The Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network (CABIN) is an aquatic biomonitoring program for assessing the health of fresh water ecosystems in Canada. Benthic macroinvertebrates are collected at a site location and their counts are used as an indicator of the health of that water body. CABIN is based on the network of networks approach that promotes inter-agency collaboration and data-sharing to achieve consistent and comparable reporting on fresh water quality and aquatic ecosystem conditions in Canada. The program is maintained by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) to support the collection, assessment, reporting and distribution of biological monitoring information. A set of nationally standardized CABIN protocols are used for field collection, laboratory work, and analysis of biological monitoring data. A training program is available to certify participants in the standard protocols. There are two types of sites in the CABIN database (reference and test). Reference sites represent habitats that are closest to “natural” before any human impact. The data from reference sites are used to create reference models that CABIN partners use to evaluate their test sites in an approach known as the Reference Condition Approach (RCA). Using the RCA models, CABIN partners match their test sites to groups of reference sites on similar habitats and compare the observed macroinvertebrate communities. The extent of the differences between the test site communities and the reference site communities allows CABIN partners to estimate the severity of the impacts at those locations. CABIN samples have been collected since 1987 and are organized in the database by study (partner project). The data is delineated by the 11 major drainage areas (MDA) found in Canada and each one has a corresponding study, habitat and benthic invertebrate data file. Links to auxiliary water quality data are provided when available. Visits may be conducted at the same location over time with repeat site visits being identified by identical study name / site code with different dates. All data collected by the federal government is available on Open Data and more partners are adding their data continually. The csv files are updated monthly. Contact the CABIN study authority to request permission to access non open data.

The project (Quoddy Region Pelagics Telemetry) will support the assessment of the effects of aquaculture on the distribution and abundance of pelagic fishes (salmon, mackerel, herring) and large predators (shark, marine mammals) in Passamaquoddy Bay and the Bay of Fundy, an area of intense finfish culture. An acoustic receivers network is placed yearly (from April to December) across various passageways, locations of project-specific interest, and at aquaculture sites in the region. Tagged pelagic species will be tracked through the network to provide information on migration routes, movement speed, survival rates and suspected predators, and determine interaction and residence at aquaculture sites. The network was utilized for monitoring the passage of: hatchery-reared wild salmon (n=340) released in the Magaguadavic River in 2018, 2019 and 2021, wild alewives (n=30) from the St. Croix River in 2021, and farmed Atlantic salmon released in the wild (n=99) in 2021. The receiver network has more recently supported adjacent projects on the use of the region by white shark and porbeagle as well as the residence of mackerel, herring, and sculpin at farm sites. The receivers additionally support other researchers with detection of striped bass, Inner Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon, sturgeon, and many other species. Placement of the network will continue into 2025 inclusive with the longer-term goal to eventually deploy an array covering the entrance to the Bay of Fundy.Cite this data as: Trudel, M., Wilson, B., Black, M. 2023. Assessing bay-scale impacts of aquaculture operations on the distribution and abundance of pelagic fishes and large predators. Accessed via the Ocean Tracking Network OBIS IPT in January 2025 (version 3.1). https://doi.org/10.14286/xfa6sr

During the period of 1987 to 1994, Robin J. LeBrasseur and N. Brent Hargreaves lead a juvenile salmon predation research project in Alberni Inlet and Barkley Sound BC. This dataset contains the research survey catch data and individual fish examinations data.

