minimum estimate of dredged sediment present within the boundaries 

 of the REMOTS® survey, because dredged material at nearly all 

 stations was deeper than the penetration depth of the camera 

 (Figure 3-3). When the total reported scow volume (34,800 m 3 ) was 

 reduced by 15.4% to compensate for compaction and interstitial 

 water loss (Tavolaro, 1980) , the REMOTS® estimate of dredged 

 material represented 38% of the corrected scow volume. This would 

 indicate that less than half of the dredged material at the Saco 

 Bay Disposal Site was present within the boundaries of the REMOTS® 

 survey. However, this value represented a minimum volume of 

 dredged sediment. Even small increases in the depth of dredged 

 material would significantly change the percentage of sediments 

 accounted for within the bounds of the REMOTS® survey (Table 4-1) . 

 For instance, a dredged sediment depth of only 3 5 cm with the same 

 observed distribution (Figure 3-3) would account for 91% of the 

 reported scow deposition. Depths of this magnitude are guite 

 reasonable. The small half -meter peaks observed in the bathymetric 

 survey may provide some indication of dredged sediment depths at 

 Saco Bay, although without baseline bathymetry data this cannot be 

 confirmed. While it is clear that some dredged material lies 

 outside the boundaries of the present survey, most of the sediment 

 is probably confined to a relatively small area in the vicinity of 

 the southern and western boundaries of the present REMOTS® grid. 



Although the bathymetric survey did not show clear 

 evidence of a distinct mound, the central region of the site 

 contained three small features that were probably the result of 

 disposal activities (Figure 3-2) . These areas projected only about 

 half a meter above the surrounding topography and fell within the 

 bounds of dredged material mapped by REMOTS®. The region 

 encompassing all 3 rises was about 150 m in diameter, covering an 

 area of approximately 11,940 m 2 . Dredged material in REMOTS® 

 photographs extended across an area at least 76,700 m 2 in the 

 central and southern parts of the survey (Figure 3-3) . The mound 

 height was most likely overestimated by the capping model (2 m) 

 because disposal of dredged material was apparently spread across 

 the site (Figure 3-2) , rather than in a tightly controlled area 

 close to the buoy. Furthermore, without pre-disposal bathymetric 

 data, accurate verification of the model height and radius 

 predictions was not possible. 



Most REMOTS® parameters (OSI, RPD depth, and grain size 

 major mode) indicated the presence of two distinct regions within 

 the boundaries of the sediment camera survey. Dredged material was 

 absent from the northern region of the REMOTS® grid, and this area 

 was generally colonized by Stage II and Stage II on III infauna, 

 similar to the reference areas. In contrast, the central and 

 southwestern areas of the disposal site survey had dredged material 

 present and Stage I and Stage I on III infauna. This would 

 indicate that, although indigenous fauna were present, they had not 

 yet fully recolonized the dredged material. The predicted 

 community of Stage II going to Stage III was present in the 



