Hydrodynamic Model Study

1. Hydrodynamic Model Study Port of Hampton Roads Eastward Expansion of Craney Island Lower James River and Elizabeth River

2. Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceDepartment of Physical SciencesCollege of William and Mary J.D. Boon, A.Y. Kuo, H.V. Wang, S.C. Kim, G.M. Sisson, J.M. Brubaker, J.P. Maa

3. SINGLE VARIABLE MODEL RESULTS Overall Ranking for Changes in: Water level - current – salinity – sedimentation • North Expansion (Option 6) • Northeast Expansion (Option 9)* • Westward Expansion (Option 5)* • Eastward Expansion (Option 7)* * Channel deepening not significant Elizabeth River flushing not impaired

4. HISTORICALMODEL RESULTS Overall Ranking for Changes in: Water level - current – salinity – sedimentation • East/West Expansion (Option 7/5a)* • Eastward Expansion (Option 7)* * Channel deepening not significant Elizabeth River flushing not impaired

5. Hydrodynamic Models Simulate: tides and currents salinity, stratification sedimentation potential flushing and contaminant transport

6. Why models are important : When building a project that will modify some part of an estuary, only models can evaluate the hydrodynamic changes that may result before the project is built.

7. VIMS HEM-3D Hydrodynamic Model • 3D hydrodynamics Dual-scale horizontal grid Six vertical layers • Calibrated for James River And the Elizabeth River • Previous Applications in Hampton Roads: Tidal front research Larval transport studies VDOT Third Crossing study

8. How is the model Applied?

9. SIMULATION COMPARISONSTest Casesvs.Base Case

10. BASE CASE This is the condition against which each of the proposed expansion’s primary and alternative designs are tested

11. TunnelIsland

12. TEST CASES • Expansion Option 5 – Westward Expansion • Expansion Option 6 – Northward Expansion • Expansion Option 7 – Eastward Expansion • Expansion Option 9 – North/East Expansion • Expansion Option 7/5a – East/West Expansion

13. TEST CASES • Expansion Option 5 – Westward Expansion • Expansion Option 6 – Northward Expansion • Expansion Option 7 – Eastward Expansion • Expansion Option 9 – North/East Expansion • Expansion Option 7/5a – East/West Expansion • Each option tested with 50 and 55 ft channel

18. SINGLE VARIABLE MODEL RUNS Case 1 – Base Case w/ 50-ft channel Case 2 – Eastward Expansion w/ 50-ft channel Case 3 – Eastward Expansion w/ 55-ft channel Case 4 – Westward Expansion w/ 50-ft channel Case 5 – Westward Expansion w/ 55-ft channel Case 6 – Northward Expansion w/ 50-ft channel Case 7 – Northward Expansion w/ 55-ft channel Case 8 – North/East Expansion w/ 50-ft channel Case 9 – North/East Expansion w/ 55-ft channel

19. CASE 10 (50’channel) CASE 11 (55’channel)

20. HISTORICAL MODEL RUNS Case 1 –Base Case w/ 50-ft channel Case 2 –Eastward Expansion w/ 50-ft channel Case 3 –Eastward Expansion w/ 55-ft channel Case 10 –East/West Expansion w/ 50-ft channel Case 11 –East/West Expansion w/ 55-ft channel

21. Three Phases of Craney Island Hydrodynamic Model Study • Model Calibration/Verification • Single Variable Runs • Historical Runs

23. Elizabeth River Calibration Data • Tidal Range and Phase

24. Mean Tidal Range (1960-1978 Tidal Epoch) Elizabeth River GRBR WEST EAST MNPT PNSY FORT HRVA

25. Elizabeth River Verification Data • Tidal and Non-Tidal Current

28. B Residual Current A Lamberts Point Plan View A B Lamberts Point Cross Section

29. Elizabeth River Verification Data • Salinity

30. Sewells Point 24Apr2000 8Jun2000

31. May 1, 2000 (JD 122) OBSERVED PREDICTED

32. June 7, 2000 (JD 159) OBSERVED PREDICTED

33. Three Phases of Craney Island Hydrodynamic Model Study • Model Calibration/Verification • Single Variable Runs • Historical Runs

34. GLOBAL ANALYSIS Using a Geographical Information System(GIS) to determine the Percentage Change by Area

35. Variables Analyzed: • Water Level • Surface & Bottom Salinity • Surface & Bottom Current • Surface & Bottom Residual Current • Sedimentation Potential

36. Surface Velocity

49. JR1 ER1

50. Case 1 vs. Case 2 - Surface, JR1