OCR Text |
Show joint study of the possibilities of a parkway from Great Falls to Cumberland, Md., following largely the route of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.12 The report of this survey recommends construction of the parkway and acquisition of additional lands. The parkway route would traverse interesting scen- ery, and would give access to excellent recreational areas. The construction cost would be compara- tively low because of easy grades and the possibility of repairing and using the existing canal structures. If reservoirs are constructed according to plan, some parts of this route are likely to be inundated. (d) The Act of June 30, 1944, authorizes estab- lishment o>f a national monument, not to exceed 1,500 acres in extent, at and in the vicinity of Harpers Ferry,13 an area rich in historical and scenic interest at the confluence of the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers. There is great interest in West Virginia and Maryland in acquiring the necessary lands for donation to the Government. In July 1950, the Governor of West Virginia appointed a special Harpers Ferry National Monument Com- mittee to raise funds for and acquire the necessary lands in his State. A reservoir proposed at Harpers Ferry would alter the appearance of these sur- roundings. Because of the opposition during hearings in 1944 the Corps of Engineers did not recommend adop- tion of the proposed plan. The Department of the Interior was among the declared opponents of the plan, believing that damage to scenic and recrea- tional values, fish, and wildlife would be greater than benefits to those features. The National Capital Park and Planning Com- mission, after a study of the effect of the multiple- purpose plan on the potential park development be- low Great Falls, adopted a resolution stating that the Commission believed that no power development on the Potomac River at or below Great Falls should be undertaken at that time. The statement pointed out that the plan presented in the report of the district engineer was far superior to any previous power plans from the standpoint of pre- serving scenic and recreational values on the lower river, but that it still had very serious recreational disadvantages. These were stated as follows: (a) The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (abandoned ex- cept for recreational use) at Wide water and in its most used section between Brookmont and Cabin John would be flooded out; (b) all of the gently !Act of June 10, 1948, 62 Stat. 351. 158 Stat. S45, 16 U. S. G. 450bb et seq. sloping shores on both sides of the river and most of the islands between Scott Island and Chain Bridge would be flooded out, thus destroying several hundred acres valued for popular recreation, and destroying thousands of fine trees; and (c) the proposed water level above the Chain Bridge Dam would reduce the height of the enclosing sides of the gorge and greatly diminish their impressiveness. A report to the National Capital Park and Plan- ning Commission by Mr. Frederick Law Olmstead, former member of that Commission, analyzed in de- tail the effect of the multiple-purpose plan on recreational development of the lower river. Minor objections, which were stated as not being insurmountable, were noted, as to the power canal from the Aqueduct Dam at Widewater. Quite serious objections were raised, however, to the high Chain Bridge pond which would be usable for recreational purposes and would provide access to the river for swimming, boating, and fishing. He stated that if the Chain Bridge Dam could be built "* * * at a height only sufficient to flood the rocky flats downstream from High Island with- out also flooding the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and the valuable park lowlands bordering upon it * * * this would not only make possible public bathing facilities far superior in value and popularity to anything that could be provided either on a lake at a higher elevation or on the natural river, but it would retain practically unimpaired all the other great scenic and recreational values inherent in this part of the valley." Because of the opposition no further action was taken on the plan. Those who opposed the plan because of its con- flicts with parks, parkway, and recreational uses in general: (1) Doubted the estimate of $250,000 annual benefits for recreation. (2) Claimed that the damages inflicted to the existing scenic, historic, and recreational features would far exceed the recreation benefits claimed from reservoirs. (3) Insisted that the recreation provided by the river in its natural state with fish runs, "white water" canoeing, rock climbing, and hiking serve a greater recreational need than the provision of more slack water boating and of reservoir swimming. (4) Doubted the importance attached to boating, swimming, and fishing in reservoir areas for the metropolitan area which has relatively easy access to vast tidewater expanses, Chesapeake Bay and ocean shore. 606 |