Scott De Leon told the board that he's held two meetings with a recently appointed steering committee, a Web page with information for the public is being built and an e-mail address,
"We are happy to hear constructive ideas and solutions that people might have for weeds and algae,” he said.
Last week, Aquatic Environments – the only company to reply to the county's request for proposals on weed harvesting – did a pilot test in a cove near Lakeport with a mechanical harvester, he said.
They used an item called a “rotovator” that pulls the weeds' roots out of the bottom of the lake, with the harvester then gathering up the roots after they float to the surface, De Leon explained.
De Leon said the cove was divided into three areas, with the rotovator used in one, another part of the cove harvested without the roots being pulled and the last area being used as a control section to compare with the harvested spots. In the spring they will evaluate how the different areas reacted to the harvesting activity.
As for the weeds pulled out of the lake, actually disposing of them didn't turn out to be a problem, De Leon told the board.
“By the second day of operation, we had people waiting in line to get this material,” he said, with the weeds being used for composting.
Other ongoing tasks, De Leon said, included reviewing reports that have been done over the years on Clear Lake, including the 1994 “Clean Lakes Report,” the 2004 Clear Lake Integrated Aquatic Weed Management Plan and the Clear Lake Integrated Watershed Management Plan from this year.
In reviewing those reports, “Things have changed,” said De Leon, noting that lyngbya, the blue green cyanobacteria that in recent years has become a predominant concern for the lake, was only a footnote in those earlier reports.
He said the Clean Lakes Report suggested numerous alternative treatment methods, including nutrient load reduction, the project that has since become known as the Middle Creek Restoration Project; dilution and flushing; alteration of the Cache Creek Dam's operations; phosphorous inactivation through aeration and chemicals; sediment removal; biomanipulation through such avenues as introducing fish to control algae,; algae harvest; and copper application.
Some of those methods, De Leon noted, previously were found not to be efficient because of expense.
Supervisor Rob Brown asked if technology had made some of the expensive options like aerators more affordable.
“We have not closed our minds to these options,” replied De Leon. He said the cost effectiveness of each method needs to be evaluated as current technology might make them viable.
Other recommended strategies in the early reports included protecting and rehabilitating stream channels and wetlands, controlling erosion from roads and construction, and establishing a lake management agency. De Leon said he believed the board had achieved the latter with its decision to separate Water Resources from the Department of Public Works.
Some of the other recommendations made in previous reports have been implemented, he said, noting the use of boat lanes, a permitting process for lakefront owners who want to pursue weed control methods, creating a weed management and advisory committee, and outreach and education.
He said a Clear Lake Advisory Committee subcommittee has volunteered to review the watershed management plan and create a summary of its strategic actions. De Leon is set to meet with that group later this week.
A two-pronged approach to weed abatement is emerging, with treatment suggested for shorelines, docks and piers, with natural weed growth allowed to continue in other areas for habitat, he said.
He echoed sentiments from noted local biologist Dr. Harry Lyons, who said Clear Lake doesn't have a weed or algae problem, but a nutrient problem. Long-term solutions involve reducing that nutrient load, but short-term solutions like harvesting can help mitigate the issues to support tourism.
De Leon said he wasn't prepared to offer ideas about funding the efforts, as he and the steering committee are still studying and reviewing them.
“The bottom line, I think, though is we're all gonna have to share in this,” he said, with outreach and education needed to get the public to buy into the programs they'll propose.
De Leon said he has several goals for next month, including creating a summary of action items, monitoring the weed harvest area, evaluating suggestions, completing the Web page, continuing review of potential funding sources and using opportunities to lobby for the Middle Creek restoration.
He said he's been asked by community members about the reasons for harvesting in the fall. He said doing so removes the seed bank and nutrients that can impact the next year's weeds.
“We're hoping to see a reduction in the amount of weeds by removing it in the fall,” he said.
De Leon noted during the discussion that Big Valley Rancheria is interested in partnering with the county on water quality testing in an effort to protect the environment.
Supervisor Denise Rushing suggested that the county needed to evaluate how it's doing on the various strategies and explore if they're still valid.
Brown said private enterprise needs to lead on the weed harvesting efforts, noting that not all problems can be solved by government – especially those that government creates in the first place.
He said a harvester effort previously had been stopped by the state.
Board Chair Anthony Farrington agreed with Brown. He said the state signed off on the recent harvester testing, but he said there is conflicting information about weed harvesting, especially as it relates to hydrilla, which the state has taken the lead in trying to eradicate. There has been pushback because of statements that such harvesting causes hydrilla actually to spread.
Brown said the reality is that not harvesting is spreading weeds. Rushing added that hydrilla was being spread more due to boat propellers cutting it up.
In an effort to get mechanical harvesting efforts going, Supervisor Jeff Smith said, “There's going to be a risk, and we need to take the risk.”
He also suggested greater effort be put behind creating small wetland areas as sediment basins, which would need to be done with every creek around the lake. Smith acknowledged that would be a huge project.
Smith added that while many people have criticized the county for doing nothing about the weeds and algae, “We've done a heck of a lot, especially this year.”
George Speake, one of the steering committee members, said they would bring back to the board funding options all at once, as he didn't want to see them put out funding ideas in pieces.
Paula Britton, environmental director for the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, said if the mechanical harvesting is successful, over time it may not need to be done as often.
She also was concerned that the tribe hasn't been invited to meetings that the county has set up with the US Army Corps of Engineers. “We may be able to help you in some matters.”
Upper Lake resident Betsy Cawn said blue green algae concerns were raised in state reports from the 1970s. She also suggested that storm water drains are major entry points into the lake for nutrients, and that they need to be monitored more closely.
The board has scheduled a discussion at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 26, to discuss funding options for its lake health efforts.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
