The water level data comes from the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN) of Ontario. 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). Groundwater levels are recorded hourly. 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.

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.

This data is intended to identify Canadian fresh waters which require additional measures (e.g., ballast water exchange and treatment) prior to release, as described in https://tc.canada.ca/en/marine-transportation/marine-safety/list-canada-s-designated-alternate-ballast-water-exchange-area-fresh-waters-tp-13617e-2021. The data is not intended for navigation purposes. According to Canada’s Ballast Water Regulations, vessels which are managing ballast water to meet the ballast water performance standard cannot release ballast water into fresh waters unless that ballast water was first exchanged in accordance with the ballast water exchange standard. For the purpose of this requirement, Canadian fresh waters are the following: - the waters at the Port of Kitimat and waters in or upstream of the Kitimat Arm, east of a line between Hilton Point and Steel Point; - the waters at the Port of Stewart and waters in or upstream of the Portland Canal, north of a line between Portland Point and Ramsden Point; - the waters of all Fraser River ports that are: -- east of Tilbury Island in the main arm of the Fraser River including Annacis Island and New Westminster docking areas; and -- east of the eastern tip of Mitchell Island in the north arm of Fraser River; - the waters of the Saguenay River ports and waters upstream of L’Anse-Creuse; - the waters of all St. Lawrence River ports and waters west of the east point of Ile d’Orléans including the port of Quebec City; - all Canadian waters of the Great Lakes Basin; and - the waters of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and waters of Lake Melville west of Rabbit Island. Legal Constraints: Users should be aware that the polygons depicting areas requiring additional measures to manage ballast water are intended for illustration only and should not be used for navigational or legal purposes.

This data is intended to identify Canadian Alternate Exchange Areas described in https://tc.canada.ca/en/marine-transportation/marine-safety/list-canada-s-designated-alternate-ballast-water-exchange-area-fresh-waters-tp-13617e-2021. The data is not intended for navigation purposes. According to Canada’s Ballast Water Regulations, if your vessel enters waters under Canadian jurisdiction from somewhere other than the U.S. waters within the Great Lakes Basin, and it cannot conduct a ballast water exchange in the areas set out in paragraphs 14(1)(a) and (b) of the regulations, then it will have to conduct a ballast water exchange in one of the areas listed below: -Gulf of St. Lawrence -Atlantic Canada-Western Canada -Canadian Eastern Arctic -Canadian Western Arctic: If you bring your vessel to a Canadian port, offshore terminal or anchorage area in the Western Arctic ballast water must be exchanged in an area as far away from shore as possible, where the water is more than 100 meters deep. Legal Constraints: Users should be aware that the polygons depicting ballast water exchange areas are intended for illustration only and should not be used for navigational or legal purposes.

GIS compilation of data used to perform the stacked cumulative chance of success (resource potential map) in Open file 9163. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) has been tasked, under the Marine Conservation Targets (MCT) initiative announced in Budget 2016, with evaluating the petroleum resource potential for areas identified for possible protection as part of the Government of Canada's commitment to conserve 10% of its marine areas by 2020. As part of this initiative, NRCan's Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) conducted a broad regional study of the petroleum potential over the majority of the Magdalen Basin, which is the principal geological basin in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. The GSC resource assessment is visually represented by a qualitative petroleum potential map. Disclaimer: A simplified colored version of the map is displayed on the Web Mapping Service (WMS). The correct version is available for download through the Federal Geospatial Platform (FGP) and GEOSCAN.

The water level data comes from the groundwater monitoring network of Yukon (Canadian territory). 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.

This dataset provides geospatial polygon boundaries for marine bivalve shellfish harvest area classification in Quebec, 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

The water level data comes from the groundwater monitoring network of Nova Scotia (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.

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.