Proxied dataset of inshore lobster commercial fishing for 2012 - 2021 in the Newfoundland and Labrador region. Only lobster harvested from the Newfoundland and Labrador region are included, based on species sought. Commercial data for the inshore lobster fishery does not require a set of coordinates be provided for catch records. With zero georeferenced inshore lobster records, the inshore lobster fishery leaves a major data gap in one of Newfoundland and Labradors largest fisheries. The Gulf region created a lobster proxy mapping tool, which associated each commercial lobster record with the most likely 10km2 hexagon grid cell based on a number of weighted variables. The tool was adopted by the Newfoundland and Labrador region and altered to work with its own variables which include human use, habitat, accessibility, area/location, home port distance, traditional ecological knowledge and depth. Each hexagon represents the summed total weight of all records associated with a particular hexagon. The best available commercial data used in this model is derived from landings data and may not include catches that have resulted in cash/wharf sales. As a result, there are some areas of Newfoundland and Labrador that may be under represented in this dataset where wharf sales may be high. Therefore, this dataset should be viewed as a general estimation on lobster harvesting patterns within Newfoundland and Labrador.

This dataset contains results from an eelgrass classification in Shippagan Harbour, New Brunswick. Derived from a Quickbird satellite image collected on July 27, 2007 at as close to low-tide as possible. Classification was objected-oriented using Definiens software. Data used for accuracy and training was collected along transects using a differential GPS positioned towfish holding sidescan sonar, and a video camera that was later transcribed as XY points to describe eel-grass presence.

As part of a scientific assessment of critical habitat for boreal woodland caribou (Environment Canada 2011, see full reference in accompanying documentation), Environment Canada's Landscape Science and Technology Division was tasked with providing detailed anthropogenic disturbance mapping, across known caribou ranges, as of 2015. This data comprises a 5-year update to the mapping of 2008-2010 disturbances, and allows researchers to better understand the attributes that have a known effect on caribou population persistence. The original disturbance mapping was based on 30-metre resolution Landsat-5 imagery from 2008 -2010. The mapping process used in 2010 was repeated using 2015 Landsat imagery to create a nationally consistent, reliable and repeatable geospatial dataset that followed a common methodology. The methods developed were focused on mapping disturbances at a specific point of time, and were not designed to identify the age of disturbances, which can be of particular interest for disturbances that can be considered non-permanent, for example cutblocks. The resultant datasets were used for a caribou resource selection function (habitat modeling) and to assess overall disturbance levels on each caribou ranges. Anthropogenic disturbances within 51 caribou ranges across Canada were mapped. The ranges were defined by individual provinces and territories across Canada. Disturbances were remapped across these ranges using 2015 Landsat-8 satellite imagery to provide the most up-to-date data possible. As with the 2010 mapping project, anthropogenic disturbance was defined as any human-caused disturbance to the natural landscape that could be visually identified from Landsat imagery with 30-metre multi-band imagery at a viewing scale of 1:50,000. A minimum mapping unit MMU of 2 ha (approximately 22 contiguous 30-metre pixels) was selected. Each disturbance feature type was represented in the database by a line or polygon depending on their geometric description. Polygonal disturbances included: cutblocks, mines, reservoirs, built-up areas, well sites, agriculture, oil and gas facilities, as well as unknown features. Linear disturbances included: roads, railways, powerlines, seismic exploration lines, pipelines, dams, air strips, as well as unknown features. For each type of anthropogenic disturbance, a clear description was established (see Appendix 7.2 of the science assessment) to maintain consistency in identifying the various disturbances in the imagery by the different interpreters. Features were only digitized if they were visible in the Landsat imagery at the prescribed viewing scale. A 2nd interpreter quality-control phase was carried out to ensure high quality, complete and consistent data collection. For this 2015 update an additional, separate higher-resolution database was created by repeating the process using 15-metre panchromatic imagery. For the 30-metre database only, the line and poly data were buffered by a 500-metre radius, representing their extended zone of impact upon boreal caribou herds. Additionally, forest fire polygons were merged into the anthropogenic footprint in order to create an overall disturbance footprint. These buffered datasets were used in the calculation of range disturbance levels and for integrated risk assessment analysis.

