These datasets show the general spatial distribution of commercial fishing harvest and landed values by fishery on a 1km x 1km planning grid. They aggregate key statistics around fleet specific fishing activity and catch in British Columbia (BC) within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). These gridded data describe the annual average landed weight (Rounded KGs), and landed catch values (CAD $2016) of the subject fishery over the period. The data represented were created from logbook records and matched to prices from fish slips submitted to DFO by participants of BC’s commercial fishing fleets. The dataset is comprised of an aggregate of all species over 10, 9, or 5 years of fishing seasons, depending on the fishery. To preserve potentially proprietary information, a privacy filtering Rule of Five has been applied to each planning unit (each 1km x 1km planning unit). If any planning units do not meet this minimum of 5 unique vessels/unique identifiers during the time span then they are flagged as being filtered and an average of all filtered planning units is applied. The accompanying GeoDB contains two data layers, “all_fisheries_filtered_gridded “, which includes all of the commercial fisheries data in 1km x 1km grids, and “DFO_marine_bioregions_NSB_subregions”, which includes polygon feature boundaries for the federal marine bioregions and Northern Shelf bioregion sub-regions. This dataset contains data for the following fisheries: - Bottom trawl (2012-2016) - Midwater trawl (2012-2016) - Shrimp by trawl (2007-2016) - Prawn trap (2007-2016) - Rockfish (2012-2016) - Sablefish (2007-2016) - Halibut (2007-2016) - Combo trips - halibut/sablefish (2007-2016) - Lingcod (2007-2016) - Green sea urchin (2006-2015) - Red sea urchin (2007-2015) - Sea cucumber (2008-2016) - Geoduck (2007-2015)

The atlas provides printable maps, Web Services and downloadable data files representing seabirds at-sea densities in eastern Canada. The information provided on the open data web site can be used to identify areas where seabirds at sea are found in eastern Canada. However, low survey effort or high variation in some areas introduces uncertainty in the density estimates provided. The data and maps found on the open data web site should therefore be interpreted with an understanding of this uncertainty. Data were collected using ships of opportunity surveys and therefore spatial and seasonal coverage varies considerably. Densities are computed using distance sampling to adjust for variation in detection rates among observers and survey conditions. Depending on conditions, seabirds can be difficult to identify to species level. Therefore, densities at higher taxonomic levels are provided. more details in the document: Atlas_SeabirdsAtSea-OiseauxMarinsEnMer.pdf. By clicking on "View on Map" you will visualize a example of the density measured for all species combined from April to July - 2006-2020. ESRI REST or WMS map services can be added to your web maps or opened directly in your desktop mapping applications. These are alternatives to downloading and provide densities for all taxonomical groups and species as well as survey effort.

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.

In 2021, the Canada Coast Guard (CCG) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada updated its administrative boundaries following the creation a new Arctic region. There are now 4 administrative regions in CCG (Western, Arctic, Central and Atlantic). DFO and Coast Guard Arctic Regions developed these regions in partnership with the people they serve; this important decision will lead to stronger programs and services to better meet the unique needs of our Arctic communities. DFO and CCG operations and research cover Canada's land and waters to the international boundaries (EEZ) and are in no way limited to the boundaries drawn in the map.

Cartographic representations of Fisheries Management Areas (FMA)s in the Atlantic and Arctic Regions. Currently Published Fisheries Management Areas: Capelin Crab Herring Mackerel Salmon, Atlantic Scallop Shrimp Snow Crab Squid Each polygon feature class delineates the coordinates of a different series of FMAs. Shapes have been drafted based on a combination of sources including: the Atlantic Fisheries Regulations, Integrated Fisheries Management Plans, indigenous treaties, the bounds of the Territorial Sea, and other information made public on Fisheries and Oceans websites. Information from Variation orders and Conditions of License were also incorporated. The specific sources used to construct each feature class is listed in its metadata and direct links to public sources are included. The original documentation uses a diverse combination datums, or include coordinates with no listed datum. This data series has been projected into NAD83. Vertices in this dataset may differ from the original source documents to fix slivers, make areas congruent with coastlines, or align with other administrative boundaries. Changes made to the original areas in order to make drafting possible have been highlighted in the comments field in the attribute tables. Lines were first drafted as geodesics and vertices were added to approximate loxodromes using the Construct Geodesic Tool in ArcGIS Pro 2.9.8. As documentation is drafted, additional FMAs will be added to the dataset. Currently drafted FMAs my change and expand into currently unmapped areas as new information is incorporated. The feature classes produced as a part of this data series are cartographic representations of legal documents and are meant to be used for general reference in support of marine planning. Whenever there is a difference between the original written source documentation and this digital representation, the originals should be considered authoritative. Every effort has been made to ensure that these files are as accurate as possible but these feature classes are not intended to be used for navigation, legal interpretation or enforcement.

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.

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.

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 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 action implementation plans. Using a defined planning approach (such as the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation), these implementation plans identify key actions to address the greatest threats to species. Conservation implementation plans provide the foundation for collaborative action on the ground. 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. To learn more about the Priority Places initiative and the work undertaken by our partners to recover Species at Risk within these Priority Places, please visit our interactive website https://environmental-maps.canada.ca/CWS_Storylines/index-ca-en.html#/en/priority_places-lieux_prioritaires