A Priority Place is an area of high biodiversity value that is seen as a distinct place with a common ecological theme by the people who live and work there. As part of the Pan-Canadian approach to transforming species at risk conservation in Canada, a total of 11 Priority Places were affirmed by federal, provincial, and territorial governments in December 2018. One additional priority place was affirmed in 2024. The places selected have significant biodiversity, concentrations of species at risk, and opportunities to advance conservation efforts. In each Priority Place, the federal and provincial or territorial governments are working with Indigenous Peoples, partners, and stakeholders to develop conservation implementation plans. This dataset captures a small sample of the projects that are underway in these Priority Places. Over time, it will be expanded to include more projects. Some projects span various areas of a Priority Place but are reflected in this dataset as a single center point. This dataset is not to be used for legal purposes.

This dataset contains results from an eelgrass classification for Tracadie 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 101 sites. Approximately two-thirds of these sites were used to assist in image classification, while the remainder was 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 79.3% 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 29 sites that were within the classification area, 18 were correct, 10 were "one-off", and 1 was incorrect [(18 + (10/2))/ 29 = 0.793].

As part of the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007'08 and 2008'09 activities, and related objectives of the Commission for the Geological Map of the World (CGMW), nations of the circumpolar Arctic have co-operated to produce a new bedrock geology map and related digital map database at a scale of 1:5 000 000. The map, released in north polar stereographic projection using the World Geodetic System (WGS) 84 datum, includes complete geological and physiographic coverage of all onshore and offshore bedrock areas north of latitude 60° north.

The Quebec—Saint-Lawrence River dataset is part of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Shoreline Classification and Pre-Spill database. Shoreline classification data has been developed for use by the Environmental Emergencies Program of Environment and Climate Change Canada for environmental protection purposes. Marine and freshwater shorelines are classified according to the character (substrate and form) of the upper intertidal (foreshore) or upper swash zone (Sergy, 2008). This is the area where oil from a spill usually becomes stranded and where the treatment or cleanup activities take place. The basic parameter that defines the shoreline type is the material that is present in the intertidal zone. The presence or absence of sediments is a key factor in determining whether oil is stranded on the surface of a substrate or can penetrate and/or be buried. This dataset contains thousands of linear shoreline segments ranging in length from 200 m and 2 km long. The entities represent the location of the segments and their geomorphological description. There exist further fields in the attribute table for this dataset. We are currently working on standardizing our shoreline segmentation datasets and the updated data will soon be uploaded to the catalog. Sergy, G. (2008). The Shoreline Classification Scheme for SCAT and Oil Spill Response in Canada. Proceedings of the 31stArctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar.Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Pp. 811-819.

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. Within this dataset are the results of eelgrass land-cover classifications using either satellite or aerial photography for seven harbours: Bouctouche (46 30’N, 64 39’W); Miscou (47.90 N, -64.55 W); Neguac (47.25 N, -65.03 W); Richibucto (46.70 N, -64.80 W); Saint-Simon (47.77 N, -64.76 W); Tracadie (47.55 N, -64.88 W); and Cocagne (46.370 N, -64.600 W). Information on each dataset is provided: 1. Bouctouche 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]. 2. Miscou 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). 3. Neguac 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 (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 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: 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 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]. 4. Richibucto Eelgrass classification in Richibucto Harbour, New Brunswick. Derived from a Quickbird satellite image collected on August 28, 2007 at as close to low-tide as possible. Quickbird's ground resolution is 2.4 m. Classification was objected-oriented using Definiens software. Accuracy was 81.5%. 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. 5. Saint-Simon An eelgrass distribution map was classified from remotely sensed imagery 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. 6. Tracadie This dataset contains results from an eelgrass classification for Tracadie 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 101 sites. Approximately two-thirds of these sites were used to assist in image classification, while the remainder was 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 79.3% 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 29 sites that were within the classification area, 18 were correct, 10 were "one-off", and 1 was incorrect [(18 + (10/2))/ 29 = 0.793]. 7. Cocagne Visible orthorectified aerial photography was used to classify polygons containing eelgrass in Cocagne Harbour. Field data for image training and validation were collected along transects in summer 2008 using a dGPS positioned towfish holding sidescan sonar and a video camera that was later transcribed as XY geographic points to describe eelgrass presence and a qualitative description of density. The area was flown for photography on September 24, 2008. eCognition Developer 8 software was used to segment the imagery, essentially polygons. Polygons were then classified manually for the presence of eelgrass. Using field data revealed eelgrass presence to be mapped correctly 87.2% of the time.