It has long been understood that eelgrass (Zostera marina) is important to waterfowl such as Atlantic Brant (Branta bernicla hrota), Canada Goose (Branta canadensis), American Black Duck (Anas rubripes), Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) and Barrow's Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica). In New Brunswick, eelgrass can be found along the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in protected harbours such as at Neguac Bay, in the province's northeast (47015’N, 65002’W).This dataset contains results from an eelgrass classification for Neguac Bay, New Brunswick. True colour aerial photography at 57 centimetre resolution was collected on September 2, 2009 by Nortek Resources of Thorburn, Nova Scotia (https://www.nortekresources.com/). Image classification was conducted using eCognition Developer v. 8 Software, which first segments the image into spectrally similar units, which were then classified manually. Additionally, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Gulf Region, Moncton, NB) conducted a visual field survey in the same field season at 126 sites. Two-thirds of these sites were used to assist in image classification, while the remainder were used to assess accuracy. Three classes were identified:Good Quality Eelgrass: relatively dense, clean, green blades with minimal epiphytes or algal growth. Medium Quality Eelgrass: predominately green blades that may have some epiphyte or algal growth. These stands can be less or equally dense as Good Quality Eelgrass, but the best grasses are certainly not as abundant. Eelgrass Absent/Poor Quality: eelgrass is absent, or if it is present it is typically covered with epiphytes or other algae or dying or dead. Eelgrass was classified correctly 81% of the time in a fuzzy accuracy assessment technique, whereby those classes that were ‘off’ by one class, e.g. Good Quality eelgrass classed as Medium Quality, were given half credit towards the overall accuracy. Of 39 sites that were within the classification area, 27 were correct, 9 were "one-off", and 3 were incorrect [(27 + (9/2))/ 39 = 0.81].

This dataset contains results from an eelgrass classification for Bouctouche Bay, New Brunswick. True colour aerial photography at 57 centimetre resolution was collected on September 2, 2009 by Nortek Resources of Thorburn, Nova Scotia (http://www.nortekresources.com/). Image classification was conducted using eCognition Developer v. 8 Software, which first segments the image into spectrally similar units, which were then classified manually. Additionally, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Gulf Region, Moncton, NB) conducted a visual field survey in the same field season at 688 sites. Two-thirds of these sites were used to assist in image classification, while the remainder were used to assess accuracy. Three classes were identified: i. Good Quality Eelgrass: relatively dense, clean, green blades with minimal epiphytes or algal growth. ii. Medium Quality Eelgrass: predominately green blades that may have some epiphyte or algal growth. These stands can be less or equally dense as Good Quality Eelgrass, but the best grasses are certainly not as abundant. iii. Eelgrass Absent/Poor Quality: eelgrass is absent, or if it is present it is typically covered with epiphytes or other algae or dying or dead. Eelgrass was classified correctly 83.7% of the time in a fuzzy accuracy assessment technique, whereby those classes that were ‘off’ by one class, e.g. Good Quality eelgrass classed as Medium Quality, were given half credit towards the overall accuracy. Of 187 sites that were within the classification area, 131 were correct, 51 were "one-off", and 5 were incorrect [(131 + (51/2))/ 187 = 0.837].

