The approval of a master plan for Utah Lake is a notable step, considering how many people and interests are involved and how much remains unresolved.

The document laying out the lake's future was put together by the Utah Lake Commission, whose governing board has 21 members from the state, the county and cities surrounding the lake, plus four ex-officio members. Other water districts, state agencies and the federal government also have some jurisdiction or role to play. Local landowners, residents and a host of private groups surely will continue to chime in.

With all that, it is significant that the commission was able to assemble sufficient consensus to draft a master plan. Given the number of cooks that were in the kitchen, however, it's understandable that the document has few specifics. Moreover, none of it is legally binding. The master plan is really just a vision of hope and a manifest of good intentions.

Still, the document does lay out some useful, if general, guidelines. It seems to envision a lake without strip malls, condos or subdivisions lining the water's edge. At the same time, it apparently recognizes that the lake can't be maintained as a pristine paradise, and that it must accommodate a variety of uses.

The document outlines a future in which hikers can trek around the lake, campers can pitch tents here and there, boaters and fishermen indulge in their hobbies and birdwatchers can keep an eye on native species in their habitats.

Such a consensus should be welcomed. The lake is a valuable resource; keeping it as a place for recreation and natural beauty will make it an asset for future generations. Even from a business standpoint, keeping the lake as a recreational resource likely will prove to the best way to enhance the value of surrounding real estate.

Yet moving forward is fraught with difficulties. Consider boating, for instance. If that's a valid use, then docks must be maintained. When, however, do they become a marina? Presumably a bait and tackle shop is a valid related use. What if a coffee shop opens next door? Then a restaurant? Where do you draw the line? All the groups involved will probably draw it in a different place. That's when things will become much harder.

Of course, progress is possible. Look at one of the immediate projects: culling carp and reinvigorating the June sucker population. The carp, white bass and walleye long ago crowded out the suckers, a native species.

A new project has some ingenious steps. The state purchased 21 acres either on or near the historic route of Hobble Creek where it once ran into Utah Lake. Last fall, a couple million dollars was spent to turn that land into a meandering streambed where June sucker might find shelter for their spawn.

Meanwhile, 100,000 farm-raised genetically pure June sucker were released into Utah Lake. Each fish was injected, by hand, with a digital capsule allowing the state to track and identify it.

Underwater antennas in Hobble Creek have shown that about 100 of the fish have swum upstream to spawn. This marvel of technology and human dedication gives hope that the sucker will be able to reclaim its rightful place in its original habitat.

On the other hand, as a recent letter to the editor pointed out, the carp, walleye and white bass have proven formidable opponents. By the theory of evolution alone, they triumphed. It remains to be seen if these brilliant human innovations will be enough to tip the scales.

It also remains to be seen if the Utah Lake Commission's good intentions will be enough to tip the scales against the many forces bearing down on its namesake.