Designing a Marine Protected Area from the Bottom Up

A synthetic approach to benthic habitat mapping in the San Juan Islands

Luis Camilli
lcamilli@mlml.calstate.edu Center for Habitat Studies Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 8272 Moss Landing Road Moss Landing, CA 95039-9674

Abstract
Bathymetric mapping and groundtruthing techniques were combined in a Geographical Information System (GIS) to produce benthic habitat maps of the San Juan Islands of Washington State. Multibeam SONAR data for Griffin Bay and surrounding channels was collected in a collaborative effort between the Canadian Hydrographic Survey and Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Center for Habitat Studies in April of 2005. Analysis of Remotely Operated Vehicle surveys, sediment grab samples, and multibeam backscatter analysis were combined with ancillary biological studies from the region in consideration of Griffin Bay as a potential location for a Marine Protected Area.

Introduction
Management of individual species without considering larger ecosystem dynamics upon which they depend is a common criticism of species management plans (Ward et al. 1999). Ecological processes and critical habitats are not distributed homogeneously; hence reserve networks must be designed on the basis of spatially explicit quantitative data (Sala et.al. 2002). Furthermore, spatial and temporal scales of biological activity in aquatic systems are often tightly coupled to scales of physical phenomena such as thermoclines, currents, or gyres (Steele 1989). While there are many ecological and oceanographic factors to consider in designing an effective Marine Protected Area (MPA), general assumptions of a bottom up approach to habitat modeling predict benthic topological complexity as a good surrogate for benthic habitat complexity and species diversity (Ardron et. al. 2002).

Ecological hierarchy theory assumes that scale interdependencies are hierarchical, in that processes at one scale create patterns at another scale (Levin 1992). This paradigm also maintains that wider or coarser scales approximate the boundary conditions of narrower or finer scales by constraining the behavior and dynamics of the processes occurring at finer scales (Pereira 2002). This study applies a holistic synthesis of micro scale resolution (<1 meter) bathymetric data and Remotely Operated Vehicle surveys, with macro-scale (10 meter-1 kilometer) ecological interpretation of a well studied area of the San Juan Islands. Seafloor structure and biological groundtruthing are combined in a Geographical Information System (GIS) to produce habitat maps of a mesoscale (<10 kilometer) ecological system. Based on data collected during a hydrographic survey in April 2005, discussion of Griffin Bay as a likely candidate for an optimal Marine Protected Area within the greater Puget Sound ecosystem of Washington State follows.

Quantifying benthic habitats

Our ability to characterize underwater habitat has grown with advances in remote sensing technology such as sidescan sonar, multibeam sonar, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), underwater video and photography, and Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV). (Greene et al. 1999). A key element to understanding ecological dynamics of underwater habitat is by quantifying spatial relationships among different elements of the benthoscape and quantifying the distribution of species, materials and energy in relation to the configuration of these elements. (Zajac et. al. 2002). Factors like depth and substrate classification are a potentially cost effective surrogate for initially identifying

areas for managing coastal marine biological diversity. (Ward et.al. 1999) In order to accurately describe and effectively apply the ecological and biological attributes of underwater habitat and to facilitate comparison between scientific disciplines, a deep water classification scheme has been developed to describe and communicate geophysical data that is collected remotely (Green et.al. 1999).

Study Area
Regional Geography and Geology
Located in the Puget Sound of Washington state, the San Juan Islands form a geologically complex province surrounded by the Cascade Mountains, Vancouver Island, and the Olympic Peninsula (Fig 1). A compound assemblage of early Paleozoic through Eocene rock defines the physiography of the San Juan Islands and can be represented by two main blocks separated by the Haro fault (Johnson & Whetten). During the Pleistocene the Strait of Juan de Fuca probably evolved as the result of a combination of both tectonic and glacial process. Rapid retreat of glacial continental ice and high isostatic rebound occurred between 13,600 and 11,300 years Before Present (Dethier 1995). The San Juan Archipelago is bounded by Rosario Strait to the east, Haro Strait to the north and west, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the west and south. The archipelago is composed of 176 islands, San Juan, Orcas, Lopez and Shaw Islands being the largest. Intermittent sand and cobble beaches lead to deep glacier scoured channels ,often exceeding 100 meters in depth, with extreme tidal currents (up to 7 knots) predominating.