This dataset provides geospatial polygon boundaries for marine bivalve shellfish harvest area classification in British Columbia, Canada. These data represent the five classification categories of marine bivalve shellfish harvest areas (Approved; Conditionally Approved; Restricted; Conditionally Restricted; and Prohibited) under the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program (CSSP). Data are collected by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) for the purpose of making applicable classification recommendations on the basis of sanitary and water quality survey results. ECCC recommendations are reviewed and adopted by Regional Interdepartmental Shellfish Committees prior to regulatory implementation by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). These geographic data are for illustrative purposes only; they show shellfish harvest area classifications when in Open Status. The classification may be superseded at any time by regulatory orders issued by DFO, which place areas in Closed Status, due to conditions such as sewage overflows or elevated biotoxin levels. For further information about the current status and boundary coordinates for areas under Prohibition Order, please contact your local DFO office. This dataset is 'Deprecated'. Please use updated source here. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/7aef69b5-3aaf-4d50-bb86-083031e6dc47

Description: Data on recreational boating are needed for marine spatial planning initiatives in British Columbia (BC). Vessel traffic data are typically obtained by analyzing automatic identification system (AIS) vessel tracking data, but recreational vessels are often omitted or underrepresented in AIS data because they are not required to carry AIS tracking devices. Transport Canada’s National Aerial Surveillance Program (NASP) conducted aerial surveys to collect information on recreational vessels along several sections of the BC coast between 2018 and 2022. Recreational vessel sightings were modeled against predictor variables (e.g., distance to shore, water depth, distance to, and density of marinas) to predict the number of recreational vessels along coastal waters of BC. The files included here are: --A Geodatabase (‘Recreational_Boating_Data_Model’), which includes: (1) recreational vessel sightings data collected by NASP in BC and used in the recreational vessel traffic model (‘Recreational_Vessels_PointData_BC’); (2) aerial survey effort (or number of aerial surveys) raster dataset (‘surveyeffort’); and (3) a vector grid dataset (2.5 km resolution) containing the predicted number of recreational vessels per cell and predictor variables (‘Recreational_Boating_Model_Results_BC). --Scripts folder which includes R Markdown file with R code to run the modelling analysis (‘Recreational_Boating_Model_R_Script’) and data used to run the code. Methods: Data on recreational vessels were collected by NASP during planned aerial surveys along pre-determined routes along the BC coast from 2018 to 2022. Data on non-AIS recreational vessels were collected using video cameras onboard the aircraft, and data on AIS recreational vessels using an AIS receiver also onboard the aircraft. Recreational boating predictors explored were: water depth, distance to shore, distance to marinas, density of marinas, latitude, and longitude. Recreational vessel traffic models were fitted using Generalized Linear Models (GLM) R packages and libraries used here include: AED (Roman Lustrik, 2021) and MASS (Venables, W. N., Ripley, 2002), pscl package (Zeileis, Kleiber, and Jackman, 2008) for zeroinfl() and hurdle() function. Final model was selected based on the Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) and the Bayes’ information criterion (BIC). An R Markdown file with code use to run this analysis is included in the data package in a folder called Script. Spatial Predictive Model: The selected model, ZINB, consist of two parts: one with a binomial process that predicts the probability of encountering a recreational vessel, and a second part that predicts the number of recreational vessels via a count model. The closer to shore and to marinas, and the higher the density of marinas, the higher the predicted number of recreational vessels. The probability of encountering recreational vessels is driven by water depth and distance to shore. For more information on methodology, consult metadata pdf available with the Open Data record. References: Serra-Sogas, N. et al. 2021. Using aerial surveys to fill gaps in AIS vessel traffic data to inform threat assessments, vessel management and planning. Marine Policy 133: 104765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104765 Data Sources: Recreational vessel sightings and survey effort: Data collected by NASP and analyzed by Norma Serra to extract vessel information and survey effort (more information on how this data was analyzed see SerraSogas et al, 2021). Bathymetry data for the whole BC coast and only waters within the Canadian EEZ was provided by DFO – Science (Selina Agbayani). The data layer was presented as a raster file of 100 meters resolution. Coastline dataset used to estimate distance to shore and to clip grid was provided by DFO – Science (Selina Agbayani), created by David Williams and Yuriko Hashimoto (DFO – Oceans). Marinas dataset was provided by DFO – Science (Selina Agbayani), created by Josie Iacarella (DFO – Science). This dataset includes large and medium size marinas and fishing lodges. The data can be downloaded from here: Floating Structures in the Pacific Northwest - Open Government Portal (https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/049770ef-6cb3-44ee-afc8-5d77d6200a12) Uncertainties: Model results are based on recreational vessels sighted by NASP and their related predictor variables and not always might reflect real-world vessel distributions. Any biases caused by the opportunistic nature of the NASP surveys were minimized by using survey effort as an offset variable.

