Geographic area covered by the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment and the CBMP–Terrestrial Plan. Subzones A to E are depicted as defined in the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM Team 2003). Subzones A, B and C are the high Arctic while subzones D and E are the low Arctic. Definition of high Arctic, low Arctic, and sub-Arctic follow Hohn & Jaakkola 2010. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 1 - Page 14 - Figure 1.2

Appendix 11. Taxa of hetorotrophic protists reported from Foxe Basin, Canada (FB), Disko Bay, W Greenland (DB; Vors 1993), the Greenland Sea (GLS; Ikävalko & Gradinger 1997) and Northern Baffin Bay, Canada (NBB; Lovejoy et al. 2002).

River dataset showing location of study sites in rivers for the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring Plan. Published in the Arctic Freshwater Monitoring Plan Brochure released in 2013 http://www.caff.is/monitoring-series/view_document/277-arctic-freshwater-biodiversity-monitoring-plan-brochure

Breeding bird species in the different geographic zones of the low and high Arctic

Lemmings are currently being monitored at 38 sites. Their status and trends were determined based on data from these sites as well as recent data (since 2000) from an additional 11 previous monitoring sites (Figure 3-31). Of those sites monitored, Fennoscandia is overrepresented relative to the geographical area it covers, whereas Russia is underrepresented. Based on the skewed geographical coverage, more information is available for some species of lemmings than others, particularly the Norwegian lemming. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 80 - Figure 3.31

The Arctic Council’s 2009 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) identified a number of recommendations to guide future action by the Arctic Council, Arctic States and others on current and future Arctic marine activity. Recommendation II C under the theme Protecting Arctic People and the Environment recommended: “That the Arctic states should identify areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance in light of changing climate conditions and increasing multiple marine use and, where appropriate, should encourage implementation of measures to protect these areas from the impacts of Arctic marine shipping, in coordination with all stakeholders and consistent with international law.” As a follow-up to the AMSA, the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) and Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) working groups undertook to identify areas of heightened ecological significance, and the Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG) undertook to identify areas of heightened cultural significance. The work to identify areas of heightened ecological significance builds on work conducted during the preparation of the AMAP (2007) Arctic Oil and Gas Assessment. Although it was initially intended that the identification of areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance would be addressed in a similar fashion, this proved difficult. The information available on areas of heightened cultural significance was inconsistent across the Arctic and contained gaps in data quality and coverage which could not be addressed within the framework of this assessment. The areas of heightened cultural significance are therefore addressed within a separate section of the report (Part B) and are not integrated with the information on areas of heightened ecological significance (Part A). In addition, Part B should be seen as instructive in that it illustrates where additional data collection and integration efforts are required, and therefore helps inform future efforts on identification of areas of heightened cultural significance. The results of this work provide the scientific basis for consideration of protective measures by Arctic states in accordance with AMSA recommendation IIc, including the need for specially designated Arctic marine areas as follow-up to AMSA recommendation IId. Reference: AMAP/CAFF/SDWG, 2013. Identification of Arctic marine areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance: Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) IIc. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo. 114 pp. Data avaiable from: source: <a href="http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/Identification-of-Arctic-marine-areas-of-heightened-ecological-and-cultural-significance-Arctic-Marine-Shipping-Assessment-AMSA-IIc/869" target="_blank">Identification of Arctic marine areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance</a>

Current state of monitoring for Arctic terrestrial biodiversity FECs in each Arctic state. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 4 - Page 102 - Figure 4.1

The U.S. National Ice Center (NIC) is an inter-agency sea ice analysis and forecasting center comprised of the Department of Commerce/NOAA, the Department of Defense/U.S. Navy, and the Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Coast Guard components. Since 1972, NIC has produced Arctic and Antarctic sea ice charts. This data set is comprised of Arctic sea ice concentration climatology derived from the NIC weekly or biweekly operational ice-chart time series. The charts used in the climatology are from 1972 through 2007; and the monthly climatology products are median, maximum, minimum, first quartile, and third quartile concentrations, as well as frequency of occurrence of ice at any concentration for the entire period of record as well as for 10-year and 5-year periods. NIC charts are produced through the analyses of available in situ, remote sensing, and model data sources. They are generated primarily for mission planning and safety of navigation. NIC charts generally show more ice than do passive microwave derived sea ice concentrations, particularly in the summer when passive microwave algorithms tend to underestimate ice concentration. The record of sea ice concentration from the NIC series is believed to be more accurate than that from passive microwave sensors, especially from the mid-1990s on (see references at the end of this documentation), but it lacks the consistency of some passive microwave time series. Source: <a href="http://nsidc.org/data/G02172" target="_blank">NSIDC</a> Reference: National Ice Center. 2006, updated 2009. National Ice Center Arctic sea ice charts and climatologies in gridded format. Edited and compiled by F. Fetterer and C. Fowler. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center. Source: <a href="http://nsidc.org/data/G02172" target="_blank">NSIDC</a>

Vegetation monitoring occurs across the Arctic, but the duration of monitoring efforts is variable and is dependent upon both study design and access to resources. Although many field studies on vegetation have been conducted in the Arctic (Figure 3-5), not all can be considered monitoring since some recorded only select measurements over limited time frames. Studies reporting on abundance and composition of vegetation reflect a larger and more widespread geographical coverage than the typically more site-limited and time-consuming phenology studies (Figure 3-5). Geographical gaps in coverage of Siberia and large parts of the Canadian Arctic are evident. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 34 - Figure 3.5

Routes used for hunting polar bear in Ittoqqoortoormiit, East Greenland before 1999 (red line), and in 2012 (yellow), 2013 (blue) and 2014 (green). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-mammals" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 159 - Box figure 3.6.1