Linking Habitat and Benthic Invertebrate Species Distribu8ons in Areas of Poten8al Renewable Energy Development Sarah K. Henkel & Chris Goldfinger
Oregon State University
Work presented here sponsored largely by BOEM with additional support from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Oregon Wave Energy Trust and data from the U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE Potential Environmental Effects
Changes to
bird behavior
Cumulative Effects of Arrays
Lighting
Chemicals
Hard structures
Colonization by fouling organisms
Attraction of
rock associated
species
Scour around
anchors
Electromagnetic Fields
Reduction of
wave energy
Cables
Entanglement
Changes to sand
transport and
sedimentation
Noise
Changes to fish, crab behavior
Objectives for Baseline Benthic
Research
1.  Describe the benthic habitats and communities of organisms in areas of potential marine renewable energy development in the Pacific Northwest 2. Develop an understanding of species-­‐habitat relationships 3.  Determine variation in habitat characteristics and benthic species across space in the region 4. Determine variation in benthic species over time Spatial (and quasiTemporal) Study
Nehalem
v Infaunal invertebrates in sedimentary
habitats and macro-inverts in rocky habitats!
Cape Perpetua
² 2010 - 2012!
² Northern California to central
Siltcoos
Washington!
Coquille
² Federal waters only!
² Depth range of ~40 to 130 m!
² All sites approximately the same
area sampled!
² Sampling intensity represents
depth proportion!
v Compare infaunal data to 2003 EPA survey!
v Compare reef data to 1990s Delta surveys!
High Resolution Mapping
Conducted by C. Goldfinger lab (CEOAS)!
Multi-beam sonar mapping (bathymetry) !
Acoustic backscatter (substrate type)!
Groundtruth with Grab Samples
Goldfinger Lab, CEOAS, OSU
Water Column Sampling
CTD cast at each station measures depth, temperature,
salinity, dissolved oxygen, chl fluorescence, pH!
Infauna and Sediment Sampling
0.1 m2 Grey-O’Hare box core (versus van Veen in 2003)!
Sieve through
1.0 mm mesh!
Analyze sediment for grain
size, total organic carbon!
Identify
infauna in the
lab!
Infauna and Sediment Results
Axinopsida serricata
2003 EPA-NCA stations
z = 64.6 m ± 20.0 2
± 18.2 z = 90.7 m OR019
OR004
OR026
OR008
OR042
OR017
OR038
OR039
OR015
OR050
OR014
OR031
OR001
OR005
CA075
OR032
CA083
CA051
CA099
WA025
WA060
OR047
WA042
OR046
OR025
WA070
OR006
OR030
OR009
OR029
WA007
WA010
WA015
OR028
OR013
OR045
WA002
WA034
WA086
WA018
WA031
WA020
WA047
OR020
OR011
OR049
CA147
CA289
CA043
CA139
CA019
CA035
OR033
OR041
OR027
OR007
OR012
OR043
WA023
WA030
OR021
OR048
WA004
WA009
WA037
WA081
OR002
OR024
OR037
OR003
OR016
OR036
OR034
OR040
OR035
OR023
OR044
OR018
OR022
1
0
Height
3
4
Cluster Dendrogram of 2003 EPA-­NCA Samples from Northern California to Washington (outside the NMS)
Shallower, warmer, coarser, lower TOC, fewer taxa Deeper, saltier, colder, siltier, higher TOC, clustd
more taxa hclust (bray-­curtis, ward)
Npt013
Npt062
Npt093
Npt046
Npt110
Npt058
Npt078
Npt026
Npt118
Npt030
Npt042
Npt070
GH020
Neh059
Npt057
Npt102
Npt086
Npt085
Npt014
Npt094
Npt019
Npt067
Npt003
Npt010
GH076
GH165
Neh095
NSA120
NSA024
NSA064
NSA112
NSA116
NSA080
NSA096
NSA028
NSA104
NSA048
NSA016
NSA044
NSA056
NSA088
NSA108
NSA040
NSA072
NSA032
NSA012
NSA060
Eur050
Eur098
Eur054
Eur082
Eur038
Eur114
GH004
GH122
GH103
GH149
NSA100
SC097
SC029
SC128
SC005
SC033
SC073
SC021
SC134
SC069
SC009
SC150
SC017
SC037
SC001
SC065
SC077
SC041
SC105
SC136
Eur101
Eur117
Eur034
Eur074
Eur109
Eur045
Eur061
Eur002
Eur066
Eur106
Eur022
Eur090
Eur006
Eur018
GH063
GH047
GH111
Neh035
Neh055
Neh011
Neh023
Neh099
GH119
Neh115
GH221
GH084
GH092
Neh007
Neh091
Neh107
Neh051
Neh083
Neh015
Neh087
Neh079
Neh027
Neh075
Neh071
Neh031
Neh039
Neh043
0
2
Height
4
6
2010 BOEM Benthic Stations
Offshore Infauna (square root transformed) Cluster Dendrogram
89-­‐123 m 95-­‐129 m 52-­‐79 m d (Bray-­Curtis)
hclust (*, "ward")
What makes Newport so different?
Mollusca (Bivalves)!