Regional MPAs

In response to declines in rockfish populations, the San Juan County Marine Resource Committee (MRC) was created in 1996 and established eight Voluntary No Take Zones in 1998. Currently in the San Juan Islands, MPAs consist mainly of rocky habitat designed as refuges for rockfishes, lingcod, and other rocky habitat fishes. This may not be suitable for species such as clams or other invertebrates which use soft sediments for habitat. Since then Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has instituted 15 statutory marine reserves in Puget Sound designed to protect bottomfish, shellfish, or intertidal invertebrates from non-tribal harvest with some areas having Salmon, Herring and Crab excepted from the rule (NOAA 2002). Nationally, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) were established by Executive Order (E.O.) 13158 on May 26, 2000.

Griffin Bay
Griffin Bay (480 30 0 N, 1230 00 W) is located on the east side of San Juan Island, in the San Juan Island Archipelago of Puget Sound. Since 1960, Friday Harbor Sand and Gravel (FHSG) has been located on Jacksons beach on the northern shoreline of Griffin Bay. Mining operations ceased in 1999.

Methods
A 14 meter hydrographic research vessel, the Otter Bay, was used to collect multibeam SONAR data for Griffin Bay and surrounding channels in April of 2005 in a collaborative effort between the Canadian Hydrographic Survey and Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Center of Habitat Studies.

Equipment
The Otter Bay was equipped with a hull mounted Kongsberg SIMRAD EM3000 multibeam echo sounder operating at 300 kHz with 127 beams and 1.5 degree beam width. The effective depth for this instrument is 1 meter to 250 meters with 100 % coverage. The sensor array also provided a nearfield sidescan emulation using multibeam backscatter intensity with 5 centimeter resolution. Time Variable Gain was adjusted automatically using an EM 3000 dynamic Moving Vessel Profiler (MVP). Conductivity Temperature Depth (CTD) casts were performed twice during the survey to verify acoustic calibrations of the MVP. Tidal height was measured each day from a datum on the station dock to synchronize the multibeam system with local tidal oscillations.

Analysis
Analysis and processing of acoustic multibeam SONAR data was conducted with Caris HIPS and SIPS Version 5.4 software to create a 0.5 meter grid. Backscatter was analyzed to verify indurations of substrate. Bathymetry was imported into ArcGIS version 9.0 Geographical Information System and georectified to a WGS 1984 datum and a Universal Transverse Mercator projection. A benthic habitat map, using a classification scheme developed at the Center for Habitat Studies at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (Green et.al. 1999), was created based on interpretation of bathymetry, backscatter, video drop cameras, and sediment samples (Fig. 3). A second map of species assemblages was prepared for use as a heuristic in designing a potential MPA for Griffin Bay. Bathymetry, backscatter, ROV video analysis, and ancillary maps and biological data collected from the area were incorporated in a synthetic manner to create a map for use by resource managers and

biologists (Fig 4). ROV tracklines from a 2004 survey in Griffin Bay were plotted on the habitat map and analyzed for species presence/absence. The ROV data also served as a guide for groundtruthing additional areas not surveyed in 2004. A sediment grab was used in conjunction with a tethered drop camera (which was deployed from a smaller, 5meter vessel) to interpret ambiguous or noisy bathymetric and backscatter data.

