This dataset provides projected 30-year, 50-year, and 100-year return levels for harbours in British Columbia by 2050 and 2100 under an intermediate emission scenario SSP245, relative to the mean sea level over 1993-2020. The return levels are a combination of estimated present extreme sea levels and projected mean sea level rise. The present extreme sea levels are derived from hourly coastal sea levels for the period from 1993 to 2020, simulated using a high-resolution Northeast Pacific Ocean Model (NEPOM). The projected mean sea level rise is derived from the regional mean sea level rise data of the IPCC 6th Assessment Report under SSP245, adjusted for the local vertical land motion.

This product displays for Tributyltin, positions with values counts that have been measured per matrix for each year and are present in EMODnet regional contaminants aggregated datasets, v2022. The product displays positions for every available year.

Megafauna distribution of biomass (g/15 min trawling) in the Barents Sea in 2007, 2011 and 2015. The green circles show the distribution of the snow crab as it spreads from east to west, and the blue triangles show the invasion of king crab along the coast of the southern Barents Sea. Data from Institute of Marine Research, Norway and the Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography, Murmansk, Russia. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/benthos" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 95 - Figure 3.3.2 The annual joint Norwegian–Russian Ecosystem Survey provides from more than 400 stations and during extensive cruise tracks covering more or less the whole Barents Sea in August– September. The sampling is based on a regular grid spanning about 1.5 millionkm2 with fixed positions of stations which make it possible to measure changes in spatial distribution over time. The trawl is a Campelen 1800 bottom trawl rigged with rock-hopper groundgear and towed on double Warps. The mesh size is 80 mm (stretched) in the front and 16–22 mmin the cod end, allowing the capture and retention of smaller fish and the largest benthos from the seabed (benthic megafauna). The horizontal opening was 11.7 m, and the vertical opening 4–5 m (Teigsmark and Øynes, 1982). The trawl configuration and bottom contact was monitored remotely by SCANMAR trawl sensors. The standard distance between trawl stations was 35 nautical miles (65 km), except north and west of Svalbard where a stratified sampling was adapted to the steep continental shelve. The standard procedure was to tow 15 min after the trawl had made contact with the bottom, but the actual tow duration ranged between 5 min and 1 h and data were subsequently standardized to 15 min trawl time. Towing speed was 3 knots, equivalent to a towing distance of 0.75 nautical miles (1.4 km) during a 15 min tow. The trawl catches were recorded using the same procedures on the Russian and the Norwegian Research vessels to ensure comparability across Barents Sea regions. The benthic megafauna was separated from the fish and shrimp catch, washed, and sorted to lowest possible taxonomic level, in most cases to species, on-Board the vessel. Species identification was standardized between the researcher teams by annually exchanging the benthic expert’s among the vessels and taxon names were fixed each year according toWORMSwhen possible.This resulted in an Electronic identification manual and photo-compendium as a tool to standardize taxon identifications, in addition to various sources of identification literature. Difficult taxa were photographed and, in some cases, brought back as preserved voucher specimens for further identification. Wet-weight biomass was recorded with electronic scales in the ship laboratories for each taxon.The biomass determination included all fragments.

Cumulative scores of various environmental and anthropogenic drivers of change of the benthic ecosystem across the eight Arctic Marine Areas (AMA). A cumulative score is the median score of sub-regions per AMA (Table 3.3.1). Median score for the whole Arctic is given in the centre. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/benthos" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 100 - Figure 3.3.7

This visualization product displays the total abundance of marine macro-litter (> 2.5cm) per beach per year from Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) monitoring surveys. EMODnet Chemistry included the collection of marine litter in its 3rd phase. Since the beginning of 2018, data of beach litter have been gathered and processed in the EMODnet Chemistry Marine Litter Database (MLDB). The harmonization of all the data has been the most challenging task considering the heterogeneity of the data sources, sampling protocols and reference lists used on a European scale. Preliminary processings were necessary to harmonize all the data: - Exclusion of OSPAR 1000 protocol: in order to follow the approach of OSPAR that it is not including these data anymore in the monitoring; - Selection of MSFD surveys only (exclusion of other monitoring, cleaning and research operations); - Exclusion of beaches without coordinates; - Some categories & some litter types like organic litter, small fragments (paraffin and wax; items > 2.5cm) and pollutants have been removed. The list of selected items is attached to this metadata. This list was created using EU Marine Beach Litter Baselines, the European Threshold Value for Macro Litter on Coastlines and the Joint list of litter categories for marine macro-litter monitoring from JRC (these three documents are attached to this metadata); - Normalization of survey lengths to 100m & 1 survey / year: in some cases, the survey length was not exactly 100m, so in order to be able to compare the abundance of litter from different beaches a normalization is applied using this formula: Number of items (normalized by 100 m) = Number of litter per items x (100 / survey length) Then, this normalized number of items is summed to obtain the total normalized number of litter for each survey. Finally, the median abundance for each beach and year is calculated from these normalized abundances per survey. Sometimes the survey length was null or equal to 0. Assuming that the MSFD protocol has been applied, the length has been set at 100m in these cases. Percentiles 50, 75, 95 & 99 have been calculated taking into account MSFD data for all years. More information is available in the attached documents. Warning: the absence of data on the map does not necessarily mean that it does not exist, but that no information has been entered in the Marine Litter Database for this area.

