RESULTS 



The relationship between canal widths as proposed in permit applications and the 

 total width of the wetland corridor actually modified by construction is presented in 

 Figure I. Only 36.6 percent of the variation in the total width affected is explained by 

 differences in the permitted dimensions. Other probable sources of variability are 

 substrate characteristics (e.g., organic content, cohesiveness) and the care taken by 

 dredge operators and surveyors to adhere to permitted dimensions. 



The regression relation shows that total affected width, that is the width of the 

 canal, berm, and both dredge material deposits, increased linearly as permitted canal 

 width increased; and that the actual width affected exceeded the permitted width by 

 81.7 m. 



As might be expected the total width affecjed was slightly more closely related to 

 the actual dredged dimensions (Figures I and 2; r =0.423). Again, the regression slope is 

 nearly one. In cross section, berm and spoil deposits occupy about 68.3 m, and actual 

 dredged canal widths exceeded permitted widths by about 13.4 m (81.7 m compared to 

 68.3 m). 



Analysis of the means of permitted to actual canal dimensions (as contrasted to 

 measurements predicted from the regression equations), showed that actual canal widths 

 statistically exceeded permitted canal widths by 10.9 m (Table 3). Actual berm widths 

 were 3 m less than permitted widths. Depth, total canal length, and slip length were not 

 significantly different from permitted specifications (Table 3). 



Table 3. Comparisons of permitted versus actual canal dimensions, using 

 paired t-tests. 



65 



