| OCR Text |
Show - * . ruin the recreation and fisheries aspects of the Lake as well as its important waterfowl and nesting areas. There is no mention of the losses in recreation associated with reduced boating, water sking, and swimming. Utah Lake is a very heavily-used recreation area and supports a popular State Park. It can be assumed that the Bonneville Unit would eliminate most of that use. Since similar recreation benefits are claimed for proposed reservoirs in the proj-ect, such losses on Utah Lake must be disclosed. Also, the statement claims a loss of only 17,000 man-fishing days of a present total of 158,000. That is absurd since BSF&W projected a loss of 127,000 man-fishing-days. Reclamation explains their position by saying that the BSF&W figure was based on a 12-foot draw-down of the lake which Reclamation claims will not occur. However, elsewhere they indicate that it might occur and give no assurance that it will not. Also, the fact that the fishery will be almost totally destroyed by the diking is a compelling reason to accept the BSF&W figure. One must also question the figure of 26,500 man-fishing-days claimed for Starvation Reservoir since Reclamation acknowledges that operation of the total Unit including enlarged Strawberry Reservoir will adversely affect Starvations fishery.. Finally, the water quality problems have not been determined although they acknowledge serious problems may occur. The ongoing studies indicate sizeable problems resulting from the diking, and the statement gives them a light treatment. Those studies, along with all of the other studies mentioned throughout the statement,, must be completed before an adequate assessment of Utah Lake and the entire Bonneville Unit can be made. C.) Increased Salinity Problems This problem is treated in a Polyanna fashion.. The statement acknowledges that Bonneville Unit will produce salinity-related damages of $580,000 annually to down-stream users and the Ute Indian total CUP would be in excess of $1,770,000/yr. If one extrapolates that latter figure to what EPA estimates, it would be approximately $2,500,000 annually. In addition^the losses to be produced by reorgnized salinity increases to Sevier River downstream users are no*t discussed at all.* We doubt that salinity costs^downstream users or the costs of the control program (which Reclamation assumes will be sue- |