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

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

Benthic macro-infauna biomass in the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas from 1970 to 2012, displayed as decadal pattern Adapted from Grebmeier et al. (2015a) with permission from Elsevier. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/benthos" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 98 - Figure 3.3.6 Cumulative scores of benthos drivers for each of the 8 CAFF-AMAs. The cumulative scores are taken from the last column of Table 3.3.1. The flower chart/plot helps to visualize the data.

These datasets show commercial fisheries catch weight landings of directed fisheries and bycatch from the Scotian Shelf, the Bay of Fundy, and Georges Bank from NAFO Divisions 4VWX and the Canadian portions of 5Y and 5Z. Five-year composite maps (2019–2023) that aggregate catches for each map series are publicly available. The maps aggregate catch weight (kg) per 10 km2 hexagon grid cell for selected species, species groupings and gear types to identify important fishing areas. These maps can support decision making in coastal and oceans management, including marine spatial planning, environmental emergency response operations and protocols, Marine Stewardship Council certification processes, marine protected area networks, and ecological risk assessment. Reported catch locations may have rounded coordinates or contain errors. Although some errors have been corrected, it is assumed that additional errors remain in the data. These datasets have been filtered to comply with the Government of Canada's privacy policy. Privacy assessments were conducted to identify DFO unit areas containing data with less than five vessel IDs, licence IDs or fisher IDs. If this threshold was not met, catch weight locations were withheld from these unit areas to protect the identity or activity of individual vessels or companies. Maps were created for the following species, species groupings and gear types: 1. Groundfish (all species) 2. Groundfish Bottom Trawl 3. Groundfish Bottom Longline 4. Groundfish Gillnet 5. Groundfish (seasonal composites) 6. Atlantic Cod 7. Atlantic Cod, Haddock and Pollock 8. Flatfish 9. Atlantic Halibut 10. Greenland Halibut (Turbot) 11. Hagfish 12. Cusk 13. Dogfish 14. Redfish 15. Red Hake 16. Silver Hake 17. White Hake 18. Monkfish 19. Sculpin 20. Skate 21. Wolffish 22. Squid 23. Herring 24. Mackerel 25. Herring and Mackerel Gillnet 26. Purse Seine 27. Large Pelagics 28. Bluefin Tuna 29. Other Tuna 30. Swordfish 31. Snow Crab 32. Other Crab 33. Scallop 34. Scallop (seasonal composites) 35. Offshore Clam 36. Shrimp Trawl 37. Shrimp Trap 38. Offshore Lobster 39. Disputed Zone Area 38B Lobster 40. Whelk

This visualization product displays the cigarette related items abundance of marine macro-litter (> 2.5cm) per beach per year from Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) monitoring surveys without UNEP-MARLIN data. EMODnet Chemistry included the collection of marine litter in its 3rd phase. Since the beginning of 2018, data of beach litter have been gathered and processed in the EMODnet Chemistry Marine Litter Database (MLDB). The harmonization of all the data has been the most challenging task considering the heterogeneity of the data sources, sampling protocols and reference lists used on a European scale. Preliminary processings were necessary to harmonize all the data: - Exclusion of OSPAR 1000 protocol: in order to follow the approach of OSPAR that it is not including these data anymore in the monitoring; - Selection of MSFD surveys only (exclusion of other monitoring, cleaning and research operations); - Exclusion of beaches without coordinates; - Selection of cigarette related items only. The list of selected items is attached to this metadata. This list was created using EU Marine Beach Litter Baselines, the European Threshold Value for Macro Litter on Coastlines and the Joint list of litter categories for marine macro-litter monitoring from JRC (these three documents are attached to this metadata); - Selection of surveys referring to the UNEP-MARLIN list: the UNEP-MARLIN protocol differs from the other types of monitoring in that cigarette butts are surveyed in a 10m square. To avoid comparing abundances from very different protocols, the choice has been made to distinguish in two maps the cigarette related items results associated with the UNEP-MARLIN list from the others; - Normalization of survey lengths to 100m & 1 survey / year: in some case, the survey length was not exactly 100m, so in order to be able to compare the abundance of litter from different beaches a normalization is applied using this formula: Number of cigarette related items of the survey (normalized by 100 m) = Number of cigarette related items of the survey x (100 / survey length) Then, this normalized number of cigarette related items is summed to obtain the total normalized number of cigarette related items for each survey. Finally, the median abundance of cigarette related items for each beach and year is calculated from these normalized abundances of cigarette related items per survey. Sometimes the survey length was null or equal to 0. Assuming that the MSFD protocol has been applied, the length has been set at 100m in these cases. Percentiles 50, 75, 95 & 99 have been calculated taking into account cigarette related items from MSFD monitoring data (excluding UNEP-MARLIN protocol) for all years. More information is available in the attached documents. Warning: the absence of data on the map does not necessarily mean that they do not exist, but that no information has been entered in the Marine Litter Database for this area.