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 2010. The attached dataset comprises the second 5-year update (first one in 2015) bringing the data up to 2020. The original disturbance mapping was based on 30-metre resolution Landsat-5 imagery from 2008-2010. Since then, anthropogenic disturbances within 51 caribou ranges across Canada were remapped every five years to create a nationally consistent, reliable and repeatable geospatial dataset that followed a common methodology. The ranges were defined by individual provinces and territories across Canada. 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. 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 30-metre multi-band imagery at a viewing scale of 1:50,000. The same concept was followed for the 2015 and 2020 disturbance mapping and any additional disturbance features that were observed since the original mapping date, were added. The 2015 database was used as a starting point for the 2020 database. Unlike the previous iteration, features were not removed in the mapping process which was a decision made in the name of time. Interpretation was carried out based on the most recent cloud free imagery available up to mid fall for a given year. Each disturbance feature type was represented in the database by a line or polygon depending on their geometric description. Linear disturbances included: roads, railways, powerlines, seismic exploration lines, pipelines, dams, air strips, as well as unknown features. Polygonal disturbances included: cutblocks, harvest (added in 2020), mines, built-up areas, well sites, agriculture, oil and gas facilities, 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 clearly visible in the Landsat imagery at the prescribed viewing scale. In comparison to the previous mapping protocol, one enhancement to the mapping process in 2020 was the addition of CFS harvest polygons (Ref: NRCan-CFS NTEMS; Wulder 2020) into the database prior to interpretation. This considerably reduced the digitizing time for polygons and accelerated the data collection process. The CFS harvest polygons were checked before inclusion, removing some which had been generated erroneously in their process. A 2nd interpreter quality-control phase was carried out to ensure high quality, complete and consistent data collection. Subsequently, the vector data of individual linear and polygonal disturbances were buffered by a 500-metre radius, representing their extended zone of impact upon boreal caribou herds. Additionally, forest fire polygons for the past forty years (CNFDB 1981-2020) were merged into the buffered 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.

Hunting districts as presented in the Compendium of Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations: Quebec https://www.canada.ca/fr/environnement-changement-climatique/services/chasse-oiseaux-migrateurs-gibier/reglementation-resumes-provinciaux-territoriaux/quebec.html These boundaries are presented for information purposes only and have no legal value.

This dataset is part of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Shoreline Classification and Pre-Spill database. Shoreline classification data has been developed for use by the Environmental Emergencies Program of Environment and Climate Change Canada for environmental protection purposes. Marine and freshwater shorelines are classified according to the character (substrate and form) of the upper intertidal (foreshore) or upper swash zone (Sergy, 2008). This is the area where oil from a spill usually becomes stranded and where treatment or cleanup activities take place. The basic parameter that defines the shoreline type is the material that is present in the intertidal zone. The presence or absence of sediments is a key factor in determining whether oil is stranded on the surface of a substrate or can penetrate and/or be buried. This dataset contains thousands of linear shoreline segments ranging in length from 200 m and 2 km long. The entities represent the location of the segments and their geomorphological description. There exist further fields in the attribute table for this dataset. We are currently working on standardizing our shoreline segmentation datasets and the updated data will soon be uploaded to the catalog. Sergy, G. (2008). The Shoreline Classification Scheme for SCAT and Oil Spill Response in Canada. Proceedings of the 31stArctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar.Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Pp. 811-819.

Dataset of species/gear type commercial fisheries from 2014 to 2023 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 2014 to 2023 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 2014 to 2023 for the area, and may represent many fishing events from several vessels over the ten year period. All landings are from Canadian vessels 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.

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.