Trends in abundance of seabird Focal Ecosystem Components across each Arctic Marine Area. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 4 - Page 181 - Figure 4.5

The assessment of the status of eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds at the bay-scale in turbid, shallow estuaries is problematic. The bay-scale assessment (i.e., tens of km) of eelgrass beds usually involves remote sensing methods such as aerial photography or satellite imagery. These methods can fail if the water column is turbid, as is the case for many shallow estuaries on Canada’s eastern seaboard. A novel towfish package was developed for the bay-scale assessment of eelgrass beds irrespective of water column turbidity. The towfish consisted of an underwater video camera with scaling lasers, sidescan sonar and a transponder-based positioning system. The towfish was deployed along predetermined transects in three northern New Brunswick estuaries. Maps were created of eelgrass cover and health (epiphyte load) and ancillary bottom features such as benthic algal growth, bacterial mats (Beggiatoa) and oysters. All three estuaries had accumulations of material reminiscent of the oomycete Leptomitus, although it was not positively identified in our study. Tabusintac held the most extensive eelgrass beds of the best health. Cocagne had the lowest scores for eelgrass health, while Bouctouche was slightly better. The towfish method proved to be cost effective and useful for the bay-scale assessment of eelgrass beds to sub-meter precision in real time. Cite this data as: Vandermeulen H. Data of: Bay Scale Assessment of Eelgrass Beds Using Sidescan and Video -Tabusintac 2008. Published: March 2021. Coastal Ecosystems Science Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, N.S. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/d1c58bc6-69d4-47b2-bb19-988f88233900

Trends in biomass or diversity of benthic Focal Ecosystem Components across each Arctic Marine Area. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 4 - Page 179 - Figure 4.3

Numbers and taxonomic composition of five single-celled eukaryote groups for the regional divisions of the Arctic Marine Areas (pie charts), as well as the number of data sources reviewed across the Arctic (red circles). Total number of taxa is given in parenthesis after each region. Flagellates include: chlorophytes, chrysophytes, cryptophytes, dictyochophytes, euglenids, prasinophytes, prymnesiophytes, raphidophytes, synurales, and xanthophytes, and- for practical purposes though not flagellates - cyanophytes. Heterotrophs include: choanoflagellates, kinetoplastea, incertae sedis. Updated from Poulin et al. (2011). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 39- Figure 3.1.3 From the report draft: "For a pan-Arctic assessment of diversity (here defined as species richness), the first comprehensive assessments of this FEC from a few years ago (Poulin et al. 2011, Daniëls et al. 2013) have been updated for regions, with taxonomic names standardized according to the World Register of Marine Species (www.marinespecies.org). For the analysis of possible interannual trends in the ice algal community, we used a data set from the Central Arctic, the area most consistently and frequently sampled (Melnikov 2002, I. Melnikov, Shirshov Institute, unpubl. data). Multivariate community structure was analysed based on a presence-absence matrix of cores from 1980 to 2013. The analysis is biased by the varying numbers of analysed cores taken per year ranging widely from 1 to 24, ice thickness between 0.6 and 4.2 m, and including both first-year as well as multiyear sea ice. Locations included were in a bounding box within 74.9 to 90.0 °N and 179.9°W to 176.6°E and varied among years."

