Agenda packet — Lakeport City Council, January 16, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

If you cannot attend in person, and would like to speak on an agenda item, you can access the Zoom meeting remotely:

Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:

Please click this URL to join. https://zoom.us/j/97368201787?pwd=a2NvVnN6MEFjQ2Exc2pTZkpIdU1sQT09 Passcode: 477973
Or join by phone:

Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 669 900 9128 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 973 6820 1787
Passcode: 477973
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/abNyiaqY1I The City wants you to know that you can also submit your comments by email to [email protected].

To give the City Clerk adequate time to print out your comments for consideration at the meeting, please submit your written comments prior to 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 16, 2024.

Please indicate in the email Subject Line "FOR PUBLIC COMMENT" and list the item number you wish to comment on.

Comments that you want read to the Council will be subject to the three minute time limitation (approximately 350 words).

Written comments that are only to be provided to Council and not read at the meeting will be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting.

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL
(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE MUNICIPAL FINANCING AGENCY OF LAKEPORT and THE SUCCESSOR

AGENCY TO THE FORMER LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
Tuesday, January 16, 2024 6:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453 See Teleconferencing Instructions Below
City Council Agenda of January 16, 2024 Page 2
AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL
(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE

LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE MUNICIPAL FINANCING AGENCY OF LAKEPORT and THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)*
Tuesday, January 16, 2024, 6:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453 *All references to “City Council” include those other agencies which are listed above The City Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on the agenda irrespective of how the agenda items are described. The council may establish and make appointments to a Council committee (made up of two Councilmembers) with respect to any item appearing on this agenda.

I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: 6:00 p.m.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA/ URGENCY
ITEMS:

Move to accept agenda as posted or move to add or delete items.

To add item, Council is required to make a majority decision that an urgency exists (as defined in the Brown Act) and a 2/3rds determination that the need to take action arose subsequent to the agenda being posted.

IV. CONSENT AGENDA: The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without any discussion. Any Council Member may request that any item be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion under the regular Agenda. Removed items will be considered following the Consent Calendar portion of this agenda.

A. Ordinances: Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934.

B. Minutes: Approve minutes of the City Council regular meeting of December 19, 2023.

C. Application SCC2023-002: Approve application SCC2023-002, with staff recommendations, for the street closure at 5th and Main for the Rotary Crab Feed.

D. Application G2024-003: Approve application G2024-003, with staff recommendations, for the reserved parking spaces on Park and Third Streets for the Clearlake Environmental Research Center (CLERC) Hometown Wildfire Safety Collaboration.

E. The Successor Agency of the
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency
Recognized Obligation Payment
Schedule (ROPS) 24-25:

Adopt a resolution approving ROPS 24-25 for the period of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 for presentation and adoption by the Lake County Redevelopment Oversight Board.

V. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:

A. Public Input: Any person may speak for 3 minutes about any subject within the authority of the City Council, provided that the subject is not already on tonight’s agenda. Per Government Code §54954.3(a), the City Council cannot take action or express a consensus of approval or disapproval on any public comments regarding matters which do not appear on the printed agenda.

B. Proclamation: Present a proclamation designating January 2024 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month in the City of Lakeport.

VI. COUNCIL BUSINESS:

City Manager
A. 1. Draft Clear Lake
Integrated Preparedness
and Resilience Plan for
Receive a presentation from the Lake County Water Resources Department regarding the Clear Lake Integrated Preparedness and Resilience Plan for Dreissenid Mussel Management: A Rapid Response and Transition to Containment Plan.

City Council Agenda of January 16, 2024 Page 3
Dreissenid Mussel
Management:

B. Police Chief

1. Contract Extension -
Automated License Plate
Reader (ALPR) Cameras:

Authorize the 5-year agreement and direct the City Manager to sign the contract.

C. Community Development Director

1. Retail Storefront
Cannabis Businesses /
Temporary Cannabis
Events Discussion:

Discussion on retail storefront cannabis businesses and temporary cannabis events and provide direction on the options.

D. Assistant City Manager

1. 1st Quarter Financial
Statements:

Review and file the 1st Quarter Financial update.

E. Administrative Services Director

1. Contract and Budget
Adjustment:

Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Bob Hall and Associates for the executive recruitment of a new Chief of Police and approve a budget amendment in the amount of $27,000 for the expenditure.

2. Council Liaison
Appointments:

Adopt a resolution appointing representatives to represent and vote on behalf of the City at the League of California Cities, Redwood Empire Division Business meetings and represent the City and vote at Division Legislative Committee meetings.

VII. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Travel, Calendar, and
Miscellaneous Reports, if any:

VIII. ADJOURNMENT:

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Lakeport’s website, www.cityoflakeport.com, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

The City of Lakeport, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend and/or participate in the City meeting due to disability, to please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (707) 263-5615, 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure reasonable accommodations are provided.
_______________________________________
Hilary Britton, Deputy City Clerk
City Council Agenda of December 19, 2023 Page 2

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL
(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE

LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE MUNICIPAL FINANCING AGENCY OF LAKEPORT and THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)*
Tuesday, December 19, 2023, 6:00 p.m.

I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: Mayor Mattina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. with Council Members Costa, Disney, Froio, Parlet and Mayor Mattina present.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Dennis Rollins.

III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA/ URGENCY
ITEMS:

A motion was made by Council Member Froio, seconded by Council Member Disney, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to accept agenda as posted.

A. Ordinances: Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934.

B. Minutes: Approve minutes of the City Council regular meeting of December 5, 2023.

C. Warrants: Approve the warrant register of November 30, 2023.

Vote on Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Council Member Disney, seconded by Council Member Costa, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to approve the Consent Agenda, items A-C.

V. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:

A. Public Input: Supervisor Michael Green thanked Mayor Mattina for the vision and pursuit of the Christmas tree in Xabatin park and he was happy to participate in the cost.

VI. COUNCIL BUSINESS:

Administrative Services Director
A. 1. City Council
Reorganization:

The staff report was presented by City Clerk Buendia.

City Clerk Buendia requested nominations for Mayor. A nomination was made by Council Member Costa, to appoint Council member Froio. After acceptance of the nomination, Council Member Froio was voted as Mayor for a period of one year 5-0- 0-0.

City Clerk Buendia requested nominations for Mayor Pro Tem. A nomination was made by Council Member Mattina, to appoint Council Member Disney who accepted the nomination. Another nomination was made by Council Member Froio, to appoint Council Member Costa, who accepted the nomination.

City Council Agenda of December 19, 2023 Page 3
The City Clerk called for a vote. Council Member Costa was voted as Mayor Pro Tem for a period of one year 5-0-0-0.

2. Cell Phone Policy: The staff report was presented by Administrative Services Director Buendia.

A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Disney, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to adopt the City of Lakeport Cell Phone Policy for Management and City Council.

B. City Manager

1. Pickle Ball The staff report was presented by City Manager Ingram.

Dennis Rollins of the Westside Community Park made remarks about the proposed pickleball courts. Mike Shay, President of the Tennis Association spoke to the Council regarding the relationship between Pickle Ball and Tennis.

A motion was made by Council Member Costa, seconded by Council Member Disney, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to adopt an amendment to the Westside Community Park, Phase II Master Plan to include a designated area for the future development of pickleball courts.

C. Police Chief

1. Behavioral Health: The staff report was presented by Police Chief Rasmussen.

A motion was made by Council Member Costa, seconded by Council Member Parlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to approve the license agreement between the City of Lakeport and the County of Lake for Behavioral Health Staff to work out of the Lakeport Police Department station.

VII. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Travel, Calendar, and
Miscellaneous Reports, if any:

City Attorney Ruderman had no report.

City Manager Ingram wished everyone happy holidays and reflected on the accomplishments of the past year.

Police Chief Rasmussen reported that the Wreaths Across America event was well attended. He also announced the Dale Stoebe has been promoted to Captain, and will be attending the FBI academy in January, and Officer Moreno will be starting Detective training in the meantime.

Public Works Director Ladd was absent.

Chief Building Official Moss congratulated Mayor Froio on his appointment.

Administrative Services Director Buendia wished everyone a happy holiday.

Assistant City Manager Walker reported that he attended the Cal Cities Municipal Finance Institute last week in San Diego.

Utilities Superintendent Harris wished everyone a happy holiday.

Council Member Parlet thanked Council Member Mattina for all her work as Mayor in the past 2 years.

Council Member Costa reported on the Risk Reduction Authority’s pilot program to turn dried wood into biomass that could be then sold.

City Council Agenda of December 19, 2023 Page 4
Council Member Disney reported that the Lakeport Fire Protection District will be holding a public hearing in January to consider raising the Fire Mitigation fee.

Council Member Mattina thanked the Public Works Department for assembling and installing the Christmas Tree at Xabatin Community Park.

Mayor Froio reported that he had attended the Wreaths Across America event for the first time and will attend going forward. He also wished all happy holidays.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Froio adjourned the meeting at 7:08 p.m. _______________________________________
Michael Froio, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________________________
Kelly Buendia, City Clerk

CITY OF LAKEPORT
225 Park Street Phone: (707) 263-5615, Ext. 12 Lakeport, CA 95453 Fax: (707) 263-8584

APPLICATION FOR USE OF PUBLIC AREAS
Please note: City Council meetings are held the FIRST and THIRD TUESDAY of the month. Application forms require City Council approval and must be completed and submitted to the City Clerk at least one month prior to the Council meeting at which they will be considered.

This section to be completed by City:

Application Received (Date): Sept. 25, 2023 Application No. $15.00 Application Fee Paid For Council Meeting of (Date):

This section to be completed by Applicant (please answer all questions with as much detail as possible):

Applicant Name: Judy Luchsinger ( Pam Harpster started the process)
Organization Name: Rotary Club of Lakeport
Address: 1825 Hartley St., Lakeport 95453 Address: P.O.Box 937 (we meet Wed. at O’Meara’s) Home Phone: 7073212934 Work Phone: 7073212934 Mobile Phone: 7073212934 Email Address: [email protected] Website/Facebook Page: lakeportrotary.org Other Contact: Pam Harpster 7072456481 Phone for Other Contact:

Organization is: Nonprofit Organization For Profit Organization Nonprofit Name of Event: Rotary Drive Through Crab Feed
Description of Event: People buy crab dinner online, pick it up during the drive through on Feb. 17, 2024 Public Area of Use: ☐ Main Street ☐ Library Park X Silveira Community Center Parking Lot ☐ Other Specific Location of Event (Map Must be Attached):

Does this use involve public right of way, streets, or sidewalk? Yes No If yes, please indicate specific location:

If requesting closure of streets, sidewalk, etc., please describe notification procedure for affected businesses and/or residences:

SCC2023-002 PL
Date(s) of Event: Feb. 17, 2024 Total Number of Days: 1 Set Up Time: noon 12:00

Time of Event: 5-7pm
-
Tear Down Time: until 9pm
Specify anticipated number of people (both participants and the public): Estimate 50 cars will drive through Will any vendors be present? Yes No Will any food booths be present? Yes No Requirements:

Electricity (cannot be guaranteed by City)
Barricades
Street/Sidewalk Closures
No irrigation in park prior to event
Other (please specify):

Coordination of these requirements must be made through the Public Works Department: (707) 263-0751
Specific City Staff Needs:

Police
Public Works
Parks
Other (please specify):

The City reserves the right to bill applicant for related City costs.

Insurance Information:

Specify Insurance Company:

Policy Number: Expiration Date: Limits of Coverage: INSURANCE CERTIFICATE REQUIRED Note: The insurance certificate provided to the City by your organization’s insurance company must name the City of Lakeport as an additional insured for the event specified in this application and must include a copy of any endorsements. The minimum coverage amount required is $2,000,000. The certificate and endorsements must also be in a form acceptable to risk management and available for review 15 working days prior to the scheduled event.

USE OF ALCOHOL: Is a permit for alcoholic beverages requested? Yes No If you have checked yes, you must obtain a signed permit from the Lakeport Police Department and attach it to this application. This will allow for consumption of alcoholic beverages in connection with the event but will NOT allow for the SALE of alcoholic beverages. If alcoholic beverages are going to be sold or included with the price of any ticket or admission to the event, then the applicant is required to obtain a one-day license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. This one-day permit would be required in addition to a permit by the Lakeport Police Department.

HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
In consideration of allowing the event(s) specified in this application, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, I/we agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lakeport and its agents and “employees” from and against any injury, damage, claims, actions or suits arising out of the herein described Event, including those caused by negligence of the parties being indemnified and/or any dangerous condition of property of the parties being indemnified, and further agrees to defend and indemnify the City of Lakeport from and against any injury, damage, claims, actions or suits arising out of or connected with the foregoing event(s).

COVID-19 WAIVER
I, the undersigned, acknowledge the contagious nature of COVID-19 and voluntarily assume the risk that myself and others attending my event may be exposed to or infected by COVID-19. I agree to having all attendees follow CDC and Lake County Department of Public Health recommendations for enhanced health and safety measures related to COVID-19 and follow all posted instructions while using City facilities; including requirements for social distancing, wearing of face coverings, participant grouping, types of activities allowed, and potential limits on event size.
___ _____________________________________________ Dated:

Signature of Applicant
Responsible Official of Applicant Organization

STAFF RESPONSE
This section to be completed by City and Other Affected Agencies:

Staff Name: Department:

No Fiscal Impact Police
Fiscal Impact
Public Works
(Describe/Include Estimated Costs)
Parks
Other (please specify):

The following will be Required:

Business License Health Department Permit
ABC License Other (Specify):

Staff Comments:

This section to be completed by City Clerk following Council meeting:

Considered at Council Meeting (Date): Application Approved Application Denied
Application Approved With Conditions (See Below)
Conditions of Approval:

Street Closure - 5th St. at Main
5th Street Closed
City of Lakeport Community Center
500 North Main Street  Lakeport  CA  95453  707.263.5615  Fax 707.263.8584 [email protected]

FACILITY USE APPLICATION
This reservation/contract is issued in accordance with the policies as established by the City Council, City of Lakeport. Failure to comply by any group/individual may cause reason to revoke this agreement. Reservations are on a first-come, first-served basis. Your reservation date is not confirmed until reviewed and approved by the Facility Supervisor.

Customer Information
Contact Person: ___________________________________
Street Address: ___________________________________
City, State, Zip:____________________________________
Phone: __________________________________________
Alt Phone: _______________________________________
Email: ___________________________________________
Company Information
Company Name: __________________________________
Street Address: ___________________________________
City, State, Zip:____________________________________
Phone: __________________________________________
Email: ___________________________________________
 Government/School
 Non-Profit #____________
Please include a brief description of your event. If your event is a fundraiser or community event please include a complete agenda/description of your event.

Event Information
Name of Event: ___________________________________
Date of Event: _________________________
Attendance: _________ Guests over 21 years old
_________ Guests under 21 years old
_________ Total number of guests
Reservation Date(s): _______________________
Arrival Time to Set Up: _______________ am/pm
Departure Time After Clean Up: _______________ am/pm
Arrival Time for Guests: ______________ am/pm
Departure Time for Guests: ______________ am/pm
YES NO
Is this open to the public?  
Is this a fund-raiser?  
Vendor/Booth Fee?  
Entertainment Activities?  
Admission charged / Tickets sold?  
Donations requested?  

Describe Donations
Will alcohol be served?* 
Type of alcohol: Beer / Wine / Hard Alcohol
Will alcohol be sold?*  
*Alcohol sales or consumption will require the appropriate permit from the Lakeport Police Department.

Other
Select Rental Type:

Week Day____________
Weekend____________
Friday Add-On to Weekend Rental__________
Please answer the following:

Kitchen Only ____________

Memorandum
DATE: October 11, 2023
TO: Hillary Britton, Deputy City Clerk/Records Supervisor FROM: Ashley Brown, Senior EHS
RE: Application No. SCC2023-002 – Rotary Crab Feed
APN: 025-381-08 (SR0005022)
Environmental Health Division is requiring:

1. The sponsor must apply and pay for a sponsor Temporary Event application two weeks before the event takes place.

COUNTY OF LAKE
Health Services Department
Environmental Health Division
922 Bevins Court
Lakeport, California 95453-9739
Telephone 707/263-1090
FAX 707/263-4395
Jonathan Portney
Health Services Director
Craig Wetherbee
Environmental Health Director
Promoting an Optimal State of Wellness in Lake County
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA95453

CITY OF LAKEPORT
Please Note:

Bounce Houses and Waterslides are prohibited
Phone: (707) 263-5615
Fax: (707) 263-8584

APPLICATION FOR USE OF LIBRARY PARKGAZEBO AND FACILITIES This section to be completed by City:

Application Received(Date): $15.00 Application FeePaid Application No.

This section to be completed by Applicant (please answer all questions):

ApplicantName: OrganizationName:

Address:

Home Phone: Work Phone: Mobile Phone:

EmailAddress:

Facility Requested:
☐ Gazebo ☐ Fifth Street Boat Ramp ☐ Third Street Boat Ramp ☐ Parking ☐ Xabatin Community Park Amphitheatre Description of Event Proposed:

Date of Event: Set Up Time: __________ ☐ AM ☐ PM
Time of Event: ☐ AM ☐ PM
Tear Down Time: __________ ☐ AM ☐ PM
Specify anticipated number of people (both participants and the public):

Requirements: *Coordination of these requirements must be made through the Public Works Department: (707) 263-0751 ☐ Electricity (not guaranteed by the City)
☐ No water in park prior to event
☐ Other (pleasespecify):
***It should be clearly understood that approval of your event does not convey exclusive use of the Park or the boat ramps and that there may be other events occurring in the Park or on the lake at the time of your event*** USE OF ALCOHOL: Is a permit for alcoholic beverages requested? ☐ Yes ☐ No If you have checked yes, you must obtain a signed permit from the Lakeport Police Department and attach it to this application. This will allow for consumption of alcoholic beverages in connection with the event but will NOT allow for the SALE ofalcoholic beverages. If alcoholic beverages are going to be sold or included with the price of any ticket or admission to the event, then the applicant is required to obtain a one-day license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. This one-day permit would be required in addition to a permit by the Lakeport PoliceDepartment.

INSURANCE INFORMATION (Applies only to Public Events &Fishing Tournaments) The minimum coverage amount required is $2,000,000.

The insurance certificate provided to the City by your organization’s insurance company must name the City of Lakeport as an additional insured and must include a copy of any endorsements, including Waiver of Subrogation. The insurance provided to the City shall be primary to, and non-contributory with any insurance or self-insurance program maintained by the City.

HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT: In consideration of allowing the event(s) specified in this application, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, I/ we agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lakeport and its agents and “employees” from and against any injury, damage, claims, actions or suits arising out of the herein described Event, including those caused by negligence of the parties being indemnified and/or any dangerous condition of property of the parties being indemnified, and further agrees to defend and indemnify the City of Lakeport from and against any injury, damage, claims, actions or suits arising out of or connected with the foregoing event(s).

SIGNATURE OFAPPLICANT DATE
1/9/24, 8:00 AM Mail - Hilary Britton - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADFlMmQzNGJiLWZhYTItNDZhNi1hZTJlLWZmMmE5ZDA4NjUxOAAQAL1HGG35FiJCgPgfvUyrW5A%… 1/1 Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 1 Agenda Item # IV.E.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council ☐
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District ☐
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority ☐
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport ☐
Successor Agency to the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency ☒

STAFF REPORT
RE: Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) 24-25 MEETING DATE: 1/16/2024 SUBMITTED BY: Nicholas Walker, ACM/ Finance Director
PURPOSE OF REPORT: ☐Information only ☐ Discussion ☒Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency is being asked to adopt a resolution approving the ROPS 2024-25 for the period of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Following dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lakeport (“Agency”), the City elected to become the successor agency to the Agency by Resolution No. 2441, dated January 10, 2012 (the “Successor Agency”). Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34173(b), the Successor Agency is now a separate legal entity from the City. One of the responsibilities of the Successor Agency is to prepare a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (“ROPS”), which sets forth the nature, amount, and source(s) of payment of all “enforceable obligations” of the Agency (as defined by law) to be paid by the Successor Agency.

Pursuant to AB 1484, passed by the State Legislature on June 27, 2012, a new schedule for submittal of a ROPS for periods subsequent to the period ending December 31, 2012 was established. Under AB 1484 a Successor Agency is required to submit the approved ROPS for the period July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 to the County of Lake Auditor Controller, the California State Controller, and the State of California Department of Finance and posted on the City’s website by February 1, 2024.

Only payments required pursuant to the ROPS may be made by the Successor Agency.

The “enforceable obligations” listed in the ROPS may include the bonds; loans legally required to be repaid pursuant to a payment schedule with mandatory repayment terms; payments required by the federal government, preexisting obligations to the state or obligations imposed by state law; judgments, settlements or binding arbitration decisions that bind the agency; legally binding and enforceable agreements or contracts; contracts or agreements necessary for the continued administration or operation of the agency, including agreements to purchase or rent office space, equipment and supplies; and amounts borrowed from or payments owing to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund of a redevelopment agency, which had been deferred as of June 29, 2011. However, the ROPS is to exclude pass-through payments to be made by the county after dissolution of the Agency and any agreements, contracts or arrangements between the City and the Agency, except any of the following agreements between the City and the Agency: (1) any written agreements between the City and the Agency entered into prior to June 30, 2010, solely for the purpose of securing or repaying Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 2 Agenda Item # IV.E.
indebtedness obligations to third parties; and (2) loan agreements entered into between the Agency and the City within two years of the date of creation of the Agency.

OPTIONS:

1. Adopt a resolution approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule 23-24 covering the period July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025 for presentation and adoption by the Lake County Redevelopment Oversight Board.

2. Do not approve and provide direction to staff
FISCAL IMPACT:
☐ None ☒ $556,976 Budgeted Item? ☒Yes ☐ No
Budget Adjustment Needed? ☐Yes ☒ No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $ Affected fund(s): ☐ General Fund ☐ Water OM Fund ☐ Sewer OM Fund ☒ Other: Successor Agency Fund Comments: The ROPS lists existing enforceable obligations to be paid by the Successor Agency. Only payments listed on the approved ROPS and approved by DOF may be made by the Successor Agency.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES:
☐ Priority #1: Public Safety & Crisis Response
☐ Priority #2: Disaster Resiliency
☒ Priority #3: Good Governance & Fiscal Stability
☐ Priority #4: Capital Infrastructure Improvement
☐ Priority #5: Safe, Sustainable & Attractive Neighborhoods ☐ Priority #6: Economic Development
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Move to adopt a resolution approving ROPS 24-25 for the period of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 for presentation and adoption by the Lake County Redevelopment Oversight Board. ☒ Attachments: 1. Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency

2. Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule covering the period July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025
09959.00000\7819580.1 1
249577.1
RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LAKEPORT

REDEVELOPMENT ANGENCY, APPROVING AND ADOPTING A

RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE COVERING THE
PERIOD JULY 1, 2024- THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34173(d), the City of Lakeport elected to become the successor agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lakeport (“Successor Agency”) by Resolution No. 2441 on January 10, 2012; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34173(g), the Successor Agency is a separate legal entity from the City; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 34177(o) requires the Successor Agency to prepare a recognized obligation payment schedule (“ROPS”) for the next fiscal year from July 1 to June 30, inclusive; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 34177(l)(2) requires the Successor Agency to submit the ROPS to the Successor Agency’s Oversight Board (“Oversight Board”) for its approval, and upon such approval, the Successor Agency is required to submit a copy of the approved ROPS (“Approved ROPS”) to the Lake County Auditor-Controller, the California State Controller, and the State of California Department of Finance, and post the Approved ROPS on the Successor Agency’s website; and
WHEREAS, AB 1484 passed by the State Legislature on June 27, 2012 establishes a new schedule for submittal of a ROPS for periods subsequent to the period ending December 31, 2012; and
WHEREAS, under AB 1484 a Successor Agency is required to submit the approved ROPS for the period July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 to the County of Lake Auditor Controller, the California State Controller, and the State of California Department of Finance by February 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LAKEPORT
REDEVELOPMENT ANGENCY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

Section 2. CEQA Compliance. The approval of the ROPS 24-25 through this Resolution does not commit the Successor Agency or Oversight Board to any action that may have a significant effect on the environment. As a result, such action does not constitute a project subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Approval of the 09959.00000\7819580.1 2
249577.1
ROPS 24-25 is also exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because the proposed ROPS 24-25 will not cause a significant adverse physical change to the environment either directly or indirectly. The Clerk is authorized and directed to file a Notice of Exemption with the appropriate official of the County of Lake, California, within five (5) days following the date of adoption of this Resolution.

Section 3. Approval of ROPS. The Successor Agency to the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency hereby approves the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for the fiscal year July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, as prepared by City staff.

Section 4. Authorization to Submit to The Lake County Redevelopment Oversight Board. The Successor Agency to the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency hereby authorizes and directs the City staff to submit the approved ROPS for the period July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, to the Lake County Redevelopment Oversight Board for their consideration and approval.

Section 5. Effectiveness. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Successor Agency to the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency on the 16th day of January, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
________________________________
Michael Froio, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kelly Buendia, Secretary
09959.00000\7819580.1 249577.1

EXHIBIT A

RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE
[Attached behind this page]
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 24-25) - Summary Filed for the July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 Period Successor Agency: Lakeport
County: Lake
Current Period Requested Funding for Enforceable
Obligations (ROPS Detail)
24-25A Total
(July -
December)
24-25B Total
(January -
June)
ROPS 24-25
Total
A Enforceable Obligations Funded as Follows (B+C+D) $ - $ - $ - B Bond Proceeds - - -
C Reserve Balance - - -
D Other Funds - - -
E Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) (F+G) $ 406,319 $ 150,657 $ 556,976 F RPTTF 320,947 65,286 386,233
G Administrative RPTTF 85,372 85,371 170,743
H Current Period Enforceable Obligations (A+E) $ 406,319 $ 150,657 $ 556,976 Certification of Oversight Board Chairman:

Name Title
Pursuant to Section 34177 (o) of the Health and Safety
code, I hereby certify that the above is a true and
accurate Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for
the above named successor agency. /s/
Signature Date
Lakeport
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 24-25) - ROPS Detail July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
Item
# Project Name Obligation Type
Agreement
Execution
Date
Agreement
Termination
Date
Payee Description Project
Area
Total
Outstanding
Obligation
Retired
ROPS
24-25
Total
ROPS 24-25A (Jul - Dec)
24-25A
Total
ROPS 24-25B (Jan - Jun)
24-25B
Total
Fund Sources Fund Sources
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds RPTTF Admin RPTTF
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds
RPTTF
Admin
RPTTF
$7,405,711 $556,976 $- $- $- $320,947 $85,372 $406,319 $- $- $- $65,286 $85,371 $150,657 2 2004 Series
B Bonds
Bonds
Issued On
or Before
12/31/10
03/01/
2005
03/01/2027 Union
Bank of
California
Bond
indebtedness
:akeport
Project
Area 1
266,047 N $91,583 - - - 86,922 - $86,922 - - - 4,661 - $4,661 17 Administrative
Costs
Admin
Costs
02/01/
2012
09/01/2034 City of
Lakeport
Administrative
costs
3,105,139 N $170,743 - - - - 85,372 $85,372 - - - - 85,371 $85,371 18 2016 Tax
Allocation
Bonds
Bonds
Issued
After 12/
31/10
11/02/
2016
09/01/2034 Union
Bank of
California
Bond
indebtedness
4,034,525 N $294,650 - - - 234,025 - $234,025 - - - 60,625 - $60,625 Lakeport
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 24-25) - Report of Cash Balances July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022
(Report Amounts in Whole Dollars)
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 (l), Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) may be listed as a source of payment on the ROPS, but only to the extent no other funding source is available or when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation.

A B C D E F G H
ROPS 21-22 Cash Balances
(07/01/21 - 06/30/22)
Fund Sources
Comments
Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF
Bonds issued
on or before
12/31/10
Bonds issued
on or after
01/01/11
Prior ROPS
RPTTF and
Reserve
Balances retained
for future
period(s)
Rent, grants,
interest, etc.

