This dataset provides marine bacteriological water quality data for bivalve shellfish harvest areas in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Shellfish harvest area water temperature and salinity data are also provided as adjuncts to the interpretation of fecal coliform density data. The latter is the indicator of fecal matter contamination monitored annually by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) within the framework of the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program (CSSP). The geospatial positions of the sampling sites are also provided. These data are collected by ECCC for the purpose of making recommendations on the classification of shellfish harvest area waters. ECCC recommendations are reviewed and adopted by Regional Interdepartmental Shellfish Committees prior to regulatory implementation by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). This dataset is 'Deprecated'. Please use updated source here. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/6417332a-7f37-49bd-8be9-ce0402deed2a

The water level data comes from the groundwater monitoring network of Quebec (Canadian province). Each well in the observation network is equipped with a hydrostatic pressure transducer and a temperature sensor connected to a data logger. A second pressure transducer located above the water surface allows for adjusting the water level according to atmospheric pressure variations. The time series refers to the level below which the soil is saturated with water at the site and at the time indicated. The water level is expressed in meters above sea level (MASL). The dataset consists of a general description of the observation site including; the identifier, the name, the location, the elevation and a series of numerical values designating the water levels at a defined date and time of measurement.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has conducted a cumulative human impact mapping analysis for Pacific Canada to support ongoing Marine Spatial Planning. Cumulative impact mapping (CIM) combines spatial information on human activities, habitats, and a matrix of vulnerability weights into an intuitive relative ‘cumulative impact score’ that shows where cumulative human impacts are greatest and least. To map cumulative impacts, a recently developed ecosystem vulnerability assessment for Pacific Canadian waters (Murray et al. 2022) was combined with spatial information on thirty-eight (38) different habitat types and forty-five (45) human activities following the methodology from Halpern et al.(2008) and Murray et al. (2015). The cumulative impact map is provided in a 1x1 km grid used for oceans management by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. For further information, please contact the data provider.

A revised qualitative assessment of the hydrocarbon resource potential is presented for the Hudson Bay sedimentary basin that underlies Hudson Bay and adjacent onshore areas of Ontario, Manitoba, and Nunavut. The Hudson Basin is a large intracratonic sedimentary basin thatpreserves dominantly Ordovician to Devonian aged limestone and evaporite strata. Maximum preserved sediment thickness is about 2.5 km. Source rock is the petroleum system element that has the lowest chance of success; the potential source rock is thin, may be discontinuous, and the thin sedimentarycover may not have been sufficient to achieve the temperatures required to generate and expel oil from a source rock over much of the basin. The highest potential is in the center of the basin, where the hydrocarbon potential is considered amp;lt;'Mediumamp;gt;'. Hydrocarbon potential decreasestowards the edges of the basin due to fewer plays being present, and thinner strata reduce the chance of oil generation and expulsion. Quantitative hydrocarbon assessment considers seven plays. Input parameters for field size and field density (per unit area) are based on analog Michigan, Williston,and Illinois intracratonic sedimentary basins that are about the same age and that had similar depositional settings to Hudson Basin. Basin-wide play and local prospect chances of success were assigned based on local geological conditions in Hudson Bay. Each of the seven plays were analyzed in Roseand Associates PlayRA software, which performs a Monte Carlo simulation using the local chance of success matrix and field size and prospect numbers estimated from analog basins. Hudson sedimentary basin has a mean estimate of 67.3 million recoverable barrels of oil equivalent and a 10% chance ofhaving 202.2 or more million barrels of recoverable oil equivalent. The mean chance for the largest expected pool is about 15 million recoverable barrels of oil equivalent (MMBOE), and there is only a 10% chance of there being a field larger than 23.2 MMBOE recoverable. The small expected fieldsizes are based on the large analog data set from Michigan, Williston and Illinois basins, and are due to the geological conditions that create the traps. The small size of the largest expected field, the low chance of exploration success, and the small overall resource make it unlikely that there are any economically recoverable hydrocarbons in the Hudson Basin in the foreseeable future. The Southampton Island area of interest includes 93 087 km2 of nearshore waters around Southampton Island and Chesterfield Inlet in the Kivalliq Region of Nunavut. Of the total resource estimated for Hudson Bay, 14 million barrels are apportioned to the Southampton Island Area of Interest.

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. 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 displays the geographic area covered by each of the 12 Priority Places using the best available information from the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). Boundary information for each Priority Place was provided by its respective CWS regional office. The federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, has agreed to the implementation of the Pan-Canadian Approach to Transforming Species at Risk Conservation in Canada. This new approach shifts from a single-species approach to conservation to one that focuses on multiple species and ecosystems. This enables conservation partners to work together to achieve better outcomes for species at risk. These 12 Priority Places are complemented by a suite of Community-Nominated Priority Places (CNPP), identified through an open call for applications.

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.

This dataset provides marine bacteriological water quality data for bivalve shellfish harvest areas in Canada (British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec). Shellfish harvest area water temperature and salinity data are also provided as adjuncts to the interpretation of fecal coliform concentration data. The latter is the indicator of fecal contamination monitored by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) within the framework of the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program (CSSP). The geospatial positions of the sampling sites are also provided. These data are collected by ECCC for the purpose of making recommendations on the classification of shellfish harvest area waters. ECCC recommendations are reviewed and adopted by Regional Interdepartmental Shellfish Committees prior to regulatory implementation by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).

Fetch is a proxy for wind-wave action and exposure. Estimates of fetch over a total of 39,938 km of the BC coastline were calculated at 50 m intervals, yielding 799,220 near shore fetch points. Fetch was calculated for five regions in Pacific Canada: Haida Gwaii (HG), North and Central Coast (NCC), Queen Charlotte and Johnstone Straits (QCS), Salish Sea (SoG), and West Coast Vancouver Island (WCVI). For all regions, a bearing interval of 5 degrees was used to generate fetch lines for each point along the shoreline, resulting in 72 fetch lines per point. A maximum fetch distance of 200 km was used to ensure the barrier effect of Haida Gwaii was captured. Supplementary information provided includes the fetch geometry calculator script and user guide (Gregr 2014) and a report on the fetch processing objectives, process, and results (Gregr 2015).

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.