Multi-model ensembles of surface wind speed based on projections from twenty-nine Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) global climate models are available for 1900-2100. Specifically, the 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 95th percentiles of the monthly, seasonal and annual ensembles of surface wind speed (m/s) are available for the historical time period, 1900-2005, and for emission scenarios, RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, for 2006-2100. Note: Projections among climate models can vary because of differences in their underlying representation of earth system processes. Thus, the use of a multi-model ensemble approach has been demonstrated in recent scientific literature to likely provide better-projected climate change information.

This map shows the projected change in mean precipitation for 2081-2100, with respect to the reference period of 1986-2005 for RCP4.5, expressed as a percentage (%) of mean precipitation in the reference period. The median projected change across the ensemble of CMIP5 climate models is shown. For more maps on projected change, please visit the Canadian Climate Data and Scenarios (CCDS) site: https://climate-scenarios.canada.ca/?page=download-cmip5.

This map shows the projected average change in mean temperature (°C) for 2046-2065, with respect to the reference period of 1986-2005, for RCP2.6. The median projected change across the ensemble of CMIP5 climate models is shown. For more maps on projected change, please visit the Canadian Climate Data and Scenarios (CCDS) site: https://climate-scenarios.canada.ca/?page=download-cmip5.

Statistically downscaled multi-model ensembles of mean temperature are available at a 10km spatial resolution for 1951-2100. Statistically downscaled ensembles are based on output from twenty-four Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) global climate models (GCM). Downscaled daily mean temperature was calculated by averaging downscaled daily minimum and maximum temperature. Daily minimum and maximum temperature from GCM outputs were downscaled using the Bias Correction/Constructed Analogues with Quantile mapping version 2 (BCCAQv2). Historical gridded minimum and maximum temperature datasets of Canada (ANUSPLIN) were used as the respective downscaling targets. The 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 95th percentiles of the monthly, seasonal and annual ensembles of downscaled mean temperature (°C) are available for the historical time period, 1951-2005, and for emission scenarios, RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, for 2006-2100. Note: Projections among climate models can vary because of differences in their underlying representation of earth system processes. Thus, the use of a multi-model ensemble approach has been demonstrated in recent scientific literature to likely provide better projected climate change information.

Seasonal and annual multi-model ensembles of projected change (also known as anomalies) in snow depth based on an ensemble of twenty-eight Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) global climate models are available for 1900-2100. Projected change in snow depth is with respect to the reference period of 1986-2005 and expressed as a percentage (%). The 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 95th percentiles of the ensemble of snow depth change are available for the historical time period, 1900-2005, and for emission scenarios, RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, for 2006-2100. Twenty-year average changes in snow depth (%) for four time periods (2021-2040; 2041-2060; 2061-2080; 2081-2100), with respect to the reference period of 1986-2005, for RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 are also available in a range of formats. The median projected change across the ensemble of CMIP5 climate models is provided. Note: Projections among climate models can vary because of differences in their underlying representation of earth system processes. Thus, the use of a multi-model ensemble approach has been demonstrated in recent scientific literature to likely provide better projected climate change information.

Multi-model ensembles of mean temperature based on projections from twenty-nine Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) global climate models are available for 1901-2100. Specifically, the 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 95th percentiles of the monthly, seasonal and annual ensembles of mean temperature (°C) are available for the historical time period, 1901-2005, and for emission scenarios, RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, for 2006-2100. Note: Projections among climate models can vary because of differences in their underlying representation of earth system processes. Thus, the use of a multi-model ensemble approach has been demonstrated in recent scientific literature to likely provide better projected climate change information.

The Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database (CPCAD) is the authoritative source of data on protected and conserved areas in Canada. The database consists of the most up-to-date spatial and attribute data on marine and terrestrial protected areas in all governance categories recognized by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), as well as Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs, or conserved areas) across the country. Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) are also included if they are recognized as protected or conserved areas. CPCAD adheres to national reporting standards and is freely available to the public. CPCAD is compiled and managed by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), in collaboration with federal, provincial, territorial, and other reporting authorities that provide the data. The database contains combined data from all these Canadian reporting authorities, who have determined that their areas meet the Canadian criteria as protected or conserved areas. CPCAD is used by a wide range of organizations, including governments, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), academia, land managers, industry, and the general public. CPCAD supports many of the Government of Canada’s priorities including Canada’s national reporting on protected areas, Canada’s international reporting on protected areas as a result of Canada’s commitments under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and Canada’s protected areas program by providing baseline information. More detailed information on CPCAD is available by downloading the User Manual. The data is current as of the date of the most recent revision. For prior years, please reach out to scf-geocarto-cws-geomapping@ec.gc.ca.

The Great Lakes Migrant Waterfowl Surveys provide periodic data on waterfowl abundance, spatial and temporal distributions, and use along the shorelines of major water bodies and river systems in Ontario during mostly during spring and fall, and to a lesser extent during summer and winter, seasons. The primary survey area covers the shoreline and nearshore (~1km) waters of the Lower Great Lakes region of Ontario, specifically including the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario, Niagara River, Lake Erie, Detroit River and Lake St. Clair and associated major marshes and embayments. Aerial surveys, typically flown several times within spring (March –May: 1969, 1971, 1972, 1975 –1979, 1981, 1982, 1984 –1988, 1991 –1996, 1998 –2003 & 2009 –2011) and fall (September –December: 1968, 1970, 1971, 1974 –2003 & 2009 –2011) survey periods, have been conducted periodically on a relatively regular basis (approx. 5-10 years) along the Lower Great Lakes shorelines between 1968 and 2011. Smaller-scale surveys also have been conducted periodically during summer (June –August: 1968 –1970, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1989, 1999 & 2002) in this region. This survey often has been conducted in conjunction with the Midwinter Survey, so its data (up to 2004) also are included in the CWS Migrant Waterfowl Surveys database (Year ≥2004 & Month = January & February).Data from several aerial surveys conducted periodically during the non-breeding period outside the Lower Great Lakes region also are included in this database. Spring and fall surveys have been conducted along the shorelines and nearshore waters of the Upper Great Lakes region of Ontario, specifically at St. Clair River (Fall 2012 & 2013), Lake Huron (Fall 1973, 1996; Spring 1974) / Georgian Bay (Fall 1973, 1996, 2012 & 2013) & Lake Superior (Fall 2000). Aerial surveys also have been conducted inland in southeastern Ontario along the Rideau River (Fall 1998 & Spring 1999).

Statistically downscaled multi-model ensembles of total precipitation are available at a 10km spatial resolution for 1951-2100. Statistically downscaled ensembles are based on output from twenty-four Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) global climate models (GCM). Daily precipitation (mm/day) from GCM outputs were downscaled using the Bias Correction/Constructed Analogues with Quantile mapping version 2 (BCCAQv2). A historical gridded precipitation dataset of Canada (ANUSPLIN) was used as the downscaling target. The 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 95th percentiles of the monthly, seasonal and annual ensembles of downscaled total precipitation (mm/day) are available for the historical time period, 1951-2005, and for emission scenarios, RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, for 2006-2100. Note: Projections among climate models can vary because of differences in their underlying representation of earth system processes. Thus, the use of a multi-model ensemble approach has been demonstrated in recent scientific literature to likely provide better projected climate change information.

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.