Distribution of blue mussel based on data submission by HELCOM contracting parties. Mainly pointwise occurrences of Mytilus spp. were submitted, originally gathered in national mapping and monitoring campaigns, or for scientific research. Point data from Poland was digitized based on Polish Marine Atlas. From Lithuania, a polygon delineating reefs was used to present Mytilus occurrence. For Germany, point data was complemented with a model describing Mytilus biomass in the German marine area (Darr et al. 2014), where predicted biomasses > 1g dw/ m2 were included as presence. From Estonian waters, a predictive model was used (200m resolution), that was converted to presence/absence using minimized difference threshold (MDT) criteria. All data (points, polygon and the raster presenting predicted presence of Mytilus) were generalized to 5km x 5km grid cells.

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (according to Habitats Directive Annex I) are often devoid of vascular plants, usually coated by blue algae and diatoms. They are of particular importance as feeding grounds for wildfowl and waders. The distribution map is based on data submission by HELCOM contracting parties. Only Denmark, Germany and Estonia reported occurrences of mudflats and sandflats. Most of the submitted data is based on modelling and/or GIS analysis. Data coverage, accuracy and the methods in obtaining the data vary between countries.

Summary The following 6 categories of annual mean salinity were applied delineating the Kattegat and the Baltic Sea into regions with differences in salinity regime (fig. 15): I. Oligohaline I (< 5psu). II. Oligohaline II (5 - 7.5psu). III. Mesohaline I (7.5 - 11psu). IV. Mesohaline II (11 - 18psu). V. Polyhaline (18 - 30psu). VI. Euhaline (>30psu). Description This dataset was produced by NERI, Denmark, for the BSR INTERREG IIIB project BALANCE. Due to the stratification in the Baltic Sea it was decided to use bottom salinity for the development of the benthic marine landscapes and difference in surface to bottom salinity for the pelagic landscapes. The following 6 categories of annual mean salinity were applied delineating the Kattegat and the Baltic Sea into regions with differences in salinity regime (fig. 15): I. Oligohaline I (< 5psu). II. Oligohaline II (5 - 7.5psu). III. Mesohaline I (7.5 - 11psu). IV. Mesohaline II (11 - 18psu). V. Polyhaline (18 - 30psu). VI. Euhaline (>30psu).

This map shows the distribution and abundance of grey seals across the Baltic Sea. The map was originally created for HELCOM Red list assessment of the Baltic Sea, using seal expert consultation. For the Baltic Sea Impact Index, the map was modified to represent four abundance classes, based on expert consultation. The map has been updated from the 1st version of HOLASII, based on expert consultation (HELCOM Seal EG).

Distribution of Charophytes (Chara spp., Nitella spp., Nitellopsis spp., Tolypella spp.) mainly based on data submission by HELCOM contracting parties. Submitted point data was originally gathered in national mapping and monitoring campaigns, or for scientific research. Also scientific publications were used to complement the data (in Curonian, Vistula and Szczechin lagoons, see reference list). Polygon data from Poland was digitized based on Polish Marine Atlas. From Estonian waters, a predictive model was used (200m resolution), that was converted to presence/absence using minimized difference threshold (MDT) criteria. All data (points, polygon and the raster presenting predicted presence of Charophytes) were generalized to 5km x 5km grid cells.

This map shows the distribution and abundance of harbour seals across the Baltic Sea. The map was originally created for HELCOM Red list assessment of the Baltic Sea, using seal expert consultation. For the Baltic Sea Impact Index, the map was modified to represent four abundance classes, based on expert consultation. The map has been updated from the 1st version of HOLASII, based on expert consultation (HELCOM Seal EG).

The extraction of cod pressure layer is based on two datasets: 1. http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/7a1389b3-382a-487f-8888-ac45c94c5a97 for years 2011-2016 reported per ICES statistical rectangles (tonnes / ICES rectangle). 2. http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/debeafcd-948b-4455-88ae-7a3d1618f5a8 from ICES recreational fisheries reports for 2011-2016, reported per country (only coastal areas included). Landing values were redistributed within each ICES rectangle by the c-square fishing effort data provided by ICES (all gears, 2011-2013). Tonnes / km² were calculated for both data sets and the results were converted to 1 km x 1 km grid cells. The layers were summed together, log-transformed and normalised to produce the final pressure layer on extraction of cod. Please see "lineage" section below for further details on attributes, data source, data processing, etc.

The data represents the seabed slope of the Baltic Sea and has been derived from a bathymetry dataset. Both datasets have been produced by the BSR INTERREG IIIB project BALANCE. For more information see also the metadata file on bathymetry.

The occurrence of suitable nursery habitats is crucial for maintaining fish populations (Sundblad et al. 2013). For perch, species distribution modelling studies (Snickars et al. 2010, Bergström et al. 2013, Sundblad et al. 2013) have shown the importance of suitable environmental conditions for reproduction. Due to lack of coherent data on perch spawning and nursery areas across the Baltic Sea countries, environmental variables were used in delineating potential recruitment areas for perch. The distribution area or perch recruitment is delineated by selecting areas where depth < 4 m (For Danish waters < 3 m), logged exposure < 5 (exposure model described in Isæus 2004), and salinity < 10 PSU. The threshold values have been obtained from literature (Snickars et al. 2010, Bergström et al. 2013, Skovrind et al. 2013, Sundblad et al. 2013). Relatively “loose” thresholds have been used, to rather overestimate than underestimate the recruitment area (precautionary approach). Along the Finnish coastline a national model has been used (Kallasvuo et al. 2016), with suitable environments for perch recruitment generalized to 1 km x 1 km grid.

The map of herring relative abundance is mainly based on Baltic International acoustic surveys (BIAS), years 2011-2016 (ICES WGBIFS reports), reported as millions of herring / ICES rectangle. Also herring landings data were used to complement the data. For ICES rectangles surveyed by BIAS, values shown are the mean values per ICES rectangle based on BIAS data, average for 2011-2016. For ICES rectangles not surveyed by BIAS, values are calculated as: MAX-value x Weighting factor. The weighting factor is specific to each ICES rectangle, calculated as the ratio between the commercial landings in that rectangle and the commercial landings in the ICES rectangle with highest landings (based on averages for 2011-2016). MAX-value = millions of herring according to BIAS in the ICES rectangle with highest landings. ICES rectangles outside the BIAS survey area with no reported herring landings were given the value 0. The relative abundance values in each ICES rectangle were divided by the area of the rectangle to obtain values per 1km2. If the values in small coastal ICES rectangles (outside BIAS area) became unrealistically large due to high herring landings, the value of the neighboring rectangle was given. The final layer was converted to 1 km x 1km grid cells. Values were first log transformed and normalized.