Catch, effort, location (latitude and longitude), and associated biological data from the Eulachon Migration Study Bottom Trawl surveys - North on the coast of British Columbia. Introduction: The Eulachon Migration Study Bottom Trawl survey - North (Eul-N) is part of the in the Eulachon Migration Study Bottom Trawl survey series and took place on the coast of British Columbia. The other survey in this series is the Eulachon Migration Study Bottom Trawl survey –South (Eul-S). The Eulachon Migration Study Bottom Trawl survey - North (Eul-N) was conducted monthly from July 2018 to March 2019 and was funded by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) National Rotational Survey Fund. The objective of this survey was to learn about the distribution, ecology, and migration times of Eulachon into the Nass and Skeena rivers by observing their spatial and temporal occurrence and biological condition over a wide survey region and over several months. This survey follows a random block design in a targeted depth range of 80 – 300 metres. The sampling units were 2 km by 2 km blocks. Fishing was conducted using the Canadian Coast Guard Research Vessel Neocaligus to tow an American shrimp trawl net (Cantrawl Nets Ltd., Richmond, BC). The horizontal opening of the polypropylene net was estimated to be 34 to 37 feet (10 to 11 m), while the center of the opening had a vertical height of approximately 7 to 9 feet (2 to 3 m). A 0.4” (10 mm) liner was used in the codend. The net was configured with roller gear and 72” (1.8 m) Thyboron Type 2 trawl doors. Tow duration was typically 5 minutes. The standard hours of fishing were 0800 to 1700 hours, depending on sunrise and sunset in winter months. The Eulachon Migration Study Bottom Trawl survey – North was conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). This survey fished mainly in Chatham Sound with sets in Hecate Strait and Portland Inlet including Pacific Fishery Management areas (PFMA’s) 3, 4, and 104. Effort: This table contains information about the survey trips and fishing events (trawl tows/sets) that are part of this survey series. Trip-level information includes the year the survey took place, a unique trip identifier, the vessel that conducted the survey, and the trip start and end dates (the dates the vessel was away from the dock conducting the survey). Set-level information includes the date, time, location, and depth that fishing took place, as well as information that can be used to calculate fishing effort (duration) and swept area. All successful fishing events are included, regardless of what was caught. Catch: This table contains the catch information from successful fishing events. Catches are identified to species or to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Most catches are weighed, but some are too small (“trace” amounts) or too large (e.g. very large Big Skate). The unique trip identifier and set number are included so that catches can be related to the fishing event information (including capture location). Biology: This table contains Eulachon biological data including length, sex, and weight. Information is provided on whether stomachs or teeth were examined, and whether genetics (DNA) samples were collected. Eulachon maturity data, diet data, and teeth presence data are available on request from the data contacts. Additional analyses are ongoing, including histology, fatty acid profiling, and genetic analysis; frozen heads are also available for a future aging project. In addition to the Eulachon biological data, lengths and weights were collected from American Shad.The unique trip identifier and set number are included so that samples can be related to the fishing event and catch information.

This dataset provides geospatial polygon boundaries for marine bivalve shellfish harvest area classification in Canada (British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec). These data represent the five classification categories of marine bivalve shellfish harvest areas (Approved; Conditionally Approved; Restricted; Conditionally Restricted; and Prohibited) under the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program (CSSP). Data are collected by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) for the purpose of making applicable classification recommendations based on pollution source assessment and water quality survey results. ECCC recommendations are reviewed and adopted by Regional Interdepartmental Shellfish Committees prior to regulatory implementation by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). These geographic data are for illustrative purposes only; they show shellfish harvest area classifications that may be superseded at any time by regulatory orders issued by DFO, which place areas in Closed Status, due to conditions such as sewage overflows or elevated biotoxin levels. For further information about the current status and boundary coordinates for areas under Prohibition Order, please contact your local DFO office.

These datasets show the areas where major crops can be expected within the agricultural regions of Canada. Results are provided as rasters with numerical values for each pixel indicating the level of spatial density calculated for a specific crop type in that location. Regions with higher spatial density for a certain crop have higher likelihood to have the same crop based on the previous years mapped crop inventories.

Each pixel value corresponds to the difference (anomaly) between the mean “Best-Quality” Max-NDVI of the week specified (e.g. Week 18, 2000-2014) and the “Best-Quality” Max-NDVI of the same week in a specific year (e.g. Week 18, 2015). Max-NDVI anomalies < 0 indicate where weekly Max-NDVI is lower than normal. Anomalies > 0 indicate where weekly Max-NDVI is higher than normal. Anomalies close to 0 indicate where weekly Max-NDVI is similar to normal.

The health of individual amphibians, amphibian populations, and their wetland habitats are monitored in the oil sands region and at reference locations. Contaminants assessments are done at all sites. Amphibians developing near oil sands activities may be exposed to concentrations of oil sands-related contaminants, through air emissions as well as water contamination. The focus of field investigations is to evaluate the health of wild amphibian populations at varying distances from oil sands operations. Wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) populations are being studied in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories in order to examine the relationship of proximity to oil sands activities and to prevalence of infectious diseases, malformation rates, endocrine and stress responses, genotoxicity, and concentrations of heavy metals, naphthenic acids and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Seasonal and annual multi-model ensembles of projected change (also known as anomalies) in sea ice thickness, based on an ensemble of twenty-six Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) global climate models are available for 1900-2100. Projected change in sea ice thickness 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 sea ice thickness 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 sea ice thickness (%) 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.

Fire weather refers to weather conditions that are conducive to fire. These conditions determine the fire season, which is the period(s) of the year during which fires are likely to start, spread and do sufficient damage to warrant organized fire suppression. The length of fire season is the difference between the start- and end-of-fire-season dates. These are defined by the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI; http://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/) start-up and end dates. Start-up occurs when the station has been snow-free for 3 consecutive days, with noon temperatures of at least 12°C. For stations that do not report significant snow cover during the winter (i.e., less than 10 cm or snow-free for 75% of the days in January and February), start-up occurs when the mean daily temperature has been 6°C or higher for 3 consecutive days. The fire season ends with the onset of winter, generally following 7 consecutive days of snow cover. If there are no snow data, shutdown occurs following 7 consecutive days with noon temperatures lower than or equal to 5°C. Historical climate conditions were derived from the 1981–2010 Canadian Climate Normals. Future projections were computed using two different Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). RCPs are different greenhouse gas concentration trajectories adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its fifth Assessment Report. RCP 2.6 (referred to as rapid emissions reductions) assumes that greenhouse gas concentrations peak between 2010-2020, with emissions declining thereafter. In the RCP 8.5 scenario (referred to as continued emissions increases) greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise throughout the 21st century. Multiple layers are provided. First, the fire season length is shown across Canada for a reference period (1981-2010). Difference in projected fire season length compared to reference period is shown for the short- (2011-2040), medium- (2041-2070), and long-term (2071-2100) under the RCP 8.5 (continued emissions increases) and, for the long-term (2071-2100), under RCP 2.6 (rapid emissions reductions).

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.