Nearshore marine construction activities often involve projects conducted directly in or adjacent to eelgrass beds and can have detrimental effects on eelgrass health, through physical destruction of beds, smothering of plants by sediment, and light reduction from turbidity. A liquefied natural gas (LNG) marine terminal is proposed to be constructed near Goldboro in Isaacs Harbour on the Eastern shore of Nova Scotia in an area where sediments are contaminated with heavy metals from historical goldmining tailings. We conducted a pre-impact assessment of the eelgrass beds in Isaacs Harbour and in adjacent contaminated and non-contaminated harbours. We used underwater video to precisely map the eelgrass bed in the direct construction footprint in Isaacs Harbour. We surveyed 169 stations along ~40 km of coastline from Wine Harbour to New Harbour to identify eelgrass presence or absence in the nearby region and provide data on the distribution and abundance of other sensitive fish habitat such as kelp and other macrophytes. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed for grain size, organic matter content and heavy metal contamination. We also collected eelgrass plants to assess plant condition using morphological and physiological metrics, and heavy metal contamination in plant tissues. The overall condition of eelgrass plants in the surveyed area fell within the range of healthy plant characteristics (morphometrics and carbohydrates reserves) seen elsewhere along the Atlantic coast. However, a few stations displayed high arsenic and mercury contamination in sediments, which translated in some cases to high contamination in eelgrass rhizomes and leaves. There would be significant risk of impact on benthic habitat and contamination of marine biota from resuspension of sediments during a construction and operation of a ship terminal in Isaacs Harbour. This pre-impact assessment will allow DFO to assess the LNG terminal construction proposal and develop appropriate mitigation and monitoring procedures. Collected data will also be used for habitat-forming species distribution modeling to inform marine spatial and conservation planning. Vercaemer, B., O’Brien, J. M., Guijarro-Sabaniel, J. and Wong, M. C. 2022. Distribution and condition of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in the historical goldmining region of Goldboro, Nova Scotia. Can. Tech. Rep. Aquat. Sci. 3513: v + 67 p. Cite this data as: Vercaemer, B., O’Brien, J. M., Guijarro-Sabaniel, J., Wong, M. Data of: Eelgrass (Zostera marina) study in the historical goldmining region of Goldboro, Nova Scotia (2020). Published: February 2023. Coastal Ecosystems Science Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, N.S. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/ee88aa17-fd30-4d4a-8924-897fd47cf560

The Coastal Ice Ocean Prediction System (CIOPS) provides a 48 hour ocean and ice forecast over different domains (East, West, Salish Sea) four times a day at 1/36° resolution. A pseudo-analysis component is forced at the ocean boundaries by the Regional Ice Ocean Prediction System (RIOPS) forecasts and spectrally nudged to the RIOPS solution in the deep ocean. Fields from the pseudo-analysis are used to initialize the 00Z forecast, whilst the 06, 12 and 18Z forecasts use a restart files saved at hour 6 from the previous forecast. The atmospheric fluxes for both the pseudo-analysis and forecast components are provided by the High Resolution Deterministic Prediction System (HRDPS) blended both spatially and temporally with either the Global Deterministic Prediction System (GDPS) (for CIOPS-East) or an uncoupled component of the Global Deterministic Prediction System (GDPS) at 10km horizontal resolution (for CIOPS-West) for areas not covered by the HRDPS.

Trends in abundance or diversity of sea ice biota Focal Ecosystem Components across each Arctic Marine Area. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 4 - Page 177 - Figure 4.1

Harvest marine mammal Focal Ecosystem Component stocks in Arctic Marine Areas. Harvested without quotas, with quotas or not harvested. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-mammals" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 158 - Figure 3.6.4

A novel, bay – scale (i.e. tens of km) survey method was employed to examine algal populations on the southwestern shore of Cape Breton, Canada, for the purposes of potential economic exploitation. Since traditional remote sensing methods were unlikely to be successful in these waters, underwater video and acoustic methods were applied. A transponder positioned towfish housing video camera and sidescan sonar was hauled along predetermined transects perpendicular to shore to provide information on bottom type and algal cover. The towfish data were used to ground truth echosounder data (bottom type and macrophyte canopy height) collected along 5, 10 and 20 m depth contours. The survey area was divided into six zones comprising a range of exposure, depth and bottom types. Destructive quadrat samples were collected at each depth plus shore stations to provide biomass estimates. Over thirty five taxa were enumerated, indicating depths and zones of common occurrence. Ascophyllum was abundant at some of the shore stations. The genera Chondrus, Cystoclonium, Desmarestia, Fucus, Phyllophora, Polysiphonia, and Saccharina were common at 5 m. Desmarestia and Saccharina dominated at 10 m with wet weights sometimes over 1 kg·m-2. Agarum dominated at 20 m. The towfish / echosounder grid sampling system was relatively coarse in order to cover the 140 km2 survey area within 12 days. As a result, the survey did not produce spatially detailed information. However, adequate information was gathered to describe the general characteristics of bottom type and algal cover by zone and for focusing further exploration--Abstract, p. vi. Cite this data as: Vandermeulen H. Data of: A Novel Video and Acoustic Survey of the Seaweeds of Isle Madame. Published: August 2021. Coastal Ecosystems Science Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, N.S. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/ebdd8f91-9131-45f0-8aec-aba9f65e3fae

Average September sea ice extent in 1979 (blue) compared with 2016 (white) and the median sea ice extent (yellow line) from 1981 to 2010 (Data: NSDIC 2016). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine" target="_blank">Chapter 2</a> - Page 27 - Figure 2.4