PURPOSE:To gather localized high-quality data for mapping eelgrass distribution in bays and estuaries in the Gulf Region of Atlantic Canada.DESCRIPTION:Between 2018 and 2023, a total of 48 coastal sites in New Brunswick (NB), Prince Edward Island (PE), and Nova Scotia (NS) have been fully processed for eelgrass presence/absence and depth information.An additional 18 sites from the same region and time period (2018–2023) have data collected but not yet fully processed for depth and eelgrass classification. These sites will be incorporated into the dataset as processing is completed. PARAMETERS COLLECTED:Geographic coordinates, timestamp, submerged aquatic vegetation presence.NOTES ON QUALITY CONTROL:BioSonics Visual Aquatic was used to process raw dt4 files by delineating the bottom and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) heights. Initial delineation of the estuary bottom was performed using an automated algorithm within the software, followed by manual adjustments to refine the delineation as needed. An algorithm was then used to delineate vegetation, which was edited visually by referring to written ground-truthing notes and underwater photos taken with a GoPro underwater camera with GPS capacity. Expert advice within DFO was used to advise the analysts on best practices and subtleties in the echograms. All efforts were made to ensure vegetation mapped was eelgrass, but in some cases, such as where the acoustic response was not clear or ground-truthing notes were lacking, it is possible that other types of SAV were included.The processed data were exported from BioSonics Visual Aquatic aggregating sets of 10 pings that were in very close proximity. Grouped pings with a vegetation canopy height >= 0.1 m were assigned an eelgrass presence (i.e., "EG_Presence") value of "Y", while grouped pings with a height < 0.1 m were assigned a presence value of "N".SAMPLING METHODS:Acoustic data were collected during the summer or early fall season (varies depending on the site) by the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence Coalition on Sustainability (Coalition-SGSL) in partnership with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Gulf Region. At some sites, the Province of New Brunswick's Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fisheries (NBDAAF) also collected data using their boat. BioSonics MX Aquatic Habitat Echosounder units with a single beam (8.7°) 204.8kHz transducer (mounting height varied depending on the boat used) was used for data collection by all parties. Positioning was achieved using the BioSonics internal GPS through 2020, then subsequently an external GPS unit (Hemisphere S631 RTK GPS) was used to improve positioning from 1-2m accuracy to ~20cm when differential was obtained. BioSonics Visual Acquisition software was used to collect the data.USE LIMITATION:This product is provided as-is and has not been accuracy-assessed against other data. Since there were no transect-independent ground-truthing points surveyed, the accuracy of any interpolated surfaces created from this data cannot be known.Not for use without inclusion of full metadata. The data products are supplied "as they stand" and DFO does not guarantee the integrity, the completeness, or the accuracy.There were issues with the internal GPS of the BioSonics unit, and their impact on positional accuracy has yet to be determined. Beginning in 2021, an external, higher precision GPS unit was used to increase accuracy.Use of various boats and surveyors, as well as analysts, can introduce some inconsistencies in the data collection and analysis between sites and years. Site-specific characteristics such as mixed submerged aquatic vegetation can complicate mapping efforts. Shallow areas can also be challenging to delineate accurately since the bottom and/or the vegetation can extend higher than the mounted transducer. In these cases, a best estimate was used by the analyst.Weather conditions such as wind can affect the accuracy of the results, as the transponder may pitch and roll with the boat, while increased sediment in the water can interfere with the signal. Single-beam acoustic data has a very small focus footprint, which varies with depth, so it should not be considered a comprehensive bottom mapping tool. However, it does provide valuable point data that can indicate presence of vegetation, canopy height, relative depth, and ground-truthing for other mapping techniques (e.g. aerial or satellite imagery). For example, at 1 m depth, the 8.6 degree single-beam used for this work has a footprint of approximately 0.0177 square metres, and at 2 m depth that footprint becomes 0.0711 square metres.

The Innu Audio Index is an extract from the Canadian Geographical Names Data Base (CGNDB) of geographical names with associated audio. The shared audio with the Geographical Names Board of Canada (GNBC) is the intellectual property of the Innu Nation. The points represent official geographical names in Innu-aimun, the language of the Innu Nation. The CGNDB is the authoritative national database of Canada's geographical names. It contains geographical names and their attributes that have been approved by the GNBC, the national coordinating body responsible for standards and policies on place names.The GNBC is working to increase awareness of existing Indigenous place names and help promote the revitalization of Indigenous cultures and languages. The GNBC does not warrant or guarantee that the information is accurate, complete or current at all times. For more information, to report data errors, or to suggest improvements, please contact the GNBC Secretariat at Natural Resources Canada with questions or for more information.

Acoustic telemetry allows detailed observations of the movement behaviour of many species and as tags get smaller, smaller organisms may be tagged. The number of studies using acoustic telemetry to evaluate marine invertebrate movement is growing, but novel attachment methods include unknowns about the effects of tagging procedures on individual survival and behaviour. This study compared methods of tag attachment on green sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) to determine the feasibility of using acoustic transmitters to track echinoid movement. Four tagging methods were compared in the lab and tag retention, urchin condition, and survival analysed. Two tagging methods (Dyneema® fishing line and T-bar tags) were evaluated in the field using an existing acoustic telemetry array. Urchins were tagged and the study area revisited one week and 2 months post-release by scuba divers to estimate movement and tag retention. The best methods in the lab, with high tag retention, survival, and minimal effects on urchin condition, were fishing line methods. T-bar tags, although showing high tag retention, caused significant mortality and had deleterious long-term effects on urchin condition and behaviour. After 2 months in the field, as in the lab, fishing line was a more effective tagging method. Urchins tagged with fishing line showed increased estimates of space occupancy compared to T-bar-tagged urchins and a single fishing-line tagged individual was found by divers in good health after 80 days. Combined, these laboratory and field results demonstrate the feasibility of using acoustic telemetry to observe urchin movement. Results strongly suggest that surgical attachment methods that minimize injuries at the attachment site should be prioritized for echinoid tagging studies. Together, lab and field tests indicate that acoustic telemetry is a promising method to examine marine echinoid movement over ecologically relevant spatial and temporal scales.The data available includes the laboratory data (tag retention, survival, diameter, wet weight, gonad weight and condition/righting time) and the field data (metadata and acoustic telemetry detections for tagged individuals, results of diver searches and 2-day estimates of movement measured in the field). Data from the laboratory experiment and diver observations in the field have been verified and undergone a control for quality. Acoustic telemetry detections are raw detection files (unfiltered); see the published article for a description of how the data were treated for analyses (https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-022-00309-8).

