459 



Mr. Downing. Is there any particular reason other than a local boy 

 as why you picked the Bay over any other body of water in the 

 country ? 



Dr. Hargis. Well, this sort of work could be carried forward in any 

 one of a number of major estuaries. However, I think that if called 

 upon to develop the proposal of the project I would say that there 

 are several good reasons. Among them is the fact that the Chesapeake 

 Bay is still relatively undisturbed but it is being disturbed rapidly. 

 It is near "Washington, makes a good high visibility project. The Na- 

 tional Capital as well as several of the State capitals have had im- 

 pacts on the Bay itself and we have a fair amount of, a fair concentra- 

 tion of scientific capability. We have planning. The model has already 

 been authorized. We have also the James Eiver hydraulic model with 

 a fair amount of experience and it is a relatively simple system politi- 

 cally as these things go. That is two States involved in the Greater 

 Chesapeake Bay. I think that furthermore, the horses are at the post 

 and we are ready to go. 



Mr. Downing. Has the James Eiver model been an effective tool \ 



Dr. Hargis. Yes, sir ; it has. This little brochure that I have added 

 to this if you have a chance to read it, I believe will indicate so. As 

 you recollect the question that came before us was quite practical. 

 That IS, would the James Eiver navigation project, the proposal to 

 dredge a channel 100 miles approximately from the Hampton Eoads 

 area to Eichmond, affect the currents and salinity structure of the 

 James and then, if there would be such physical effects, would thev 

 have any influence on the oyster industry which is primarily depend- 

 ent upon the James Eiver as a seed area. 



This model along with the associated studies was authorized by the 

 Cxeneral Assembly and funded mostly by the General Assembly al- 

 though with some support from the Public Law 88-309 and the Corps 

 or iLngmeers. ^ 



., Jl^iw^^f '5^^ out reasonably clearly, using the hydraulic model 



and all the studies m the laboratory and field that we were able to 



h^.'Ll h \ *^? ^^7.^^tion of the James Eiver Chamiel would 



J Xn ii f 1 ""l-^}^ salinity and current structure of the James but 



it would not be biologically significant in terms of oyster production 



This IS one of those times when we were able to within L 3-X pe^ 



MiTowNT^ bT?1 "^.^'^."'^ P-^^H^^^' ^^^ ^^^^^^' -d waru'ef^il. 



tli oys™rw"^^ '''''' ™^^^ ^^-^^ -- ^-^g-^ *^ 



Dr. Hargis. Yes, direct damage but we judge it would be rather 



minor and accountable. The JaiSes Eiver 4d?aulic moZ has been 



1 constant use since our study was done in 1966, and in fac it has 



at Hog Point on the James below Jamestown Island. It is beino-\xc=ed 



clri"^i"Fnl7'''' ^""^^'^^" ^^^?'^^^^ Administration and Evth 

 Uoips o± Engineers in various practical projects that thev have con- 

 cerning pollution and water front development, so that^there is no 



TnnftZ "' '''^ T^^^ ^^'^' hydraulic models' are a necessary and usefn' 

 tool well worth the investment that we make on them. 



that ^hP S'p?;i^'' ^?T '*^*^^^^^^^ you seem quite concerned. Doctor, 

 tiiat the States do not have enough authority under the Cosmer rec- 

 ommendations. Is that a fair statement ? ' ^"^mer lec 