Non-Admin
and Admin
1 Beginning Available Cash Balance (Actual 07/01/21)
RPTTF amount should exclude "A" period distribution
amount.
- - 99,607 59,190 46,250
2 Revenue/Income (Actual 06/30/22)
RPTTF amount should tie to the ROPS 21-22 total
distribution from the County Auditor-Controller
566,220
3 Expenditures for ROPS 21-22 Enforceable Obligations
(Actual 06/30/22)
474,940
4 Retention of Available Cash Balance (Actual 06/30/22) RPTTF amount retained should only include the amounts
distributed as reserve for future period(s)
5 ROPS 21-22 RPTTF Prior Period Adjustment
RPTTF amount should tie to the Agency's ROPS 21-22 PPA
form submitted to the CAC
No entry required
6 Ending Actual Available Cash Balance (06/30/22)
C to F = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4), G = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4 - 5)
$- $- $99,607 $59,190 $137,530
Lakeport
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 24-25) - Notes July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025
Item # Notes/Comments
2 17
18 Proclamation DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2024 AS

HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS MONTH IN THE CITY OF LAKEPORT WHEREAS, human trafficking is a serious crime that affects people of all races, age, and gender; and WHEREAS, human trafficking is a borderless crime against individuals that violates the most basic human rights and deprives victims of human dignity and denies freedom to 32 million people around the world; and WHEREAS, human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal industry globally; and WHEREAS, California ranks first among the states in the number of potential reports of human trafficking; and WHEREAS, a serious form of human trafficking involves the exploitation of children and youth for commercial sex acts.

It is imperative that our young people and their families learn how to recognize risks and resist predators who use coercion and threats to manipulate children and young adults into sex and labor trafficking; and WHEREAS, Lake Family Resource Center is instrumental in leading the way in the County of Lake in addressing human trafficking by providing 24-hour hotline services, and continuing support, advocacy and accompaniment to survivors; and WHEREAS, preventing human trafficking in Lake County includes active public and private efforts to help recognize and acknowledge its existence; it is time for all of us to start conversations, take appropriate action and support one another to create a safer environment for all residents; and WHEREAS, many organizations such as the District Attorney’s Office, Sheriff’s Office, Lakeport Police Department, Clearlake Police Department and Lake Family Resource Center are committed to ending Human Trafficking in Lake County and provide essential crisis intervention and prevention services to all members of our community.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City Council of the City of Lakeport does hereby designate January 2024 as
Human Trafficking Awareness Month
in the City of Lakeport, and our community is urged to support the efforts of the agencies assisting victims of human trafficking and urges all local governments, schools, businesses, and community members to be aware and report any suspicious activity to local police departments and help shine the light on trafficking.

I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Lakeport to be affixed this 16th day of January 2024.
_________________________________
MICHAEL FROIO, Mayor
Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 1 Agenda Item # VI.A.1.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport

STAFF REPORT
RE: Presentation of the Clear Lake Integrated Preparedness and Resilience Plan for Dreissenid Mussel Management
MEETING DATE: 1/16/2024
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin M. Ingram, City Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to receive a presentation from the Lake County Water Resources Department regarding the Clear Lake Integrated Preparedness and Resilience Plan for Dreissenid Mussel Management: A Rapid Response and Transition to Containment Plan.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

See attached Clear Lake Integrated Preparedness and Resilience Plan for Dreissenid Mussel Management (Attachment 2) and Executive Summary memorandum from Angela De Palma-Dow, Invasive Species Program Coordinator, County of Lake Water Resources Department (Attachment 1).

OPTIONS:

1. Receive report, with no suggested changes or alterations.

2. Receive report, and make recommended changes or suggest alterations.

3. Provide alternative direction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None $ Budgeted Item? Yes No
Budget Adjustment Needed? Yes No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $ Affected fund(s): General Fund Water OM Fund Sewer OM Fund Other:

Comments: No fiscal impact.

Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 2 Agenda Item # VI.A.1.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES:
☐ Priority #1: Public Safety & Crisis Response
☒ Priority #2: Disaster Resiliency
☒ Priority #3: Good Governance & Fiscal Stability
☐ Priority #4: Capital Infrastructure Improvement
☐ Priority #5: Safe, Sustainable & Attractive Neighborhoods ☒ Priority #6: Economic Development
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

NONE
Attachments: 1. Executive Summary Memorandum from Angela De Palma-Dow, Invasive Species Program Coordinator, County of Lake Water Resources Department

2. Clear Lake Integrated Preparedness and Resilience Plan for Dresissenid Mussel Management: A Rapid Response and Transition to Containment Plan

Our goal is to improve the
current aquatic invasive
species prevention program while preparing for an
invasive quagga or
zebra mussel
introduction into Clear Lake.

THIS PROJECT WAS FUNDED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE COUNTY OF LAKE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.

Clear Lake Integrated Preparedness and Resilience
Plan for Dreissenid Mussel Management
A Rapid Response and Transition to Containment Plan
2 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures 4
List of Tables 4
Executive Summary 5
CHAPTER 1 7
Purpose of the Plan 7
Objectives and Capability Targets 7
CHAPTER 2 9
Preparing for an Introduction of Dreissenids in Lake County 9 Clear Lake Water Management and History 9
Drinking Water Systems that Draw Water from the Clear Lake Watershed 10 Clear Lake Recreation, Tourism and Access 11
Climate Change Stressors: Lake County Water Bodies 12
Vulnerability of Clear Lake and Regional Water Bodies to Dreissenids 13 Water Body Monitoring in Clear Lake and Other County Lakes 13 Potential Effects of Invasive Mussels on Clear Lake 14
CHAPTER 3 18
Legal Authorities and Statutes 18
CHAPTER 4 23
Rapid Response Strategy 23
Potential Solutions to Mitigate, or Eradicate, Invasive Mussels from Clear Lake 30 CHAPTER 5 34
Transition to Containment 34
Sources of Funding for Dreissenid Response and Containment 41 CHAPTER 6 43
Permanent Decontamination Station Feasibility Analysis 43 Case Studies – Optimizing the Location of Watercraft Inspection Stations 45 Suggested Training for Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Program Staff 46 CHAPTER 7 47
Management Recommendations 47
References 49
Appendices 54
Appendix A. Surface Water Systems that Draw from Clear Lake and Primary Contact. 55 Appendix B. Clear Lake Marinas, Boat Rentals, Public Boat Launches, Marine Services, and Sailing Facilities. 56 Appendix C. Current Invasive Mussel Screening Locations. 58 Appendix D. California Regulations Pertaining to Dreissenids. 59 Appendix E. CDFW Quagga Mussel Observation Report Form. 60 Appendix F. SAMPLE Draft Press Release. 61
Feedback from various agencies have assisted in a balanced and robust plan to guide in the management of one of the most important invasive species in North America. The completion of this document was supported by funding from the Quagga Zebra Mussel Action Plan (QZAP) administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A special thank you to the following individuals that contributed to the content and completion of this document:
• Angela DePalma-Dow, County of Lake Water Resources Department • Angie Montalvo, California Department of Fish and Wildlife • Dominique Norton, California Department of Fish and Wildlife • Ben Ewing, California Department of Fish and Wildlife This document was prepared for Lake County Water Resources Department by Lisa DeBruyckere of Creative Resource Strategies, LLC and Leah Elwell of Conservation Collaborations, LLC.

Recommended Citation: DeBruyckere, L.D., and L.Elwell. 2023. Clear Lake Integrated Preparedness Plan/Resilience Plan for Dreissenid Mussel Management: A Rapid Response and Transition to Containment Plan. 81pp.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
4 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 5 Appendix G. Potential Permit Considerations for a Clear Lake Dreissenid Control Action. 62 Appendix H. Examples of Water Body Monitoring Strategies that can be Employed in Water Bodies in Which Dreissenids have been Detected. 66
Appendix I. Sample County Ordinance and Potential Clear Lake Fishing Contest Activity Fee Schedule. 68 Appendix J. Comments Received on Draft Plan. 71
List of Figures
Figure 1. Clear Lake Water System Area Boundaries.

Figure 2. Likely changes from an invasive mussel invasion in Clear Lake.

Figure 3. Examples of economic losses caused by aquatic invasive species in North America.

Figure 3. Dreissenid management response decision matrix.

Figure 4. Watercraft inspection and decontamination enhances prevention efforts at Clear Lake.

Figure 5. Dreissenid management response decision matrix. This matrix provides a flow of possible steps upon the initial detection of dreissenids.

Figure 6. The Incident Command System structure with identified roles and lines of communication.

Figure 7. Potential Lake County entities that would be involved in a dreissenid response visualized in Incident Command System roles.

Figure 8. Outreach materials to share information about a detection of dreissenids in Clear Lake include a social media post, flyer, and door hanger.

Figure 9. Columbia River Basin Dreissenid Incident Response Toolkit (CRBDIRT) website.

Figure 10. Timeline illustrating verification of identification, accompanying tasks, and water body status following a preliminary detection of dreissenids.

Figure 11. Mussel sticker sales to residents and visitors, 2016-2022.

Figure 12. Potential locations for permanent watercraft inspection and decontamination stations (yellow mark) based on the criteria for establishing stations.

List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of roles and responsibilities relative to dreissenid prevention and management.

Table 2. Contact information for Clear Lake dreissenid prevention and mangement.

Table 3. Three types of communication hubs for disseminating information on dreissenid mussel response, including the type of information shared, method of communication, frequency, and entities involved.

Table 4. Total number of mussel stickers sold to residents and visitors, and income received, from 2016-2022.

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
The County of Lake Watershed Protection District (the
“District”) initiated the development of this Invasive
Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment
Transition Plan for Clear Lake, in Lake County, California to improve the preparedness capabilities of Clear Lake
water managers to protect Clear Lake water resources
in the event of an invasive dreissenid mussel introduction and/or establishment. The plan provides guidance to prepare partners to efficiently and effectively respond to a dreissenid mussel detection to minimize
spread within and beyond Clear Lake, and protect
natural, recreational, cultural, economic, and other
resources.

Clear Lake is at high risk for introduction of dreissenids because of the volume of out-of-county boaters that
use the water body, its reputation nationally as a blueribbon warm water fishery, numerous and free access points for visiting boaters, and water chemistry conducive to invasive mussel establishment. The District administers the Q/Z mussel prevention program and
monitors for Q/Z mussels in Blue Lakes, Clear Lake,
Hidden Valley Lake, Highland Springs, Indian Valley
Reservoir, and Lake Pillsbury per CDFW monitoring
protocols. The district monitors for Q/Z mussels using
artificial substrates, infrastructure/surface structure observations, and veliger tows. District water purveyors (Appendix A) monitor for mussel presence during maintenance of facilities.

Potential effects of invasive mussels are numerous, and include, but are not limited to, ecological disruption, reduction in property values, increased
maintenance costs, beaches and shorelines with sharp
shells, loss of revenue to Lake County communities,
restrictions on boating and fishing tournaments, and
increase in costs to maintain boats and water infrastructure delivery systems.

The District is the primary agency responsible for
managing the dreissenid mussel prevention program
in Lake County and plans, manages, maintains, implements, and evaluates all Lake County aquatic invasive species programs. The California Department of Fish
and Wildlife, California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways, water supply system operators, citizen scientists, and Pacific Gas and Electric also
6 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 7

CHAPTER ONE
Purpose of the Plan
The purpose of this Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake, in Lake County, California is to improve the preparedness capabilities of Clear Lake water managers to protect Clear Lake water resources in the event of an invasive dreissenid mussel introduction and/or establishment. The plan provides guidance to prepare partners and other entities to efficiently and effectively respond to a dreissenid mussel detection to minimize spread within and beyond Clear Lake, and protect natural, recreational, cultural, economic, and other resources. This plan is intended to build upon the Lake County Quagga and Zebra Mussel Prevention Plan (2019), which guides prevention efforts associated with an introduction and establishment of dreissenids in Lake County water bodies. The contents of this plan are limited to containment via overland transport (i.e., watercraft), which is within the jurisdiction of County of Lake Water Resources Department (LCWRD). This plan highlights the critical role LCWRD plays in preventing the spread of dreissenids through containment and potential control efforts.

Objectives and Capability Targets
The plan will be used to routinely test core capabilities associated with prevention and response:
• Planning – Identify critical objectives, describe
the sequence and scope of tasks to achieve objectives, ensure objectives are implementable, and develop and execute actions in coordination with regional jurisdictions. • Capability Target – Within one week
of a dreissenid confirmation, describe
the roles and responsibilities of partner
organizations involved in incident management response across all jurisdictions, and sequence the scope of tasks needed
to prevent, protect, mitigate, and respond
to the introduction.
• Capability Target – Maintain, on a regular
basis (i.e., quick annual review and thorough 5-year review), this Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake, in Lake County, California, to ensure roles
and responsibilities across jurisdictions
as well as sequence and actions needed
to prevent an introduction and/or establishment of dreissenids is understood by all jurisdictions.
• Public Information – Deliver coordinated,
prompt, reliable, and actionable information
to the whole community through clear, consistent, accessible, culturally competent and appropriate methods (based on best available
science/laboratory methods and standardized field methodologies) to relay information regarding dreissenid detection as subsequent
actions.
• Capability Target – Within 24 hours of
a dreissenid detection, notify California
Department of Fish and Wildlife QZM-AIS
Regional Coordinator (Environmental
Scientist) and invasive species hotline @
[email protected] and/or Invasive
Species Program @ 866-440-9530.
• Capability Target – Within one week of a
dreissenid detection, and within three
1 have roles and responsibilities relative to dreissenid prevention and management in the county. Numerous
state statutes and county ordinances govern the implementation of this programs. Numerous recommendations were made to strengthen county ordinances to improve the ability and effectiveness of the District to prevent and ultimately contain dreissenids.

There are specific steps that can be taken during a
dreissenid response, including confirmation of detection, declaration of emergency, notification communication, activation of the Incident Command System, communication and outreach, response actions, containment, monitoring, and termination of the Incident Command System.

Containment of dreissenids is costly. In Flaming Gorge
Reservoir, annual containment costs exceed $1 million;
in Keyhole Reservoir, Wyoming, annual containment
costs approach $.75 million. Sources of funding available for containment include federal grant funding, state and regional funding, and fee-based user funding, e.g., funding from the sale of resident and visitor mussel stickers.

The District should consider making significant infrastructure investments around the perimeter of Clear Lake to prevent an introduction of dreissenids, and, in the case of an eventual introduction, have the capacity to decontaminate all watercraft exiting the lake to ensure minimal disruption to revenue-generating
recreational activities. A permanent watercraft decontamination station feasibility analysis has identified the cost and criteria that should be considered to site stations.

Numerous long-term management recommendations
will improve the ability of the District to prevent and ultimately contain dreissenids. Recommendations in
funding, reporting, capital expenditures, containment
and control, collaboration, and fishing regulations will enhance the readiness of the District.
8 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 9 days of a dreissenid confirmation, deliver
reliable and actionable messages to the
public and collaborators that define the
threat, describe actions being taken, and
include required actions by the public
and collaborators.
• Capability Target – One month prior to
taking action to attempt to eradicate, or
limit the spread of dreissenids, deliver
reliable messages to the public and collaborators about potential control actions and any necessary temporary closures, or
shutdowns (e.g., municipal water suppliers, self-supplied water users). • Operational Coordination – Establish and
maintain a unified and coordinated operational
structure and process that appropriately integrates all critical collaborators. • Capability Target – Within one week of a
dreissenid detection, establish and maintain an Incident Command Structure (ICS) and process with partner organizations.
• Capability Target – Annually test and
update the Invasive Mussel Introduction
Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake, in Lake County, California, validating roles and responsibilities and other core plan elements. • Capability Target – Ensure adequate
resources exist to respond to an introduction of dreissenids in Clear Lake and neighboring regional water bodies by
coordinating and positioning equipment
(e.g., booms) in an easily accessible
location, establishing protocols and procedures for accessing and replacing that equipment.
• Capability Target – Share information
about water body surveillance results
across regional water body jurisdictions.

Within one week of a dreissenid detection, provide notification to decision makers and partners involved in incident
management of the current and projected
situation.
• Screening, Search, and Detection – Identify,
discover, or locate dreissenids through active
and passive surveillance and search procedures
including assessments, surveillance methods,
or physical investigation.
• Capability Target – Monitor Clear Lake
and other county water bodies on a
regular basis using plankton tows, settling
plates, and physical observations to detect an introduction of dreissenids. • Capability Target – Per Lake County Code
Chapter 15, Article IX (https://library.
municode.com/ca/lake_county/codes/
code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_
CH15RE_ARTIXWAVEINPR) ensure all watercraft launched in Clear Lake have both local inspection stickers and state mussel
fee stickers, and are clean, drained, and
dry prior to launch.
• Capability Target – Ensure all high-risk
watercraft launched in Clear Lake are
inspected prior to launch.
• Risk Management for Protection Programs
and Activities – Identify, assess, and prioritize
risks to inform activities, countermeasures, and
investments.
• Capability Target – Annually conduct a
review of relevant threats and hazards,
vulnerabilities, and strategies for risk
management covering publicly managed
and/or regulated critical infrastructure
(e.g., water delivery).
• Response – Implement appropriate actions to
eradicate an introduction of, or limit the spread
of, dreissenids within Clear Lake and other
regional water bodies.
• Capability Target – Per California Code of
Regulations Title 14, Section 672.1(a)(1),
within 60 days of a dreissenid detection,
describe the suite of options available to
eradicate, or limit the spread of, the dreissenid population, and obtain the necessary permits and marshal the necessary resources to effect action.

CHAPTER TWO
Preparing for an Introduction of Dreissenids in Lake County In December of 2022, the County of Lake Water Resources Department launched this project to develop an Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake, in Lake County, California. The overall goal for the project is to improve the current aquatic invasive species prevention program while preparing for an invasive quagga or zebra mussel (“QZ”) introduction into Clear Lake, or neighboring Lake County water bodies (Clear Lake, Indian Valley Reservoir, Lake Pillsbury, Blue Lakes, Hidden Valley Lake, and Highland Springs Reservoir). Preparing for an introduction is a process to understand and determine potential response options and develop a containment strategy that can be implemented quickly and efficiently to reduce local economic, environmental, cultural, and social impacts as well as prevent the spread of invasive mussels in northern California and other uninfested western waters. Any potential response to an introduction of dreissenids to Clear Lake will vary based on a variety of factors, including dreissenid life stage detected, and the scope of an infestation upon discovery. The materials and information provided in this document are guidelines for consideration of the actions that may be taken.

Clear Lake and its associated 520 square mile watershed are a complex ecosystem consisting of a large, shallow, eutrophic lake that is used for recreation,
tourism, and municipal, domestic, and agricultural
water supply and provides important habitat for fish
and wildlife. The lake is California’s largest, natural freshwater lake located entirely within the state, has 68 miles of surface area, and an average depth of 26 feet.

The lake drains into the Sacramento River via Cache
Creek (Lake County 2010). The major tributaries to
Clear Lake, which flow primarily during the winter
months and contribute 73 percent of the total stream
flow into Clear Lake, include Scotts and Middle creeks
(northwest) and Kelsey Creek in Big Valley (south)
(Lake County 2010).

Extensive modifications of the lake, shoreline, and
watershed since the mid-1800s have resulted in an 85
percent loss of natural wetlands as well as nitrogen
and phosphorus cycling imbalance contributing to frequent cyanobacteria algal blooms (Giusti 2009). These algal blooms are predicted to worsen with climate
Clear Lake Water Management and History
change stressors (Kennard 2021). Several Clear Lake
water purveyors have developed cyanotoxin management plans (Highlands Mutual Water Company 2016) to prepare for and mitigate risks from harmful algal
blooms and cyanotoxins to protect public drinking
water. Clear Lake was added to the federal Clean Water
Act Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for
nutrients in 1986 (Lake County 2010). The Lake County
Clean Water Program (LCCWP) established a Program
Effectiveness and Improvement Plan in 2021 to mitigate polluted stormwater runoff, and in particular, high priority pollutants of concern (phosphorus associated
with sediment and nutrients) and increases in peak
flows caused by development (EOA 2021). Drought,
mining, chemicals, and invasive species have contributed to water and natural resource impairments:
• Extended periods of drought correlate with
increases in phosphorus in all three arms of
the lake (Suchanek et al. 2002, DePalma-Dow
et al. 2022). A major factor in the stimulation
and persistence of cyanobacteria blooms in
2 10 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 11 Clear Lake relates to periods of anoxia (during periods of calm) that reduce dissolved oxygen and may act to release phosphorus
from the sediments. This is followed by periods of active water column mixing (windy periods), which distribute those nutrients
throughout the water column (Florea et al.
2022).
• Clear Lake contains elevated levels of mercury caused by the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine, an open pit mercury mine on the Oaks
Arm of Clear Lake. The mine opened in 1865,
became an open pit mine in 1927, ceased
operations in 1957, and is now a Superfund
site (Lake County 2010).
• Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD) was
applied to Clear Lake in the 1940s and 1950s
to control the Clear Lake gnat (Chaoborus
astictopus), a nuisance to residents and
recreationists (Giusti 2009). Contamination
of the ecosystem and collapse of Western
Grebe populations occurred.
• Introduction and establishment of nonnative fishes and invasive plants, such as Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), have displaced
native fish species (Guisti 2009; Feyrer 2019).

Drinking Water Systems that Draw Water
from the Clear Lake Watershed
Clear Lake provides drinking water to 60 percent
(serving ~40,000 people) of the population of Lake
County and provides a reliable water source for
nearby agriculture production within the basin and
downstream through Yolo County and to the California Central Valley. Clear Lake has been described as the county’s most valuable asset, providing economic and ecological stability to the entire region. The popularity and accessibility of Clear Lake combined
with water quality conditions suitable for dreissenid
mussel establishment, make the risk of an invasive
mussel invasion extremely high (County of Lake Watershed Protection District 2019).

According to the California Rural Water Association
(CRWA), there are a total of 17 utility surface water
systems with a total of at least 17,545 service connections that draw water from the lake (Appendix A) (https://gispublic.waterboards.ca.gov/portal/apps/
webappviewer/index.html?id=272351aa7db144359896
47a86e6d3ad8). Service area boundaries of Clear Lake
drinking water have been verified by the Division of
Drinking Water of the California Water Resources Control Board (Figure 1). Stored water is managed by Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

The water level in Clear Lake has been manipulated by
operation of the Cache Creek Dam since 1914 (Highlands Mutual Water Company 2016). The Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District owns
the rights to use the water in the lake (Suchanek et al. 2002) and regulates the depth of the lake (determined
by the Rumsey gauge) between 0–7.56 feet, under nonflood conditions and 0–9.00 feet under flood conditions (Lake County 2010). Clear Lake can drop between 3–6.5 feet in any given summer and fluctuates 5.5 feet
each year on average (Lake County 2010). If the lake
falls below 3.22 Rumsey on May 1, Yolo County receives
no water. However, when the lake is full, it receives
increasing amounts of water up to 150,000 acre-feet
(Lake County 2010).

There are numerous private self-supplied water users
that remove water from Clear Lake. These entities are
not required to report their water use. At this time,
no estimates exist for the number of users, nor the
amount of water removed from Clear Lake, from private self-supplied water users.

The drinking water treatment rates in Clear Lake are
among the highest in the state of California because of existing Clear Lake water quality issues and conditions, including harmful algal blooms. Although Lake County
surface water systems adequately remove microcystins from finished drinking water, the cost to treat the water is proportional to the presence of harmful algal
blooms. Funding has not been identified to adequately
address predicted water treatment costs (Kennard
2021).

Figure 1. Clear Lake Water System Area Boundaries for Drinking Water. Purple areas represent verified service area boundaries. Source: California Water Boards Water System Area Boundaries map (September 2023).

Clear Lake Recreation, Tourism, and Access
Lake County’s economy is based largely on tourism and recreation. In 2021, travel-related spending totaled $175.7 million, and state and local tax revenue totaled $13.6 million (Dean Runyon Associates 2022).

Travel-related industry employment in the county was
the highest on record in 2021 and contributed to 1,820
jobs (Dean Runyon Associates 2022).

Clear Lake has about 100 miles of shoreline and nearly
10 miles of public access, including public parks, open space, Caltrans right-of-way, road ends, islands, and
county-owned property (Konocti Regional Trails). An
online map provides access points with and without
amenities. Appendix B lists the Clear Lake marinas,
boat rental facilities, public boat launches, marine
services, and sailing facilities on Clear Lake. There
are currently 11 free public boat launches, and five
marinas and harbors that are open year-round to
trailered vessels. Lake County Public Services Department maintains 13 free public swim beaches on Clear Lake. California State Parks owns and operates Clear
Lake State Park, which has both beach access, docks,
and boat launch facilities, and Anderson Marsh State
Historic Park, which boasts non-motorized water trails.

Both parks are significant attractions for lake visitors.

Clear Lake has at least 20 private resorts with launch
ramps, and numerous private access points. There are
at least 749 private or public access points on the lake; about 450 access points are accessible by motorized
vessels.

Clear Lake hosts thousands of visitors, and their watercraft, each year. The pre-pandemic 2017 Lake County Q/Z mussel mandatory boater sticker program documented the sale of more than 6,000 resident vessel stickers and more than 9,000 non-resident vessel stickers. Although global pandemic and drought conditions reduced travel and access to Clear Lake, about 15,000
stickers were sold annually from 2020–2022. There
are multiple Mussel Screening Locations staffed by
Lake County boat ramp monitors that are available for
12 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 13 recreationists to access prior to launch on Clear Lake
(Appendix C).

Bass Master Magazine has ranked Clear Lake as one
of the top six bass fishing lakes in the United States
since 2013. In 2023, the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW) approved a total of 120 sport
fishing tournaments on Clear Lake (the number of
tournaments listed is as of 14 August 2023), including
tournaments for crappie/sunfish, catfish, black bass,
and carp. Tournaments range from one to three days
in length. Each Clear Lake angler spends an average
of about $58 per day (U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2011). Fishing on Clear
Lake is at least a million-dollar-a-year activity (Giusti 2016).

Climate Change Stressors:

Lake County Water Bodies
Climate change adaptation is the adjustment of natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities (IPCC 2022). The
goal of climate change adaptation is to reduce risk
from climate-related hazards while seeking opportunities for other benefits and reducing vulnerabilities across community systems.

Physical changes drive response in individual species,
communities, and whole lake ecosystems (Parmesan
et al. 2022). Yet there remains high confidence that
protection and restoration of natural and semi-natural
ecosystems are key adaptation measures that can
lessen the impacts of climate change on biodiversity
and people (Parmesan et al. 2022).

Climate change is predicted to increase the frequency
of 100-year storm events, which is projected to increase risk from natural flooding to lakeside real estate and public utilities, as well as additional risk of increased sedimentation, nutrient inputs, and acid
mine drainage from the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine
(Suchanek et al. 2002). Conversely, climate change is
forecasted to extend drought conditions (Gamelin et
al. 2022). During the historic dry season, drought may
cause lower lake levels that could condense and concentrate populations of dreissenids into smaller areas as shorelines become dry and exposed.

As diurnal temperatures (daytime highs/overnight
lows) increase due to changing climate, water temperatures also will increase, keeping waters warmer and more hospitable to dreissenids. Although dreissenids
prefer temperatures of 68–77 degrees F, which is a typical temperature range during the summer, dreissenids can persist in water temperatures up to 86 degrees F
(Karateyev et al. 1998).

Climate change impacts could influence dreissenid
prevention or containment management operations.

Lake County would benefit from a comprehensive exploration of mitigating climate impacts and concurrent dreissenid management. Some factors that should be
considered include:
• Watercraft decontamination stations that minimize the use of water, or use waterless cleaning systems, which would be especially important
during times of drought.
• Watercraft decontamination stations that are
energy contained units (e.g., solar powered),
which may be important during times of widespread power outages. • Modification of monitoring techniques to ensure lake locations with high risk of dreissenid introduction are regularly sampled, including
during periods of drought. Moderate and high
risk waters should be monitored monthly for
dreissenids.
• Use of emerging technologies (e.g., eDNA
and newly developed assays (Marshall et al.
2022)) to complement standardized prevention
monitoring methods (e.g., veliger tows, visual
surface surveys, reading artificial substrates)
to efficiently and effectively detect dreissenids.