Results
Corroborative data
Rocky Habitat
The bathymetry of North Griffin Bay shows large aggregations of complex, differentially eroded bedrock that is very rugose and of hard induration. Studies from the area indicate the potential for an area like this to be excellent habitat for Rock fish species. For example, Copper (Sebastes. caurinus), quillback (S. maliger), and brown rockfishes (S. auriculatus) prefer high relief rocky habitats, while Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) and kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus) are more generalists, preferring a wider range of substrates and being less dependent on complexity and relief factors than rockfishes (Pacunski and Palsson, 2001). Other fish species using North Griffin Bay are Lepidopsetta bilineata (Rock sole), Pleuronectes vetulus (English sole), Platichthys stellatus (Starry flounder) and Syngnathus griseolineatus (Bay pipefish). (Rodgers 2002). Analysis of the 2004 ROV video showed these same rocky areas to be highly prolific not only in terms of Sole and Rockfish species, but also heavily encrusted with sessile invertebrates like mytridium, anemones, tube worms, scallops, clams and motile invertebrates such as echinoderms, gastropods, and even a giant cephalopod (octopus).

A study from the University of Washington, Friday Harbor Laboratories suggests that North Griffin Bay is also a nursery area for four species of shrimp Pandalus danae, Pandalus goniurus, Pandalus platyceros and Crangon spp. (Rodgers 2002).

Soft substrate habitat

Dungeness crabs are a major part of recreational and commercial fisheries of the Pacific Northwest. Crab pots were abundant during the Griffin Bay survey in shallow areas near a 10 meter isobath (personal observation) and during video transects. Estimates from a University of Washington survey in South Griffin Bay found high densities of Helmet crabs (Telmessus cheiragonus) and high densities of Dungeness crabs (Cancer magister) in a range of vegetation and at all depths. (Raaum 2000). Video analysis of 2004 ROV data from South Griffin Bay supports this. Dungeness crabs, which are known to burrow in sandy bottoms and eelgrass beds, were observed in context with dense aggregations of burrows in the soft unconsolidated sediments (mostly silt and sand). This sediment is probably also serving as habitat for shrimp, mussels, small crabs, clams, and worms which are the Dungeness crabs major food source. In general, the bathymetry collected for South Griffin Bay shows a significant change from the rocky high relief areas of North Griffin Bay changing to soft sediment. An interesting phenomenon is that the crab fishing area is almost uniquely defined by a long scarp feature (5 meter high wall) that is believed to be a paleoshoreline most likely from the last ice age, and perhaps recently an active fault (Greene, pers. com). Subbottom seismic profiling or core samples would help to verify this features origin and relation to other regional fault systems.

Vegetation:
Heterogeneity of vegetation types maybe important for MPAs. One study examining kelp beds of Puget Sound in the Strait of Juan de Fuca found that substrate plays a critical role in defining the understory community and that the greater substrate diversity of Nereocystis beds offered a broader array of habitat types, and resulted in higher numbers and species of invertebrates (Shaffer 1998). Our video analysis and the results of the 2004 ROV survey showed Laminaria species common in most of Griffin Bays rocky habitat surveyed. This coincides with a previous study indicating that large Laminarian species dominate during spring and summer with a shift to fleshy red algae during winter months (Shaffer 1998). The rocky substrate that is ubiquitous in North Griffin Bay is probably providing the necessary attachment sites for the kelp holdfasts. Other species observed from the video were dense patches of substory red alga along with encrusting and geniculate corraline algae. South Griffin Bay had the most extensive high-density eelgrass beds and may explain why it is such a prolific source for crab fishing.

Currents and larval supply

Griffin Bays proximity to the San Juan Channel indicates another important characteristic of its location. In Puget Sound, upwelling zones do not exist, but other oceanographic features such as tidal gyres, tidal pumps, wind forcing, and estuarine circulation may be significant to the success of marine refuges (Palsson 2001). A drift card study of localized surface current circulations in the Puget Sound showed that the San Juan channel near Griffin Bay may be an important site for larval recruitment by functioning as a major collection zones for buoyant particles and imply

