By Jim Steele —
Yes, it”s about to begin (a hopeful statement). The project is to restore 1,400 acres of the old Tule” Lake wetlands or now known as the Middle Creek Flood Damage and Restoration Project. Since the original feasibility study in 1994, many plans and projects have been launched, but this is the biggest. A cast of a dozen or more agencies and groups will be involved on this $50 million effort. So, what are you getting for your tax money and is it worth it?
As you recall, one reason for nutrient loading of Clear Lake is the 85 percent loss of filtering wetlands around the lake. You see ample evidence of this loading driving across Rodman Slough Bridge following a significant rain and witness the red-brown colored water flowing by. The water should be clear or at least opaque. About 70 percent of the lake”s phosphorus input, which is bound to this sediment, passes through the Middle Creek area and is responsible for much of the summer algae growth. This algae growth has been estimated to cost $7-plus million in annual lost economy to Lake County.
By buying property, reconnecting Scott and Middle Creek and roughly reconstructing a wetland through grading and protecting other property through levees, much of the wetland processes would be restored.
This represents 15 percent of the lake”s historical wetland. The tules and other plants (and wildlife) will arrive with little coaching. The Middle Creek Restoration Project is expected to make a noticeable difference in the summer algae bloom, the lake summer experience and the economy.
But the newly reconstructed and reconnected wetland will be filtering considerably more sediment input than before it was removed and with less wetland than was originally there. So don”t expect things to be quite the same.
Between 1900 and 1940 a few horse-drawn scrapers and then bulldozers could change a wetland into a bean field for little money. Later, organized government projects by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers “reclaimed” more of what used to be called useless bottomland into flood proof living space.
Today we know that flooding is needed to slow water down and process it by filtering and stripping nutrients. We also know that sediment coming off disturbed soil such as in the BLM and U.S. Forest Service ORV parks on Elk and Cow Mountain should be stabilized near their source.
In other areas, sediment from erosion ditches is produced by water speeding off hardened surfaces and stream bank erosion is generated by poorly engineered projects. These all add to the total reaching the lake. The cost to turn all of this around would be a fortune, right? Well, maybe. It depends on what you expect for your tax dollar.
The land (and staff) where most ORV activity takes place is already funded by public taxes, so you”re paying for a good result. Environmental laws already require that erosion processes be controlled. CEQA guidelines direct that county reviewed projects address hard surface runoff. Caltrans has major guidelines for pollutant runoff. On top of this entire mandate and cost, the methods to control runoff, manage lands and monitor outcomes are already well known. So, there is little standing in the way of steady progress solving this problem, right?
This one wetland reconstruction project could reduce the lake nutrient input by perhaps a third and be very noticeable. It”s well worth it. But, imagine how much difference could be made by reducing sediment before it reaches the new wetland. For that matter, imagine how much difference could be made by reducing sediment runoff around the entire Clear Lake watershed. After all, you”re already paying for that result.
Jim Steele is a retired Cal Fish and Game scientist, registered professional forester, part-time consultant and full-time Lake County resident-volunteer.