Moderate and high calcium/risk waters would
be sampled using the primary methods and
supplemented using eDNA sampling.
• Human use patterns (e.g., boat ramp use, or
concentrated use at specific boat ramps) that
change because of severe climatic events and
ramp closures caused by low lake water levels.

Vulnerability of Clear Lake and Regional Water
Bodies to Dreissenids
Clear Lake is at high risk for introduction of dreissenids because of the volume of out-of-county boaters that
use the water body, its reputation nationally as a blueribbon warm water fishery, numerous and free access points for visiting boaters, and water chemistry conducive to invasive mussel establishment (County of Lake Watershed Protection District 2019).

The lake is open year-round and provides access for
trailered vessels, except during periods of extreme
drought when low water levels prevent access to boaters. Clear Lake is a national fishing destination, hosting more than 100 sport fishing tournaments annually,
from local club contests to large-scale commercial
events that can each have more than 1,000 entries. A
total of 1,094 approved fishing tournaments occurred
between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2022. The lake is also an
attraction for water recreationist activities, including tubing, swimming, sailing, kayaking, paddle boarding,
water skiing, jet skiing, and leisure boating. Because
invasive mussels are primarily spread by adult mussels attached to boats or microscopic veligers in water within boat compartments (e.g., bilge, motor), there is a high probability of an invasive mussel introduction
via one of at least 500 public or private boat ramps
from a visiting vessel.

Environmental conditions (water temperature, calcium, pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, conductivity, and salinity) in Clear Lake and other water bodies
located within Lake County, are well within the ranges
preferred by dreissenids (Cohen 2005; Whittier et al.
2008; Pucherelli et al. 2016). The most important water characteristic that indicates a high risk of dreissenid colonization is a calcium level of 15 mg/L or greater.

Clear Lake has an average 25 mg/L calcium level
(Department of Water Resources) (https://wdl.water.
ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/Map.aspx).

Extended drought periods expose more shoreline making motorized access to designated Clear Lake launch locations more difficult. This results in more boats
being hand launched or launched in illegal launching
locations. Hand launched watercraft are not required
to participate in the mussel fee sticker program. In adWater Body Monitoring in Clear Lake and Other County Lakes
California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 672.1
requires that any agency with a dreissenid prevention
program submit an annual report by March 31 for the
previous calendar year that summarizes any changes
in the reservoir’s vulnerability, monitoring results, and management activities to the Regional CDFW Environmental Scientist. The information included herein was extracted from 2018–2021 reports from Lake County to
CDFW.

The County of Lake Watershed Protection District
(LCWPD) (“District”) administers the Q/Z mussel
prevention program and monitors for Q/Z mussels in
Blue Lakes, Clear Lake, Hidden Valley Lake, Highland
Springs, Indian Valley Reservoir, and Lake Pillsbury
per CDFW monitoring protocols (https://www.wildlife.
ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives/Quagga-Mussels). The
district monitors for Q/Z mussels as follows:
• Artificial substrates are monitored monthly per
CDFW procedures, primarily near public boat
ramps and access points. During extremely high
or low water levels, some substrates are either
removed, or not checked monthly.
• Infrastructure/surface structure (e.g., docks,
buoys) are monitored by the district and citizens
at the conclusion of the summer season, or when
buoys are moved. During years of low water levels, shoreline surveys are conducted. • Veliger tows using plankton nets are conducted
per CDFW mussel tow protocols. These water
samples, and others (e.g., Lake Pillsbury - Pacific
Gas & Electric administers and Blues Lakes, Clear
Lake, and Indian Valley Reservoir – CDFW- North
Central Regional (NCR) environmental Scientist)
are sent to CDFW’s Shellfish Health Lab in Bodega Bay for analysis using cross-polarized light microscopy.
dition, ramp monitors are not located at every potential launch location along the lake shoreline. These factors make Clear Lake vulnerable to potential invasive mussel introductions.
14 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 15 • District water purveyors (Appendix A) monitor
for mussel presence when maintenance is performed on inlet pipes, screens, and filters.

The specific details of each of these methods, the
locations of surveys, and the results are documented
in reports the district completes and sends to CDFW
annually (https://www.lakecountyca.gov/Archive.
aspx?AMID=77). Water levels, staffing, and other factors can affect the level of survey sampling, locations, and intensity on an annual basis. However, sample
location, method and frequency should be standardized and based on the calcium value table.

Potential Effects of Mussels on Clear Lake
There are many factors to consider when estimating
the potential effects of invasive mussels on a water
body. Potential effects to Clear Lake (Figure 2) include a disrupted food chain, fouled infrastructure, shoreline degradation, recreation restrictions, increased cost
and maintenance, tournament restrictions, loss of
tourism revenue and reduction of property values.

Figure 2. Likely changes from an invasive mussel invasion in Clear Lake.

A disrupted food chain that negatively affects
fisheries and wildlife—Quagga and zebra mussels
(Dreissena spp.) are known as ecosystem engineers
because they control the availability of resources to
other organisms by the physical changes they cause in
the environment (Jones et al. 1994) and have profound
effects on lake and river ecosystem function and structure (Zhu et al. 2006). The ecological effects of these mussels are considered the most far-reaching relative
to other aquatic invasive species (AIS), causing local extinction of many native mollusks (Strayer and Malcom 2007; Burlakova et al. 2014), changing the structure of food webs and fish assemblages, and contributing to
the collapse of valuable sport fish populations (Kelly et al. 2010; Bossenbroek et al. 2009; Strayer 2009; Pimentel et al. 2005). Increased occurrences of harmful algal blooms (Higgins and Vander Zanden 2010) can contribute to declines in fish populations (Knoll et al. 2008).

Once established, invasive mussels commonly reach
densities of more than 10,000 individuals per square
meter (Depew 2021).

System-wide effects of quagga and zebra mussels
depend on water mixing rates, lake morphology, and
turnover rates (Karatayev et al. 2015). Quagga mussels
can be found in all regions of a lake, form larger populations, may filter larger volumes of water, and may have greater system-wide effects (especially in deep
lakes) compared to zebra mussels, which are restricted
to shallower portions of lakes (Karatayev et al. 2015).

After initial invasion, invasive mussels have direct
effects on ecological communities whereas post-invasion, impacts will likely be indirect effects that cause ecosystem changes (Karatayev et al. 2015). Proactive,
pre-invasion management investments that emphasize
the importance of prevention and early detection are
less costly than re-active, post-invasion expenditures
(Cuthbert et al. 2022).

Quagga and zebra mussels filter particles from the water, resulting in improved water clarity (Karatayev et al. 1997, 2002), and corresponding increases in benthification (Mills et al. 2003). Scientists refer to this as “turning ecosystems upside down” because of the transfer of energy to littoral areas with concurrent increases in benthic biomass (Mayer et al. 2014; Rumzie et al. 2021).

Boats, engines, docks, and other infrastructure
(e.g., water delivery supply lines) encrusted with
invasive mussels—Dreissenid mussels grow on a variety of infrastructure systems, including water intake pipes for drinking water, irrigation, power plants, locks, and dams and canal systems, impacting operation and
maintenance costs (Invasive Species Advisory Committee 2016). Continual attachment of adults can increase corrosion rates of steel and concrete (US Geological
Survey 2016), leaving equipment and infrastructure
vulnerable to failure. Additionally, the mussels grow
on navigational buoys, docks, and hulls of boats and
ships—increasing drag, affecting steering, and clogging engine intakes—all of which can lead to overheating
and engine malfunctions (Invasive Species Advisory
Committee 2016).

Beaches and shoreline covered with sharp shells—
The shells from dead dreissenid mussels can wash
ashore, covering beaches and potentially injuring
swimmers and other water recreationists from cuts
sustained from the shells’ sharp edges (Nelson 2019).

Boating restrictions to reduce spread of mussels—
Mandatory watercraft inspections prior to launch,
closures of boat ramps, restrictions on shore launching, mandatory Mussel Fee Stickers, and closed water bodies are examples of effects on boating recreation
that have been implemented as a result of dreissenid
introductions. In 2008, zebra mussels were detected in
the San Justo Reservoir in San Benito County, California, a popular recreational area. Since their discovery, the reservoir, operated by the Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR), was closed to any public use and has remained
closed, “resulting in a dramatic, detrimental impact
on the community, economy, and environment in San
Benito County” (https://panetta.house.gov/media/
press-releases/rep-panetta-leads-letter-rep-lofgrenrequest-expedited-process-san-justo).

Increased cost and maintenance for clogged,
fouled, or contaminated water delivery infrastructure— Clear Lake is a source of water for several water districts, which treat and provide municipal drinking water for thousands of people. In addition, many individual homeowners with individual water systems
draw water from the lake.

Invasive mussels pose serious threats to hydropower
infrastructure and operations (Rumzie et al. 2021).

Invasive mussels can affect all facility components
exposed to raw water; mussels can clog pipelines and
water intakes and disrupt operations at hydroelectric
power plants, municipal water supply facilities, and
conveyance systems used in irrigation, resulting in
water lines incapable of supplying a consistent and
reliable source of water (Vissichelli 2018). Smell, bacteria, and decay are other key issues associated with a mussel infestation. The management response is continual cleaning, treatment, mitigation filters, and other actions. A 2021 study associated with invasive mussel
impacts and management at 13 hydropower facilities
in Canada and the United States (Rumzie et al. 2021)
described costs associated with addressing established
invasive mussels:
• Preventative control capital costs (one-time
costs) ranged from $100,000 to $200,000 per
facility.
• Preventative control annual costs ranged from
$4,000 to $141,700 per facility.
• Increased maintenance re-occurring costs
ranged from $22,000 to $505,000 per facility.
• Increased maintenance annual costs ranged
from $26,000 to $112,000 per facility.
• Annual monitoring costs ranged from $1,970 to
$47,245 per facility.
• Unplanned outages cost per occurrence ranged
from $44,000 to $80,000 per facility.
• Unplanned outages total cost was $849,000.
16 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 17 Examples of preventative and maintenance costs
include treating with chlorine, cleaning generator
coolers 3-4 times per year to remove mussel debris,
and increased labor costs to maintain all hydropower
equipment.

The cost to remove mussels and manage drinking
water intakes at Hoover, Davis, and Parker Dams,
three facilities with invasive mussel infestations on
the Colorado River, was more than $6,026,100 in 2016.

Expected costs from 2017 to 2026 totaled $10,372,108
(Boyd 2016). The State of Washington estimated direct
impacts to dams from invasive mussels is $42.9 million
(Community Attributes 2017). The cost for the management response is passed to the consumer (Vissichelli 2018).

In British Columbia, where mussels are currently not
found, domestic self-supply represents 21,495 licenses
and routine maintenance costs vary between $237–
$1,298 per license (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship 2023). The average
B.C. household pays about $500 per year for water
and sewer services. An infestation of invasive mussels
would represent a significant increase in water costs
for more than 21,495 households, which could have
important distributional consequences for low-income
households (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land,
and Resource Stewardship 2023).

Fishing tournament restrictions— The CDFW Guidance for Developing a Dreissenid Mussel Prevention Program (2020) acknowledges that fishing tournaments are a common human-mediated pathway of dreissenid mussel introduction. The document further
states that “conditions on fishing tournaments” are a
potential management action to prevent a dreissenid
mussel introduction. Conditions might include mandatory decontamination of all participating watercraft, or additional measures that could change current tournament operations. Fishing regulations change on a regular basis; CDFW’s website should be consulted for
the latest fishing regulations.

Loss of revenue to Lake County communities—To
date there are no studies estimating the impact of
invasive mussels on tourism (Nelson 2019). However,
the State of Montana used a scenario-based approach
for recreational fishing to estimate the economic damages at 2 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent reductions in visitation because of dreissenid establishment.

Tourism spending was assumed to be proportional
to visitation. Therefore, if visitation is reduced by two percent (the most conservative scenario), the amount
of money spent by nonresident visitors would decrease
by $17.8 million. At the 10 percent reduction in visitation, tourism spending would decrease by $89 million.

Montana calculated estimated per day expenditures
for resident anglers multiplied by the number of days
of fishing, total angler expenditures for 2013 amounted to approximately $193 million (Swanson 2016).

Reduction in property values— Mussels contribute
to high filtration rates and are associated with increased water clarity and light penetration, leading to the proliferation of aquatic plants and algae, toxic algal blooms, and rotting plant material on beaches
(Karatayev et al. 2015). In the nearshore, accumulated
waste excreted by dreissenids contributes to excess
nutrients, increased turbidity, and the development of
muddy substrate, reducing water quality and causing shell build-up on shorelines and beaches (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship 2023). The impacts of dreissenids on beaches, shorelines, and nearshore water quality may reduce
the amenity value of waterfront properties because
value of property adjacent to water can be sensitive to odor, water clarity, weed growth and eutrophication,
beach closures due to bacteria and algal outbreaks,
the quality of recreational fishing, and shoreline quality (Horsch and Lewis 2009; Nicholls and Crompton 2018). Residents of Lake Winnipeg reported odors from
rotting shells that periodically wash up on the shores
as well as negative impacts from sharp shells, which
cover piers and beaches and pose a risk to people and
animals (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and
Resource Stewardship 2023).

The economic impacts of invasive aquatic plants, algal
blooms, and degraded water quality caused by excess
nutrients is well documented (Ara et al. 2006; Horsch
and Lewis 2009; Zhang and Boyle 2010; Walsh et al.
2011; Bingham et al. 2015; Baron et al. 2016).
• Multiple studies in Minnesota, New Hampshire
and Maine demonstrated a 1-meter decrease in
water clarity decreased property values from

3.1 to 8.6 percent with a median value of 5.8
percent (Jakus et al. 2013).
• The economic impact of harmful algal blooms
(HAB) to property values on Lake Erie (Bingham et al. 2015) is a 10 percent reduction in value to shoreline properties.
• A study of Ohio lakes found harmful algal
blooms with microcystin levels more than 1
µg/L reduced lakefront property values by 22
percent (Wolf and Klaiber 2017).
• In northern Wisconsin, lakefront property
values decreased an average of 8 percent after
invasion of Eurasian water milfoil (Horsch and
Lewis 2009).
• The presence of milfoil and native aquatic vegetation in Vermont lakes decreased property value ranging from 0.3 percent to 16.4 percent
depending on the degree of total macrophyte
(aquatic plant) coverage (Zhang and Boyle
2010).
• Montana State General Fund and county governments where affected properties are located Aquatic Invasive
Species Reduce
Property Values
and Tax Revenue

3.1 to 8.6%
reduction in
property values
in

MN, NH, ME
10%
reduction in
property values
along Lake Erie
22%
reduction in
lakefront
property values
in Ohio
8%
reduction in
property values
in northern
Wisconsin
.3 to 16.4%
reduction in
property values
in Vermont
$2.2 to 3.8
million annual
reduction in
property tax
revenue in
Montana
S

5.8%
reduction in
assessed property values in
Vermont
estimated a decrease in property tax revenue
from the lowered property values (Nelson 2019).

Predicted losses in property tax revenue from
decreases in lakefront property value ranged
from $2.2 to $3.8 million per year.
• In British Columbia, using a low (high) impact
scenario, reductions in the assessed value of
representative waterfront housing range from
$15.9 million ($27.5 million) in the Peace River
region to $141.0 million ($239.9 million) in
the Fraser Valley (British Columbia Ministry of
Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship 2023).

The British Columbia study predicted total onetime costs of $812 million based on 5.8 percent reductions in assessed property values due to
invasive mussels. These estimated one-time
reductions result in an annualized cost of $24.4
million ($2,269 per property) and decreased annual municipal revenues of $5.8 million (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Resource
Stewardship 2023).

Figure 3. Examples of economic losses caused by aquatic invasive species in North America.
18 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 19

CHAPTER THREE
Legal Authorities and Statutes
3 The County of Lake accepted responsibility for the protection of Clear Lake’s basin from the State Lands Commission in 1973; this transfer of responsibility resulted in lakebed management and shoreline protection ordinances in Lake County’s Municipal Code. In 2009, Lake County’s Department of Water Resources (DWR) separated from the Department of Public Works, and responsibility for District management was transferred to DWR. California delegates the responsibility for preventing and managing dreissenid mussel infestations to local water body managers (Fish and Game Code Title 14). Local codes and ordinances are therefore critically important in establishing local authorities to establish prevention programs. Relevant regulations and their associated hyperlinks are included in Appendix D.

The primary agency responsible for managing the
dreissenid mussel prevention program in Lake County
is the County of Lake Watershed Protection District
(LCWPD). The District, a management structure endowed with specific authorities by the U.S. Congress and the California State Legislature, is administered
by the Director of Water Resources who reports to the
County Board of Supervisors, which acts as its Board
of Directors. The District plans, manages, maintains,
implements, and evaluates all Lake County aquatic
invasive species programs, such as the Aquatic Plant
Management Program and the Q/Z Mussel Prevention
Program. In March 2008, the Lake County Board of Supervisors passed an emergency ordinance establishing an inspection program for all water vessels launched
in Lake County. This program, in its emergency form,
introduced a mussel sticker program based on the
honor system. Eventually the emergency ordinance
was replaced by County Ordinances 2915 (2009), 2936
(2011), and 2976 (2012) that established a fee-based
inspection program for all water vessels launched in
the County of Lake. The mussel sticker ordinance is
also located in Lake County Code Article IX of Chapter
15 (Appendix D). The physical prevention program is
a three-tiered system based on the risk level (tier 1 - screening, tier 2 - inspection, tier 3 - decontamination) of the vessel for transporting invasive mussels to Lake County.

The District relies on several partners for program
implementation including:
• Pacific Gas and Electric (conducts dreissenid
veliger tows in Lake Pillsbury)
• Citizen scientists (perform substrate monitoring
in Blue Lakes, Lake Pillsbury, and Hidden Valley
Lake)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
North Central Region (conducting veliger tows,
visual surface surveys, water quality, and calcium sampling at Clear Lake, Blue Lakes, and Indian Valley Reservoir)
• California State Parks Division of Boating and
Waterways (provides grant funds to support the
County’s boat ramp monitor network for Clear
Lake, inspection training and equipment, and
all essential educational materials).

Jurisdictional Roles and Responsibilities
Per California Fish and Game Code Section 2301, in the
event of a dreissenid introduction in Clear Lake, the
lead entity in the implementation of the rapid response containment and transition plan and the development
of a Control Plan is “a public or private agency that
operates a water supply system”.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 2301 and 2302
include the following key components:

Fish and Game Code, Section 2301
• Makes it illegal to possess, import, ship, or
transport in the state, or place, plant, or cause
to be placed or planted in any water within the
state, dreissenid mussels.
• Gives the CDFW Director, or his/her designee,
the authority to conduct watercraft inspections
and stop conveyances, mandate decontaminations, and impound or quarantine conveyances. This section also provides authority to conduct watercraft inspections within waters that contain dreissenids, to close or restrict access
to affected waters or facilities, and to inspect,
quarantine, or disinfect conveyances removed
from, or introduced to affected waters.
• A public or private agency that operates a water
supply system shall cooperate with the department to implement measures to avoid infestation by dreissenid mussels and to control or eradicate any infestation that may occur in a
water supply system. If dreissenid mussels are
detected, the operator of the water supply system, in cooperation with the department, shall prepare and implement a plan to control or
eradicate dreissenid mussels within the system.
• Any entity that discovers dreissenid mussels
within this state shall immediately report the
discovery to the department.
•
Provides penalties for entities that violate this
section.

Fish and Game Code, Section 2302
• Any person, or federal, state, or local agency,
district, or authority that owns or manages a
reservoir where recreational, boating, or fishing activities are permitted must assess the vulnerability of the reservoir for the introduction of dreissenid mussels and develop and implement public education, monitoring, and
management of recreational, boating or fishing
activities designed to prevent the introduction
of dreissenids. The entity must also visually
monitor for the presence of mussels.
• Provides penalties for entities that violate this
section.

California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 672
relates to the possession, importation, and transportation of dreissenid mussels. Key elements include:
• Dreissenid Mussel Permits authorize entities to
possess, import, ship, or transport dead dreissenids for the purposes of outreach, education, species verification, training, or other purposes
deemed by CDFW.
• Provisions are included relative to denial and
revocation of permits as well as requests for
reconsideration.

California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section
672.1 relates to dreissenid control and prevention. Key elements include:
• Prevention Program – Entities that own or
manage a reservoir where recreational, boating, or fishing activities are permitting must implement a dreissenid mussel prevention program that includes a vulnerability assessment for dreissenids, a monitoring program, and
management of recreational activities that prevent the introduction of mussels, and to keep them from being moved from the waterbody.

Annual prevention program summary reports
are due by March 31. This section provides penalties for violation of the section. • Inspection of Conveyances – This section
makes it unlawful for anyone to refuse to comply with or interfere with a CDFW employee or their designee for impounding or quarantining
a conveyance suspected to contain dreissenids,
and makes it unlawful to tamper with a method
used to identify a conveyance as quarantined.

This section provides penalties for violation of
the section.
• Control Plan – Within 60 days of CDFW requesting, or within 60 days of dreissenids being detected, public or private agencies that
operate water supply systems must immediately develop a dreissenid mussel control plan and implement measures to prevent further
20 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 21 spread. The plans must include a description
of the status of the dreissenid population at
the time of plan development, control activities, and monitoring to determine dreissenid population changes. The plan may also include
maintenance activities to maintain functionality of the water supply facility. Annual reports are submitted by March 31 of each year, including information on changes in dreissenid populations, control activities implemented,
and monitoring results. This section provides
penalties for violations of the section.

California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section
672.2 is related to dreissenid mussel penalty and appeal procedures.

Recommendations to Modify Current Ordinances to
Strengthen Dreissenid Management Capabilities
The National Sea Grant Law Center reviewed existing
ordinances and proposed Lake County consider the
following to strengthen dreissenid prevention and
containment efforts:
• Add a definition for “pollutant” and explicitly
include a reference to aquatic invasive species
(AIS). Aquatic invasive species are pollutants
under the federal Clean Water Act; thus, the
reference is probably not necessary from a legal
standpoint.
• Add a definition of “significant impact” that
includes the decision threshold. “Significant
impact” is the term used in the “catch-all” permit procedure in Sec. 23-4. • Consider mentioning AIS in Section 6.4(B)
Construction (page 11) – e.g., materials used in
construction should be free from AIS, materials
should be decontaminated before moving to
another site, etc.
• Ordinance sections that have the potential to
include language associated with containment:
• Sec. 6.8(D) for relocation of floating structures (page 14). Incorporate language that requires inspection and decontamination
before relocation.
• Sec. 23-8 for Marinas and Harbors (page
15). The county could encourage/require
marinas to offer decontamination facilities or require inspections before boats leave marinas, etc.
• Section 23.13.4 Removal of improvements
(page 20). The county could require inspection/decontamination upon removal of an improvement if the structure is
being moved to another location; or, the
county could require proper disposal.
• Section 12.4 – Littering and pollution
(page 18). Add a provision regarding AIS
to reinforce that AIS are pollutants and
introduction is prohibited.
• Section 12.6 for discharge. Explicitly reference AIS and potentially require use of best management practices.
• As a condition of the shoreline encroachment
permit, the county could require an annual
inspection/monitoring and reporting of results,
and then identify actions that needed to be
taken if mussels are detected.
• In addition, and outside the scope of the shoreline ordinance, but potentially associated with other statutes, the county could impose an annual inspection of structures as part of routine county inspections; these inspections could
incorporate both safety issues as well as AIS.
• The county could state in its ordinances that
it is unlawful to launch a boat from any place
other than a ramp, private dock, pier, designated beach. This would allow the county to cite or fine people who are launching their
watercraft from any shoreline or undeveloped
location and help to ensure that watercraft are
inspected prior to launch. There are examples
of counties that define “boat launch facilities”
as being “a boat ramp, dock, pier or other facility designated by the department for launching boats into the water” (e.g., Island County, Washington, Chapter 9.40). This Washington
county states that “It is unlawful for any person
to launch or recover a boat in any Island County
park except in areas specifically designated
and/or marked for that purpose; provided,
that this provision does not apply in case of
an emergency (9.40.165).” Tempe, Arizona
mandates that “all public watercraft must be
launched at a designated boat launch facility.”
Figure 4. Watercraft inspection and decontamination enhances prevention efforts at Clear Lake. 22 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 23 Table 1. Summary of roles and responsibilities relative to dreissenid prevention and management.

Entity Roles and Responsibilities
County of Lake Watershed Protection District
(administered by the Director of Water Resources)
• Prevent and manage mussel infestation.
• Plan, manage, maintain, implement, and evaluate all Lake County aquatic invasive species programs.
• Assess the vulnerability of Clear Lake for the introduction and establishment of dreissenid mussels. • Develop and implement public education, monitoring, and management of recreational, boating, or fishing activities designed to prevent the introduction of dreissenids.
• Visually monitor for the presence of mussels.
• Manage recreational activities to prevent the introduction of mussels, and to keep them from being moved from the waterbody.
• Produce and submit to CDFW by March 31 an annual prevention program summary report. • Lakebed management and shoreline protection.
• Immediately report any discovery of dreissenid mussels to CDFW’s Regional Environmental Scientist.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
North Central Region
• Conduct veliger tows, visual surface surveys, water quality, and calcium sampling at Clear Lake, Blue Lakes, and Indian Valley Reservoir. • Issue Dreissenid Mussel Permits that authorize entities to possess, import, ship, or transport dead dreissenids for the purposes of outreach, education, species verification, training, or other purposes. • Work in partnership with Lake County staff and other water managers to develop and/or enhance existing dreissenid prevention efforts. • Work with water supply system operators to develop and monitor control plans.

California State Parks Division of Boating and
Waterways
• Provide grant funds to support the County’s boat ramp monitor network for Clear Lake, inspection training and equipment, and all essential educational materials.

Water Supply System Operators (e.g., Yolo
County Flood Control & Water Conservation
District, Solano County Water Agency)
• Cooperate with CDFW to implement measures to avoid infestation by dreissenid mussels and to control or eradicate any infestation that may occur in a water supply system.
• Within 60 days of CDFW requesting, or within 60 days of dreissenids being detected, cooperate with CDFW to develop a dreissenid mussel control plan and implement measures to prevent further spread. Annual reports are submitted by March 31 of each year. • Immediately report any discovery of dreissenid mussels to the department.

Citizen scientists
• Conduct substrate monitoring in Blue Lakes, Lake Pillsbury, and Hidden Valley Lake. • Immediately report any discovery of dreissenid mussels to the department.

Pacific Gas and Electric
• Conduct dreissenid veliger tows in Lake Pillsbury.
• Immediately report any discovery of dreissenid mussels to the department.

Confirmation of Detection
Purpose: Determine if the report of detection is factual and confirm the species identification.

Lead: LCWPD in collaboration with CDFW
The nature of an initial dreissenid detection may be
from routine monitoring by the District, partner monitoring, public surveillance, or public reporting. Regardless of the nature of the initial detection, per Fish and Game Code Section 2301, “any entity that discovers
dreissenid mussels within the state shall immediately
report the discovery to the CDFW.” The discovery
should be reported to the CDFW Region 2 Quagga/
Zebra Mussel Scientist (or CDFW wildlife officers if
Region 2 Mussel Scientist is not available) and via the CDFW online Quagga Mussel Observation Report Form
(Appendix E) (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives/Quagga-Mussels/Observation-Report). CDFW will work with the reporting entity to confirm the detection once the report is received. It may be possible that a detection is made of an adult or veliger, which
will prompt action, however, methods of confirmation
and speed at which actions are taken will vary. The
dynamics of the situation may be highly variable.
• A detection of one or more adult mussels will be
confirmed visually by CDFW.
• A detection of one or more veliger mussels will be
verified by the best available laboratory methodologies. The independent identification methods will include cross-polarized light microscopy (CPLM)
and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The sample
may also be sequenced for dreissenid mussel
species differentiation. Veliger samples collected
by CDFW, the District, and PG&E in the county are
analyzed by CDFW Shellfish Health Lab in Bodega
Bay, California. CDFW’s OSPR Santa Cruz Laboratory processes veliger samples collected by the Region 2 Quagga/Zebra Mussel Scientist.

