This map shows the projected change in mean precipitation for 2081-2100, with respect to the reference period of 1986-2005 for RCP8.5, 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.

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.

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.

This map shows the projected change in mean precipitation for 2016-2035, with respect to the reference period of 1986-2005 for RCP2.6, 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.

Water level and discharge data are available from Water Survey of Canada’s Hydrometric Network. The Water Survey of Canada (WSC) is the national authority responsible for the collection, interpretation and dissemination of standardized water resource data and information in Canada. In partnership with the provinces, territories and other agencies, WSC operates over 2500 active hydrometric gauges across the country, maintains an archive of historical information for over 7600 stations and provides access to near real-time (water level and stream flow) provisional data at over 1700 locations in Canada.

This map shows the projected average change in mean temperature (°C) for 2081-2100, with respect to the reference period of 1986-2005 for RCP8.5. 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 change in mean precipitation for 2016-2035, 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.

Daily 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. Only a subset of the total stations is shown due to size limitations. The criteria for station selection are listed as below. The priorities for inclusion are as follows: (1) Station is currently operational, (2) Stations with long periods of record, (3) Stations that are co-located with the categories above and supplement the period of record.

Plant health assessments and vegetation surveys are undertaken at both terrestrial and wetland sites in the oil sands region and in reference areas. Plant monitoring is being conducted for biodiversity and contaminants, and because plants are important both as wildlife habitat and as traditional-use species. Plant and soil samples are collected at monitoring sites near and at varying distances from oil sands operations. Plant tissues are being examined for levels of naphthenic acids (NAs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals. Plant indicator species include Vaccinium spp. (blueberry), Ledum groenlandicum (Labrador tea), Arctostaphyllos uva-ursi (common bearberry), and Cornus canadensis (bunchberry). Soil samples from riparian banks and boreal forest locations are also collected for greenhouse studies. These experiments evaluate the uptake, distribution, and toxicity of the contaminants in plant tissue.

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.