OCR Text |
Show A concerted effort was made, in Section C of the final statement, to present the streamflow situation that would exist under Unit conditions and to relate the cumulative effects to the existing Statewide situation. Of particular importance, in this regard are Tables C- 3, C- k, C- 19, and C- 20. The distinction was made between impacts upon productivity of fish populations and impacts upon recreational fishing. It was recognized that the use of " man- days of fishing" was, in itself, not a meaningful indicator of environmental quality and quantity. The expected impacts of the Bonneville Unit, as predicted by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1 are presented in Tables C- 24 and C- 25. The Bureau of Reclamation did not always agree with the analyses carried out by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Differences in views are pointed out and discussed. The Bureau of Reclamation does not accept the proposition that the stream diversions as proposed under the Bonneville Unit would completely eliminate the existing aquatic resource below Unit features where minimum recommended bypasses would not be made. In this regard, effort was made to show the positive effects of seepages past structures and streamflow gains below the structures. Tables C- 5 through C- l8 present data derived by Bureau of Reclamation hydrologists based upon USGS stream gage readings, area runoff calculations, and field measurements. This material is not presented as an attempt to downgrade the severity of the reduced flow impacts but to demonstrate that a portion of the affected fishery resource would not be eliminated by Unit operation. Issue Ik: The Draft Environmental Statement failed to adequately discuss all reasonable alternatives to the proposed plan. Alternatives to the proposed plan need to be explored and evaluated in greatest detail and scope. These should include ( l) alternate sources of water; ( 2) conservation measures that would yield a water supply; ( 3) price adjustments to establish the true relationship of supply to demand; > k) partial construction of the project; and ( 5) a combination of alternatives. Issue raised by: Utah State Department of Natural Resources Forest Service Geological Survey Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Environmental Protection Agency Sierra Club League of Women Voters Trout Unlimited Rocky Mountain Center on Environment and several individuals Response; Following the September 22, 1972, environmental hearing and the receipt of comments from the State and Federal agencies, environmental groups 665 |