Classification of a water body following confirmation
of detection is important for communication purposes
and to inform the level of decision-making needed by
the District and CDFW.

Declaration of Emergency in Lake County
Purpose: Brings the situation of dreissenid detection
and response into a county-wide scale of response.

Lead: LCWPD with Office of Emergency Services
Per County Ordinance 31, Lake County may declare
a local state of emergency. The scope of a dreissenid
situation will influence the level of response and the
scale of that response. An emergency declaration helps

CHAPTER FOUR
Rapid Response Strategy
4 Mechanisms of Response
In the event of a detection of dreissenid mussels, deliberate actions will be taken to determine the scope of the detection, and appropriate containment, control, and eradication responses. The District is engaged in active monitoring to detect dreissenid mussels through regular monitoring efforts for veligers and adults. Additional entities are also engaged in monitoring infrastructure or water delivery systems for adult dreissenids.

Once a detection is made, key response activities may occur simultaneously at various stages of response but may also be influenced by the nature of the detection. The rapid response process begins the moment there is a report of a dreissenid detection.
24 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 25 to inform the level of concern of the situation to all in Lake County and may be vital for the mobilization of
funding to conduct response actions.

Notification Communication
Purpose: Ensure that factual and timely information
is communicated with appropriate entities, including
regional water body managers.

Lead: LCWPD
With the confirmation of detection and species identification complete, there will be multiple notifications made to allow area partners to respond in tandem to
the developing situation. Communication is needed
early in the response process.

1. CDFW requires immediate notification of a dreissenid detection. Once the District provides notification to CDFW, a recognition of that notification will be made by CDFW to ensure that it has been
received.

2. Once the detection and species identification has
been confirmed, detailed information will be provided to US Geological Survey’s Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species Database by CDFW. This information sharing allows for a broad distribution of information via the USGS national alert system.

3. All regional waterbody managers should be notified upon confirmation of dreissenids in Clear Lake (Table 2). Timing of communication to managers
will vary and be based on the details of the scope
of the situation.

4. The Office of Emergency Services (OES) in Lake
County would play an important role in notification once a detection of dreissenids has been confirmed. OES staff can push Lake County Alerts
(LakeCoAlerts), notifying residents that opt into the
system that there has been a confirmed detection
of invasive mussels. This system can also be used
to provide any updates, such as notifications about
mandatory decontaminations for watercraft, etc. In
addition, numerous other tools exist to notify the
public of a confirmation, including social media,
press releases, radio advertisements, signage,
Nixle 360 alerts, highway signs, and billboards
entering Lake County.

Delineate Scope of Response
Purpose: Determine the scope of the dreissenid detection to inform management response.

Lead: LCWPD
Following the confirmation of detection, multiple
strategies will be deployed to further delineate the
scope of the infestation. To understand and characterize the nature of the detected population (e.g., if there are multiple age classes, multiple locations, or isolated populations), deliberate searches using canine shoreline teams, volunteer shoreline teams, eDNA samples, self-supplied water users (check water filters), and dive teams may be deployed simultaneously. A coordinated
strategy will capture all search information into digital visualization to better understand the management
scope and subsequent management actions. The timing to deploy delineation methods will be based on the details of a confirmed detection, in some cases delineation methods may be deployed immediately.

Activate Incident Command System and Response
Team
Purpose: Engage in process to adequately address
scale of management situation.

Lead: LCWPD
If it has been determined that there is potential to
implement control options based on the scope and
scale of the infestation, then containment options and
monitoring options must be initiated. The incident
command system (ICS) will be activated (Figure 4)
to ensure that the response proceeds with adequate
support. The ICS brings structure and organization
to a complex management situation. Moreover, if the
incident has important legal, political, and public
ramifications, then ICS will be needed to support the
management of the situation. The lead action agency/
incident commander for a dreissenid response at Clear
Lake is LCWRD.

A water body that has not been sampled for aquatic invasive species.

Unknown/not tested
A water body at which sampling is ongoing and nothing has been detected (or nothing has been detected within the time frames for de-listing).

Negative
A water body that has not met the minimum criteria for detection but evidence of dreissenids has been documented. This is a temporary classification and additional sampling of this water will be conducted to determine whether the water body is classified as negative (no detections in subsequent sample) or suspect (verified detection in subsequent sample).

Inconclusive
A water body at which one sample has been verified by visual confirmation (visual identification of adult or microscopy identification of veliger) and this sample was confirmed as dreissenid by DNA analysis (PCR and gene sequencing). Additional sampling will be conducted to determine whether another sample taken within 12 months detects evidence of dreissenids. If a subsequent sample does detect dreissenids, this water will then be classified as Positive.

Suspect
Waterbody Classifications1
Based on sampling results, waters are given classifications related to their dreissenid mussel status:
1 The State of California Developed waterbody classifications prior to the Building Consensus in the West Effort that culminated with new classifications developed by the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Building Consensus in the West Committee (WRP 2019). The State of California is currently undergoing an effort to incorporate delisting guidelines into California Fish and Game Code. Currently, the State of California defines “detected” as a) There has been an observed presence of one or more adult dreissenid mussels, or; b) There has been an observed presence of one or more veliger dreissenid mussels that has been verified by the best available laboratory methodologies.

A water body at which two or more sampling events within a 12-month period meet the minimum criteria for detection. For example, samples from two different sampling events are verified by both visual identification (including microscopy) and DNA confirmation (PCR and gene sequencing).

Positive
In many cases, a water classified as Positive will become Infested, which is a water body with an established (recruiting and reproducing) population of dreissenid mussels. For example, lakes Mead and Powell are considered infested waters as they have large populations of reproducing dreissenids and mussels are readily evident on the shoreline and submerged materials such as docks and buoys.

Infested
Notes
In some instances, the classification of a water body can be downgraded over time. The exact reasons why dreissenids are detected at a water once, then not again in subsequent sampling, or are detected in a water classified as Positive but never establish a population, remains unknown.

A water body initially classified as Inconclusive can be de-listed to Negative status after one year of negative testing results including at least one sample taken in the same month of subsequent year as the initial positive sample (to account for seasonal environment variability). The time frame for de-listing a water body extends from there with a water body initially classified as Suspect requiring three years of negative testing to re-classify to Negative, a Positive water body requiring five years of negative testing to re-classify to Negative, and an Infested water body requiring a successful eradication or extirpation event and a minimum of five years of negative testing results post-eradication event to re-classify to Negative.

U
N
I
S
P
I
26 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 27 Table 2. Contact Information for Clear Lake dreissenid prevention and management.

Waterbody Managing Agency Key Contact Email Phone Number(s) Clear Lake Lake County Angela DePalmaDow
Angela.Depalma-Dow@lake- countyca.gov
Office: (707) 263-2344
Mobile: (530) 304-1809
Indian Valley
Reservoir
Yolo County Flood
Control and Water
Conservation District
Jennifer Reed
Kristin Sicke
[email protected]
[email protected] Office: (530) 662-0265
Lake Mendocino U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Poppy Lozoff [email protected] Office: (707) 467-4200 Mobile: (707) 471-8350
Lake Pillsbury
U.S. Forest Service Frank Aebly [email protected] Office: (707) 275-2361 PG&E Ray Swordle Office: (707) 743-1513
Lake Sonoma Sonoma County Water
Agency Hailey Norman [email protected]
[email protected] Office: (707) 431-4590
Lake Berryessa U.S. Bureau of Reclama- tion Nathan Kyle [email protected] Office: (707) 966-2111 Lake Shasta U.S. Forest Service Sara Acridge [email protected] Office: (503) 275-1587 Lake Tahoe Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency Dennis Zabaglo [email protected] Office: (775) 589-5255 Solano County Solano Parks and
Recreation Chris Drake [email protected] Office: (707) 784-6765 Solano County Solano County Water
Agency Drew Gantner [email protected] Office: (707) 455-4450 The scope of a dreissenid infestation will influence
the number of individuals needed for response. A
veliger detection followed by unconfirmed results can
be handled by several Lake County staff. However, a
veliger detection that leads to an adult detection or
established population likely will require staff from
multiple agencies in addition to a cadre of volunteers.

Suggested representation for a response at Clear Lake
may include Yolo County Flood Control Water District,
CDFW, the Lake County Office of Emergency Services,
and other relevant partners (Figure 5). The operations
of the incident will take multiple pathways to formulate and explore control, containment, and monitoring options. Control options may include small- or large-scale chemical application (in combination with
mechanical methods such as curtains) to attempt to
eradicate or minimize a population of dreissenids.

Activation of Communication
Purpose: Provide appropriate and timely information
to specific entities.

Lead: LCWRD
Upon assembling the ICS team, a communication
strategy can inform key regional partners, collaborators, lake users, and the public (Table 3). Weekly public information sharing (e.g., meetings, webinars, or conference calls) and a web page may be created by the county. Press releases, social media, and other information products can be delivered. Clear communication will ensure affected parties understand activities and roles of everyone involved.

Draft templates of outreach materials (Figure 6) may
be used to communicate with different entities about
actions that may be taking place. The materials, which
include an 8.5 x 11 flyer, door hanger, and social media post, and draft press release (Appendix F) allow district staff to modify and update the templates as needed.

There are numerous opportunities to communicate
an introduction of mussels to residents and others in
the Clear Lake region, including social media, press releases, radio advertisements, signage, Nixle 360 alerts, Lake County alerts, the California and U.S. Geological
Survey infested waters maps, billboards, and outreach
through neighboring water body managers.

Figure 5. Dreissenid management response decision matrix. This matrix provides a flow of possible steps upon the initial detection of dreissenids.
28 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 29 Figure 7. Potential Lake County entities that would be involved in a dreissenid re- sponse visualized in Incident Command System roles.

Figure 6. The Incident Command System structure with identified roles and lines of communication.

Table 3. Three types of communication hubs, including the type of information shared, method of communication, frequency, and entities involved.

Communication Hub 1 Communication Hub 2 Communication Hub 3 Type of
Information
Shared
Initial confirmed detection
Milestones
Waterbody status
Management actions
Prevention requirements
Closures
Decontamination requirements
and location
Method of
Communication
Phone
Briefing documents
Online meetings
Email briefings
Social media
Website
Press releases
Frequency
Upon confirmed detection,
weekly progress updates as
needed with key decision
points
Weekly As new requirements are
needed
Primary
Entities
Governor staff
County officials
State legislators
Surrounding county managers
Surrounding state AIS managers
Local businesses
Boaters
Recreationists
Homeowners
Area residents
Figure 8. Outreach materials to share information
about a detection of dreissenids in Clear Lake include a social media post, flyer, and door hanger.

Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency
Public Information
Officer
Safety Officer
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency Liaison Officer
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency
Planning
Section Chief
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency
Finance/
Administration
Section Chief
Logistics
Section Chief
Operations
Section Chief
LCWRD
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency

LCWRD - I&E
Public Information
Officer
Office of Emergency
Services
Safety Officer
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency
LCWRD
Liaison Officer
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency
LCWRD
Planning
Section Chief
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency
Incident Commander/
Lead Action Agency
LCWRD Finance Dept.

Finance/
Administration Chief
LCWRD
Logistics
Section Chief
LCWRD
Operations
Section Chief
LCWRD = County of Lake Water Resources Department, the entity responsible for the stewardship of Clear Lake.
30 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 31 Potential Solutions to Mitigate, or Eradicate,
Invasive Mussels from Clear Lake
The Columbia River Basin Dreissenid Incident Response Toolkit website (http://www.crbdirt.com) (Figure 7) documents commonly used control methods to eradicate dreissenids. The website describes a suite of physical, biological, and chemical options for controlling invasive mussels (http://www.crbdirt.com/controlmethods). Some methods are appropriate solely for hydropower facilities and water delivery systems, in
which fish and other aquatic species are not present
and the water can be treated before being released.

Other methods, which may have reduced toxicity to
fish and living organisms, are more appropriate for
open water situations. Many treatments may not be
appropriate, or feasible, for response in open water
systems because of their toxicity to other aquatic species.

Dahlberg et al. (2023) documented lessons learned
from an analysis of 33 open water dreissenid mussel
control projects in 23 North America lakes, including:
• Physical methods, such as manual removal by
divers, creating anoxia with benthic mats, and
desiccation from waterbody drawdowns (Wimbush
et al. 2009; Hargrove and Jensen 2012; Leuven et
al. 2014).
• Biological methods, such as the use of fish, crayfish, parasites, and microbes intended to reduce mussel populations by predation or infection (Molloy 1998; Kirk et al. 2001; Reynolds and Donohoe 2001). Zequanox®, a U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency registered molluscicide for dreissenid control, is included in this category. • Chemical methods, including copper-based pesticides (e.g., Natrix™ and EarthTec QZ® are copperbased products registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for dreissenid control); potassium chloride (KCl), which is not registered
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a
molluscicide, but has been used in open water to
control zebra mussels through the use of a Section 24c Local Needs exemption and Section 18 Emergency Exemption. Scientific studies on the
potential effects of dreissenid chemical treatments
on listed species and critical habitats have been
documented (DeBruyckere 2019).

Figure 9. Columbia River Basin Dreissenid Incident Response Toolkit (CRBDIRT) website.

The potential methodology Clear Lake water managers would use to mitigate or eradicate invasive mussels would depend upon numerous factors, including, but
not limited to, the extent of the infestation, whether
or not adults were detected, if the preferred chemical
control is registered for use as a molluscicide by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and potential
impacts to Clear Lake Hitch (Lavinia exilicauda chi) and its habitats. The website, https://www.crbdirt.com,
documents the potential steps associated with a dreissenid response. Although the website is focused on the Columbia River Basin states, similar steps would occur
for any jurisdiction, and include the steps described
in this report (e.g., Initial Detections and Notifications, Verification, Activate Incident Management System).

Lake County has historically explored other treatment
options for dreissenid mussels, including the use of
redear sunfish stocked at high densities to reduce
adult dreissenids (Wong et al. 2012) and increasing
turbidity levels at detection sites (Steele and Wong
2015) (no longer considered a viable option). However,
approaches to addressing dreissenid introductions are
focused on eradication, and there are no published
studies that indicate either of these two approaches
achieve the eradication goal.

Response Actions
An exploration of a variety of responses will help determine the transition to successful long-term management and containment. As more information becomes available about the situation and a response progresses, existing prevention management actions will proceed in the protection of Clear Lake from all AIS,
but likely with modifications. Considerations that may
inform which response actions are taken include:
• Anticipated costs of eradication effort and
subsequent monitoring, coupled with available
funding.
• Available resources (personnel, equipment,
etc.) for all aspects of response (e.g., signage,
barrier curtains, chemicals, grants to partners,
increased monitoring, additional oversight of
watercraft monitoring).
• Regional and local distribution of dreissenids
• single vs. multiple, continuous vs. patchy,
isolated vs. widespread.
• upstream vs. downstream, edge vs. interior.
• Dreissenid age class structure or life stages
present.
• Pathways/source of introduction (if known) –
identified, controlled, eliminated, etc.
• Species track record of eradication/control attempts. • Ability to obtain required permits and permissions (e.g., application of chemicals to water) in an expedited time frame.
• Confidence in surveillance and subsequent
results.
• Affected native fish and wildlife habitats.
• Time of year in relation to reproduction, migration, etc. • Amount of water in the system to be treated.

Consider the following:
• Potential for drawdown or flows reduced
before treatment.
• Flow sources, including springs, and the
potential to regulate that flow.
• Land use patterns.
• Presence of state or federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered species. • Presence of critical or significant habitats.
• Regulatory hurdles associated with control actions (e.g., use of chemicals).

Prevention Response Actions
Purpose: Address active prevention program needs
and adjustments as response is implemented.

Lead: LCWPD
As Control and Monitoring response teams are examining options, actions that address the current program may be implemented in recognition of modifications
or adjustments that may be needed to conform to new
needs to manage waterbody users and water usage
users. Considerations of the following areas of the
prevention operations will include:
• Directions and actions for local Lake County
Mussel Sticker Program
• Alteration/amendments to Ordinance 15 of
Lake County Code
Control Response Options
Purpose: Determine the possible eradication or control options and their feasibility to minimize spread.

Lead: LCWPD
Implementation of any control response may include
chemical, biological, or physical methods, and all will require a full analysis of potential ecological, economic, cultural impacts to Clear Lake. An evaluation of all the possible actions or no-action will be needed to determine the best actions necessary.

There is a limited number of chemicals that currently
exist for controlling dreissenid mussels, including
potassium chloride (KCl or potash) and Earth TechQZ®.

Methods to contain chemical control applications with
the use of a temporary physical barrier or boom will be required. A suite of permits and compliance (Appendix G) will be required for any control response using chemicals and associated barriers. For example, a
response action in a marina would involve temporarily
installing vertical curtains/barriers from the surface of the water to the sediment to create an enclosed area
for chemical treatment. If threatened or endangered
species, or their critical habitats, exist within the geographic scope of the project, an Endangered Species Act consultation process will be triggered (see Fish
and Wildlife Service Section 7 Consultation section of
Appendix F) (http://www.crbdirt.com/introduction).

Other considerations, including safety, best management practices, and tradeoffs associated with taking 32 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 33 no action should be considered.

Containment Response Options
Purpose: Determine containment response options
and their feasibility to minimize spread.

Lead: LCWPD
Minimizing spread of dreissenid mussels from Clear
Lake will require containment. Containment options
may include a suite of strategies to address watercraft, infrastructure, water delivery systems, and other human activities. Containment options will be weighed by a response team and will be determined based on
the specific details of the detection and scope.

Immediate containment will be implemented while
Control Response Options are explored. Immediate
containment response may require:
• Temporary closure of the lake to all motorized,
non-motorized activity, including the installation of temporary signage and barriers. This could be achieved through County Ordinance
31, declaring a state of emergency, in which the
Sheriff of Lake County, or their designee, can
issue closure orders for water bodies.
• Mandatory decontamination of all watercraft
exiting Clear Lake (note: It has been recommended that Lake County modify its ordinance to mandate mandatory decontamination of
watercraft exiting Clear Lake upon infestation
by dreissenids).
• A moratorium of all current and future fishing
tournaments permitted within Clear Lake.

The District would make the determination if Clear
Lake will be closed to use and for what duration. See
section on Containment for further details.

Monitoring Response Options
Purpose: Address active prevention program needs
and adjustments as response is implemented.

Lead: LCWPD
Monitoring options may include a strategy to understand dreissenid distribution within Clear Lake and relevant neighboring waterbodies. Monitoring options
will be weighed by a response team and will be determined based on specific details of the detection and scope. Each category of management options must
identify staff and resource needs, budget requirements, feasibility of success, and results of taking a no-action approach.

Additional monitoring of the waterbody and nearby
waters will be important for understanding the scope
and scale of the infestation. Expanded monitoring
efforts will also be needed during implementation of
control options. These include, but are not limited to, monitoring within the following systems:
• Municipal water intakes
• Private water intakes
• Thurston Lake (a private lake and would require discussions with landowners to expand monitoring efforts), Hidden Valley Lake, Indian
Valley Reservoir, Lake Pillsbury, Lake Mendocino, Highland Spring Reservoir, Blue Lakes • Cache Creek dam infrastructure
• High priority water delivery systems within the
watershed
Appendix H includes several examples of monitoring
strategies that can be employed in water bodies that
have had detections of dreissenids.

Termination of ICS Response
Understanding when an ICS led response is complete
will be determined by a variety of factors, but will be at the discretion of the lead action agency. However,
there are valuable indicators that may help determine
that the incident has shifted to a long-term management situation, rather than a response situation. In general, when all the actions for monitoring, containment, and control have been exhausted, a response team is terminated. Factors that may indicate there
is no longer a need to operate ICS for the incident
include:
• A shift to long-term monitoring strategies to understand dreissenid population dynamics has been initiated (e.g., all municipal water users
are actively participating in strategic sampling
in cooperation with Lake County) (Lake County
mobile watercraft decontamination stations (3)
are operational and staffed in designated areas
with drains to water treatment systems).
• A shift to long-term containment has been initiated. Note: Lake County mobile watercraft decontamination stations (three) are operational and staffed in designated areas. Permanent decontamination stations are being considered. • Control efforts have been conducted and postmonitoring efforts to understand the success/ failure of control have been completed.
• The frequency of communication about the
project to local collaborators becomes minimal. Communication about the status of the infestation will continue in perpetuity as part
of ongoing containment efforts, however, the
frequency of communications lessens.
• Emergency resources (e.g., signage, mobile
watercraft decontamination stations) are dismantled/reassigned/returned.

A report post-response should be completed to help
identify all aspects of the response and inform improvement of capabilities, capacity, and training.

Documentation of the response will be a critical aspect to assist in improving response strategies for other
natural resource emergency situations and may also
be useful for surrounding jurisdictions to successfully respond to different dreissenid situations.
34 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 35

CHAPTER FIVE
Transition to Containment
5 Immediately after verification, short-term containment actions should be implemented. If dreissenids cannot be eradicated using chemical, biological, or mechanical methods, then long-term containment strategies must be implemented to contain dreissenids to the source water body.

The following timeline illustrates verification of identification, accompanying tasks, and water body status following a preliminary detection of dreissenid mussels (Figure 8). In this illustration, the assumption is that veligers were detected.

Figure 10. Timeline illustrating verification of identification, accompanying tasks, and water body status following a preliminary detection of dreissenids.

Initial Actions
The following actions should be implemented upon
verification of dreissenids (modified from State of
Montana Dreissenid Mussel Rapid Response Guidelines
(2018)):
• Per Section 2301, any entity that discovers
dreissenid mussels within this state shall immediately report the discovery to CDFW. • Per Section 2301, public or private agencies
that operate a water supply system shall cooperate with CDFW to implement measures to avoid infestation by dreissenid mussels and to
control or eradicate any infestation that may
occur in a water supply system. The operator
of the water supply system, in cooperation
with CDFW, shall prepare and implement a
plan to control or eradicate dreissenid mussels
within the system. In the case of Clear Lake, the
County of Lake Water Resources Department
has jurisdictional authority to manage Clear
Lake per State Land Commission Chapter 639,
adopted in 1973. This chapter authorizes Lake
County to act on behalf of the State Lands Commission to manage the water ways and water supply to protect the assets described in 639.

Lake County has jurisdiction to contain/control
recreation activities and Yolo County Flood
Control and Water District has jurisdiction to
contain/control the flow of water out of Clear
Lake.
• Work with CDFW to evaluate the need to quarantine Clear Lake as needed to prevent spread by watercraft. If the determination is made that
the lake should be quarantined, close boat
ramps and access points, and conduct public
outreach to notify visitors and residents.
• If infrastructure is in place to inspect and decontaminate all watercraft exiting Clear Lake, implement mandatory watercraft inspection
and decontamination program. Mandatory exit
inspections and decontamination would occur
at designated locations around the perimeter
of Clear Lake by staff trained in Uniform Minimum Protocols and Standards for Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination procedures.

All vessels inspected or decontaminated will be
identified with paperwork and if appropriate a
seal. Inspections and decontamination records
shall be captured in an online database.
• Identify all dispersal vectors (including movement by humans, fish and wildlife, water traffic, water flow, and other processes). Assume
measures are needed to prevent the release of
veligers as well as movement of adult mussels.
• Assess the likely movement of boats and other
watercraft that recently used the mussel affected water body to identify inspection needs in other water bodies within the county.
• Develop and implement Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans (Britton et
al. 2014) to ensure that personnel (i.e., water
quality monitoring staff) do not further spread
dreissenids.
• Identify other aquatic operations (e.g., hatcheries, aquaculture) that are likely to spread the species outside the affected watershed(s).

Consider temporary quarantine measures to
prevent spread.
• Consider overland or aerial transport to other
water bodies and implement any needed prevention.
• Working in partnership with water purveyors,
stop or slow water release to potentially uninfested sites. • Consider special management measures for operations of locks and commercial vessel traffic, if appropriate.
• Stop all sanctioned water related events (i.e.,
sport fishing tournaments) on the waterbody
until appropriate containment protocols can be
established.
• Watercraft inspection and decontamination
stations
• Establish inspection and decontamination
requirements on boats and equipment
36 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 37 (following Uniform Minimum Protocols
and Standards for Watercraft Inspection
and Decontamination (Elwell and Phillips
2021) and CDFW Aquatic Invasive Species
Decontamination Protocol) (Lake County
will modify operations as standardized
protocols are updated (if needed)).
• Secure all operational needs to effectively
implement mandatory decontamination, including decontamination units, associated decontamination equipment,
signage, safety equipment, and data collection tools.
• Ensure decontamination units are positioned at key points to capture the majority of watercraft exiting the waterbody. • Implement mandatory inspection and decontamination of boats upon entry and exit of waterbody.

Dreissenid Mitigation by Water Purveyors
Dreissenids can colonize any surface where flows are
less than 6.5 feet/second (O’Neill 1993). Costs associated with the management and control of dreissenid mussels varies with the extent of the mussel infestation in the source water and associated water treatment
facility(ies), the complexity and size of the water treatment facility, the treatment goals, and other factors (Chakraborti et al. 2022). Maintaining adequate flow
in pipelines and intakes adds to capital and annual
operations and maintenance costs for a drinking water
treatment facility (Chakraborti et al. 2022).

Most facilities apply chlorine or KMnO4 to protect water intake structures, conveyance pipes, and pumps,
whereas less common control methods included
the use of chloramines and copper ion treatment
(Chakraborti et al. 2022). The operations and maintenance (O&M) of 10 drinking water facilities addressing ongoing mussel infestations demonstrated operations and maintenance-based unit costs of mussel control varied from $34.32/mil gal for 1-mgd capacity
to $12.63/mil gal for 2,640-mgd capacity. The capital
cost and O&M-based equivalent annual unit cost for
treatment varied from $78.56/mil gal for 1-mgd capacity to $13.41/mil gal for 2,640-mgd capacity, and costs for larger water treatment plants (i.e., >10 mgd) varied between $1.00/mil gal and $13.00/mil gal (Chakraborti
et al. 2022). The Coachella Valley Water District, an
irrigation supplier in Southern California, assesses a
quagga mussel mitigation surcharge of $3.18-4.31 per
acre-foot (2022 rates) (http://www.cvwd.org/documentcenter/view/5381), which pays for monitoring and to prevent dreissenid colonization in the Coachella Canal infrastructure (Nelson 2019).

Dreissenid Mitigation by Self-supply Drinking Water
Systems
Self-supplied water users that extract their water from Clear Lake are not required to report their use. Currently, there is no estimate of self-supply domestic users, or the amount of water they withdraw for Clear
Lake. Private residence water intake systems include
an onshore component (pump and distribution pipes
to residence) and an offshore component (the pipe
from its intake in the lake to the onshore pump)
(O’Neill 1993). Two strategies can address mussels
in these systems: whole residence in-line filters that
remove mussel veligers, and in-line chlorine injection
systems, which kills mussel veligers, juveniles, and
adults drawn into the system, which also address taste
and odor issues caused by mussels (O’Neill 1993).

Costs per Mg of water withdrawn to treat ranged from
$1,345 for in-line filters and $7,348 for chlorine injection systems (O’Neill 1993).

Transition Goal
Upon an introduction of dreissenid mussels to Clear
Lake, the initial goal is to avoid the risk of spreading mussels to other water bodies while follow-up sampling determines the extent of infestation. During this estimated six-week period, all watercraft leaving Clear Lake would be inspected and decontaminated at four
inspection stations located around the perimeter to
intercept all watercraft of Clear Lake. Ideally, these
would be permanent watercraft inspection and decontamination stations already established prior to an introduction of dreissenids. Nightly boat ramp and shore launching closes would be implemented to ensure all
watercraft are inspected.