The St. Anns Bank Marine Protected Area was established in June 2017. Data describing the spatial-temporal patterns and drivers of species movement is essential for evaluating species composition and to gauge the protective capacity of the MPA. Since 2015, an acoustic telemetry receiver array has been deployed and re-deployed annually in St. Anns Bank Marine Protected Area. Each receiver detects tagged fish that swim past and records hourly bottom temperature. Here we provide the bottom temperature data recorded on 46 receivers. Note that in 2021 the array design (mooring positions) changed. Please visit the Ocean Tracking Network data portal for more details (https://members.oceantrack.org/project?ccode=SABMPA).Cite this data as: Pettitt-Wade, H., Jeffery, N.W., Stanley, R.E. Data of: Bottom temperature data from St. Anns Bank MPA acoustic telemetry receivers deployed 2015 to 2022Published: January 2024. Coastal Ecosystems Science Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, N.S.https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/910b8e22-2fd1-4ba1-8db6-d16763c7a625

FluWatchers is an online health surveillance system. It helps monitor the spread of flu-like illness across Canada. FluWatchers relies on Canadians to volunteer 15 seconds of their time each week to answer 2 questions about their health. To be a Fluwatcher, sign up at https://cnphi.canada.ca/fluWatcher/registerNote: Only areas where there are five or more weekly reporters are included in the map. The reported rates of cough and fever are a reflection of the surveillance data available to FluWatch at the time of production. Delays in reporting of data may cause data to change retrospectively.

FluWatch is Canada's national surveillance system that monitors the spread of flu and flu-like illnesses on an on-going basis.Activity Level surveillance is a component of FluWatch that provides an overall assessment of the intensity and geographical spread of laboratory-confirmed influenza cases, influenza-like-illness (ILI) and reported outbreaks for a given surveillance region. Activity Levels are assigned and reported by Provincial and Territorial Ministries of Health. A surveillance region can be classified under one of the four following categories: no activity, sporadic, localized or widespread.For a description of the categories, see the data dictionary resource. For more information on flu activity in Canada, see the FluWatch report.(https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/flu-influenza/influenza-surveillance/weekly-influenza-reports.html)Note: The reported activity levels are a reflection of the surveillance data available to FluWatch at the time of production. Delays in reporting of data may cause data to change retrospectively.

The Canadian long term satellite data record (LTDR) derived from 1-km resolution Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) data was produced by the Canada Center for Remote Sensing (CCRS). Processing included: geolocation, calibration, and compositing using Earth Observation Data Manager (Latifovic et al. 2005), cloud screening (Khlopenkov and Trishchenko, 2006), BRDF correction (Latifovic et. al., 2003), atmosphere and other corrections as described in Cihlar et. al. (2004). For temporal analysis of vegetation cross-sensor correction of Latifovic et al. (2012) is advised. Data collected by the AVHRR instrument on board the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 9,11,14,16,17,18 and 19 satellites were used to generate Canada-wide 1-km 10-day AVHRR composites. Data are available starting in 1985. It is important to note that there are three types of AVHRR sensors: (i) AVHRR-1 flown onboard TIROS-N, NOAA-6, NOAA-8, and NOAA-10; (ii) AVHRR-2 flown onboard NOAA-7, NOAA-9, NOAA-11, NOAA-12, and NOAA-14; and (iii) AVHRR-3 currently operational onboard NOAA-15, NOAA-16, NOAA-17, NOAA-18 and NOAA-19. The AVHRR-1 has four channels, AVHRR-2 has five channels and the AVHRR-3 has six channels, although only five channels of AVHRR-3 can be operational at any one time. As such, channels 3A (1.6 m) and 3B (3.7 m) work interchangeably. The processing procedure was designed to minimize artefacts in AVHRR composite images. There are thirty six 10-day image composites per year. The following three processing levels are provided: P1) top of atmosphere reflectance and brightness temperature, P2) reflectance at surface and surface temperature and P3) reflectance at surface normalized to a common viewing geometry (BRDF normalization). The processing level P1 and P2 are provided for all 36 composites while level P3 is provided for 21 composites from April – October.