise in 2022 and concluded that major efforts needed to be made in the Nunavik marine region, since data were lacking in several sectors and for several species. Understanding the vulnerability of wildlife species over time and space will help us, among other things, to assess risks and act quickly and appropriately in the event of incidents affecting the marine environment, such as an oil spill or shipwreck. Another important objective of the Oceans Protection Plan is to implement sustainable partnerships with the Inuit in order to share our respective knowledge of migratory birds, develop joint projects and support Inuit-led marine bird projects.It is in this context that ground surveys of marine bird nests on the islands of Nunavik are being carried out by the CWS, in collaboration with Nunavimmiut. The main objective of these surveys is to update available data on the abundance and distribution of nesting seabirds in this area, particularly Common Eiders (Somateria mollissima). On each island visited, a team follows transects distributed from one end to the other and across the entire width of the island, in order to obtain complete and systematic coverage of the island and to count all the nests present. The spacing between transects can vary according to the size of the island, its topography and the density of nests present. This database provides access to the survey results and shows, for each island surveyed, the number of nests of each species present. In the case of the Black Guillemot (Cepphus grylle), since nests are very difficult to find, it is rather the number of adults present around the island that is reported. Finally, in some cases, notably for gulls (Larus spp.), if no nests were found, but adults were observed on or around the island, then a number of adult individuals was reported.

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.

Study area is a polygon feature class showing the extent of where most of the bird sightings were recorded and then used in the atlas. A few rare species have been included as well that go beyond this area.

The Canadian Wildlife Service - Ontario Region Biodiversity Atlas represents the Canadian Wildlife Service biodiversity portfolio across the Ontario portions of the Boreal Hardwood Shield (Bird Conservation Region 12) and Mixedwood Plains (Bird Conservation Region 13) ecozones. These data are the derived product from an extensive landscape assessment that assessed the Canadian Wildlife Service biodiversity portfolio (Species at Risk, migratory birds, habitat) at various resolutions. Biodiversity is mapped by forest, grassland (open country) and wetland quality and quantity, and then progressively combined to identify local High Value Biodiversity Areas. At the finest resolution, scores were applied to each unit of analysis (5 hectare hexagon in Bird Conservation Region 12; 2 hectare hexagon in Bird Conservation Region 13), based on over 30 criteria for landscape habitat condition, Species at Risk and migratory birds. Habitat condition scores were derived from guidance in Environment and Climate Change Canada's existing How Much Habitat is Enough? and in Bird Conservation Region 12, where the landscape is less fragmented, habitat was also based on draft guidance in How Much Disturbance is too Much? Individual scores were summed and various combinations (e.g. top 25% of forest scores + top 25% of Species at Risk (SAR) scores) were calculated to identify areas with multiple conservation value. For each habitat type (forest, grassland and wetland), study units with more than one conservation value were aggregated into High Value Habitat which were subsequently aggregated into High Value Biodiversity Areas (HVBA). The results are areas on the landscape that have high value from a Canadian Wildlife Service specific lens; that is, they are high quality habitats that are important for Species at Risk and/or migratory birds. High value habitats are those forests, grasslands and wetlands with potential high conservation value (PHCV). They contain at least 1 of a possible 3 potential high conservation values: top 25% of overall habitat scores, top 25% of Species at Risk (SAR) scores, and/or top 25% of relevant migratory bird scores. High value forest, grassland and wetland were derived by combining landscape, Species at Risk (SAR) and migratory bird elements (see Table 1). Overall habitat scores were assigned to each study unit based on the combined scores for each forest, grassland and wetland. These overall habitat scores were divided into quartiles, and the top 25% of each total score (overall forest, overall grassland and overall wetland) are considered to be potential high conservation value. Similarly, SAR scores were assigned for each study unit, totalled and broken into quartiles. The top 25% of SAR scores that intersect each of forest, grassland and wetland are considered to be the highest quality habitats important to SAR and have potential high conservation value. Finally, relevant migratory bird scores were totalled within each study unit, divided into quartiles and the top 25% of migratory bird scores that intersect each of forest, grassland and wetland are considered to be the highest quality habitats important to migratory birds and have potential high conservation value. Study units with a PHCV greater than 0 (i.e., contains at least 1 of the possible 3 potential high conservation values) were aggregated together by 750 m to create High Value Habitats. High value biodiversity areas (HVBAs) are those study units that contain multiple high value habitats (high value forest and/or high value grassland and/or high value wetland). High value biodiversity areas (HVBA) were derived by aggregating high value forest, grassland and wetland. Study units with a potential high conservation value greater than 1 were aggregated together by 750 m. Biodiversity sites are areas greater than 20 ha, and secondary biodiversity sites are areas less than 20 ha in area.

