Pressure layer combines all human activities that cause changes to hydrological conditions. The human activities were presented as point data which were given spatial extents (given below). The pressure value was given as the proportion of the grid cell under the pressure. The following human activities were combined into the changes to hydrological conditions layer; - Hydropower dams (a 1km2 grid cell in the river estuary was selected) - Water course modification (1 km) - Wind turbines (operational, 0.3 km, linear decline) - Oil platforms (0.5 km, linear decline) The human activity datasets were first processed separately covering the whole Baltic Sea and then summed together and overlapping areas were dissolved to remove double counting. Attenuation gradients are assigned to each layer as described above. Area effected decreases when distance from avtivity increases. Layer was normalized.

This dataset is built from following Human activities datasets: • http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/81c917ea-492d-48e2-9f00-e1bb7fe3e4fc • http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/4fcd51dd-b8be-4e83-8cad-37c566782e8f The game hunting of seabirds data (see separate metadata): The total number of hunted seabirds were averaged over 2011-2015 (number of hunted seabirds / year). The area of the reporting unit was used to calculate the number of hunted seabirds / km2 and the data was converted to 1km x 1km grid. The predator control of seabirds data (see separate metadata): The total number of hunted cormorants were averaged over 2011-2015 (number of hunted cormorants / year). The area of the reporting unit was used to calculate the number of hunted cormorants / km2 and the data was converted to 1km x 1km grid. The two datasets were first separately log transformed and then summed, to get the total value for each grid cell. Zero values were given to all grid cells with no reported seabird hunting activity. The layer was normalized.

Distribution of Fucus sp. based on data submission by HELCOM contracting parties. Mainly pointwise occurrences of Fucus were submitted, originally gathered in national mapping and monitoring campaigns, or for scientific research purposes. From Estonian waters, a predictive model was used (200m resolution), that was converted to presence/absence using minimized difference threshold (MDT) criteria. All data (Fucus points and the raster presenting predicted presence of Fucus) 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.

Input of hazardous substances pressure layer is interpolated from CHASE Assessment tool concentration component. The contamination ratio values were calculated with CHASE Assessment tool for hazardous substances monitored in water, sediment and biota. Classified mean contamination ratio was used in the interpolation. Classification is based on the http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/about-helcom-and-the-assessment/downloads-and-data/. The points were interpolated to cover the entire Baltic Sea with Spline with barriers interpolation method. Please see "lineage" section below for further details on attributes, data source, data processing, etc.

The map of sprat relative abundance is mainly based on Baltic International acoustic surveys (BIAS), years 2011-2016, (ICES WGBIFS reports), reported as millions of sprat per ICES rectangle. The BIAS surveys cover almost the whole area where sprat is commonly encountered. Outside BIAS area, sprat landings data was 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 2011-2015). MAX-value = millions of sprat according to BIAS in the ICES rectangle with highest landings. ICES rectangles outside the BIAS survey area with no reported sprat landings were given the value 0. The abundance values / ICES rectangle were divided by the area of the rectangle to obtain values per 1km2, and then converted to 1 km x 1km grid cells. Values were first log transformed and then normalised.

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.

Pressure layer combines all human activities that cause physical disturbance or damage to seabed. For several human activity datasets, spatial extents were given (table below). Buffers with decreasing value rates were applied to represent the impact distance of physical disturbance. The following human activities were combined into the physical disturbance layer; - Cables (under construction, 1 km buffer) - Coastal defence and flood protection (under construction, 500 m buffer) - Deposit of dredged material (500 m buffer for points and areas) - Dredging (maintenance) (500 m buffer for points and areas) - Extraction of sand and gravel (500 m buffer) - Finfish mariculture (1 km buffer) - Fishing intensity 2011-2016 average (subsurface swept area ratio) - Furcellaria harvesting - Pipelines (0,3 km buffer) - Recreational boating and sports - Shellfish mariculture - Shipping density - Wind farms (under construction) (1 km buffer) - Wind farms (operational) (0,1 km buffer) The human activity data sets were first processed separately covering the whole Baltic Sea and then summed together. In this integration, some data layers were down-weighted to arrive at a balanced pressure layer, as described below. High pressure intensity and/or slow recovery (weighting factor 1): Coastal defence and flood protection, Deposit of dredged material, Dredging, Extraction of sand and gravel and Fishing intensity Moderate to high (Weighting factor 0,8): Pipelines and Shipping density Moderate (Weighting factor 0,6): Finfish mariculture, Shellfish mariculture and Wind farms (under construction) Low to moderate (Weighting factor 0,4): Cables Low (Weighting factor 0,2): Maerl and Furcellaria harvesting, Recreational boating and sports and Wind farms (operational) Harbours and marinas were left out from the physical disturbance pressure to avoid double counting due to their representation in the shipping density and recreational boating and sports data sets.

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 porpoise across the Baltic Sea. The abundance of harbour porpoise is presented using 4 abundance classes. The classification is based on expert consultation and information from scientific literature (e.g. Sveegaard et al. 2011, Viquerat et al. 2014). The class borders are defined by expert opinion and generalizing the data gathered and modelled in SAMBAH project. For the Baltic Proper the SAMBAH results have been used to delineate the class borders: 20% probability of detection during May-October has been used to define the area of “common occurrence and reproduction”, and the 20% probability of detection during November-April has been used to define the “regular occurrence, no regular reproduction” area. Please note: The applied spatial scale includes lagoons and estuaries of the inner coastal waters (e.g. Szczecin Lagoon, Jasmund lagoon) where harbour porpoises do not or only exceptionally occur unlike the map suggests.