This is a point layer of the names and locations of the actively used commercial shipping anchorages in British Columbia. These point locations were manually compiled from available port guides and documents. The objective of this dataset is to provide a consolidated file containing all active commercial shipping anchorage locations as there has been a lack of consistency between different sources due to variations in names and locations in different datasets and historical changes to anchorage locations.

Dataset of species/gear type commercial fisheries from 2012 to 2021 in the Eastern Canada Regions. Only fish harvested from the NL, Maritimes, Gulf, Quebec and Eastern Arctic regions are included (Species Sought). The data was obtained from Statistical Services, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and consists of commercial species/gear type landings data from 2012 to 2021 taken from Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Subareas 0, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and fished in the NL, Maritimes, Gulf, Quebec and Eastern Arctic regions. The layer was created by overlaying a 2 minute hexagonal grid (approx. 10km2 cell) on species/gear type commercial fisheries point data and summing the total landings by weight reported for each cell over the ten year period. Therefore, the value of each grid cell is equal to the total species/gear type landings in kg from 2012 to 2021 for the area, and may represent many fishing events from several vessels over the ten year period. All landings are from Canadian vessels greater than 35-ft, and does not include information pertaining to international fishing vessels (i.e., St. Pierre). Individuals should exercise caution when interpreting this data. Data has not been altered and is mapped from the original logbook entry for each record prior to amalgamation. Data may contain errors such as inaccurate or nonviable coordinates, landed weights and/or species identification. For example, cases of fishing events reported in a NAFO Division with corresponding coordinates falling outside that particular NAFO Division or fishing events which appear to be located on a land mass due to rounding errors in the original entries. Such cases were excluded from the dataset. Only one location is given for each fishing event; therefore, a fishing activity that would normally cover a large area (i.e., trawling) is only shown in a single location. Some species may not include all records or locations where activity is taking place due to regional differences in permissions for mapping, or because the fishery is only partially georeferenced (e.g. Lobster). The locations/areas shown should only be used as an estimation of fishing intensity and a general guide of where particular species/gear type fishing occurs. This dataset has been privacy screened to comply with the Government of Canada's privacy policy. Privacy assessments were conducted to identify NAFO unit areas containing data with less than five vessel IDs, license IDs and fisher IDs. If this threshold was not met, catch weight locations have been withheld from these statistical areas to protect the identity or activity of individual vessels or companies. In some instances, permissions were obtained to map species or gears with a limited number of vessels, licenses, or fisher ids. The withheld areas are indicated by the unit area that has been removed and given a weight of -9999.

True colour aerial photography at 57 centimetre resolution was collected on August 20th and 24th, 2009 by Nortek Resources of Thorburn, Nova Scotia (http://www.nortekresources.com/). Image classification was conducted using eCognition Developer v. 8 Software, which first segments the image into spectrally similar units, which were then classified manually. Additionally, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Gulf Region, Moncton, NB) conducted a visual field survey in the same field season at 103 sites. From these sites 70% were used to assist in image classification, while the remainder were used to assess accuracy. Three classes were identified: i. Good Quality Eelgrass: relatively dense, clean, green blades with minimal epiphytes or algal growth. ii. Medium Quality Eelgrass: predominately green blades that may have some epiphyte or algal growth. These stands can be less or equally dense as Good Quality Eelgrass, but the best grasses are certainly not as abundant. iii. Eelgrass Absent/Poor Quality: eelgrass is absent, or if it is present it is typically covered with epiphytes or other algae or dying or dead. Eelgrass was classified correctly 96.7% of the time (30/31 = 0.967).