Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />0875 <br /> <br />For the more intensive development which <br />could be justified only by the assurance of a permanent <br />pool as discussed in other paragraphs, perhaps two of <br />the three locations mentioned for selection of a day-use <br />area could be utilized for initial develop.ent, the <br />third held in reserve, but incorporated in over-all plan- <br />ning. A boat launching ramp, useablewithin normal <br />fluctuation range, should be, justified at one ,perhaps <br />both sites, as well as planned for the future at ~ome <br />suitable pOint farther up the reservoir. Swimming and <br />bathing factlities need not be provided. A reservoir- <br />viewing overlook could be planned to advantage at one <br />of the promontories, possibly above the existing hous- <br />ing group within the baSin called SoprisPlaza, about <br />one mile "est of the dam, on the north shore, where <br />extensive lake surface and shore can be seen. <br /> <br />Should a definite but inadequate volume of <br />relatively permanent storage be determined as all that <br />can be depended on, it is possible that it might be <br />more effective if it were possible to impound it sepa- <br />rately. One location might be in a small reservoir <br />upstream above the flood control pool. Another location <br />might be found just below the dam. Should it prove <br />feasible to take material for the earth fill of the dam <br />from that site, the resulting excavation might help <br />create a basin for a small but attractive, relatively <br />stable lake. It would be close to Trinidad and should <br />be satisfactory for day-use recreational development. <br /> <br />Such a development could warrant at least the <br />facilities recommended for the main rpservoir under the <br />presently proposed primary operation. Access should be <br />possible with even less new road construction. However, <br />land needed for the recreational facilities would be an <br />added cos t . <br /> <br />The recreational benefits of this alteruate <br />small-reservoir developmeut proposal should be equiva- <br />lent to that estiaated for the developmeut recommended <br />for the main reservoir under current primary proposals. <br /> <br />Recommended Land Acquisition <br /> <br />The small picnic development area recommended <br />for the main reservoir probably could be confined to <br />land which would be obtained for flood control purposes. <br />No structures are proposed which could uot withstand the <br /> <br />APPENDIX G <br />Exhibit No. 1 <br />Page,16 of 24 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />