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.

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].

An eelgrass distribution map was classified from remotely sensed imagery in Richibucto Harbour, New Brunswick. Derived from a Quickbird satellite image collected on August 28th, 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.

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.

The map displays bedrock formations at or near the surface of the land, on the sea floor above the continental crust that forms the Canadian landmass, and oceanic crust surrounding the landmass. The bedrock units are grouped and coloured according to geological age and composition. The colours of offshore units and oceanic crust are paler and more generalized than those on land, although the constituent units offshore are still easily discernible from their dashed boundaries. This colour design, coupled with the use of a white buffer zone at the coast allows the coastline of Canada to be readily distinguished and still show the grand geological architecture of the Canadian landmass. The map also shows major faults that have disrupted the Earth's crust, onshore and offshore, and a variety of special geological features such as kimberlite pipes, which locally contain diamonds, impact structures suspected to have been caused by meteorites, and extinct and active spreading centres in the surrounding oceans.

This dataset provides marine bacteriological water quality data for bivalve shellfish harvest areas in New Brunswick, 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

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.

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.

The water level data comes from the groundwater monitoring network of British Columbia (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.