454 



projei-'ts before expensive man-made changes actually occur. Thus, scientists leara 

 more about the physical workings of the lower James Estuary. Working with 

 engineers they examine construction and sewage discharge proposals for their 

 possible effects on valuable natural resources. Industrialists with shoreline fac- 

 tories that use water for transportation, waste-removal, cooling and other manu- 

 facturing processes examine present river-oriented operations or future develop- 

 ments and determine how these change or are changed by existing river conditions. 

 The James River Model can be an invaluable aid to Virginia in planning an 

 orderly development of resource potentials throughout the entire tidal basin from 

 Bichniond to Hampton Roads — planning which calls for tailoring river and harbor 

 projects so that desirable economic and social advantages may be realized. 



A MODEL IS BORN 



Nea rly fifteen years ago municipal and industrial interests that used the James 

 River urged deepening the 25-foot channel from Hampton Roads to Richmond 

 to 35 feet so larger vessels could navigate upstream. The economics of inland 

 shipping would thus be improved because deepdraft ships could dock at Richmond 

 and Hopewell. Others felt that a deeper channel through the upper tidal James 

 would open new avenues for industrial development in that area. 



Fev objections were voiced at first. But as time passed, fear arose that this 

 navigr.tion project might have serious effects on the multi-million dollar oyster 

 industry. Oystermen protested that valuable seed oyster beds near the James 

 River Bridge might be seriously damaged or even destroyed. Scientists predicted 

 that physical changes in the estuarine portion of the river would surely result. 

 The Virginia General Assembly delayed approval of the project until a scientific 

 study could determine the various physical and biological effects that would re- 

 sult from channel modification. 



As part of this study, scientists from VIMS recommended building a physical 

 scale model of the tidal James to test the proposed change under conditions re- 

 sembling those in nature. The model would enable them to accurately pinpoint 

 natural conditions before and after deepening. 



Funds became available for research on the problem in 1964 when the General 

 Assembly appropriated $300,000 to the Commission of Fisheries (now the Virginia 

 Marine Resources Commission) in Newport News. This included (construction of 

 a suitable hydraulic model. 



THE MODEL MAKERS 



The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was selected to buil'd and operate the 

 James River Model. It possessed the necessary skill and facilities ; furthermore, 

 the Corps contributed about $100,000 toward building costs. The model was built 

 at the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, where a dozen other 

 hydraulic models are also housed. (WES is the principal research and engineering 

 study facility of the Corps). VIMS provided bathymetric information (bottom 

 contours), and the necessary oceanographlc data (salinity distribution, current 

 speed and direction, etc.) for model construction and verification. 



VIMS PROVIDES DATA 



The Commission selected VIMS to conduct the necessary research for deter- 

 mining the effect of channel deepening on oyster production in James River. 

 VIMS then initiated a multi-disciplinary research project (labeled Operation 

 James River) that provided information concerning the physical and chemical 

 processes in the James and the effects of these phenomena on the biological 

 activities occurring in the estuarine portion of the River. 



In 1967 reports were submitted to the Governor and General Assembly of 

 Virginia stating that tests in the model had revealed channel modification would 

 not seriously affect the oyster industry. The navigation (project was approved. 



RETAINED BY VIRGINIA 



After the Corps of Engineers fulfilled its contract with Virginia for the Channel 

 Study and completed certain studies of its own, the model could have been dis- 

 mantled. Regulations governing WES allow it to destroy models when there is 

 no longer any need for them. Virginia, however, acted quickly and requested 



