With the changing climate conditions, marine traffic along Canada’s coastal regions has increased over the past few decades and the need to improve our state of preparedness for oil-spill-related emergencies is critical. Baseline coastal information, such as shoreline form, substrate, and vegetation type, is required for prioritizing operations, coordinating onsite spill response activities (i.e., Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique [SCAT]), and providing information for wildlife and ecosystem management. Between 2011 and 2016, georeferenced high-definition videography and photos were collected for various study sites along the east coast. The study areas include Labrador, Bay of Fundy and Chedabucto Bay in Atlantic Canada. Data was collected during ice-free and low tide conditions (where applicable) between July and September. Low-altitude helicopter surveys were conducted at each study site to capture video of the shoreline characteristics. In addition to acquiring videography, ground-based observations were recorded in several locations for validation. Shoreline segmentation was then carried out by manual interpretation of the oblique videography and the photos aided by ancillary data. This involved splitting and classifying the shoreline vectors based on homogeneity of the upper intertidal zone. Detailed geomorphological information (i.e., shoreline type, substrate, slope, height, accessibility etc.) describing the upper intertidal, lower intertidal, supratidal and backshore zones was extracted from the video and entered into a geospatial database using a customized data collection form. In addition, biological characteristics like biobands, water features, fauna, human use etc. observed along the coast were recorded. The data was also validated through ground observations (when available) and a second interpreter QA (quality analysis) was performed on each dataset to ensure high quality and consistency. The final dataset contains segments ranging in length from 150 metres to 2500 metres. In total, from 2011 to 2016, within the 3 study sites, about 1,850 km of shoreline were mapped.

With the changing climate conditions, marine traffic along Canada’s coastal regions has increased over the past couple of decades and the need to improve our state of preparedness for oil-spill-related emergencies is critical. Baseline coastal information, such as shoreline form, substrate, and vegetation type, is required for prioritizing operations, coordinating onsite spill response activities (i.e. Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique [SCAT]), and providing information for wildlife and ecosystem management. Between 2010 and 2016, georeferenced high-definition videography and photos were collected for various study sites along the north coast of Canada. The study areas include Beaufort Sea, Mackenzie Delta channels and Banks Island in the western Canadian Arctic and James Bay, Hudson Bay, Nunavik, Resolute Bay, Victoria Strait, Baffin Island and Coronation Gulf in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Data was collected during ice-free and low tide conditions (where applicable) between July and September. Low-altitude helicopter surveys were conducted at each study site to capture video of the shoreline characteristics. In addition to acquiring videography, ground-based observations were recorded in several locations for validation. Shoreline segmentation was then carried out by manual interpretation of the oblique videography and the photos aided by ancillary data. This involved splitting and classifying the shoreline vectors based on homogeneity of the upper intertidal zone. Detailed geomorphological information (i.e. shoreline type, substrate, slope, height, accessibility etc.) describing the upper intertidal, lower intertidal, supratidal and backshore zones was extracted from the video and entered into a geospatial database using a customized data collection form. In addition, biological characteristics like biobands, water features, fauna, human use etc. observed along the coast were recorded. The data was also validated through ground observations (when available) and a second interpreter QA (quality analysis) was performed on each dataset (excluding Nunavik) to ensure high quality and consistency. The final dataset contains segments ranging in length from 150 metres to 2500 metres. In total, from 2010 to 2016, within the 8 study sites, about 16,800 km of shoreline were segmented.

With the changing climate conditions, marine traffic along Canada’s coastal regions has increased over the past couple of decades and the need to improve our state of preparedness for oil-spill-related emergencies is critical. Baseline coastal information, such as shoreline form, substrate, and vegetation type, is required for prioritizing operations, coordinating onsite spill response activities (i.e. Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique [SCAT]), and providing information for wildlife and ecosystem management. Between 2013 and 2019, georeferenced high-definition videography and photos were collected for various study sites along the west coast. The study areas include the mainland, inlets, channels and islands along the BC coast starting from Kitimat in the north to Quadra Island in the south, including Haida Gwaii and North Vancouver Island in the west and Burrard Inlet in the extreme south. Data was collected during low tide conditions (where applicable) between July and September. Low-altitude helicopter surveys were conducted at each of the study site to capture video of the shoreline characteristics. In addition to acquiring videography, ground-based observations were recorded in several locations for validation. Shoreline segmentation was then carried out by manual interpretation of the oblique videography and the photos aided by ancillary data. This involved splitting and classifying the shoreline vectors based on homogeneity of the upper intertidal zone. Detailed geomorphological information (i.e. shoreline type, substrate, slope, height, accessibility etc.) describing the upper intertidal, lower intertidal, supratidal and backshore zones was extracted from the video and entered into a geospatial database using a customized data collection form. In addition, biological characteristics like biobands, water features, fauna, human use etc. observed along the coast were recorded. The data was also validated through ground samples (when available) and a second interpreter QA (quality analysis) was performed on the dataset to ensure high quality and consistency. The final dataset contains segments ranging in length from 150 metres (45 metres for study areas surveyed in 2018-19) to 2500 metres. In total, from 2013 to 2019, about 15,000 km of shoreline were segmented.

With the changing climate conditions, marine traffic along Canada’s coastal regions has increased over the past couple of decades and the need to improve our state of preparedness for oil-spill-related emergencies is critical. Baseline coastal information, such as shoreline form, substrate, and vegetation type, is required for prioritizing operations, coordinating onsite spill response activities (i.e. Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique [SCAT]), and providing information for wildlife and ecosystem management. Between 2010 and 2019, georeferenced high-definition videography and photos were collected for various study sites across coastal Canada. The study areas include Beaufort Sea, Mackenzie Delta channels and Banks Island in the western Canadian Arctic; James Bay, Hudson Bay, Nunavik, Resolute Bay, Victoria Strait, Baffin Island and Coronation Gulf in the eastern Canadian Arctic; Labrador, Bay of Fundy and Chedabucto Bay in Atlantic Canada and Kitimat, Haida Gwaii, North Vancouver Island, Mainland BC and Burrard Inlet in the northern Pacific. Data was collected during ice-free and low tide conditions (where applicable) between July and September. Low-altitude helicopter surveys were conducted at each study site to capture video of the shoreline characteristics. In addition to acquiring videography, ground-based observations were recorded in several locations for validation. Shoreline segmentation was then carried out by manual interpretation of the oblique videography and the photos aided by ancillary data. This involved splitting and classifying the shoreline vectors based on homogeneity of the upper intertidal zone. Detailed geomorphological information (i.e. shoreline type, substrate, slope, height, accessibility etc.) describing the upper intertidal, lower intertidal, supratidal and backshore zones was extracted from the video and entered into a geospatial database using a customized data collection form. In addition, biological characteristics like biobands, water features, fauna, human use etc. observed along the coast were recorded. The data was also validated through ground samples (when available) and a second interpreter QA (quality analysis) was performed on each dataset (excluding Nunavik) to ensure high quality and consistency. The final dataset contains segments ranging in length from 150 m to 2500 m (except Nunavik). The minimum segment length is 45 m for study areas in the west coast that were surveyed in 2018-2019. In total, about 33,700 km of shoreline were segmented within all the survey zones.

This dataset contains results from an eelgrass classification 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.

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.

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).

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 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].