the existence of a counter-clockwise circulation around the archipelago resulting from ebb tidal eddies formed in the southern lee of the San Juan Archipelago (Klinger & Ebbesmeyer 2001). This is important because larvae of many species (e.g., rockfish, echinoderm, and decapods) spend long periods in the plankton and consequently their recruitment into nearshore habitats will depend on larval behavior and on local and regional surface circulation patterns (Allison et al. 1998; Strathmann 1987). The effect of deep currents on the benthic substrate was evident in analysis of bathymetric data from this survey which showed scouring predominant near rocky areas. ROV video analysis and sediment grabs indicate these heavily scoured areas are mostly coarse sand or shell hash (coquina). Other areas near the center of Griffin Bay and in the San Juan Channel revealed large sand waves sometimes exceeding five meters. Lingcod were observed in the depressions of these large sand waves and may be using the leeward areas as a respite from the fast currents (Gunderson pers. com). The biological effects of these strong currents on the benthic and demersel assemblages in this area need to be investigated further.

Griffin Bay MPA?

Marine reserve boundaries are difficult to define because of inadequate knowledge of biological diversity (i.e. species, habitats, ecosystems and ecological processes) and difficult to defend in the face of multiple competing demands like fisheries, mineral industries, recreation and geopolitical interests (Ward et al. 1999). Although ecological information provides a better heuristic for conservation efforts, conservation decisions will most likely be made in context of economic and political

interests. It is therefore appropriate to analyze Griffin Bay as a potential Marine Protected Area from both perspectives. Data presented from this study indicates that Griffin Bay is operating as a unique mesoscale ecological structure because two major systems exist within a relatively small area. These are essentially a deep water, highly complex, fish and invertebrate assemblage in North Griffin Bay, and a sediment infaunal seagrass assemblage in South Griffin Bay. The fact that these two communities are contained within one bay eliminates much concern for resource managers of deleterious edge effects resulting from habitat fragmentation. Economic benefits are considerable for the crabbing industry because of South Griffin Bays potential as a source for other areas (both larval and trophic) for Dungeness crab and associated species. Since North Griffin Bay is thought to be a nursery for many invertebrate species and obligate rockfish species, this will help to bolster fishing in surrounding areas (sinks) by acting as a buffer to fishing pressure. Economically, Griffin Bay is also important to tourism given its proximity to Friday Harbor, a major ferry port and holiday destination. Finally, Griffin Bay is situated near the University of Washingtons Friday Harbor Laboratories which could utilize Griffin Bay as an ecological benchmark to monitor and decouple short term natural variability from regional anthropogenic change.

Conclusions
A Scottish mathematician once figuratively said a map is not the territory. Indeed maps, in the literal sense, are simply another way to represent the externalities and phenomena of our world. A synthetic approach to understanding complex underwater ecosystems is often required when multiple criteria and constraints intersect. Use of acoustic imaging and a bottom up approach combined with ancillary information conceptualized through GIS is one such way to model underwater habitats for ecological applications. These habitat maps of the San Juan archipelago were created for use as tools to guide resource management in the short term and ultimately to help elucidate larger scale, and longer period oceanographic and ecological processes.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dr. Gary Greene for organizing this unique collaborative effort between Moss Landing Marine Laboratory Center for Habitat Studies and The Canadian Hydrographic Survey. Our gratitude to Ron and Cathy MacDowell and a grant from the Sea Doc Society for funding this project and facilitating in so many ways. It was a pleasure working with the Canadian hydrographic research team Kalman Czotter, Knut Lyngberg and Gordon Allison in collecting the high resolution bathymetric data on the Otter Bay. Thank you, Brian Dieter for your outstanding teaching and assistance. Thanks also to Dr. Don Gunderson of the University of Washington Friday Harbor Laboratories, and Dr. Wayne Palsson of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for input, ideas, and auxiliary data that was incorporated into this habitat survey.

