OCR Text |
Show (5) Pointed out the plans for developing the gorge and emphasized the need to consider the na- tional interest in its relation to the Capital City, in addition to its use by local residents. (6) Questioned the security of having such large impoundments so near to the city. (7) Questioned the validity of sacrificing so much of the natural values of the gorge to Wash- ington and to the Nation to produce electric power, much of it to be sold in other cities in other basins. The proponents of the plan: (1) Claimed that the greatest recreational need of Washington is for the kind of slack-water boating and fresh water swimming that could be provided in reservoirs in the gorge. The present recreational facilities of the Potomac are said to serve only a very small part of the Capital population. Further- more, it is noted that the recreational opportunities offered in the so-called nearby Chesapeake area are actually inaccessible to most of the metropolitan area population and that pollution in these areas is increasing. (2) Believed that no further construction of highways and other facilities for recreational uses of the gorge in its natural state should be carried on which might ultimately conflict with reservoir location. (3) Questioned the value of complete or partial preservation of the scenic and historic features of the gorge if such preservation sacrifices measurable development of the hydroelectric power in the gorge. (4) Claimed that there are alternate plans for the development of the power in the gorge which would so minimize the damage to existing natural values as to eliminate those objections. In connection with 4 above, proponents also claimed that an analysis of the recreational points of view showed that virtually all objections by these interests to the plan for the lower river could be met by modifications of the plan which would in- clude a lower dam at Chain Bridge and an addi- tional dam above Cabin John for recreation and for using the remaining head below the Bear Island Project. By coordinated reservoir operation, pro- ponents maintained that Riverbend could be held at nearly constant level during the recreation sea- son and then subsequently drawn down. Other reservoirs less valuable for recreation could be drawn down during summer months. Proponents further stated that the river is little used at present for recreation purposes except the tidal reaches below Chain Bridge, the small pool formed by the Feeder Dam a short distance above Chain Bridge, and the pond above the Aqueduct Dam at the head of Great Falls. The usual flow over Great Falls is small during summer months when viewed most frequently and presents a dis- appointing spectacle. A park, with the river in its present state, would not make full use of the recreation possibilities, according to this view. Conclusions (1) The Potomac River is relatively unused. It is in the public interest and to the benefit of the regional and national economy that the natural resources potentials of the basin are brought to their optimum use. (2) The optimum combination of resources uses has not been developed clearly in any plans thus far presented. Although multiple-purpose in char- acter and basin-wide in coverage, the district engi- neer's plan for engineered structures has yet to be agreed to by the proponents of other prime water uses of the basin. (3) A comprehensive park and recreation survey is needed as a first step toward determining the highest use where recreational preferences and needs conflict with reservoir plans. Such a survey might also disclose added recreational benefits in upstream areas to be gained from slight modi- fication in proposed dam design or location. The survey for the upper Potomac was not a compre- hensive examination of recreational need and po- tentialities, but mainly of the possible uses of reservoirs proposed in the plan. (4) A comprehensive park and recreation sur- vey should include: a. A study of the recreational need and prefer- ences of the Washington metropolitan area and other large population centers tributary to the Potomac Basin, and a determination of the nature and extent to which the Potomac is now being used for recreational purposes. b. Determination of recreational needs of people in the basin not in or adjacent to metropolitan centers. c. A study of the relation of the ocean shore, the Chesapeake and tidewater areas to the need and to the facilities presently or potentially available in the Potomac, including the present use of the nat- ural scenic, historic, and recreational features. d. Proposals for the development of recreational uses of all features of the basin, in addition to reservoirs. 607 |