The results of sampling efforts post-detection will
determine if Clear Lake remains Suspect, or is elevated to Positive, or Infested, status. Regardless, longer-term response would require administration and oversight
of check stations to inspect and decontaminate all
watercraft leaving Clear Lake. Implementation of a
Local Boater Program, which identifies watercraft that
recreate only in Clear Lake, would reduce staffing,
equipment, and maintenance costs. Costs to operate
the inspection stations includes initial capital costs for equipment and staff costs associated with training staff and operating check stations.

Short-Term Suspect Status
If Clear Lake is confirmed positive for dreissenid mussels, the lake will be considered Short-term Suspect.

After the initial detection, follow-up sampling will
occur while minimizing the risk of spreading mussels
to other waters. Within one week, available resources
will be necessary to perform required Clean, Drain, Dry exit inspections of all boats leaving the lake and decontamination of undrainable areas, such as ballast tanks.

All watercraft leaving Clear Lake will receive a seal and paperwork to verify the watercraft received an exit
inspection. Quick action will be needed to mobilize the necessary personnel and resources to effectively meet
these obligations.

At Short-term Suspect Status, existing resources must
be used to inspect, decontaminate, and seal boats.

However, all financial support from the State of California ceases immediately upon detection, therefore it is imperative Clear Lake take steps now to create
an emergency fund that can be used upon an initial
detection. Immediately after initial detection, job announcements and requisitions should be prepared so personnel can be hired, and additional equipment can
be purchased as quickly as possible.

Closures
Temporary, full closure of Clear Lake boat ramps and
long-term closure of individual boat ramps to concentrate boating traffic are not recommended during the Short-term Suspect Status period. However, closure of
shore launching is recommended during Short-term
Suspect Status because vehicles accessing these areas
do not encounter a check station. Night closure of boat ramps is recommended at this status level to ensure
every vessel leaving Clear Lake receives an exit inspection. Boat ramps should be closed with a gate, or cable, and sign indicating the purpose and estimated
duration of the closure. Hours when Clear Lake boat
ramps are open will be ½ hour before sunrise to ½
hour after sunset. If a boat has not exited the water by ½ hour after sunset, it will remain in the water until the next day.

Temporary full closure of Clear Lake boat ramps is recommended if the lake is immediately classified from Short-term Suspect Status to Infested Status.

Staffing Plan
Inspection stations will need to be staffed by a minimum of two inspectors per station per day. Staffing levels will depend on the time of year and anticipated
boating traffic but could require 3–14 individuals per
week based on a 40-hour work week.

Supplies and Equipment
If Lake County does not have four established permanent watercraft inspection and decontamination stations upon detection of dreissenids, existing trailered and other decontamination units within the county can
be used. Camper trailers may need to be secured to accommodate housing for personnel. Dynamic messaging signs (DMS) will be rented (one sign for each check station) to direct boaters to the exit inspection locations. Additional signage will explain boat ramp nightly closures, shore launch closures, and mandatory exit
inspections.

Rapid Response – Long-Term Suspect Status
If initial follow-up sampling does not yield a positive result, Clear Lake would enter Long-term Suspect
Status and remain at this level for up to three years if no additional positive samples are found. The goal during the Long-term Suspect Status period is to minimize the risk of spreading mussels to other waters. During
the first year (from initial detection through the following boating season), capacity must exist for all nonlocal boaters exiting Clear Lake to efficiently obtain a required clean, drain, dry inspection, motor flush, and decontamination of ballast tanks and other undrainable areas. All watercraft leaving Clear Lake will receive a red seal and seal receipt to verify the watercraft received an exit inspection. Red seals will be designated for use on a suspect, positive, or infested water.

If there is no confirmation of dreissenid mussel presence after the first full boating season, efforts will switch to a lower-level response, with a goal of contact- 38 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 39 ing a significant number of boaters leaving the water
but shifting the responsibility to the boater to obtain a required inspection. Inspectors will still conduct clean, drain, dry exit inspections on boats leaving the water
and decontaminate ballast tanks and other undrainable areas. If feasible, all motors will continue to be flushed. If not, all outboard motors will be drained and only inboard/outboard and inboard motors will be
flushed. Public outreach will increase and vary using
multiple outlets to highlight the potential threat at the suspect water.

Closures
Except for shore launching, no closures of individual
boat ramps are recommended during year 1 of a Longterm Suspect Status period. During years 2 and 3 of Long-term Suspect Status, shore launching may be allowed in some areas. Shore launching prohibited signs will be changed to communicate that an exit inspection is required.

Night closure of boat ramps is also recommended during year 1 of a Long-term Suspect Status to ensure that every vessel leaving Clear Lake receives an exit inspection. Hours when Clear Lake boat ramps are open will be ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset. If a
boat has not exited the water by ½ hour after sunset, it will remain in the water until the next day.

Check Stations
During years 1 through 3 of Long-term Suspect Status,
the number and location of the four exit inspection stations will remain the same as for Short-term Suspect Status. Check station hours of operation will coincide
with boat ramp hours (½ hour before sunrise until ½
hour after sunset).

Local Boater Program
A local boater program would minimize staffing levels
and reduce wear and tear on equipment with fewer
decontaminations. A local boater program should
be implemented during year 1 of Long-term Suspect
Status.

Rapid Response – Positive Status
Clear Lake will be considered positive for dreissenid mussels if two or more sampling events within a 12-month period meet the minimum criteria for
detection (defined above). The goal during the Positive Status period is to minimize the risk of spreading mussels to other waters by providing capacity for all
boaters coming off the water to efficiently obtain a
required clean, drain, dry inspection, motor flush, and decontamination of ballast tanks and other undrainable areas. If live mussels are found on any boat during an exit inspection, they will be decontaminated, and
consideration will be given to upgrading Clear Lake to
Infested. All watercraft leaving Clear Lake will receive a red seal and paperwork to verify the watercraft
received an exit inspection. All four permanent watercraft inspection stations will remain open from ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset.

Closures
All shore launching is prohibited during Positive Status. Night closure of boat ramps is also recommended during Positive Status to ensure that every vessel leaving Clear Lake receives an exit inspection. Boat ramps will be closed with a gate, or cable, and sign indicating the reason for closure. Clear Lake boat ramps will be
open will be ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset. If a boat has not exited the water by ½ hour after sunset, it will remain in the water until the next day.

Rapid Response – Infested Status
Clear Lake will be considered Infested if an established (recruiting and reproducing) population of adult
dreissenid mussels is found. The goal during Infested
Status is to minimize the risk of spreading mussels to
other waters by ensuring all boaters exiting the water are inspected and undergo decontamination. All watercraft leaving Clear Lake will receive a red seal
and paperwork to verify the watercraft received an exit inspection. Boat ramp hours will undergo hour restrictions to ensure that watercraft decontamination does not occur during darkness (e.g., ramps close 2 hours
prior to sunset). Lake County staff should consider an
alternative method for identifying boats that cannot
be decontaminated because check stations are understaffed.

Estimated Costs for Containment Operations
Containment of a dreissenid infestation will require
significant personnel for supervision, operation of
Example 1. Flaming Gorge Reservoir Wyoming – Utah (excerpted from Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Flaming Gorge Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project Interagency Rapid Response and Control Plan for Dreissenid Mussels. https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Fishing-and-Boating/Aquatic-Invasive-SpeciesPrevention/AIS-Rapid-Response-Plans). Reservoir size: 3,778,700 acre feet. The estimates describe inspection and decontamination operations for a positive waterbody.

Expenditure
Categories
Description Quantity Cost Each Total Cost
Personnel
21 Technicians, Feb 22 - Dec 7 339 months $2,160 $732,564 3 Technicians, May 1 - Sep 30 15 months $2,160 $32,400
Extra help - holidays, etc. 1 month $2,160 $2,160
SUBTOTAL $767,124
Vehicle 7 State Motor Pool Vehicles (8-9 mos. each) 62 months $700 $43,400 SUBTOTAL $43,400
Supplies
Dynamic Message Signs 3 $17,000 $51,000
Generators 2 $1,000 $2,000
Water Pump for Sheep Creek 1 $500 $500
Gas - generator, decon. units/ month 26 $700 $18,200
Light Tower (2 per station) 6 $10,000 $60,000
Misc. supplies and repairs - cost/mo. 26 $200 $5,200
Tablets 5 $250 $1,250
Replacement signs 15 $100 $1,500
Posts and hardware 15 $18 $263
Storage (Dec-Feb; cost/mo.) 81 $24 $1,944
Seals 31,000 $0.03 $806
Wire for seals 31,000 $0.09 $2,635
SUBTOTAL $145,298
Construction
HWY 191 exit inspection station
construction 1 $250,000 $250,000
SUBTOTAL $250,000
TOTAL $1,205,822
inspection and decontamination stations; supplies
in the form of new signage, decontamination units,
possible water storage tanks for decontamination unit
operation, hand held tablets to enter inspection and
decontamination information, and watercraft seals; vehicles may be needed for personnel to travel between stations or to move equipment and supplies; housing
for short-term inspection staff may be needed in peak
watercraft access to Clear Lake this may come in the
form of movable campers/trailers. Additional infrastructure may be needed to control access to the lake with removable barriers or gates.

There are examples of operations costs that have been
assembled for other western waterbodies. These
are provided for reference here; however Clear Lake
containment needs may differ. Clear Lake is 1,155,000
acre feet.
40 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 41 Example 2. Keyhole Reservoir, Wyoming (excerpted from Rapid Response Plan Following Detection of Dreissenid Mussels in Keyhole Reservoir, Wyoming). Reservoir size 334,200 acre feet. The estimates describe inspection and decontamination operations for an infested waterbody.

Expenditure
Categories
Description Quantity Cost Each Total Cost
Personnel
Contract Biologist 8 months $,543 $36,344
Technician; 2 @ 8 months 16 months $2,863 $45,808
Technicians; 6 @ 6 months 36 months $2,863 $103,068
Technicians; 6 @ 3 months 18 months $2,863 $51,534
SUBTOTAL $236,754
Vehicle
State Motor Pool Sedan 1 8 months $500 $4,000
State Motor Pool Sedan 2 8 months $500 $4,000
SUBTOTAL $8,000
Travel Camp Groceries (person days) 1,558 $24 $37,392
SUBTOTAL $37,392
Supplies
Camp Trailers 2 $20,000 $40,000
Office Trailers 2 $20,000 $40,000
Signs (one-time expense) 2 $500 $1,000
Signs (local boat, infestation, decon) $2,000 $2,000
Recirculating Decontamination Unit 1 $300,000 $300,000
Well drilling - East Side Check Station 1 $20,000 $20,000 Asphalt - East Side Check Station 1 $50,000 $50,000
Electrical to East Side Check Station 1 $25,000 $25,000 Trailer slip rental (nights) 92 $45 $4,140
SUBTOTAL $482,140
TOTAL $764,286
Numerous existing and potential sources of funding
can support dreissenid efforts in Clear Lake. Some of
the sources of funding listed below have specific uses, (e.g., some cannot be used for anything other than prevention efforts). Those listed here have the potential for Lake County to solicit funding to amplify prevention efforts, (e.g., permanent watercraft decontamination stations).

Federal
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Quagga and Zebra
Mussel Action Plan (QZAP) grant funding—This
grant funds proposals listed in principal areas
towards the fulfillment of the top priorities in the
QZAP for western U.S. waters, including limiting
the spread of invasive mussels via containment
(e.g., inspection and decontamination of watercraft moving from invaded water bodies to jurisdictions free of dreissenids). Maximum grant award is $600,000. Grant announcement contact: Barak
Shemai, [email protected].
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) Small Grants— This program is a competitive, matching grants
program that supports public-private partnerships
implementing projects in the United States that
further the goals of NAWCA. Maximum grant award
is $100,000. Grant announcement contact: Rodecia
McKnight ([email protected]).
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Invasive Dreissenid
Mussel Activities (2024) ([email protected])—The
Bureau of Reclamation has been funding about
$2.6 annually for the past several years for projects
that:
• support Reclamation needs and impacts;
• support one or more of the seven QZAP
categories essential to dreissenid mussel
management;
• demonstrate mature planning/coordination, readiness to proceed, and pose a funding request that is reasonable,
realistic, and commensurate with the approach; and
• stimulate broader coordination and additional action on mussel management.

Sources of Funding for Dreissenid Response and
Containment
Regional
• The Westside Sacramento Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plan (https://www.westsideirwm.com/) provides grant funding for water management as well as emergency disasters.

This small grant program provides a maximum of
$25,000 per projects that align with its regional
priorities, which include protecting and enhancing habitat and biological diversity; preserving, improving, and managing water quality for beneficial uses; and improving watershed and ecosystem education and awareness. Response and containment may qualify for this funding source.

State
Currently, no state funding sources exist for Lake
County/Clear Lake to transition to containment. Upon
an initial detection, all prevention funding from the
state ceases immediately.

Fee-based, user funding
Recreational registered watercraft
• Per California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Section 5201, the State of California requires
owners of motorized recreational vessels used
in freshwater to purchase from the Department
of Motor Vehicles an annual sticker, which is
separate and in addition to the vessel registration. Funding from these stickers supports prevention efforts via a grant program administered by the California Division of Boating and Waterways.
• The mussel fee amount shall be $8 when
first paid during an even-numbered calendar year and $16 when first paid during an odd-numbered calendar year. The
mussel fee amount shall be $16 thereafter
and shall be valid for a period of two calendar years. The mussel fee sticker shall be valid through December 31 of every
odd-numbered year.
• Per Lake County regulations, all vessels
launched in Lake County water bodies must
have a Lake County Quagga/Zebra sticker (in
addition to the sticker noted above) (https://
www.nomussels.com/). Resident and visitor
42 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 43 stickers are $20. The total number of stickers sold to residents and visitors and the total income received from 2016–2022 was
$832,180 and $1,124,580, respectively (Table
3, Figure 9). The average income in 2016–2022
from sticker sales to residents and visitors
was $166,436 and $224,916, respectively.

These funds could be used for response and
containment.

Table 4. Total number of stickers sold to residents and visitors, and income received, from 2016-2022.

Year # Resident
Stickers Sold
# Visitor
Stickers Sold
Total Income from
Sticker Sales
2016 6,987 9,561 $330,960
2017 8,978 6,279 $305,140
2018 5,849 7,763 $272,240
2019 6,282 8,872 $303,080
2020 4,981 8,480 $191,233
2021 4,939 8,851 $186,501
2022 3,593 6,423 $135,577
0 2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2016-2022 Mussel Sticker Sales - Residents and Visitors resident visitor
Seaplanes
• Seaplanes have the potential to introduce or
spread dreissenids and other aquatic invasive
species. An event, called the Clear Lake Splash In:

Wings, Water & Wine (https://www.facebook.com/
splashin/about), is hosted annually at Clear Lake
(excluding 2022, when the event was canceled, in
part because of the exceptionally low water level
of Clear Lake). The Splash-In is one of the largest
seaplane fly-ins on the West Coast. The event is
organized by the Lake County Chamber of Commerce. The Lake County Quagga/Zebra sticker are issued to seaplane pilots to land on the lake.

Figure 11. Mussel sticker sales to residents and visitors, 2016-2022.

CHAPTER SIX
Permanent Decontamination Station Feasibility Analysis
6 If eradication of dreissenids is not possible upon detection, actions must be taken to prevent spread of mussels from Clear Lake to other water bodies. Installation of adequate water/energy efficient watercraft decontamination stations must be completed to ensure that all watercraft leaving Clear Lake have no mussels on board, either attached to the vessel or floating in vessel/engine compartments, bilges, and other places that hold water.

Options for decontamination stations:
• Fixed base systems ($225,000 to $450,000)—
Hydro Engineering, LLC (https://www.hydroblaster.com) produces high-capacity fixed based systems consisting of a Hydrosite insulated equipment building connected to utilities (water, power, and fuel) as well as portable
systems. Permanent decontamination stations
range from $225,000 (single station systems
with one wash pad – drive on, drive off ramp) to
$400,000-plus multiple (4-station) systems (e.g.,
2 wash pads).
• Dip Tank ($800,000)—Clean Wake LLC (https://
www.cleanwake.net/) developed a dip tank
that lowers a boat into the tank and fills and
empties the ballast tank while the watercraft
engine is running. This type of system was
first used in Utah in 2021, and decontaminates
vessels faster than manual decontamination,
including those with complex systems.

The Model Regulation for State Watercraft Inspection
and Decontamination Program (Otts and Nanjappa
2016) notes an agency may establish inspection stations:
• At or along publicly accessible boat ramps and
conveyance launch sites, roads and highways
• At ports of entry (if the Department of Transportation authorizes the agency to use the port of entry);
• At agency facilities;
• Where there is a high probability of intercepting conveyances transporting aquatic invasive species.
• Where there is typically a high level of boat and
trailer traffic; and/or
• Where the inspection of conveyances will
provide increased protection against the
introduction of aquatic invasive species into
a water body. In addition, Otts and Nanjappa
(2016) encourages stations be sited in locations
that are convenient and readily accessible to
boaters, in locations with the greatest chance
of intercepting high-risk conveyances, and in
locations with adequate space for conveyances
to be stopped, inspected, and in some cases,
decontaminated, without presenting a safety
risk or significantly interfering with the public’s use of the waterbody or highway. Otts and Nanjappa (2016) also emphasize environmental considerations if decontamination occurs at an inspection station because of the need
for proper handling and disposal of potentially
44 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 45 contaminated effluent.

Other criteria to consider:
• Locations that intercept the greatest number of
watercraft.
• Fishing tournament watercraft launch locations.
• Proximity or accessibility to water, power, and
sewer connections.
• Surface, slope, and distance to Clear Lake.
• Traffic patterns that capture major/preferred
routes.
• Traffic patterns at proposed station location
(e.g., safety considerations including preventing left-hand turns across lanes, overflow of waiting watercraft, surrounding speed limit
allows ease of access and if not then adequate
signage).
• Area surrounding station has clear control
points to prevent boats from launching/leaving
until they have been decontaminated.
• Minimal disturbance to natural landscape.
• Adequate space to house decontamination
unit, structure for staff to remain safe, structure
to house operational equipment, etc.
• Near interstate roads coming into county from
direction of infested waterbodies (Hwy 20 by
Hwy 53).
• Near or at County- or City-owned property or
empty/vacant parcel that could be acquired
with minimal capital.
• Near City/County services to tap into municipal
water and special districts water treatment
lines for the discharge.
• A location that is easily accessible and County/
City owned in Lakeport.
• Use of www.AISexplorer.umn.edu may be considered for prioritization of inspection stations.

Based on these criteria and ingress and egress associated with Clear Lake, likely locations for permanent stations are Upper Lake Park or Upper Lake Roads
Yard, Moose Lodge, Konocti USD Bus Yard or the industrial area north of the town of Clear Lake, the Vista Point Shopping Center, or the Lakeport Public Works
Yard (Figure 10) as well as the interaction of highways 29 and 175, which is government-owned land.

Figure 12. Potential locations for permanent watercraft inspection and decontamination stations (yellow mark) based on the criteria for establishing stations.

These case studies illustrate a variety of factors that can be considered when developing policy associated
with citing watercraft inspection and decontamination
stations.

Case Study #1 – Stearns County, Minnesota
An integer programming model was developed to allocate scarce inspection resources among lakes with a county, using species-specific infestations status of lakes and estimates of boat movement among lakes
to maximize the number of high-risk boats inspected
(Haight et al. 2021). High-risk boats were defined as
those that move from infested to uninfested lakes.

Modelers determined locating inspection stations at
infested lakes that have the greatest number of boats
moving to uninfested lakes both inside and outside
the county would achieve the objective of protecting
uninfested lakes. Alternatively, locating stations at
both infested and uninfested lakes having the highestrisk boats arriving from within and outside the county and departing to in-county lakes would achieve the
objectives of protecting only county lakes. The authors noted the tradeoffs between the objectives is significant.

Case Study #2 – British Columbia
Watercraft inspection policies that prevent the spread
of dreissenids can be optimized under budget constraints using linear integer programming techniques (Fischer et al. 2020). Authors noted that inspection
stations should be placed close to the border of the uninfested region (emphasizing cross-border collaborations between uninvaded jurisdictions); if traffic flows merge close to the border, inspections are most costeffective after the merging point; if traffic predictions involve a high level of uncertainty, inspection efforts should be distributed over many locations; and if a
high reduction of propagule inflow is desired, it may be cost-effective to implement measures increasing the
compliance rate rather than operating more inspection
stations for longer hours.

Case Studies: Optimizing the Location of
Watercraft Inspection Stations
Case Study #3 – Deep Creek Lake, Maryland
Deep Creek Lake in Maryland sought to reduce the
number of instances of visiting watercraft arriving at
the lake contaminated with aquatic invasive species
(Chase et al. 2020). Defining barriers and behavior drivers is critical to changing human behavior. The study determined that the Deep Creek Lake website and
associated Maryland Department of Natural Resources
sites were disconnected and difficult to navigate,
including difficulty accessing information on boat
launch inspection and aquatic invasive species prevention measures. Recommendations included enhancing community partnering to improve communication in
the tourism community and leverage nonprofit organization funding grants, creating focus groups through boater/fishing license registrations or in-person launch steward interactions to define barriers/drivers to behavior change, improving website design, streamlining digital media to coherently and consistently communicate AIS impacts, prevention, and expected actions, and empowering boaters with on-site cleaning equipment at high-use ramps. 46 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 47 If the District determines that mandatory watercraft
decontamination operations would be conducted,
proper staff training and equipment will be needed to
ensure that operations meet minimum guidelines to
prevent the spread of dreissenids. The minimum standards for programs are based on the Uniform Minimum Protocols and Standards for Watercraft Inspection
and Decontamination. The goal of a watercraft decontamination is to remove and kill driessenid mussels from watercraft. The basis for standard procedures is
derived from applied studies that examined the lethal
times and temperatures of hot water for dreissenid
mussel mortality. Watercraft decontamination procedures not only include proper use of the equipment, but also personal safety, watercraft owner permission,
and detailed documentation.

There are several documents that regional AIS programs align with when conducting decontaminations, including:
• Uniform Minimum Protocols and Standards for
Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination in
the Western United States (Elwell and Phillips
2021)
• Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination
Manual (Western Regional Panel on ANS 2021)
• Student Training Curriculum for Watercraft
Inspectors and Decontaminators to Prevent and
Contain Invasive Species in the USA (Western
Regional Panel on ANS 2016)
• Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination
Trainer’s Manual (Western Regional Panel on
ANS 2021)
All staff conducting decontaminations must complete
training that provides a thorough understanding of the
risks from invasive species and the role that watercraft play in their spread, as well as full knowledge of the
proper use of all decontamination equipment. Most
comprehensive watercraft inspection and decontamination programs conduct annual training events based on the curriculum noted above. Training typically occurs during a 2-day period, and includes both classroom and hands-on activities to familiarize staff with basic steps on watercraft decontamination. Different
Suggested Training for Watercraft Inspection
and Decontamination Program Staff
types of watercraft (size and complexity) require different amounts of time to complete decontamination, therefore training should include different watercraft
types. Multi-day training is offered regularly by Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (see https://www.
westernais.org/, Training menu tab) and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Appropriate decontamination units are also an important part of the decontamination process. Minimum standards for both trailered and non-trailered units can be accessed at https://
westernregionalpanel.org/key-documents. Adhering
to the guidelines presented in the documents in the
bulleted list (above) will align Lake County program
operations with western regional programs. County
staff could consider the use of on-the-job training that could follow immediately after hire to enforce objectives that were covered during the training.

CHAPTER SEVEN
Management Recommendations
7 Funding
a. Develop a $1,000,000 to $1,500,000
emergency fund to prepare for an
introduction of dreissenids to Clear
Lake and neighboring water bodies.
b. Consider changes to mussel
sticker pricing to increase the cost of
stickers to non-resident boaters and
seaplane pilots.
c. Consider establishing a mussel
sticker for non-motorized nonresident watercraft.
d. Consider establishment of a local
municipal fee to offset and support
operational expenses of prevention
and containment programs.
e. Consider a county ordinance that
establishes special event fees for
recreational activities occurring on
Clear Lake (e.g., fishing tournaments,
etc.) (see Appendix I).

Reporting
a.Develop an online reporting system
that requires self-supplied water
users to register their water use with
the District and to create a database
of self-supplied water users for notification purposes. Create a database of self-supplied water users.
b. Develop and implement a monitoring program by self-supplied water users with intake sources (e.g., citizen
science monitoring).
c. Increase and diversify monitoring
operations annually to reach maximum capacity for sampling. a. Purchase and staff four permanent
watercraft inspection and decontamination units for both existing prevention and potential future containment purposes.
b. Work with other government agencies and landowners to find suitable locations for stations.
c. Purchase adequate signage and
work with local Caltrans maintenance
staff to sign inspection stations.
d. Acquire all necessary infrastructure for safe and successful WID station operations.

Capital Expenditures
This section of the document includes a suite of recommendations the District could implement to enhance its readiness to respond to an introduction of dreissenids to Clear Lake and transition to containment. 48 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 49 a. Initiate long-term containment program to prevent the spread of invasive mussels (and other AIS) to other water bodies via overland transport.
b. Initiate internal ongoing evaluation
of WID programming to identify areas
of compliance, improvement, and
redundancy.
c. Consider using the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency model to staff inspection stations, make appointments for boat decontaminations, and purchase decontamination units.
d. Convene regional water body managers to discuss and strategize citing watercraft inspection and decontamination stations for all water bodies in the region.

Containment and Control Collaboration
a. Conduct periodic preparedness
exercises with regional partners and
collaborators to identify areas for
improvement.
b. Work with regional water body
managers to mirror and advance
funding, reporting and containment
recommendations.
c. Work with county water body
managers to foster prevention-tocontainment processes that result in maintained recreational opportunities and self-water user abilities; serve as a model for other California
affected water bodies and regions.
d. Work with collaborators to better connect water use values with protection of the lake from invasive
species.
e. Create an inventory of equipment
and resources available locally/regionally in the event of an infestation or a determination is made to implement a control action. f. Identify suitable communication
pathways for reporting detections
of dreissenid mussels for “on-hours”
and “after-hours” situations.
g. Update regional waterbody manager contact information. h. Convene stakeholders to assess
pros/cons of various biological and
chemical treatments associated with
ecosystem and human health risk
assessments.
a. Develop and adopt ordinance that
requires sticker purchase by nonmotorized boat owners. b. Develop and adopt ordinance that
requires mandatory decontamination
for motorized, non-motorized watercraft, and seaplanes upon exiting an infested waterbody.
c. Propose changes to other ordinances as described in section Recommended Amendments to Ordinances in Chapters 15 and 23 and other Code
Ordinances in this document.
d. Consider amending the ordinance
to mandate that property owners
with access to the lake post countysupplied signage stating QZ program requirements.
e. Clearly state in the ordinance the
primary county authority that has
responsibility for enforcing mandatory watercraft decontamination when watercraft leave an infested
waterbody.
f. Require property owners with
short-term/vacation rentals to include verbiage about AIS inspections and QZ program requirements in
their house rules.

Local Ordinances
a. Consider revising Clear Lake fishing
regulations (CDFW) to reduce the
allowable daily take of redear sunfish
because they have been proven to
remove adult quagga mussels efficiently while suppressing growth and recruitment when stocked at a high
density (0.42 fish/m3 or 1.90 fish/m2)
(Wong et al. 2012).
b. Consider habitat enhancements
for Clear Lake to improve habitat for
redear sunfish. Note: Lake County
is promoting a natural shoreline
program that encourages property
owners along the edge of Clear Lake
to remove hardscapes and encourage
natural habitat. Shoreline ordinance
amendments (in progress at the time
of this report) will increase costs and
processes associated with installation of hardscapes.

Fishing Regulations
References
Ara, S., E. Irwin, and T. Haab. 2006. The influence of water quality on housing price around Lake Erie. Selected paper presented at the 2006 American Agricultural
Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach,
California, July 23–26.