Literature cited
1. 2000. Executive Order 13158. Pages Vol. 65 in. 2. Ardron, J. A., Jennifer Lash, Dana Haggarty. 2002. Modeling a network of Marine Protected Areas for the central coast of BC. Version 3.1. Living Oceans Society, Sonintula, BC, Canada. 3. Bargmann, G., Thomas Jagielo , Wayne Palsson, Kurt Stick, Wallace Farron. 2003. Washington contribution to the 2003 meeting of the Technical SubCommittee (TSC) of the Canada-US Groundfish Committee. in T. Jagielo, editor., Sitka, Alaska. 4. Dethier, D. P., Pessl, Fred Jr., Keuler, R.F., Balzarini, M.A., Pevear, D.R. 1995. Late Wisconsinan glaciomarine deposition and isostatic rebound, northern Puget Lowland, Washington. GSA Bulletin 107:1288-1303. 5. Greene, G. H., Mary M. Yoklavich, Richard Starr, Victoria Connell, W. Waldo Wakefield, Deidre Sullivan, James McRea Jr., Gregor M. Cailliet. 1999. A classification scheme for deep seafloor habitats. Oceanologica Acta 22. 6. Johnson, S. Y., Robert A. Zimmermann, Charles W. Naeser, John T. Whetten. 1986. Fission-track dating of the tectonic development of the San Juan Islands, Washington. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 23:1318-1330. 7. Klinger, T., and Curtis Ebbesmeyer. 2001. Using oceanographic linkages to guide Marine Protected Area network design. School of Marine Affairs and Friday Harbor Laboratories, University of Washington. 8. Levin, S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:19431967. 9. Miller, B. E. 2002. Population estimates and habitat types of bottom fish assessed by a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) around the San Juan Islands, Washington. University of Washington, Friday Harbor. 10. NOAA. 2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. in. 11. Palsson, W. A. 2001. The development of criteria for establishing and monitoring no-take refuges for rockfishes and other rocky habitat fishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

12. Pereira, G. M. 2002. A typology of spatial and temporal scale relations. Geographical Analysis 34. 13. Raaum, J. 2000. The effect of habitat on fish and crab species abundance, diversity and size in temperate coastal marine communities. Friday Harbor Laboratories, University of Washington. 14. Rodgers, K. L. 2002. Survey of nearshore soft bottom demersal fish, shrimp and crabs in North Griffin Bay, San Juan Island, Washington. Fish 492 Undergraduate research apprenticeship University of Washington, Friday Harbor, Washington. 15. Sala, E., Octavio Aburto-Oropez, Gustavo Paredes, Ivan Parra, Juan C. Barrera, Paul K. Dayton. 2002. A general model for designing networks of marine reserves. Science 298. 16. San Juan County, M. R. C. 1998. Marine Reserve Bottomfish Recovery Program. in San Juan Nature Institute. 17. Shaffer, J. A. 1998. Kelp bed habitats of the inland waters of western Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Puget Sound Research 1998. 18. Steele, J. H. 1989. The ocean "landscape". Landscape Ecology 3:185-192. 19. Trnka, H. 2000. Mapping of Marine Vegetation. University of Washington, Friday Harbor, Washington. 20. Ward, T. J., M.A. Vanderklift, A.O. Nichollis, R.A. Kenchington. 1999. Selecting marine reserves using habitats and species assemblages as surrogates for biological diversity. Ecological Applications 9:691-698. 21. Zajac, R. N., Ralph Lewis, Larry Poppe, David Twichell, Joseph Vozarik, Mary DiGiacomo-Cohen. 2000. Relationships among sea-floor structure and benthic communities in Long Island Sound at regional and benthoscape scales. Journal of Coastal Research 16:627-640.

Personal Communication:
1. Don Gunderson School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washinton dgun@u.washington.edu 2. Gary Greene Center for Habitat Studies, Moss Landing Marine Laboratory greene@mlml.calstate.edu 3. Wayne Palsson Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife palssway@dfw.wa.gov

Figure 1 Satellite photo of San Juan Archipelago Courtesy of Gulf Islands National Park

Figure 2 Griffin Bay sunshaded 2 meter grid bathymetry

Figure 3

Figure 4