The Canadian Wildlife Service - Ontario Region Biodiversity Atlas represents the Canadian Wildlife Service biodiversity portfolio across the Ontario portions of the Boreal Hardwood Shield (Bird Conservation Region 12) and Mixedwood Plains (Bird Conservation Region 13) ecozones. These data are the derived product from an extensive landscape assessment that assessed the Canadian Wildlife Service biodiversity portfolio (Species at Risk, migratory birds, habitat) at various resolutions. Biodiversity is mapped by forest, grassland (open country) and wetland quality and quantity, and then progressively combined to identify local High Value Biodiversity Areas. At the finest resolution, scores were applied to each unit of analysis (5 hectare hexagon in Bird Conservation Region 12; 2 hectare hexagon in Bird Conservation Region 13), based on over 30 criteria for landscape habitat condition, Species at Risk and migratory birds. Habitat condition scores were derived from guidance in Environment and Climate Change Canada's existing How Much Habitat is Enough? and in Bird Conservation Region 12, where the landscape is less fragmented, habitat was also based on draft guidance in How Much Disturbance is too Much? Individual scores were summed and various combinations (e.g. top 25% of forest scores + top 25% of Species at Risk (SAR) scores) were calculated to identify areas with multiple conservation value. For each habitat type (forest, grassland and wetland), study units with more than one conservation value were aggregated into High Value Habitat which were subsequently aggregated into High Value Biodiversity Areas (HVBA). The results are areas on the landscape that have high value from a Canadian Wildlife Service specific lens; that is, they are high quality habitats that are important for Species at Risk and/or migratory birds. High value habitats are those forests, grasslands and wetlands with potential high conservation value (PHCV). They contain at least 1 of a possible 3 potential high conservation values: top 25% of overall habitat scores, top 25% of Species at Risk (SAR) scores, and/or top 25% of relevant migratory bird scores. High value forest, grassland and wetland were derived by combining landscape, Species at Risk (SAR) and migratory bird elements (see Table 1). Overall habitat scores were assigned to each study unit based on the combined scores for each forest, grassland and wetland. These overall habitat scores were divided into quartiles, and the top 25% of each total score (overall forest, overall grassland and overall wetland) are considered to be potential high conservation value. Similarly, SAR scores were assigned for each study unit, totalled and broken into quartiles. The top 25% of SAR scores that intersect each of forest, grassland and wetland are considered to be the highest quality habitats important to SAR and have potential high conservation value. Finally, relevant migratory bird scores were totalled within each study unit, divided into quartiles and the top 25% of migratory bird scores that intersect each of forest, grassland and wetland are considered to be the highest quality habitats important to migratory birds and have potential high conservation value. Study units with a PHCV greater than 0 (i.e., contains at least 1 of the possible 3 potential high conservation values) were aggregated together by 750 m to create High Value Habitats. High value biodiversity areas (HVBAs) are those study units that contain multiple high value habitats (high value forest and/or high value grassland and/or high value wetland). High value biodiversity areas (HVBA) were derived by aggregating high value forest, grassland and wetland. Study units with a potential high conservation value greater than 1 were aggregated together by 750 m. Biodiversity sites are areas greater than 20 ha, and secondary biodiversity sites are areas less than 20 ha in area.

A mineral restriction is in place to limit and define mineral exploration and development within the Alberta government's mandate to protect natural or historical sites and to manage mineral resources. Examples of mineral restrictions include Bird Sanctuary, Provincial Park, and Coal Mine Licence Area. Restriction types with different levels of surface access are the result of government policy and all are mineral or substance specific.

Distribution of dabbling duck species habitat 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. 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.