Baron, A., W. Zhang, and E. Irwin. 2016. Estimating the capitalization of harmful algal bloom incidence, intensity, and duration? A repeated sales model of Lake Erie lakefront property values. Selected paper for presentation at the 2016 Agricultural & Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts.

Bingham, M., S. Sinha, and F. Lupi. 2015. Economic
benefits of reducing harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie.

Report submitted to the International Joint Commission Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc., Report, 66 pp.

Bossenbroek, J.M., D.C. Finnoff, J.F. Shogren, and T.W.

Warziniack. 2009. Advances in ecological and economic analysis of invasive species: dreissenid mussels as a case study. In R. P. Keller, D. M. Lodge, M. A. Lewis, & J. F. Shogren (Eds.), Bioeconomics of Invasive Species:

Integrating Ecology, Economics, Policy, and Management (pp. 244–265). Oxford University Press.

Boyd, D. 2016. Mussel-related impacts and costs at
Lower Colorado Department of Interior facilities
(Hoover, Davis, and Parker Dams). Final report ST
2016–1608.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Resource
Stewardship. 2023. Potential economic impact of zebra
and quagga mussels in B.C. 25pp.

Britton, D., P. Heimowitz, S. Pasko, M. Patterson, and
J. Thompson. 2014. Hazard Analysis & Critical Control
Point Planning to Prevent the Spread of Invasive Species. 95pp.

Burlakova, L.E., B.L. Tulumello, A.Y. Karatayev, R.A.

Krebs, D.W. Schloesser, W.L. Paterson, T.A. Griffith,
M.W. Scott, T. Crail, and D.T. Zanatta. 2014. Competitive replacement of invasive congeners may relax impact
on native species: interactions among zebra, quagga,
and native unionid mussels. PLOS ONE 9(12): e114926.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114926
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. Guidance for developing a dreissenid mussel prevention program. 9pp.

Chakraborti, R., S.P. Madon, and J. Kaur. 2022. Costs
for controlling dreissenid mussels affecting drinking
water infrastructure: Case studies. American Water
Works Association 108:8. http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/
jawwa.2016.108.0104
Chase, T., A. Golding, L. Gujski, J. Markline, and S.

Willey. 2020. Behavioral change analysis of aquatic
invasive species prevention strategies for Deep Creek
Lake, Maryland. ENVM 670, Capstone study in Environmental Management. https://www.garrettcounty. org/resources/watershed/pdf/Publications/Deep%20
Creek/Behavioral%20Change%20Analysis%20DCL%20
Final.pdf. Accessed 8/4/2023.

Cohen, A.N. 2005. A review of zebra mussels’ environmental requirements. A report for the California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento CA. San
Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA.

Community Attributes. 2017. Economic impact of
invasive species: Direct cost estimates and economic
impacts for Washington State. 46pp.

Cuthbert, R.N., C. Giagne, E.J. Hudgins, A. Turbelin,
D.A. Ahmed, C. Albert, T.W. Bodey, E. Briski, R. Essl, P.J.

Haubrock, R.E. Gozlan, N. Kirichenko, M. Kourantidou,
A.M. Kramer, and F. Courchamp. 2022. Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of the Total Environment 819:1–12.

Dahlberg, A.D., D.L. Waller, D. Hammond, K. Lund, and
N.B.D. Phelps. 2023. Open water dreissenid mussel
control projects: lessons learned from a retrospective
analysis. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/
rs.3.rs-2452000/v1
Dean Runyan Associates. 2022. The economic impact
of travel in California: 2021 state, regional, and county impacts. A report prepared for Visit California.

DeBruyckere, L.A. 2019. Endangered Species Act Compliance for Dreissenid Mussel Response in the Columbia River Basin States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. 334 pages.
50 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 51 De Palma-Dow, A., I.M. McCullough, and J.A. Brentrup.
2022. Turning up the heat: Long-term water quality
responses to wildfires and climate change in a hypereutrophic lake. Ecosphere 13(23): e4271, https://doi. org/10.1002/ecs2.4271.

Department of Water Resources. 2019 DWR Water Data
Library. https://wdl.water.ca.gov/WaterDataLibrary/
Map.aspx
Depew, D.C., E. Krutzelmann, K.E. Watchorn, A. Caskenette, and E.C. Enders. 2021. The distribution, density, and biomass of the zebra mussel on natural substrates
in Lake Winnipeg 2017–2019. Journal of Great Lakes
Research 47:556-566.

Elwell, L.C., Phillips, S. (Eds) 2021. Uniform minimum
protocols and standards for watercraft inspection and
decontamination programs for dreissenid mussels in
the Western United States (UMPS IV). Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission, Portland, Oregon (USA).

EOA, Inc. 2021. Program Effectiveness Assessment. A
document prepared for the Lake County Clean Water
Program – Phase II Stormwater Program. 18pp.

Feyrer, F. 2019. Observations of the spawning ecology of the imperiled Clear Lake Hitch (Lavinia exilicauda chi). California Department of Fish and Game 105(4):225–232.

Fischer, S.M., M. Beck, L. Herborg, and M.A. Lewis.
2020. Managing aquatic invasions: Optimal locations
and operating times for watercraft inspection stations.

Journal of Environmental Management 283(3):111923.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111923
Florea, K., B. Stewart, E. Webb, D. Caron, and J. Smith. 2022. Environmental drivers of cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms and cyanotoxins in Clear Lake: 2020– 2021. Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project, Technical Report 1261. 39pp.

Gamelin, B.L., J. Feinstein, J. Wang, J. Bessac, E. Yan, and V.R. Kotamarthi. Projected U.S. drought extremes
through the twenty-first century with vapor pressure deficit. Scientific Reports 12: 8615. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-022-12516-7
Guisti, G.A. 2009. Human influences to Clear Lake, California: A 20th Century History. 11pp.

Guisti, G. 2016. Understanding the economic value
of angling on Clear Lake – A profile of a famous lake.
13pp.

Haight, R.G., A.C. Kinsley, A. Kao, D. Yemshanov, and
N.B.D. Phelps. Optimizing the location of watercraft inspection stations to slow the spread of aquatic invasive species. Biological Invasions 23: 3907–3919.

Hargrave, J., and D. Jensen. 2012. Assessment of the
water quality Conditions at Ed Zorinsky Reservoir and
the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) population
emerged after the drawdown of the reservoir and assessment of the water quality conditions at Ed Zorinsky Reservoir. 126. Page 14/1922.

Higgins, S.N., and M.J. Vander Zanden. 2010. What a
difference a species makes: a meta-analysis of dreissenid mussel impacts on freshwater ecosystems. Ecological Monographs 80(2):179–196.

Highlands Mutual Water Company. 2016. Cyanotoxins
Management Plan. 32pp.

Horsch, E. J., and D.J. Lewis. 2009. The effects of aquatic invasive species on property values: Evidence from a quasi-experiment. Land Economics 85(3):391–409.
http://doi.org/10.3368/le.85.3.391
IPCC. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts,
M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B.

Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, 3056 pp., doi:10.1017/9781009325844.

Invasive Species Advisory Council (ISAC). 2016. Invasive species impacts on infrastructure. 12pp.

Jakus, P., M.J. Kealy, J. Loomis, N. Nelson, J. Ostermiller, C. Stanger, and N. von Stackelberg. 2013. Economic Benefits of Nutrient Reductions in Utah’s Waters.

Report prepared for the State of Utah, Utah Division of Water Quality. Salt Lake City, Utah: CH2M Hill.

Jones, C.G., J.H. Lawton, and M. Shachak. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. OIKOS 69:373–386.

Karatayev, A.Y. L.E. Burlakova, and D.K. Padilla. 1998.

Physical factors that limit the distribution and abundance of Dreissena polymorpha (Pall.). Journal of Shellfish Research 17:1219–1235.

Karatayev, A. Y., L. E. Burlakova & D. K. Padilla, 2002.

Impacts of zebra mussels on aquatic communities and
their role as ecosystem engineers. In Leppakoski, E.,
S. Gollach & S. Olenin (eds), Invasive Aquatic Species
of Europe: Distribution, Impacts and Management.

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordreicht.

Karatayev, A.Y., D.K. Padilla, and L. Burlakova. 2015.

Zebra versus quagga mussels: a review of their spread,
population dynamics, and ecosystem impacts. Hydrobiologia 746:97–112.

Kelly, D. W., L.-M. Herborg, and H. J. MacIsaak. 2010.

Ecosystem changes associated with Dreissena invasions: recent developments and emerging issues. In van der Velde, G., S. Rajagopal & A. Bij de Vaate (eds), The Zebra Mussel in Europe. Backhuys Publishers,
Leiden: 199–209.

Kennard, R. 2021. Safe and affordable drinking water
for sources impaired by harmful algal blooms: Clear
Lake, California. M.S. in Hydrologic Sciences, University of California - Davis. 83pp.

Kirk, J.P., K.J. Killgore, and L.G. Sanders. 2001. Potential of North American Molluscivorous Fish to Control Dreissenid Mussels. US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Report V1N1.

Knoll, L.B., O. Sarnelle, S.K. Hamilton, C.E.H. Kissman, A.E. Wilson, J.B. Rose, and M.R. Morgan. 2008. Invasive zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) increase cyanobacterial toxin concentrations in low nutrient lakes.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:
448–455. doi: 10.1139/f07-181
Lake County. 2010. Clear Lake Integrated Watershed
Management Plan. A report prepared for the West Lake
and East Lake Resource Conservation Districts.

Lake County Watershed Protection District. 2019. Lake
County Quagga and Zebra Mussel Prevention Plan.
96pp.

Lund, K., K.Bloodsworth Cattoor, E. Fieldseth, J. Sweet and M.A. McCartney. 2017. Zebra mussel (Dreissena
polymorpha) eradication efforts in Christmas Lake,
Minnesota. Lake and Reservoir Management 34: 7–20.

Leuven, R.S.E.W., F.P.L. Collas, K.R. Koopman, J. Matthews, and G.V.D. Velde. 2014. Mass mortality of invasive zebra and quagga mussels by desiccation during severe winter conditions. Aquatic Invasions 9:243–252.

Marshall, N.T., H.A. Vanderploeg, and S.R. Chaganti.
2022. Improving environmental DNA sensitivity for
dreissenid mussels by targeting tandem repeat regions
of the mitochondrial genome. Water 14: https://doi.
org/10.3390/w14132069
Mayer, C. M., L. E. Burlakova, P. Eklöv, D. Fitzgerald, A. Y.

Karatayev, S. A. Ludsin, S. Millard, E. L. Mills, A. P. Ostapenya, L. G. Rudstam, B. Zhu, and T. V. Zhukova. 2014.

The benthification of freshwater lakes: exotic mussels
turning ecosystems upside down Pages 575-585 in T.

F. Nalepa and D. W. Schloesser, editors. Quagga and
zebra mussels: biology, impacts, and control, second
edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Mills, E.L., J.M. Casselman, R. Dermott, J.D. Fitzsimons, G. Gal, K.T. Holeck, J.A. Hoyle, O.E. Johansson, B.F.

Lantry, J.C. Makarewica, E.S. Millard, I.F. Munawar, M.R.

Munawar, R. O’Gorman, R.W. Owens, L.G. Rudstam,
T. Schaner, and T.J. Stewart. 2003. Lake Ontario: food
web dynamics in a changing ecosystem (1970-2000).

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
60(4):361–369.

Molloy, D. P. 1998. The potential for using biological
control technologies in the management of Dreissena
spp. Journal of Shellfish Research 17:177–183.

Nelson, N. 2019. Enumeration of potential economic
costs of dreissenid mussel infestation in Montana. Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, 39pp.

Nicholls, S., and J. Crompton. 2018. A comprehensive
review of the evidence of the impact of surface water
quality on property values. Sustainability 10(2):500.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020500
O’Neill, C.R. 1993. Control of zebra mussels in residential water systems. New York: New York Sea Grant. 52 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 53 Otts, S., and P. Nanjappa, eds. 2016. Model regulation
for state watercraft inspection and decontamination
programs. National Sea Grant Law Center, University,
MS. NSGLC-16-05-05.

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2021. Uniform Minimum Protocols and Standards for Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination in the Western United
States. Portland, OR, pp 55.

Parmesan, C., M.D. Morecroft, Y. Trisurat, R. Adrian,
G.Z. Anshari, A. Arneth, Q. Gao, P. Gonzalez, R. Harris, J. Price, N. Stevens, and G.H. Talukdarr. 2022. Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and their services.

In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A.

Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A.

Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 197–377,
doi:10.1017/9781009325844.004.

Pimental, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update
on the environmental and economic costs associated
with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52(3): 273–288.

Pucherelli, S.F., J. Keele, Y.J. Passamaneck, J.R. Beaver, and T.R. Renicker. 2016. Range expansion of the invasive hydroid, Cordylophora caspia (Pallas, 1771),
in Colorado River reservoirs. BioInvasions Records
5(3):133–137.

Reynolds, J.D., and R. Donohoe. 2001. Crayfish predation experiments on the introduced zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, in Ireland, and their potential
for biocontrol. Bulletin Francais et la Peche et la Pisciculture 361: 669–682.

Rumzie, N., R. Christopherson, S. O’Meara, Y. Passamaneck, A. Murphy, S. Pucherelli, and J. Trujillo. 2021. Costs associated with invasive mussels impacts
and management. Science and Technology Program,
Research and Development Office, Final Report No.

ST-2021-8142-01.

State of Montana. 2018. Dreissenid Mussel Rapid Response Guidelines. 20pp.

Steele, J., and W.H. Wong. 2015. High turbidity levels
as a first response to Dreissena mussels infection in a natural lake environment. In Biology and Management
of Invasive Quagga and Zebra Mussels in the Western
United States, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.

Strayer, D.L. 2009. Twenty years of zebra mussels: lessons from the mollusk that made headlines. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(3):135–141.

Strayer, D.L., and H.M. Malcom. 2007. Shell decay rates of native and alien freshwater bivalves and implications for habitat engineering. Freshwater Biology 52:1611–1617.

Suchanek, T.H., P.J. Richerson, D.C. Nelson, C.A. EaglesSmith, D.W. Anderson, J.J. Cech, Jr., G. Schladow, R.

Zierenberg, J.F. Mount, S.C. McHatton, D.G. Slotton,
L.B. Webber, A.L. Bern, and B.J. Swisher. 2002. Evaluating and managing a multiple-stressed ecosystem at Clear Lake, California: A holistic ecosystem approach.

Managing For Healthy Ecosystems: Case Studies, CRC/
Lewis Press. pp. 1233–1265.

Swanson, L. 2016. Key trends, dependencies,
strengths, and vulnerabilities in Park County, Montana, and its area economy. Retrieved from https://www.
umt.edu/crmw/Downloads/Key-TrendsPark-CountyArea-Economy5.pdf U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.

Census Bureau. 2011. 2011 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. 162pp.

US Geological Survey. 2016. Zebra mussel and quagga
mussel information resources page. Nonindigenous
Aquatic Species. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=5, Accessed 23 Dec. 2022.

Vissichelli, M. 2018. Invasive species impacts on federal infrastructure. Report for the National Invasive Species Council Secretariat. Deliverable for agreement # IAA4500109775. National Invasive Species Council
Secretariat, Washington, DC.

Walsh, P.J., J. Milon, and D.O. Scrogin. 2011. The spatial extent of water quality benefits in urban housing markets. Land Economics 87(4):628–644.

Western Regional Panel on ANS. 2016. Student Training
Curriculum for Watercraft Inspectors and Decontaminators to Prevent and Contain Invasive Species in the USA, pp 157.

Western Regional Panel on ANS. 2019. Building Consensus in the West Final Activity Report 2011-2019. 28pp.

Western Regional Panel on ANS. 2021. Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Manual. 144pp.

Western Regional Panel on ANS. 2021. Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Trainer’s Manual. 26pp.

Whittier, T.R., P.L. Ringold, A.T. Herlihy, and S.M. Pierson. 2008. A calcium-based invasion risk assessment for zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissena spp). Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(4):180–184.

Wimbush, J., M.E. Frischer, J.W. Zarzynski, and S.A.

Nierzwicki-Bauer. 2009. Eradication of colonizing populations of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) by early detection and SCUBA removal: Lake George, NY.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19: 703–713.

Wolf, D., and H.A. Klaiber. 2017. Bloom and bust: Toxic algae’s impact on nearby property values. Ecological
Economics 135:209–221. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.007.

Wong, W.H., S.L. Gerstenberger, M.D. Hatcher, D.R.

Thompson, and D. Schrimsher. 2012. Invasive quagga
mussels can be attenuated by redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) in the Southwestern United States.

Biological Control http://dx.doi.org/10/1016/j.biocontrol.2012.11.006.

Zhang, C., and K.J. Boyle. 2010. The effect of an aquatic invasive species (Eurasian watermilfoil) on lakefront
property values. Ecological Economics 70(2):394–404.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.011
Zhu, B., D.G. Fitzgerald, C.M. Mayer, L.G. Rudstam, and E.L. Mills. 2006. Alteration of ecosystem function by
zebra mussels in Oneida Lake: impacts on submerged
macrophytes. Ecosystems 9:1017–1028.
54 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 55 Appendices
Appendix A. List of Surface Water Systems that Draw from Clear Lake.

Appendix B. Clear Lake Marinas, Boat Rentals, Public Boat Launches, Marine Services, and Sailing Facilities.

Appendix C. Current Invasive Mussel Screening Locations.

Appendix D. California Regulations Pertaining to Dreissenids.

Appendix E. CDFW Quagga Mussel Observation Report Form.

Appendix F. SAMPLE Draft press release.

Appendix G. Potential Permit Considerations for a Clear Lake Dreissenid Control Action.

Appendix H. Examples of Water Body Monitoring Strategies that can be Employed in Water Bodies in Which Dreissenids Have Been Detected.

Appendix I. Sample County Ordinance and Potential Clear Lake Fishing Contest Activity Fee Schedule.

Appendix J. Comments received on draft plan.

Appendix A. List of Surface Water Systems that Draw from Clear Lake. #
Public
Water
System ID System Name
Contact
Person Phone #/Email
Waste- water
Treat- ment
Plant
Class
# Water
Connec- tions
1 CA1710011 Buckingham Park
Water District
Ahimsah Wonderwheel(707) 279-8568/
[email protected] T3 457
2 CA17100546 Clear Water Mutual
Water Company Michael Reust (707) [email protected] T3 90 3 CA1710001 Clearlake Oaks
County Water District Dianna Mann (707) [email protected] T3 1,961 4 CA1700519 Crescent Bay Improvement Company Mary Benson (707) 994-1005 [email protected] T2 24
5 CA1710002
Golden State Water
Company Clear Lake
System
Keith Ahart (707) 994-6035
[email protected] T3 2,104
6 CA1700568 Harbor View Mutual
Water Company Jerimiah Fossa (707) [email protected] T3 248 7 CA1710003 Highlands Mutual
Water Company Magen Estep (707) [email protected] T4 2,877 8 CA1710006 Konocti County Water District Frank Costner (707) 994-2561 [email protected] T4 1,796
9 NA - Private Konocti Harbor Re- sort & Spa Ken Lambert (707) 461-9203
[email protected];
[email protected]
T2 NA
10 CA1710022 Lake County CSA 20
(Soda Bay) Scott Harter/
Scott Hornung
(707) 263-0119/
(707) 263-0119
[email protected]
[email protected]
T3 647
11 CA1710021 Lake County CSA 21
(North Lakeport) T3 1,196
12 CA1710004 City of Lakeport Paul Harris (707) 263-5615 (ex 402) [email protected] T4 2,232
13 CA1710005 California Water
Service – Lucerne
Meaghann
Tenuta
(530)433-8737
[email protected] T4 1,209
14 CA1710014 Mt. Konocti Mutual
Water Company Alan Farr (707) [email protected] T3 1,572 15 CA1710008 Nice Mutual Water
Company David Fultz (707) [email protected] T4 1,064 16 CA17100603 Richmond Park
Resort Carl Olson (415)[email protected] T3 30 17 CA1700584 Westwind Mobile
Home Park Bill Lee (503) [email protected] T2 38 56 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 57 Appendix B. Clear Lake Marinas, Boat Rentals, Public Boat Launches, Marine Services, and Sailing Facilities.

Marina Address Facilities Contact Information
Braito’s Buckingham
Marina
1555 Eastlake Drive
Kelseyville, CA
Launch Ramp, Dock (covered and open
slips, dry storage), facilities (boating repairs
and accessories)
(707) 279-4868
Blue Fish Cove Resort
10573 East Highway
20, Clearlake Oaks,
CA
Launch Ramp, Dock (slips), facilities (picnic
area, fish cleaning stations, fishing pier,
private swimming beach, lodging)
(707) 998-1769
Konocti Vista Casino
Resort and Marina
2755 Mission Rancheria Rd
Lakeport, CA
Launch Ramp (free for hotel guests), Dock
(slips), facilities (gas, convenience store,
parking for boats and trailers, casino, hotel)
http://www.kvcasino.com/
Clear Lake Cottages &
Marina
138885 Lakeshore
Drive
Clearlake, CA
Launch Ramp, Dock (10-slip marina, $10/
night), facilities (trailer parking, electrical
hookups at marina, swimming pool, Wi-Fi,
lodging)
(707) 995-5253
Clear Lake Vista
Resort
6190 Soda Bay Road
Kelseyville, CA
Launch Ramp (free for resort guests, $10 for
others), dock (free to resort guests), facilities (fuel dock, store, Restaurant, bait shop, lodging, kayak rentals)
http://www.kvcasino.com/
Boat Rentals Address Facilities Contact Information
Disney’s Boat Rentals 401 S. Main St
Lakeport, CA
Jet skis, kayaks, pedal boats, paddleboards,
ski and touring boat, ski/wake boat w/
tower, 115HP deluxe patio boat, fishing
boat with trolling motor
(707) 263-0969
Marine Services Address Facilities Contact Information
Bayshore Marine
Service
7723 Hwy 29
Kelseyville, CA Marc Linscott (707) [email protected] McAtee’s Marine
Repair
90 Soda Bay RD
Lakeport, CA Garret and Debi McAtee (707) [email protected] White & Sons Boatworks Ryan and Pilar White (707) 279-1325 [email protected]
Clear Lake Public
Launch Ramps
Address Facilities Contact Information
Redbud Park (city
park)
14655 Lakeshore
Drive
Clearlake, CA
Restrooms, fishing pier, park (707) 994-8201, ext. 131
Clear Lake State Park
(fees apply)
5300 Soda Bay Rd
Kelseyville, CA
Docks, swimming, restrooms, picnic area,
camping (707) 279-2267
Library Park (3) (city
park)
222 Park Street
Lakeport, CA Docks, swimming
(707) 263-3578
[email protected]
Lakeside County Park 1985 Park Street
Lakeport, CA Swimming, restrooms, picnic (707) 262-1618 Lucerne Harbor
(county park)
6225 E Hwy 20
Lucerne, CA Fishing pier, picnic, restrooms
(707) 262-1618
[email protected]
Rodman Slough
County Park (undeveloped)
1005 Nice/Lucerne
Cutoff
Lakeport, CA
Primitive ramp, swimming, picnic (707) 262-1618
Clearlake Oaks 12684 Island Dr
Clearlake Oaks Fishing pier, swimming, restrooms, picnic (707) 262-1618 Nice Community
Beach
647 Lakeshore Dr
Nice, CA Fishing pier, restrooms, swimming (707) 262-1618 Keeling County Park 3000 Lakeshore Dr
Nice, CA Fishing pier, restrooms, picnic, swimming (707) [email protected] Sailing/Boat Tours Address Facilities Contact Information Disney’s Boat Rentals
401 S. Main St
Lakeport, CA
Jet skis, kayaks, pedal boats, paddle- boards, ski and touring boat, ski/wake boat w/tower, 115HP deluxe patio
boat, fishing boat with trolling motor
(707) 263-0969
Konocti Bay Sailing
Club
1555 Eastlake Dr
Kelseyville, CA Sponsors events at Clear Lake (707) 572-KBSC Clear Lake Sailing
Charters Lakeport, CA Scott Bennett, Captain (707) 349-2584 Lakeport Yacht Club PO Box 313
Lakeport, CA
Promotes sailing and power boating;
holds regattas and other boating
events
(707) 263-5078
58 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 59 Appendix C. Current Invasive Mussel Screen Locations.

Entity Address Days/Hours Open Phone
Indian Beach Resort 9945 Hwy 20, Clearlake Oaks Everyday 7:00am- 6:00pm 707-998-3760 Limit Out Tackle 12607 E. Hwy 20, Clearlake
Oaks Mon-Sun 6:00am-5:00pm 707-998-1006
Clearlake Bait & Tackle 14699 Lakeshore Dr., Clearlake Mon-Thur 6:00am-5pm, Fri-Sat
6:30am-6pm Sun 6:30am-2pm 707-994-4399
Clear Lake Campground 7805 Cache Creek Way,
Clearlake
1:00pm-4:00pm daily, by appointment 707-994-2236
McAtee's Marine Repair 3450 Hill Road, Lakeport Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:00pm 707-263-0440 Hillside Powersports 460 S. Main St, Lakeport Tues-Sat 9:00am-3:00pm 707-263-9000 Clearlake Outdoors 96 Soda Bay Rd., Lakeport Mon-Sat 7:00am-6:00pm, Sun 7:00am-5:00pm 707-262-5852
Lake County Chamber of Commerce875 Lakeport Blvd., Lakeport Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm 707-263-5092 Konocti Vista Casino Resort
Marina
2755 Mission Rancheria Rd.,
Lakeport
Seven days a week
7:00am-Midnight 707-262-1900
Skylark Shores 1120 N. Main St., Lakeport Seven days a week 8am-8pm 707-263-6151 Braito's Marina 1555 East Lake Drive,
Kelseyville 9:00am-4:00pm daily 707-279-4868
Clearlake State Park 5300 Soda Bay Road,
Kelseyville
Sun - Fri 8:00am- 6:00pm, Sat9:00am- 5:00pm 707-279-4293 Kelseyville Lumber & Supply Co. 3555 N. Main Street,
Kelseyville
Mon-Fri 7:00am-5:30pm, Sat
8:00am-5:30pm, Sun 8:00am4:30pm707-279-4297
Borenbega 9080 Soda Bay Road,
Kelseyville Please call, by appointment 707-530-4541
Clear Lake Vista Resort 6190 Soda Bay Road,
Kelseyville 9:00am-5:00pm daily 707-289-4017
Lake Builders Supply 3694 Highway 20, Nice Mon- Fri 7:30am- 5:30pm, SatSun 8:00am- 5:00pm 707-274-6607 Narrows Resort 5690 Blue Lakes Rd, Blue
Lakes Call Ahead 707-477-8360
Konocti Bait Shop 6199 Hwy 20, Lucerne Call Ahead 707-349-8963 Lake Pillsbury Resort 2756 Kapronos Rd, Potter
Valley Call for summer hours 707-743-9935
Soda Creek Store 26853 Elk Mountain Road,
Potter Valley
Seven days a week 9:00am9:00pm 707-743-2148
Suzanne L-B Indian Valley Reservoir,
Mobile Call for Appointment 707-489-6792
Bob Sullivan Screening Flexible, Mobile Flexible, by appointment 707-337-0480 Conrad Clobrandt Flexible, Mobile Call for Appointment 707-245-9181 Mark Holloway Flexible, Mobile Call for Appointment 707-295-9112 Robert Valdez Flexible, Mobile- Lakeport/
Kelseyville Call for Appointment 408-691-7726
Appendix D. California Regulations Pertaining to Dreissenids.

California Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations (updated 12/16/2022) California Aquatic Invasive Species Statutes (updated 12/16/2022) Comparison of California’s watercraft inspection and decontamination programs to the model legal framework (2018)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CA Public Resources Code 21000 et seq)—Requires public disclosure of all significant environmental effects of proposed discretionary projects. If a project is estimated to cause significant effects, documents must describe the mitigation measures and provide justifications for approval of the project with significant effects left unmitigated.

