312 
Fishery Bulletin 107(3) 
A total of 163 sites in the 515-km 2 study area were 
sampled with some combination of grab, box corer, 
and videotape recording (Fig. 2). Bottom types ranged 
from organic-rich muds in deeper water (greater than 
100 m) to hard bottom (gravel and boulders) in water 
less than 80 m deep. Hard bottom areas typically were 
composed mainly of gravel and in many cases sufficient 
amounts of sand to allow grab samples to be success- 
fully obtained for infauna analysis. Some hard bottom 
sites also had boulders present, as determined from the 
video imagery, and these sites were classified as gravel 
(Fig. 2). No plants were collected in the grab and core 
samples or observed in the video imagery. Infauna dom- 
inated the soft sediments in deeper waters (and were 
mainly sampled by box corer and video recorder), and 
epifauna dominated the shallower hard bottom areas 
(mainly sampled by grab and video recorder). 
There were strong differences across the three sedi- 
ment types for both infauna and epifauna. For the in- 
fauna, there were three significant sediment interaction 
effects for density, biomass, and taxonomic richness 
from grab data; all three measures were substantial- 
ly higher in sand sediments inside the closure than 
outside the closure (Fig. 4). For the epifauna, there 
were significant sediment interactions for density and 
taxonomic richness; both variables were substantially 
greater only in gravel sediments inside the closure. 
Although the interaction effects clouded interpretation 
of the main effects (i.e., all sediments combined), there 
was consistency in that all measures were higher in- 
side the closure compared to outside the closure. There 
were two significant main effects (Fig. 4, A-F): higher 
densities of infauna from grab (P=0.01) and box corer 
(P=0.02) data inside compared to outside the closure. 
There were two significant main effects comparisons 
for epifauna (Fig. 4, G-H): total community density 
(P=0.0001) and taxonomic richness (P=0.0004), which 
were both higher inside. 
Overall, these data indicate the following trends by 
sediment type. For mud, there were no consistent trends 
