topography therefore would have been more susceptible to the 

 hurricane-induced erosional forces. CS-1 was also capped with silt 

 and, therefore, may have experienced increased resuspension^ and 

 redistribution of material. A loss of 15,390 (±3660) m of 

 material (Table 3-1) evenly distributed over the 800 x 800 meter 

 survey area would result in a change in depth of approximately 2.4 

 (±0.6) cm. 



One month after the storm, evidence of surface sediment 

 disturbance, e.g., mud clasts and shell lag, was present at both 

 the CS-1 and CS-2 mounds. This disturbance was seen over most of 

 the mound surface. RPD depths decreased significantly at both 

 mounds. Boundary roughness and the percentage of Stage I seres 

 increased at CS-1, but not at CS-2; this suggests that the sand cap 

 was more effective than the silt cap in minimizing the impacts of 

 the storm. As mentioned above, volume calculations from bathymetry 

 surveys at CS-1 indicated that a decrease in volume of material 

 occurred. Estimates of the loss of material by comparing RPD 

 depths revealed that approximately 1.04 cm of high-reflective 

 sediment was lost (Table 4-3) with a range of loss of material of 

 0.2 to 2.2 cm. Other factors influencing the change in thickness 

 of the dredged material layer include consolidation, or compaction. 

 A more extensive sampling grid would have been required to better 

 resolve estimates of erosion from REMOTS® photos compared to 

 bathymetry when dealing in the range of only a few centimeters of 

 material loss over the entire mound. 



Unlike the CS-1 and CS-2 mounds, the STNH-N mound showed 

 extensive evidence of disturbance concentrated near the center of 

 the mound. Mud clasts, shell lag, and exposed worm tubes 

 (indicating approximately 0.5 cm of erosion) were apparent in most 

 replicates. Between August and October, boundary roughness values 

 increased, RPD depths decreased, and the mean OSI value dropped 

 nearly 3 units (8.9 to 6.0). The STNH-N disposal mound, previously 

 one of the most successfully recolonized CLIS mound, was 

 significantly disturbed by the storm. Similar conditions were seen 

 at the STNH-S mound, also concentrated at the mound's center. 

 Unlike STNH-N, however, only RPD depths were significantly affected 

 by the storm. The lack of change in successional stages and OSI 

 values was likely due to the mound's "disturbed" pre-storm 

 condition. 



The MQR movmd exhibited minimal evidence of bottom 

 disturbance due to the storm. Post-storm RPD depths were 

 decreased, and methane was observed in some images; however, most 

 of the images revealed a smooth bottom colonized by a Stage I 

 assemblage. The lack of physical disturbance was very likely due 

 to the binding and sediment-stabilizing properties associated with 

 Stage I communities (Rhoads and Boyer, 1982) . The bioturbational 

 activities of the Stage III assemblages, evident in varying 



33 