California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (CA Water Code 1300 et seq)—A report of any discharge of waste within a region that could affect the quality of waters of the state must be filed with the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. The State Water Resources Control Board considers application of pesticides to control aquatic invasive species in waters of the state as discharge of a pollutant requiring an NPDES permit.

Fish and Game Code and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations • Fish and Game Code Section 2301 and 2302
• California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 672, 672.1 and 672.2 The importation or interstate transport of zebra and quagga mussels is prohibited by the federal Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378 (for current list of injurious wildlife: https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/pdf_files/Current_Listed_IW.pdf. 60 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 61 Appendix E. CDFW Quagga Mussel Observation Report Form. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives/Quagga-Mussels/Observation-Report Appendix F. SAMPLE Draft Press Release.

Contact: Angela DePalma-Dow, Water Resources Department, County of Lake, CA, 255 N. Forbes St. Lakeport, CA 95453, O: (707)263-2344, C: (530)304-1809
The County of Lake Water Protection District (LCWPD) has declared Clear Lake a “suspect location” for infestation of invasive mussels. This report has been initially verified by California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Efforts are underway to determine the extent of the invasive mussel infestation. This discovery is a serious environmental and economic concern for Clear Lake, Lake County water bodies, and Northern California. Invasive quagga and zebra mussels are small nonnative freshwater mollusks that have caused major problems in the United States after their introduction in the 1980s.

Officials have not yet determined how these mussels entered Clear Lake. Recreational boats are known to be a major vector of invasive mussel spread in the United States, and there are a number of past incidents where boats fouled by invasive mussels have been intercepted prior to launching in waters in the western states.

In preparation for an introduction of invasive mussels in Clear Lake, officials developed a rapid response and transition to containment plan outlining a set of actions to address the initial finding and monitor the situation long term.

Until additional surveys are conducted, the extent of the infestation is unknown. During this phase of rapid response, the District has closed all access to Clear Lake (through the Lake County Sheriff and use of Ordinance 31) to help prevent further potential dispersal of the invasive mussels. The public can help by avoiding Clear Lake and following general guidelines to prevent the spread of invasive mussels. Boaters should clean, drain, and dry all boats, trailers, and other equipment after leaving a lake or stream and never release any live organisms into the wild.

The District’s Angela DePalma Dow administers Clear Lake’s boat inspection program and commented on its importance. “We recognize the inconvenience to boaters and understand the need for additional sampling and identification to determine if this water body is positive for quagga mussels,” said DePalma-Dow. “Our staff will ensure that boats will go through the inspection process as efficiently as possible.” Boaters can assist with the process by arriving at Clear Lake with a clean, drained, and dry vessel. For more information, visit the District’s website at https://www.nomussels.com/. ##
62 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 63 Appendix G. Potential Permit Considerations for a Clear Lake Dreissenid Control Action.

Federal
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit—The application of chemicals to control of dreissenid mussels at Clear Lake would require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has delegated to the State of California the NPDES Program through the State Water Resources Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Lake County falls within Region 5; the Regional Water Board NPDES Program Manager is Jim Marshall, Supervising Water Resource Control Engineer, james. [email protected], (916) 464-4772. California’s Aquatic Animal Invasive Species Control Permit covers the discharges of biological and residual chemical pesticide applications into waters of the United States for aquatic animal invasive species control. The current permit is Statewide NPDES Permit No. CAG 990006; the permit contact is Gurgagn Chand, [email protected], (916) 341- 5780. The NPDES permit does not authorize any act that results in the taking of a threatened or endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act (CEQA) (Fish and Game Code sections 2050 et. seq) or the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.A. sections 1531 et. seq). An emergency exemption would be requested for the use of the chemical potassium chloride, because it is not registered as a molluscicide in the United States, or California. • Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)-Section 18 exemption—Control actions to address dreissenids have been exempted from FIFRA if an emergency exemption is declared. An Emergency Quarantine Exemption under Section 18 of FIFRA would be required because the use of chemical, potassium chloride, is not registered for pesticide use. • National Historic Preservation Act Permit—Any dreissenid control project undertaken with federal funds requires an evaluation according to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

California’s Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) would conduct the evaluation and determine whether historic properties are affected. The OHP assists local governments with meeting CEQA responsibilities with regard to historical resources.
• Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 Consultation—The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs federal agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species. Under Section 7 of the Act, federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) when an action the agency carries out, funds, or authorizes may affect a listed endangered or threatened species. Emergency consultation is an expedited consultation process that considers listed species while allowing an action agency to respond to an emergency situation. Even if a non-federal jurisdiction is leading a rapid response operation, an associated federal action may trigger a need for compliance with Section 7 of the ESA, such as actions that require a federal permit, or actions using federal funds. In general, state response actions involving emergency circumstances and take of listed species are likely to have a federal nexus that will facilitate take coverage under the emergency consultation providing of the implementation regulations for Section 7 of the ESA. Take is defined under the ESA to include: kill, harm, harass, capture, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct. In addition, Section 6 of the ESA allows for the take of listed species by a state agency when it is either:
(a) an action carried out by the state agency (or its designated agent) that is signatory to a current and valid Section 6 cooperative agreement with the Service; is carried out for conservation purposes consistent with the cooperative agreement, a species’ specific recovery plan, and the ESA; and is not reasonably anticipated to result in death, disabling, out-of-state removal, introduction outside of native range, or captivity exceeding 45 days of any federally-endangered species. See Appendix A for the underlying regulatory provision from 50 CFR § 17.21(c)(5). (b) in accordance with a Section 10 permit issued by the Service.

Rapid response to eradicate an incipient introduction of zebra or quagga mussels would fall under the “conservation purposes” criterion in (a).

In emergency situations, consultation does not occur on the emergency; rather, consultation is conducted on the agency response to the emergency, and consultation is handled in an expedited manner. If a formal consultation is required, it is initiated as soon as practicable after the emergency is under control.

Typically, when an emergency situation occurs, the federal action agency (or its designee) contacts the USFWS Regional Ecological Services Office by telephone if an emergency event is determined to be in proximity to listed species or critical habitat and warrants Section 7 consultation. The ESA consultation process is further described here: http://www.crbdirt.com/process.

After containing the infestation and defining the extent of the infestation, Clear Lake authorities must define any threatened or endangered species and their critical habitats within the proposed action area as well as compile relevant information that would influence potential control actions (e.g., water depth, water quality information). Threatened or endangered species and their critical habitats are defined for the proposed action area using Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Then potential response actions are defined based on those species and habitats and any other relevant information about the proposed action area and its footprint. At this stage, local authorities should engage regional USFWS staff to initiate an emergency consultation. The goal of this activity is to inform the federal agency of the detection and its estimated extent, describe the listed species and critical habitats within the potential action area, and discuss the suite of potential actions and the recommended action to control, or eradicate, the dreissenids. Even if no listed species and habitats are detected using IPaC, it is a good practice to consult regional USFWS staff as a check on local authority analyses and to discuss other native fish and wildlife considerations with the partner federal agency.

Note: At the time this plan was developed, the Clear Lake hitch (Lavinia exilicauda chi) and the Foothill Yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) were state listed. In December of 2022, the Center for Biological Diversity requested an emergency listing for the Clear Lake hitch, noting the fish was at significant risk of extinction. The Clear Lake hitch was designated a threatened species under the California’s Endangered Species Act in 2014; spawning has been limited since 2017. A draft conservation strategy (https://lakecountyca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5951) exists for the Clear Lake hitch. The strategy is intended to guide conservation actions to increase reproduction and recruitment, continue and expand monitoring efforts, continue water quality monitoring, develop, and support research projects to inform adaptive management and success criteria for conservation actions, and expand outreach and education programs relating to the hitch. The USFWS is scheduled to re-evaluate the status of the Clear Lake hitch in January of 2025.

State
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify any significant environmental impacts of a project and if feasible, avoid or mitigate those impacts. Generally, CDFW acts as a responsible or trustee agency, supporting a lead agency in determining potentially significant environmental impacts. CDFW provides informal consultation and comments on CEQA documents.

When CDFW is required to act as lead agency, the department may charge and collect a reasonable fee 64 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 65 from the entity to recover its estimated CEQA-related costs ranging from $7,500 to $44,000 (in 2023). CEQA requires lead agencies to submit draft environmental impact reports (EIR), proposed negative declarations (ND), and proposed mitigated negative declarations (MND) to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) at the Office of Planning and Research. A future Clear Lake Dreissenid Control Plan may need to go through the CEQA process and conduct various studies and surveys to support the associated CEQA document.

Depending on the scope of a proposed project, this process can be very time-consuming, taking months or years.
• California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPA)—CDPA protects human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use, and by fostering reduced-risk pest management. • Specific use Scientific Collecting Permit (CDFW)—Fish and Game Code (FGC) sections 1002, 1002.5 and 1003 authorize the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) to issue permits for the take or possession of wildlife, including mammals, birds and the nests and eggs thereof, reptiles, amphibians, fish, certain plants and invertebrates for scientific, educational, and propagation purposes. The Department currently implements this authority through Section 650, Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), by issuing Scientific Collecting Permits (SCP) to take or possess wildlife for such purposes. For more information on SCPs and the associated fee schedule please refer to the following link: Scientific Collecting Permits (ca.gov).
• California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permits (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA/ Permitting)—A Clear Lake Dreissenid Control Action Plan may also include activities that would result in the take of one or more state listed species, including the Clear Lake hitch Lavinia exilicauda chi. If it is determined project activities included in the action plan will result in the take of hitch or other protected plant or animal species, an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) will be required by CDFW. If the proposed action plan has already acquired take authorization from a federal entity, a consistency determination (CD) can be obtained from CDFW instead of an ITP. The cost associated with ITPs and CDs can be found at: FileHandler.ashx (ca.gov). The timeline for acquiring these permits is contingent on the complexity of the project as well as how prepared the environmental documents are, therefore, early consultation with CDFW is highly recommended. Generally, 3–6 months is a reasonable timetable to complete the ITP process. • Lakebed Alteration Agreement (CDFW)—A Clear Lake Dreissenid Control Action Plan may include activities that would require a Lakebed Alteration Agreement (LAA) from CDFW. CDFW requires notification by an entity that proposes an activity that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake, substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank or channel of any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of material into any river, stream, or lake. After submitting a notification, the department has 30 days to review the notification for completeness and an additional 60 days to provide a draft Agreement. The costs associated with LAA can be found in the attached fee schedule. An additional attachment provides instructions on acquiring an LAA Agreement.

To obtain a streambed alteration agreement from CDFW using the Environmental Permit Information Management System (EPIMS), register with EPIMS for an external account and submit a notification application.

California Regional Water Quality Control Boards
•
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are housed within the California Environmental Protection Agency. The SWRCB allocates the rights to the use of surface water, and the RWQCBs protect surface, ground, and coastal waters statewide.

The RWQCBs also issue permits that govern and restrict the amount of pollutants that can be discharged into the ground or a water body.
• Any activities or discharges that affect California’s surface, coastal, or ground waters require a permit from the appropriate RWQCB. Dreissenid control activities would require an NPDES permit from the appropriate RWQCB (see NPDES permit information above). • A report of Waste Discharge would be required to be completed to the local RWQCB. • A Water Quality Certification would be required to be completed for discharges of dredged and fill materials. Under the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule, a “pre-filing meeting” is required with the appropriate Water Board at least 30 days prior to submitting an application for an individual Clean Water Action Section 401 Water Quality Certification. [email protected] and [email protected]
For more information on the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule, visit the Environmental Protection Agency’s webpage. • Application for Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirements - (MS Word) • Application for Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirements - (PD • Dredge and Fill Fee Calculator (effective 11/28/2022) • Application fees shall be based on the current fee schedule. After the certification has become effective, annual fees will be based on the fee schedule at the time of billing. • Application Information - (updated 01/05/2021)
• General Orders
• Issued for Coverage under Federal Permits
• Issued for Coverage under State Water Board initiatives • More Information on the Water Quality Certificate Program 66 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 67 Appendix H. Examples of Water Body Monitoring Strategies That Can Be Employed in Water Bodies in Which Dreissenids have Been Detected.

The following are examples of monitoring strategies in water bodies in which dreissenids have been detected.

The purpose of including these in Lake County’s plan is to illustrate the types and quantities of resources that may be needed to monitor a water body after an initial detection. Clear Lake is estimated to be about 43,520 acres in size. The water bodies used as examples range from 267 acres to 21,244 acres.

Christmas Lake (Minnesota) (excerpted from Lund et al. 2017) — 267 acres 2010-2014 Pre-detection monitoring included surveying for all AIS using snorkels, plant and invertebrate sampling, plankton tows for zebra mussel veligers, and settling plates checked twice monthly during open water season.

August 2014 A total of four attached mussels were observed near a settling plate. Within four days of the discovery, a containment barrier (vinyl floating curtain) was placed around the 15m × 18m area to confine the zebra mussels. Plankton tows were taken at three sites across the lake, and no veligers were found using cross-polarized light microscopy analysis. In the following weeks, a systematic zebra mussel population assessment using SCUBA, snorkel, and wading was conducted within the containment area. About 5,500 zebra mussels were found ranging in size from 2mm to 11mm.

September 2014 Treatment occurred. Following treatment, monitoring occurred every 1–2 days for 14 days posttreatment. Monitoring consisted of collecting surface water samples at various locations inside the treatment area.

Post-treatment Belt transect surveys (30m transect line) parallel to shore were conducted regularly using SCUBA, snorkel, and wading. A comprehensive search of the entire shoreline was also conducted by 18 surveyors using both SCUBA and snorkel gear. In addition to active searches, settlement samplers (four stacked grey PVC plates, 15cm × 15cm) were suspended from docks and buoys at several locations around the lake perimeter. Samplers were checked for juvenile zebra mussels periodically throughout the 2015 summer and removed in the fall.

In May 2015, an extensive lake-wide search led to the discovery of 10 zebra mussels attached to native freshwater mussels outside of previously treated areas at distances ranging from about 10m to 50m from the previous containment barrier’s edge.

After the final 27 June potash treatment, monthly zebra mussel searches occurred in July, August, and September of 2015. Searches consisted of 2–5 divers examining multiple areas around the lake either using snorkeling or SCUBA gear. Zebra mussel sampler plates were checked weekly at the public access dock; 13 volunteer homeowners had zebra mussel sampling plates attached to their docks in various locations on the lake.

After more than a year of extensive efforts to eradicate zebra mussels in Christmas Lake, 16 zebra mussels were found attached to docks, boat lifts, and sampler plates in untreated areas in October 2015.

Tiber Reservoir (Montana) — 21,244 acres
Prior to detection in 2016, 18 plankton tows and two shoreline surveys were conducted annually. In 2017, Tiber was labeled positive for dreissenid mussels based on a plankton tow sample. A total of 85 plankton tows, 28 eDNA samples, 86 shoreline surveys, four substrate samples, four scuba surveys and 14 canine shoreline surveys were conducted in 2017. In 2018, a similar number of samples and sample methods were used, but significantly fewer shoreline surveys were done. In 2019, 120 plankton tow samples and 205 substrate samples were taken. In 2020, a similar number of samples and sample methods were used, but with very few substrate samples taken.

In 2021, 258 plankton tow and 59 eDNA samples were taken, in addition to similar numbers using the remaining previously used methods. In 2022, 70 plankton tow, 4 eDNA, and 12 substrate and 12 shoreline samples were taken. Between 2017–2022, mussels were not detected. Tiber was delisted from mussel positive status that same year. In 2023, sampling effort will mirror the 2022 effort.

Canyon Ferry (Montana) — 9,360 acres
In 2016, 31 plankton tows and three shoreline surveys were conducted. In 2017, Canyon Ferry was labeled as suspect for dreissenid mussels. A total of 148 plankton tows, seven shoreline surveys, 20 substrate samplers, four scuba surveys, and two canine shoreline surveys occurred in 2017. In 2018, 84 plankton tows were conducted, and a similar number of samples and sample methods used similar to the previous year. In 2019, the number of samples taken and sample methods used were similar to the previous year, with the exception of canine shoreline surveys, which were not conducted. Between 2017–2020, mussels were not detected. In 2020, Canyon Ferry was delisted as suspect. Since 2020, annual sampling includes 60 plankton tows and 10 shoreline surveys.

Highline Reservoir (Colorado) — 563 acres
Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff discovered zebra mussels during a routine AIS inspection in September of 2022.

Highline Reservoir was sampled monthly from May–October, including three plankton tows and three settler plates. eDNA sampling was not conducted. A dive team was deployed, however water clarity limited their success. After control actions were taken in early 2023, the reservoir is now monitored on a weekly basis, and will continue to be monitored through October using plankton tows (10 tows per week) that are evaluated via both microscopy and eDNA (50-50). A total of 10 settler plates have been deployed on the reservoir and are checked monthly.
68 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 69 Appendix I. Sample County Ordinance and Potential Clear Lake Fishing Contest Activity Fee Schedule.

ORDINANCE NO. _____
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SPECIAL EVENT FEES FOR ACTIVITiES OCCURRING ON

CLEAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, CA
WHEREAS, Chapter 23.4.2 of the Lake County Code states that The Board of Supervisors shall establish by ordinance fees for an administrative encroachment permit, a buoy permit, and for a special event permit which shall be paid to Lakebed Management; and
WHEREAS, the existing ordinance chapter 23.3.60 defines “Special events” as any organized or planned event taking place on the lake that requires exclusive use of a defined area of the lake for which a publicly recognized organization, business, person, or other entity (profit or non-profit) advertises, invites, or seeks entrants to participate; and WHEREAS, the existing ordinance chapter 23.3.55 also defines a “Racing event” as a planned event wherein participants compete against each other or are timed or where awards, prizes or points are issued; and WHEREAS, Chapter 23.4.1 specifies that No person shall undertake or carry out [D] any use, operation, or activity with a significant impact on the public trust purposes of commerce, navigation, recreation, and fisheries … without first obtaining an administrative encroachment permit from the Lakebed Management; and WHEREAS, The fees will be used to support continued operations by Lakebed Management and the Water Resources Department to continue the needed and required monitoring and management of Clear Lake, to ensure that the items listed in Chapter 23.5.1 are being maintained with minimal to no significant harm from racing or special events; and
WHEREAS, the fees being proposed will follow a tiered schema that will have no / minimum financial impact to local, charitable events, or non-profit organizations, and be commiserate with the special event fees being issued in other areas or regions with similar facilities, fisheries, and events.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LAKE ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

The proposed fee schedule was introduced before the Board of Supervisors on the _______ day of _____________ , 2020, and passed by the following vote on the ____ day of ________ , 2020.

AYES: NOES: ABSENT OR NOT VOTING:
________________________
Chair Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:

CAROL J. HUTCHINGSON APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Clerk of the Board ANITA L. GRANT
Legal Counsel
By: _____________________________ By: _______________________ DRAFT Proposed 2020 -2021 Clear Lake Fishing Contest Activity Fee schedule Table 1. Proposed Lake County Lake Event Fee Tiers
Lake
County
Tier #1
CDFW
Category
Lake County Contest DescriptionMAXIMUM
Proposed Fee
Assesssed
Example Events
1 Annual Local & High School Clubs
(25 vessels or less) $0 High School Bass ClubClear Lake Bassmasters 2 Annual
Non-local Clubs & organizations, NonProfit (must show 301c ID # or charitable event information), school clubs, high
school tournaments (25 vessels or less)
$50
Team Tournaments
Annual Leukemia Benefit
Soldiers Wish Annual
3 Annual
Local and non-local club events, organization events non-commercial (25 – 49 vessels)
$200 American Bass
NewGen
4 Event Major Non-local Commercial Tournaments (50 vessels or more) $500 FLW W.O.N. Bass

1. Fees can be paid over the phone or in person at Water Resources prior to a scheduled contest event.

2. Fees not paid prior to an event will be issued via invoice retroactively, either hand delivered to event director during event or via USPS, after the event based on registered participating boats present on the day of tournament, according to posted standings at the end of the first day.

Table 1. Example of could-be dollars generated based
on 2018 & 2019 contest schedule.
2018 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Number of Events 27 55 59
Max Price $50 $200 $500
Subtotal Range $0-$1350 $11,000 $29,000
Total for 2018 Max = $42,700
2019 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Number of Events 27 55 61
Max Price $50 $200 $500
Subtotal Range 0-$1350 $11,000 $30,500
Total for 2019 Max = $42,850

GRAND TOTAL FOR
2018 AND 2018 Max = $85,550 (2 years)
70 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 71 Discussion of Fees proposed:

Unlike many of the public-access lakes in Northern
California, Clear Lake does not have daily use or launch fees. The above proposed fee amounts are based on
the expected number of vessels participating in the
event and the estimated amount generated during
other lake’s day use vessel fees. Currently, Clear Lake does not impose any day-use fees or launch fees for
any water craft, vessels, or activities on the lake. This is in comparison to other regional lakes which do impose
small, similarly-priced fees (Table 3).

Table 3. Current day-use or launch fees for northern California regional lakes.

Lake / Reservoir
Name
Use / Launch fee per day as
of December 2020
Folsom $10
Natoma $10
Berryessa $10
Sonoma $15
Shasta $12
Tahoe $55-75
Mendocino $3
New Hogan $4
Almanor $0
The cost for maintaining the water quality and quantity of Clear Lake to a standard that supports a beneficial
fishery is increasing every year and the funds generated to maintain the level of management and maintenance on the Lake are stagnant. The County has proposed several tax-generating water quality related
ballot measures over the last ten years, although none
of them have passed the majority needed to raise revenue. Implementing a special event “fishing contest” fee system will help the County maintain and improve
the current standard of management and maintenance
of the lake and its physical, chemical, and biological
quality.

Participants of fishing contests travel long distances
to experience the Clear Lake fishery (Figure 1.), sometimes participating in highly competitive large-scale commercial multi-day fishing tournaments that
sometimes require a $500 entrance fee or more. The
proposed one-time contest fee of $10 or less per boat,
per event, is miniscule compared to the overall investment of what these participants are paying to travel to, prepare, and participate in these contests.

Additionally, this small fee per event is going to help maintain the lake to a standard that will only continue to support the fisheries that is the main draw for these contests while simultaneously providing support for
improved management for a resource that locals depend on for fishing, swimming, boating, and drinking.

Figure 1. Map of source locations of vessels that visited Clear Lake in 2018 only. Data derived from QZ screening from zipcodes.

Appendix J. Comments Received on Draft Plan.

From: Betsy Cawn <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 4, 2023, 3:04 PM
Subject: Q/Z Containment Plan - Summary Comments and detailed list of concerns To: Angela DePalma-Dow <[email protected]>
Dear Angela,
In addition to the detailed items listed below (my way of taking in the specific contents and then musing upon them), I would summarize my reaction to the proposal as follows:

1. It is imperative to make the Board of Supervisors understand that:
a. The huge impacts of Q/Z on Lake County — including horrific water plant expenditures, loss of tourism, loss of property values, and LOSS OF PREVENTION FUNDING (which you explained to me on the phone) — in comparison to the investment in prevention needs to be prominent in the explanation to them. b. The “every minute counts” prioritization of this project cannot be overstated. Is there an up-to-date map showing the state’s and region’s infested water bodies, that might be illustrated with the costs of management? For example, after their diversion pipes became packed with Q/Z in Colorado River waters, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California paid for diving teams to go in and scrape them off the insides of the pipes. I think injections of chlorine into upstream locations were also tried, and probably pre-filtration treatment facilities to finish the purification process before aggregating supplies to distribute to their (then) 19M+ customers. The made a very cool video of the dive team but it has long since been lost on the internet. c. The vulnerability of the hundreds of access points, private and public, should warrant both strong ordinances and seeking the state (DWR and Lands Commission) authority to control public access points and implement updated ordinances applicable to private parcels on the shoreline. [We spent a lot of time looking at alternatives, but the most favored were 24-hour operable gates at launch ramps. A complementary technical solution was to install transponders on all vessels, which would contain locations of every reservoir check point that could be read by local reading devices programmed to prevent unlocking of the gate if the vessel was shown to have been in an infected water body, tied to the state-wide notification system.]

2. Agonizing lag-times in between detection and notification steps cannot possibly be reasonable. Emergency status needs to be given to lab testing for confirmation, warnings, public access closures (temporary during confirmation step), etc., and all of the response steps require advanced implementation BEFORE the incident in which waterborn veligers are found. Hell of a lot of work, but if it is not done (partner agreements, communication systems, etc.) then the inevitable scramble to cobble together the agreements and preparedness of the partner agencies will delay the “rapid response” quality of emergency status.

3. Promoting the public awareness of the existing prevention program is one of the priorities considered by the Clear Lake Advisory Committee (between 2010 and 2014), and all the same (nearly standard) marketing ideas that we put together for the Clean Water Program could be revived. For that matter, the Clean Water Program Management Council should be one of those “partners” in the INVESTMENT in prevention and strengthening of the county’s “instruments of authority” (ordinances).

4. Please identify any water body similar to Clear Lake (not some small isolated man-made reservoir that can 72 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 73 tolerate the total eradication of all species for the sake of killing the dreissenids) that has used the recommended chemical treatment, at what cost, and using what emergency response methods (closure to public uses, notification, monitoring, etc.) that indicates that the proposed “containment” will work.

I fully support the pro-active effort to address this critical issue and appreciate the opportunity to add my concerns to your thinking on this project. If it were not for your work, we would not even have a Clean Water Program, let alone a renewed effort to protect our beautiful ecosystem.

Betsy
====================================================
Page by page content review comments:

1. P.8 - Objectives and Capability Targets, 1st bullet point (Planning):
“Capability Target — Within one week of a dreissenid confirmation, describe the roles and responsibilities of partner organizations involved in incident management response across all jurisdictions, and sequence the scope of tasks needed to prevent, protect, mitigate, and respond to the introduction.” Comment: The model for creating pre-designed scenarios and identifying the “roles and responsibilities of partner organizations” — for example, the City of Lakeport’s executable “Emergency Operations Plan” (unlike our county’s EOC) — should be developed along with the rest of this plan could easily be established ahead of time — ready to deploy as soon as the presence of any form of Q/Z mussel (veliger, “infant” and “mature” individual specimens) is detected. Waiting a week increases the chances of exposure to vessels launched in the lake that, in theory, could be stopped from entering the identified “area” where the specimen(s) are found, at the very least. I would personally halt all watercraft from entering the entire water body until the hypothetically possible segregation of the “area” from the rest of the water body is deemed successful.

Likewise, the time allowed for notifying the state’s QZM-AIS Regional Coordinator) is too long. Immediate or A.S.A.P. (top priority action) should be one of the steps identified in the action plan described in the previous paragraph.

Ditto the “Within one week of a dreissenid detection, and within three days of a dreissenid confirmation” delivery of “reliable and actionable message within the public and collaborators that define the threat, describe actions being taken, and include required actions by the public and collaborators.” Alerts need to be crafted in advance, ready to launch by all agencies using every available form of media, in the manner prescribed by the federal Emergency Alert System operation instructions. The State’s Emergency Management agency designation of the Mendocino-Lake operational area is described in document found here:
https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Warning-Center/Documents/03-Mendo-Lake-Comp-Public.pdf Short of issuing a “Nixle” or “Lake County” Alert by the Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services, the local OES relies heavily on “social media” which is often slow, at best. All out social media, television, radio, and newspaper announcement campaigns need to be laid out ahead of time, and the Sheriff’s Public Information Office needs to be a major “partner” in the scheme of pre-determined action plans, as described above.

Methods for restricting access at all public facilities and private properties with launch capabilities — similar to the actions taken by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency after the 2005 discovery of Q/Z in Lake Havasu — which were deemed impossible in the Clear Lake basin because of the State Lands Commission delegation of lakebed management to the County as a “public trust asset.” This is the nut to crack, and needs to be taken up by the many agencies who are officially lobbying the state and federal authorities in fora such as the CSAC and RCRC, League of Cities, etc. to which individual Supervisors are appointed.

