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 2015. This data comprises a 5-year update to the mapping of 2008-2010 disturbances, and allows researchers to better understand the attributes that have a known effect on caribou population persistence. The original disturbance mapping was based on 30-metre resolution Landsat-5 imagery from 2008 -2010. The mapping process used in 2010 was repeated using 2015 Landsat imagery to create a nationally consistent, reliable and repeatable geospatial dataset that followed a common methodology. 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. Anthropogenic disturbances within 51 caribou ranges across Canada were mapped. The ranges were defined by individual provinces and territories across Canada. Disturbances were remapped across these ranges using 2015 Landsat-8 satellite imagery to provide the most up-to-date data possible. 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 imagery with 30-metre multi-band imagery at a viewing scale of 1:50,000. A minimum mapping unit MMU of 2 ha (approximately 22 contiguous 30-metre pixels) was selected. Each disturbance feature type was represented in the database by a line or polygon depending on their geometric description. Polygonal disturbances included: cutblocks, mines, reservoirs, built-up areas, well sites, agriculture, oil and gas facilities, as well as unknown features. Linear disturbances included: roads, railways, powerlines, seismic exploration lines, pipelines, dams, air strips, 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 visible in the Landsat imagery at the prescribed viewing scale. A 2nd interpreter quality-control phase was carried out to ensure high quality, complete and consistent data collection. For this 2015 update an additional, separate higher-resolution database was created by repeating the process using 15-metre panchromatic imagery. For the 30-metre database only, the line and poly data were buffered by a 500-metre radius, representing their extended zone of impact upon boreal caribou herds. Additionally, forest fire polygons were merged into the 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.

Climate observations are derived from two sources of data. The first are Daily Climate Stations producing one or two observations per day of temperature, precipitation. The second are hourly stations that typically produce more weather elements e.g. wind or snow on ground.

The Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) program provides data and information to track Canada's performance on key environmental sustainability issues. The Canada's ocean drainage regions layer was developed using the Drainage regions of Canada to illustrate the water bodies into which the 25 drainage regions ultimately drain. Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: https://www.canada.ca/environmental-indicators

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.

This dataset is part of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Shoreline Classification and Pre-Spill database. Shoreline classification data has been developed for use by the Environmental Emergencies Program of Environment and Climate Change Canada for environmental protection purposes. Marine and freshwater shorelines are classified according to the character (substrate and form) of the upper intertidal (foreshore) or upper swash zone (Sergy, 2008). This is the area where oil from a spill usually becomes stranded and where treatment or cleanup activities take place. The basic parameter that defines the shoreline type is the material that is present in the intertidal zone. The presence or absence of sediments is a key factor in determining whether oil is stranded on the surface of a substrate or can penetrate and/or be buried. This dataset contains thousands of linear shoreline segments ranging in length from 200 m and 2 km long. The entities represent the location of the segments and their geomorphological description. There exist further fields in the attribute table for this dataset. We are currently working on standardizing our shoreline segmentation datasets and the updated data will soon be uploaded to the catalog. Sergy, G. (2008). The Shoreline Classification Scheme for SCAT and Oil Spill Response in Canada. Proceedings of the 31stArctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar.Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Pp. 811-819.

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.

The Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) program provides data and information to track Canada's performance on key environmental sustainability issues. The Air quality indicators track ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter, ground-level ozone, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and volatile organic compounds at the national, regional and urban levels and at local monitoring stations. The national and regional indicators are presented with their corresponding Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard when available. Canadians are exposed to air pollutants on a daily basis, and this exposure can cause adverse health and environmental effects. Information is provided to Canadians in a number of formats including: static and interactive maps, charts and graphs, HTML and CSV data tables and downloadable reports. See the supplementary documentation for the data sources and details on how the data were collected and how the indicator was calculated. Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: https://www.canada.ca/environmental-indicators

