4.2 Ghost Site 1 and 2 Investigations 



Another objective of the 1986 monitoring efforts was to 

 examine the Ghost Site 1 and 2 areas, located outside the disposal 

 site boundaries, for the presence of dredged material. Examination 

 of the side scan records from GHOST-2 revealed small areas with 

 high reflectance and the presence of a sunken scow, but did not 

 detect an area large enough to indicate the guantity of material 

 (50,000 m 3 ) allegedly disposed. Likewise, analysis of the 

 bathymetric data did not indicate any distinct changes in depth 

 that could have been caused by dredged material disposal. Due to 

 the location of GHOST-2, it is possible that some dredged material 

 fell from scows on their way to or from another disposal location 

 inside CLIS. There was indirect evidence in the Ghost-2 REMOTS® 

 photographs that the area might have received dredged material at 

 some time in the past. Examples of such evidence include sand- 

 over-mud stratigraphy, high boundary roughness, thin RPD's, highly- 

 reduced sediment at depth, chaotic sedimentary cross-sectional 

 texture, Stage I seres, and OSI values less than +6. However, 

 there was no consistent and uneguivocal REMOTS® evidence indicating 

 that disposed materials existed in this area. If disposed 

 materials were present, they were deposited several years ago or, 

 if more recent, the deposited materials were very thinly dispersed 

 (i.e., much thinner than the present mean bioturbation depth). In 

 either case, there was no optical "signature" to provide conclusive 

 evidence of disposal as detectable by REMOTS® photography. The 

 overall area appeared to have high benthic habitat guality not 

 significantly different from the new CLIS reference station. 



Examination of both the bathymetric and side scan records 

 from GHOST-1 also did not detect any features to indicate the 

 presence of dredged material. Although gradients in certain 

 REMOTS® parameters were seen at Ghost-1, direct physical evidence 

 of disposed material (e.g., anomalous sediment type, chaotic 

 fabrics, methanogenic sediments) likewise did not exist. The 

 REMOTS® OSI parameters mapped at Ghost-1 suggested, but did not 

 prove, that recent disturbances had affected stations Dl, El, Gl, 

 and perhaps B2 , B3, and B6. However, there were no indications 

 that this disturbance was caused by recent dredged material 

 disposal. Since disposal during the 1985-86 season took place in 

 the western portion of CLIS, it is unlikely that a scow would be 

 so off course to have disposed of material at GHOST-1. Like Ghost 

 Site 2, this area appeared to have a high benthic habitat guality 

 as measured by various REMOTS® parameters, and it was comparable 

 to the new CLIS reference station. 



34 



