This data depicts the locations of Short Rotation Woody Crop (SRWC) research, development and demonstration sites established across Canada by the Canadian Wood Fibre Centre, its partners and/or private land owners. Short Rotation Woody Crops represent enormous potential with respect to future sources of bioenergy and/or sinks for carbon. Since 2002, the Silviculture Innovation Group of the Canadian Wood Fibre Centre has established over 1 000 hectares of "high yield afforestation", “mixedwood afforestation” and "concentrated woody biomass" SRWC systems across Canada. The refinement of the biological and operational components of these systems is ongoing to improve production efficiencies, reduce costs, and enhance site sustainability. Development, assessment and validation of value-chain options for the establishment, recovery, transportation, handling and conditioning phases of these short rotation woody feedstock systems is also being performed. The refinement and demonstration of operational logistics along with the identification of supply and value-chain options will promote the concept of SRWC from basic research and development to the point of commercial uptake.

Eldissvæði er svæði sem úthlutað er rekstarleyfishafa. Rekstrarleyfishafi hefur þá heimild til að hafa eldisbúnað til að ala fisk innan þess svæðis skv. skilyrðum rekstrarleyfisins.

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 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.

This dataset displays the geographic areas within which critical habitat for species at risk listed on Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) occurs in British Columbia. However, not all of the area within these boundaries is necessarily critical habitat. To precisely define what constitutes critical habitat for a particular species it is essential that this geo-spatial information be considered in conjunction with complementary information provided in a species’ recovery document. Recovery documents are available from the Species at Risk (SAR) Public Registry (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca). The recovery documents contain important information about the interpretation of the geo-spatial information, especially regarding the biological and environmental features (“biophysical attributes”) that complete the definition of a species’ critical habitat. Each species’ dataset is part of a larger collection of critical habitat data that is available for download. The collection includes both “final” and “proposed” critical habitat as it is depicted in the recovery documents. “Proposed” critical habitat depicted in proposed recovery documents has not been formally identified and is subject to change before it is posted as final. Despite the use of the term “final”, it is important to note that recovery documents (and therefore critical habitat) may be amended from time to time. Species are added as the data becomes ready, which may occur after the recovery document has been posted on the SAR Public Registry. You should always consider the SAR Public Registry as the main source for critical habitat information. In cases where the data is sensitive (e.g. species noted in the List of Species and Ecosystems Susceptible to Persecution or Harm that are managed by the Province of British Columbia), the geographic area within which critical habitat occurs may be represented as “grid squares”. These are coarse (1, 10, 50 or 100 km2) squares based on a UTM grid that serve as a flag to review the associated species’ recovery document. To reiterate, not all of the area within these boundaries is necessarily critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined in the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) as “the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in the recovery strategy or action plan for the species”. Critical habitat identification alone is not an automatic “protection” designation. Federal or non-federal laws or bylaws may be in place to provide protection.