Data Sources: Banque informatisée des oiseaux de mer au Québec (BIOMQ: ECCC-CWS Quebec Region) Atlantic Colonial Waterbird Database (ACWD: ECCC-CWS Atlantic Region).. Both the BIOMQ and ACWD contain records of individual colony counts, by species, for known colonies located in Eastern Canada. Although some colonies are censused annually, most are visited much less frequently. Methods used to derive colony population estimates vary markedly among colonies and among species. For example, census methods devised for burrow-nesting alcids typically rely on ground survey techniques. As such, they tend to be restricted to relatively few colonies. In contrast, censuses of large gull or tern colonies, which are geographically widespread, more appropriately rely on a combination of broad-scale aerial surveys, and ground surveys at a subset of these colonies. In some instances, ground surveys of certain species are not available throughout the study area. In such cases, consideration of other sources, including aerial surveys, may be appropriate. For example,data stemming from a 2006 aerial survey of Common Eiders during nesting, conducted by ECCC-CWS in Labrador, though not yet incorporated in the ACWD, were used in this report. It is important to note that colony data for some species, such as herons, are not well represented in these ECCC-CWS databases at present. Analysis of ACWD and BIOMQ data (ECCC-CWS Quebec and Atlantic Regions): Data were merged as temporal coverage, survey methods and geospatial information were comparable. Only in cases where total counts of individuals were not explicitly presented was it necessary to calculate proxies of total counts of breeding individuals (e.g., by doubling numbers of breeding pairs or of active nests). Though these approaches may underestimate the true number of total individuals associated with a given site by failing to include some proportion of the non-breeding population (i.e., visiting adult non-breeders, sub-adults and failed breeders), tracking numbers of breeding individuals (or pairs) is considered to be the primary focus of these colony monitoring programs.In order to represent the potential number of individuals of a given species that realistically could be and may historically have been present at a given colony location (see section 1.1), the maximum total count obtained per species per site since 1960 was used in the analyses. In the case of certain species,especially coastal piscivores (Wires et al. 2001; Cotter et al. 2012), maxima reached in the 1970s or 1980s likely resulted from considerable anthropogenic sources of food, and these levels may never be seen again. The effect may have been more pronounced in certain geographic areas. Certain sites once used as colonies may no longer be suitable for breeding due to natural and/or human causes, but others similarly may become suitable and thus merit consideration in long-term habitat conservation planning. A colony importance index (CII) was derived by dividing the latter maximum total count by the potential total Eastern Canadian breeding population of that species (the sum of maximum total counts within a species, across all known colony sites in Eastern Canada). The CII approximates the proportion of the total potential Eastern Canadian breeding population (sum of maxima) reached at each colony location and allowed for an objective comparison among colonies both within and across species. In some less-frequently visited colonies, birds (cormorants, gulls, murres and terns, in particular) were not identified to species. Due to potential biases and issues pertaining to inclusion of these data, they were not considered when calculating species’ maximum counts by colony for the CII. The IBA approach whereby maximum colony counts are divided by the size of the corresponding actual estimated population for each species (see Table 3.1.2; approximate 1% continental threshold presented) was not used because in some instances individuals were not identified to species at some sites, or population estimates were unavailable.Use of both maxima and proportions of populations (or an index thereof) presents contrasting, but complementary, approaches to identifying important colonial congregations. By examining results derived from both approaches, attention can be directed at areas that not only host large numbers of individuals, but also important proportions of populations. This dual approach avoids attributing disproportionate attention to species that by their very nature occur in very large colonies (e.g., Leach’s Storm Petrel) or conversely to colonies that host important large proportions of less-abundant species (Roseate Tern, Caspian Tern, Black-Headed Gull, etc.), but in smaller overall numbers. Point Density Analysis (ArcGIS Spatial Analyst) with kernel estimation, and a 10-km search radius,was used to generate maps illustrating the density of colony measures (i.e., maximum count by species,CII by species), modelled as a continuous field (Gatrell et al. 1996). Actual colony locations were subsequently overlaid on the resulting cluster map. Sites not identified as important should not be assumed to be unimportant.

Monthly, seasonal and annual trends of mean hourly sea level and station pressure change (hectopascals) based on homogenized station data (AHCCD) are available. Trends are calculated using the Theil-Sen method using the station’s full period of available data. The availability of surface pressure trends will vary by station; if more than 5 consecutive years are missing data or more than 10% of the data within the time series is missing, a trend was not calculated.

The Regional Deterministic Wave Prediction System (RDWPS) produces wave forecasts out to 48 hours in the future using the third generation spectral wave forecast model WaveWatch III® (WW3). The model is forced by the 10 meters winds from the High Resolution Deterministic Prediction System (HRDPS). Over the Great Lakes, an ice forecast from the Water Cycle Prediction System of the Great Lakes (WCPS) is used by the model to attenuate or suppress wave growth in areas covered by 25% to 75% and more than 75% ice, respectively. Over the ocean, an ice forecast from the Regional Ice Ocean Prediction System (RIOPS) is used: in the Northeast Pacific, waves propagate freely for ice concentrations below 50%, above this threshold there is no propagation; in the Northwest Atlantic the same logic is used as in the Great Lakes. Forecast elements include significant wave height, peak period, partitioned parameters and others. This system includes several domains: Lake Superior, Lake Huron-Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, Atlantic North-West and Pacific North-East.