Proportion of major taxa 100% Percent oPercent f total organisms of total 90% 80% 70% 60% Echiura Sipuncula 50% Echinodermata 40% Crustacean Cnidaria 30% Mollusca 20% Annelida 10% 0% NSAF (2010) Eureka (2010) Coquille (2012) Silt Coos (2010) Cape Perpetua (2012) Sample station Newport (2010) Nehalem (2010) Grays Harbor (2010) H’ Diversity of Infaunal
Samples (BOEM)
4 Shannon Diversity log(e) had a 2nd degree polynomial relationship with both depth and median grain size. 3.5 3 H' 2.5 2 y = -­‐0.0017x2 + 0.3218x -­‐ 11.805 R² = 0.98179, p = 0.002 1.5 1 The relationship with depth was stronger than with MGS. 0.5 0 20 40 60 80 Depth 100 120 ✓ Maximum Diversity log(e) should be found at ~ 95 m and 120 μm median grain size. H' 140 H' 0 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 y = -­‐8E-­‐05x2 + 0.0209x + 2.049 R² = 0.75631, p 0.120 0 50 100 150 MSG 200 250 300 Community Analysis (SIMPER) BEST Bio-­‐Env = 0.702: lon, z, % sand, % gravel, mgs Nehalem: 5 groups Newport: 8 groups Grays: 5 groups Siltcoos: 3 groups Eureka: 7 groups NSAF: 4 groups Community Trends
Infaunal Patterns with Median GS H' (Diversity) / # Significant Groups (Heterogeneity) 9 8 #InfaunaGroups 7 y = 16.041e-­‐0.013x R² = 0.69877 6 5 4 3 H' Diversity 2 y = -­‐0.0017x2 + 0.3218x -­‐ 11.805 R² = 0.98179 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 Depth 100 120 140 H' (Diversity) / # Significant Groups (Heterogeneity) Infaunal Patterns with Depth 9 8 7 #InfaunaGroups 6 y = 0.0003x2 -­‐ 0.0775x + 7.5277 R² = 0.55958 5 4 3 H' Diversity 2 y = -­‐8E-­‐05x2 + 0.0209x + 2.049 R² = 0.75631 1 0 0 50 100 150 MGS 200 250 300 Shelf Infaunal Densities over Time
EPA National Coastal Assessment 2003 100 Miscellaneous Mollusca Crustacea Polychaeta 60 40 100% BOEM Assessment 2010 t-­‐axa 2012 Proportion of major 90% 20 80% 70% Percent of total Percent of Abundance 80 60% 0 All CA OR WA 50% 40% 30% 20% Echiura Sipuncula Echinodermata Crustacean Cnidaria Mollusca Annelida 10% 0% NSAF Eureka Coquille Silt Coos Cape Newport Nehalem Grays (2010) (2010) (2012) (2010) Perpetua (2010) (2010) Harbor (2012) (2010) Sample station Infaunal Invertebrate Summary
² Unique invertebrate assemblages were found at each site in the PNW!
² There appears to be a break in the infaunal community at 70–80 m depth!
² Species diversity peaked at ~95 m depth and ~120 μm median grain size!
² Local spatial heterogeneity was higher at shallower sites (usually with
larger grain size)!
v One site cannot necessarily serve as a proxy for distant sites (or nearby
sites in different depth range)!
v If the depth and grain size of a site are measured, one may be able to
make good predictions of the species assemblage likely to be found
there, within a region!
² In central Oregon state waters, infaunal invertebrate assemblages have not
varied across seasons (but may have longer term variability)!
v Baseline/monitoring sampling may be conducted 1x/year!
Epifaunal Sampling – Reef Surveys
Remotely operated vehicle (ROV)
Hammerhead
•  Used for dives in 2011
•  Two cameras: forward & downward
•  Sizing lasers
•  Equipped with CTD
•  Equipped with navigator beam
•
•
•
•
Submersible Delta
Used for historic dives of the 1990s
Camera attached on starboard
Camera equipped with two 20 cmapart sizing lasers
Equipped with sensor that measured
temperature & depth every second
Epifaunal Sampling - Delta
Grays Harbor
1994
6 Dives
Siltcoos Reef
1995
7 Dives
Coquille Bank
1993
8 Dives
Epifaunal Sampling - Hammerhead Grays Bank
Siltcoos Reef
•  Grays Bank – 14 stations, Siltcoos Reef – 10 stations
•  Each station was composed of three transects, approximately 250 meters
long and distributed in parallel fashion, 250 meters apart
Video Analysis
Ê  Each Delta dive was watched three times:!
1.
Substratum Identification based on grain size
class and relief!
Each patch was coded with two letters – first letter
indicating primary (50 – 80% of cover) and second
letter indicating secondary (20 – 50% of cover)!
Sessile Invertebrate Identification and Count!
3.  Motile Invertebrate Identification and Count!
2.
Ê  Each ROV Hammerhead video was watched twice
(steps 2 and 3 were combined for these videos)!
Ê  All invertebrates ≥ 5 cm were counted and
identified to lowest possible taxonomic
classification!
Epifaunal Invertebrate Summary
² Two major substratum groups held different macroinvertebrate
assemblages: moderate to high relief rocky habitats and low-relief fine
sediment habitats!
² The majority of macroinvertebrate taxa (highest diversity) was
associated with high-relief rocks!
² These taxa were further differentiated between flat versus ridge
rocks!
²  Low-relief fine sediment habitat was most often associated with motile
invertebrates!
²  Within this habitat it appeared that fine-sediment substrata mixed
with mud, boulders, or gravel each yield unique macro-invertebrate
associations versus those found on uniformly mud or sand substrata.!
²  Latitude/temperature also were correlated with variation in
assemblages, indicating regionally distinct macroinvertebrate
communities along the continental shelf!
Acknowledgements Collaborator: Chris Goldfinger !
Field and Lab
Assistance:!
² Kristin Politano!
² Tim Lee!
² Nate Lewis!
² Stephanie Labou!
² Elizabeth Lopez!
² Danny Locket!
² Chris Romsos!
² Bob HairstonPorter!
² The University of !
Chicago Team!
OSU Test Platform
Resistor
banks
Early stage drawing of test berth concept