| OCR Text |
Show by about one- third, would cause a reduction in warmwater fishing of 17,000 man- days per year. Tliis loss would represent about 11 percent of the existing capacity of the lake to support angling. This curtailment of fishing would be associated with the loss of spawning, rearing^ and feeding areas of game fish such as catfish and walleye. Streams The construction of the Bonneville Unit would have severe adverse impacts upon the recreational utilization of streams. One of the most obvious problems would be loss of good quality stream fishing. Table C- 24 presents a summary of the changes in the angling capacity of the streams affected by the Unit. According to the summary there would be a loss of 118,300 man- days of fishing in the Uinta Basin; 31,400 man- days of fishing in the Bonneville Basin; and a total loss of 149,700 man- days of fishing. About 85 percent of the estimated stream fishing losses would result from reduction in streamflows. It would be expected that the Bonneville Unit would curtail the canoeing and kayaking potential of streams included in the proposed plan-- particularly Provo River, West Fork of the Duchesne River, Duchesne River, and Rock Creek. An investigation of the recreational boating potential of these streams suggests that the potential for about 200 miles of stream would be lessened by about 50 percent under Unit conditions. i0+ Statewide ^^ § tion_ for^_ Recreational Fishing Table C- 25 shows the impact that the Bonneville Unit would have upon the Statewide recreational fishing situation. As of 1968 ( the most recent data availablel20) about 70 percent of the man- days spent fishing were spent on lakes and reservoirs. 83 r^ e balance of angling utilization has probably shifted even more towards lakes and reservoirs in the 4 years following 1968. It is readily apparent that both the recreation losses that would occur because of adverse impacts on streams and Utah Lake and the 372 |