As I recall, the determination that Clear Lake is the only recreational water body in the state that does not have control of its access points and does not charge “entrance” or “use” fees, was made back around 2010 or 2011, during the time when alternatives for restricting access to actually inspected vessels were being posited, considered by (among others) the Clear Lake Advisory Committee. Contentious meetings of that BoS-appointed body led to its ultimate dissolution in 2014 by the Board of Supervisors.

Ditto the second “Capability Target” (continued on Page 9), “[O]ne month prior to taking action to attempt to eradicate, or limit [“limit” — really?] the spread of dreissenids, deliver reliable messages to the public and collaborators about potential control actions [“control actions”?] and any necessary temporary closures, or shutdowns (e.g., municipal water suppliers, self-supplied water users).”

2. P.9, Operational Coordination:
“Capability Target: Within one week of a dreissenid detection, establish and maintan an Incident Commend Structure (ICS) and process with partner organizations.” Comment: Same as above; use the City of Lakeport’s Emergency Operations Plan model to establish pre-incident command systems and partnership roles and responsibilities. Any amount of time spent on trying to catch up after the detection only adds to the potential for further spread.

Ditto “Within one week of a dreissenid detection, provide notification to decision makers and partners involved in incident management of the curent and projected situation.” Likewise, the action taken to “ensure all watercraft launched in Clear Lake have both local inspection stickers and state mussel fee stickers, and are clean, drained, and dry prior to launch” needs to be enforceable and comprehensive, neither of which are capacities we have at this time.

3. P.10, continuation of Screening, Search, and Detection targets:
“Ensure all high-risk watercraft launched in Clear Lake are inspected prior to launch.” Not possible under the current program’s scope and abilities. Keep in mind that the contamination of the San Luis State Recreation Area was contaminated by a fisherman whose gear was loaded with Q/Z mussels — not a vessel of any kind, let alone those considered to be “high risk.”
Annual review of relevant threats and hazards, vulnerabilities, and strategies for risk management covering publicly managed and/or regulated critical infrastructure is insufficient to provide rapid response. This process should be on the radar of all agencies and “partner” organizations at all times.

Likewise, “. . .within 60 days of a dreissenid detection,” etc., all too little, too late. See above comments.

4. P.16 - Vulnerability of Clear Lake and Regional Water Bodies to Dreissenids:
“Clear Lake is at a high risk for introduction of dreissenids because of the volume of out-of-county boaters that use the water body, the reputation nationally as a blue-ribbon warm water fishery, numerous and free access points for visiting boaters, and water chemistry condusive to invasive mussel establishment (Lake County Watershed Protection District 2019).” 74 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 75 Comment: Clear Lake is at EXTREME risk for introduction of dreissenids because of the inability to prevent contaminated vessels from entering the lake at all locations and at all times, and the stated environmental conditions in Clear Lake “and other water bodies within Lake County” and other vulnerabilities explained in the chapter.

5. P.17 - Potential Effects of Invasive Mussels on Clear Lake (continued on P.18):
“Increased occurrences of harmful algal blooms (Higgins and Vander Zanden 2010) can contribute to declines in fish populations (Knoll et al. 2008).”
Comment: The term “harmful algal blooms” should be replaced with “potentially toxic cyanobacterial blooms,” which is a condition well documented in Lake Erie, where the reduction of beneficial algae — nutrient sources for the entire “food web” supporting the abundant wildlife population in the basin and lake — and the overabundance of cyanobacteria caused the 4-day shutdown of the public water system in Toledo, Ohio, in 2014. Rapid notification of water users was accomplished so quickly that no one became ill as a consequence of the detection of Microcystins in the city’s water supply. [I’d love to know how they did that.] “Proactive, pre-invasion management investments that emphasize the importance and early detection are much lower than reactive, post-invasion expenditure (Cuthbert et al. 2022).” Exactly the reason why the County (a.k.a., the “Watershed Protection District) and all “partner” agencies — which must include the Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District — should take immediate strong action to control access to the lake from public and private locations of all kinds, as was recommended unanimously by the Clear Lake Advisory Committee years ago.

The litany of other impacts is well rehearsed in subsequent sections of the chapter through the end of “Page 21” — note that after Page 19 there are no more page numbers to refer to. I’ll try to keep them counted in my head for further comments.

6. P.22 Chapter 3 - Rapid Response Strategy, Confirmation of Detection:
“Regardless of the nature of the initial detection, per Fish and Game Code Section 2301, ‘any entity that discovers dreissenid mussels within the state shall immediately report the discovery to the CDFW.’” Comment: Immediacy of the actions taken following an “initial detection” need to be prioritized, defined in the pre-detection Incident Command plan, and take precedence over other actions of responsible agencies, including confirmation and rapid closure of the water body as soon as humanly possible.

7. P.24, Declaration of Emergency in Lake County and Notification Communication:

See previous comments about pre-detection Incident Command planning and top-priority communication capacities.
[Fig. 3 = P.25]

8. P.26, Activate Incident Command System and Response Team, Containment:
“Containment options may include a suite of strategies to address any possible vector of spread leaving Clear Lake, including watercraft, infrastructure, water delivery systems, and other human activities.” Comment: Preventing the spread by restricting the travel of vessels from Lake County would be very difficult, unless there is a mechanism for identifying every vessel that is launched into the lake during the period of time prior to the initial detection — which can only be accomplished by controlling access 24 hours a day. Possibly, rapid releases of Nixle alerts might be helpful, but for those vessels belonging to our-of-county visitors who may have already left the county, a statewide alert — to every vessel with the state stickers, for example — might be in order.

9. P.27, Activation of Communication
Comment: signage, signage, signage. State highway electric info signs, 610 AM radio, etc., electric signage at the entrances and exits to the county — as was also recommended many years ago — starting with major units at the bottom of the hill where Highway 20 takes off from Highway 101 and at the junction of Highway 16 and Highway 20 on the eastern end for preventing ingress to a contaminated water body; bottom of the hill at the beginning of the Highway 29 access to the southern side, outside of Calistoga, and Highway 175 just outside Hopland at the bottom of the Hopland Grade.

10. P.28, Response Actions
“Considerations that may inform response actions include “o Anticipated costs of eradication effort and subsequent monitoring, couple with available funding” Comment: First, the anticipated costs of eradication efforts should be compared with the costs of actual prevention, and responsible County officials need to ensure that allocation of actual prevention and response costs are identified in budget allocations (including “contingency” and “disaster response” reserve funds).

Ditto “[A]vailable resources” — realistic estimates need to be weighed in making any decision about how to proceed with this proposed plan.

That is a great list of the factors and possible actions to be prioritized well before creation of a failure-based response plan.

11. P.29, Control Response Options
Comment: despite the invention of new products that may be safely applied in drinking water reservoirs, the size of the lake, its constant circulation (making it hard to “contain” a given area of the lake), and porousity (uncontrolled points of access) make it highly unlikely that anything less than a full-scale (and immediate) treatment for the lake, especially the 17 agencies that extract and distribute lake water for domestic and commercial uses, would be nearly impossible.

I would like to see any report that describes “control” or “eradication” of a water body with similar size, environmental characteristics, and degrees of vulnerability (vulnerabilities that include lack of local or state funding for responses, given that once the species is detected, the Department of Boating and Waterways — the only current source of revenue for “prevention” funding — no longer provides funding). As I understand it, there is no county general fund allocation for the proposed or alternative response activities, and the economic impacts to the entire county (loss of property values, escalating drinking water treatment costs, loss of water-based recreactional tourism, increased public health and emergency management costs, and progressive losses of natural resources) can be just as catastrophic as any of the major wildfires that have occurred.

12. P.32, Transition to Containment
76 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 77 Comment: absolute prevention first, based on cost-tradeoff analysis and up-to-date risk assessments of the region, state, and across-the-country to inform the determination of the “worst case scenario” of Q/Z introduction and proliferation over time in all of our water bodies and the millions of systems outside the county that are fed by our headwater orginal geophysical formations.

In 2008, the head scientist of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (William Taylor) attended a California Lake Management Society at the Yacht Club in Lakeport. He described to me their response plan at its costs that were necessary after the discovery of the Q/Z mussels in the Colorado River (source of a significant percentage of MWD’s input flows), and the tremendous fear the District has of the possibiity of an investation of Clear Lake becoming the source of downstream species spread through the Delta Mendota Canal fed by the Clifton Forebay in the San Francisco Bay Delta area.
[There used to be a great video recording of the MWD’s underater divers scraping the screens and other raw water filtration systems in the major distribution pipes leading to MWD facilities from the Colorado River. That’d scale the bejeezus out of anyone, and that was back in 2008.] “If dreissenids cannot be eradicated using chemical, biological, or mechanical methods, containment strategies must be implemented long-term to contain dreissenids to the source water body.” We should ask Las Vegas odd makers to calculate the chances of that not happening (see the previous two paragraphs). Maybe we could fund the necessary development of strict shoreline protection with gambling devices and tailored on line betting at the casinos.

13. P.33, Outreach Materials to Inform Public of Transition Strategy As a critical part of the County’s Clean Water Program, vastly improved signage and communication systems must be created and deployed. Among the many missing elements of outreach and education, the real estate industry (including builders, bankers, brokers and bureaucrats) need to be put to the task of supporting public education at all levels. We proposed the use of the State’s “Environmental Education Initiative” many years ago, responding to other programs which highlighted the use of underage residents to reach their parents and neighborhoods. Still haven’t seen much of that with the exception of pre-incident drills responding to “active shooter” incidents and COVID-19 practices.

14. P.35, Chapter 4 - Legal Authorities and Statutes
Comment: The county’s punitive ordinance for owners of vessels or other equipment lacking the appropriate local “stickers” is barely enforceable (ref. Judge Shanda Harry personal comments to me in 2012) and utterly futile given that once a non-compliant vessel has deposited any form of Q/Z mussel into the lake, fining them $1,000 is absurd. While the current ordinance may be helpful in forcing errant vessel owners to pay the price of local stickering (with attendant flaws in the validation of “affidavit” self-assertions of vessel sanitation and lack of exposure to water bodies with known Q/Z presence).

15. P.36, California Fish and Game Code Sections 2301 and 2302:

Comment: as a result of the CalTrans designation of Highway 20 between the intersections of Highways 29 and 53 as restricted to only transport of volatile fuels specifically making local deliveries, with CHP enforceable designated Highway 29 (on the northern end) and Highway 53 (on the eastern end) for volatile fuel transport vehicle restrictions, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was required to change the designation of Clear Lake from a “natural water body” to a “reservoir.”
As the legally authorized “manager” of the reservoir known as Clear Lake, under Supreme Court adjudication, the Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District should be required to participate in the cost and enforcement of access restrictions that are currently unobtainable because of the “public trust asset” status of the State Lands Commission (1973) and consequent levels of uncontrolled access to the lake. (CDFW Code Sections 2301 and 2302)

16. P.37, California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 672.1, Control Plan:
“Within 60 days of CDFW requesting, or within 60 days of dreissenids being detected, public or private agencies that operate water supply systems must immediately develop a dreissenid mussel control plan and implement measures to prevent further spread.”
Comment: Again, too late, insufficient, and virtually useless unless the Incident Command system is developed in advance of detection. If the County and “partner” agencies — incuding YCFC&WCD — do not allocate funding and prioritize the development of this component, every property owner and all water systems in the county are threatened by the vulnerabilities inherent in the current level of prevention.

17. P.38, Recommended Amendments to Ordinances in Chapters 15 and 23 and other Code Ordinances:
“Add a definition for ‘pollutant’ and explicitly include a reference to aquatic invasive species (AIS). Aquatic invasive species are pollutants under the federal Clean Water Act, thus the reference is probably not necessary from a legal standpoint.”
Comment: In addition to the prohibition against releasing anything into the lake except proven “clean water,” as per the US Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge & Elimination System state and regional permitting programs, the specific responsibility for prevention of pollution of the lake is cited in the State Lands Commission delegation of authority for lakebed management to the County of Lake in 1973 (reference document found on the Lake County Water Resources website).
“Add a definition of ’significant impact’ that includes the decision threshold. ’Significant impact’ is the term used in the ‘catch-all’ permit procedure in Section 23-4.”
Comment: The correct term should be “catastrophic impact.” The reference to “Section 23-4” is presumed to be to the Lake County Municipal Code Section 23?
“Consider mentioning AIS in Section 6.4(B) Construction (page 11) — e.g., materials used in construction should be free from AIS, materials should be decontaminated before moving to another site, etc.” Comment: (a) what is “Section 6.4(b) Construction (page 11)? (b) I know of no defined process for decontamination of construction materials in any of the existing literature, including instruments of authority such as ordinances and statutory code. Imagining the materials that might be subject to this rule, such as docks and piers and other structures protruding into the margin of the lake subject to encroachment permits (“far shore” underwater areas of private property that can be “leased” from the County for construction permitting and annual fees), by what wild imagining is the notion of decontaminating them and then transporting them to any other location for what purpose? Well beyond the capacity of private property owners and surely a massive impact on public access location managers.
“Several sections in ordinances that have the potential to include language associated with containment:” and “As a condition of the shoreline encroachment permit, the county could require . . .” Comment: Sure.
78 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 79 “In addition, and outside the scope of the shoreline ordinance, but potentially associated with other statutes, the county could likely impose an annual inspection of structures as part of routine county inspections; these inspections could incorporate both safety issues as well as AIS.” Comment: The county is unable to muster the levels of inspection and enforcement that resulted in many neighborhoods being terrorized by vandalism, squatters in abandoned/foreclosed homes (with banks walking away from their losses, rather than protecting them), illicit drug activities, and “side effects” such as fires and contamination of the watershed.

Unable to “compete” with other regional counties for state mandated workforces, agencies such as the Department of Social Services, Behavioral Health, and law enforcement sectors, how would the county staff and support the additional inspectors? What ordinances and approved worker classifications would be required to add these duties to existing overloaded staff? How will the law enforcement and courts be able to take action once violations are certified? Just can’t see this happening, even if it makes perfect sense.

18. P.39, Recommended Amendments to Ordinances in Chapters 15 and 23 and other Code Ordinances (continued):
“The county could state in its ordinances that it is unlawful to launch a boat from any place other than a ramp, private dock, pier, designated beach.” The section goes on to cite examples in Washington state and Arizona.

Comment: Again, please consider the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency rules that govern Lake Tahoe, which has a minimum requirement of full inspection prior to issuance of launch permits, a $5,000 fine for any shoreline property owner that launches his or her privately owned water vessel from their dock, pier, or ramp, and a $5,000 fine for any vessel owner that does the same thing at the location of the privately owned launch site, with both the owner of the vessel and the property owner fined for the same incident.

Funding provides for enforcement patrols with the authority to impound vessels and issue citations resulting in the $5K fines, and the limited number of controlled access points are provided with instruments of authority that enable them to impound vessels found to be contaminated with the Q/Z mussel species for decontamination.

The Shoreline Protection Ordinance lacks the necessary “teeth” to overcome property owner unwillingness to comply, and tools for all levels of enforcement to stop the illegal introduction of possibly infested vessels (of all kinds, not just motorized and “trailered”) to the water bodies in Lake County.

19. P.40, Chapter 5 - Transition to Containment
Comment: Given the preceding comments, the “Initial Actions” are inadequate, since they occur after the discovery of the invasive species already present in the infested water body.

20. P.41, Dreissenid Mitigation by Water Purveyors
Comparison to Coachella Valley Water District program.

Comment: The source of flowing source water for the CVWD is the canal constructed for diversion of Colorado River water, totally under the control of the water district? [LOOK UP]

21. P.42, Potential Solutions to Mitigate, or Eradicate, Invasive Mussels from Clear Lake. “Some methods are appropriate solely for hydropower facilities and water delivery systems, in which fish and other aquatic species are not present and the water can be treated before being released into a sewage system.” “Although the website [Columbi River Basin response toolkit and control methods] outlines numerous potential control options, many treatments may not be appropriate or feasible for response in open-water systems because of their toxicity to other aquatic species, including fishes, native bivalves, shellfish, and aquatic intevertebrates.” Comment: Could there be a detailed map of the lake features, including water plant and self-provided water system types, possible treatment types for those features, public access points, critical habitats, locations of inspection and decontamination stations, and a list of the allowable substances and “methods” that can be applied to the drinking water supply?
What is the equipment that would guarantee the separation of an infested water area from the rest of the water body? How is it deployed? Are there studies that describe its effectivity, and costs for initial purchase, maintenance, repair, replacement, and installation?

22. P.43 - Transition Goal:
“…the initial goal is to avoid the risk of spreading mussels to other water bodies while follow-up sampling determines the extent of infestation. During this estimated six-week period, all watercraft leaving Clear Lake would be inspected and decontaminated at four inspection stations located around the perimeter of Clear Lake. Ideally, these would be permanent watercraft inspection stations already established prior to the introduction of dreissenids. However, if these are not established stations, check stations would be created at four optimal locations to intercept all watercraft leaving Clear Lake. Nightly boat ramp and shore launching closes [sic, “closures”?] would be implemented to ensure all watercraft are inspected.” Comments: Six weeks? Can’t the turn-around time be expedited in some way? Shouldn’t an emergency declaration occur as soon as the early detection is confirmed, and a preliminary declaration be required, then triggering the appropriate rapid notifications? The Clear Lake Advisory Committee recommended the placement of inspection stations at the primary points of ingress to the county (major highways 29 [south], 20 [east and west], and 175 [west]) and the cost and complexity of siting these stations was found to be insurmountable.

A system that would implant computerized registration devices on every vessel, which could be “read” before controlled access systems could be activated (electronic gates) to stop any vessel for screening if it did not display the local sticker and/or had been previously launched in an infested water body, was rejected. Cost estimates varied widely between the projections from the County Departments of Public Works and Public Services and those of private contractors.

Methods for ensuring the closure of boat ramp and shore launching [sites] would entail some form of barrier installations and enforcement staff covering all of the shoreline locations, another expense that was deemed unachievable in the conceptual designs of automated electronic gates and sensors that private contractors recommended as a method of site controls.

Likewise, the implementation of a “Local Boater Program” does not prevent local vessel owners from traveling out of the county to possibly infested water bodies, and those who ignore the requirement to have their vessels recertified as mussel-free. (Lakeport City Councilman Roy Parmentier openly stated that he frequently traveled out of county for water-based recreation and would not comply with the requirement to have his vessel rescreened when he return. As a prominent local official with long-standing admiration for his earlier water skiing and speed-boat championships, his announcement was widely hailed as another indication of the sticker-based 80 Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake Invasive Mussel Introduction Rapid Response and Containment Transition Plan for Clear Lake 81 “prevention” program flaws.)
Short-Term Suspect Status:
“After the initial detection, follow-up sampling will occur and results will take about six weeks to be reported.” [See comments above.] “Within one week, available resources will be necessary to perform required clean, drain, dry exit inspections of all boats leaving the lake and decontamination of undrainable areas, such as ballast tanks. All watercraft leaving Clear Lake will receive a seal and seal receipt to verify the watercraft recieved an exit inspection. Quick action will be needed to mobilize the necessary personnel and resources to effectively meet these obligations.”
Comment: Sounds like a very expensive prospect, and one that needs to support by the Board of Supervisors for funding, staffing, planning, inspection station design and placement, launch site closures, the whole kit and kaboodle. I would support that as long as it is a commitment made by the BoS in conjunction with the authorization of this “plan.”

23. P.44, Short-Term Suspect Status (continued from P.43):

Comments: The first paragraph needs to be at the head of the line in the introduction. “Immediately after initial detection, job announcements and requisitions should be prepared so personnel can be hired and additional equipment can be purchased as quickly as possible once follow-up results are available.” Comment: Given the complexity of the existing hiring process for the county’s HR system, and the specificity of skills and training requirements, the job descriptions need to be established with program outreach to prepare for willing local participants to step into these situations A.S.A.P. (very short number of days, if not immediately after detection).

I definitely support the use of physical barriers controlling all public access points and closure of the lake 1/2 hour after sunset until 1/2 hour before sunrise, in any event, along with full closure of said access points if the lake is immediately classified fro “suspect” to “infested” status.

Rapid Response — Long-Term Suspect Status
Comment: all of which still require controlling access, and all other preventive measures, not just for three years but in perpetuity.

24. P.46, Estimated Costs (Table to be Completed)
Comment: Can’t wait to see this one.

25. P.50 - Chapter 6, Permanent Decon Station Feasibility Analysis

26. P.53 - Long-term Management Recommendations (This section is incomplete) Comment: “Reporting” is covered by many comments above, but definitely needs to be the horse before the cart (along with “Collaboration” and “Local Ordinances”), as my summary comments will state.

27. P.55 - References (and see the webpages provided for this project with hyperlinks to some important reports that are the basis for developing the project proposal)

28. P.61 - Appendices [VERY IMPORTANT CONTENT —
extremely useful also for new General Plan, Area Plan,
Safety & Health & Land Use & Water Resources element
updates on the horizon]
=============================================
==
Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 1 Agenda Item # VI.B.1.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council ☒
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District ☐
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority ☐
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport ☐

STAFF REPORT
RE: Authorize the Continuance of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Cameras for 5 additional years
MEETING DATE: 01/16/2024
SUBMITTED BY: Chief of Police Brad Rasmussen
PURPOSE OF REPORT: ☐Information only ☐ Discussion ☒Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

In January of 2022, the City Council authorized the Chief of Police to implement an Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Program and expend the necessary funding to fulfill a 2-year contract for 8 cameras in the City of Lakeport. After this authorization, the Lakeport Unified School District (LUSD) entered into an agreement with the city to add 2 more cameras to our system, which covered entry and exit of school district property. To continue this valuable program and save money, I am now asking the council to authorize the city to enter into a 5-year agreement for the 10 cameras with the school continuing to pay for 2 of the cameras over the 5-year term.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The ALPR technology allows for the automated detection of license plates from video streams placed at fixed locations and on mobile vehicles. It is used to convert data associated with vehicle license plates for official law enforcement purposes, including identifying stolen or wanted vehicles, stolen license plates and missing persons. It may also be used to gather information related to active warrants, homeland security, electronic surveillance, suspect interdiction, and stolen property recovery.

ALPR technology is widely deployed within law enforcement and has proven useful in solving multiple types of cases. It is also a force multiplier by allowing computers to catalog license plate info from many hours, days and weeks of data into a searchable format, readily accessible for law enforcement officers. In the absence of this technology, officers would have to manually review the video footage to try and find a plate of interest for an investigation.

Since implementation, Lakeport Police Department has successfully used the ALPR system in 70 investigations to include: drunk driving, possession of stolen property, hit and run, vehicle theft, burglary, trespassing, prowling, assault, vandalism, domestic violence, possession of drugs for sale, grand theft, missing persons, false crime reports, contributing to a minor, identity theft, assault with a deadly weapon, false vehicle registration, check fraud, misappropriation of property, terrorist threats, child sexual assault, stalking, illegal firearm possession and tracking an out of area homicide suspect who was in our city.

In addition to tracking and apprehending dangerous suspects, recovering stolen vehicles and property, and seizing drugs and illegal firearms, this system has proved invaluable to helping us protect victims, school campuses and the general public.

Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 2 Agenda Item # VI.B.1.

The reason for the 5-year contract request is that the ALPR company, Flock Safety, is raising the cost per year per camera by $500.00. By entering this contact, we would avoid the cost increase and stay at $2500.00 per year per camera for a total of $25,000.00 per year for the 10 cameras with the total contract cost being $125,000.00.

Contracts for these savings were originally required by December 31, 2023, however Flock Safety allowed us to place a draft contract in their system pending signature prior to the end of January, should the City Council authorize this request tonight.

LUSD Superintendent Matt Bullard has submitted a letter to the city and police department indicating the district is in support of this contract and it is anticipated that the school board will allocate $25,000.00 for the project at their February 15, 2024, meeting.

OPTIONS:

Authorize the 5-year contract request.

Do not authorize the contract and enter into a shorter contract at a higher cost.

Remove the cameras and terminate the program.

FISCAL IMPACT:
☐ None ☒ $125,000.00 Budgeted Item? ☒Yes ☒ No
Budget Adjustment Needed? ☒Yes ☐ No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $5,000 Affected fund(s): ☒ General Fund ☐ Water OM Fund ☐ Sewer OM Fund ☐ Other:

Comments: $20,000 is budgeted for FY 23-24. The budget adjustment of $5,000 will cover the current year. $25,000 will need to be budgeted each year for the remainder of the contract.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES:
☒ Priority #1: Public Safety & Crisis Response
☐ Priority #2: Disaster Resiliency
☒ Priority #3: Good Governance & Fiscal Stability
☐ Priority #4: Capital Infrastructure Improvement
☒ Priority #5: Safe, Sustainable & Attractive Neighborhoods ☐ Priority #6: Economic Development
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Move to authorize the 5-year agreement and direct the City Manager to sign the contract. ☒ Attachments: 1. Flock Safety Contract

2. LUSD Support Letter
Flock Safety + CA - Lakeport PD
______________
Flock Group Inc.
1170 Howell Mill Rd, Suite 210
Atlanta, GA 30318
______________
MAIN CONTACT:

Ashlee Adeli
[email protected]
(470) 508-5771
Company Overview
At Flock Safety, technology unites law enforcement and the communities they serve to eliminate crime and shape a safer future, together. We created the first public safety operating system to enable neighborhoods, schools, businesses, and law enforcement to work together to collect visual, audio, and situational evidence across an entire city to solve and prevent crime.

Our connected platform, comprised of License Plate Recognition (LPR), live video, audio detection, and a suite of integrations (AVL, CAD & more), alerts law enforcement when an incident occurs and turns unbiased data into objective answers that increase case clearance, maximize resources, and reduce crime -- all without compromising transparency or human privacy.

Join thousands of agencies reducing crime with Flock Safety’s public safety operating system 2000+ 120 1B+ <60%*
communities with privatepublic partnershipsincident alerts / minute 1B+ vehicles detected / month
<60% local crime reduction
in Flock cities
*According to a 2019 study conducted by Cobb County Police Department Introduction
Layer Intelligence to Solve More Crime
The pathway to a safer future looks different for every community. As such, this proposal presents a combination of products that specifically addresses your public safety needs, geographical layout, sworn officer count, and budget. These components make up your custom public safety operating system, a connected device network and software platform designed to transform real-time data into a panoramic view of your jurisdiction and help you zero in on the leads that solve more cases, prevent future crimes, and foster trust in the communities you serve.

Software Platform
Flock Safety's out-of-box software platform collects and makes sense of visual, audio, and situational evidence across your entire network of devices.

Out-of-Box Software Features
Simplified Search Get a complete view of all activity tied to one vehicle in your network of privately and publicly owned cameras.

The user-friendly search experience allows officers to filter hours of footage in seconds based on time, location, and detailed vehicle criteria using patented Vehicle Fingerprint ™ technology. Search filters include:
● Vehicle make
● Body type
● Color
● License plates
○ Partial tags
○ Missing tags
○ Temporary tags
○ State recognition
● Decals
● Bumper stickers
● Back racks
● Top racks
National and Local Sharing Access 1B+ additional plate reads each month without purchasing more cameras. Solve cross-jurisdiction crimes by opting into Flock Safety's sharing networks, including one-toone, national, and statewide search networks. Users can also receive alerts from several external LPR databases:

California SVS
FDLE
FL Expired Licenses
FL Expired Tags
FL Sanctioned Drivers
FL Sex Offenders
Georgia DOR
IL SOS
Illinois Leads
NCIC
NCMEC Amber Alert
REJIS
CCIC
FBI
Real-time Alerts Receive SMS, email, and in-app notifications for custom Hot Lists, NCIC wanted lists, AMBER alerts, Silver alerts, Vehicle Fingerprint matches, and more.

Interactive ESRI Map View your AVL, CAD, traffic, and LPR alerts alongside live onscene video from a single interactive map for a birdseye view of activity in your jurisdiction.

Vehicle Location Analysis Visualize sequential Hot List alerts and the direction of travel to guide officers to find suspect vehicles faster.

Out-of-Box Software Features (Continued)
Transparency Portal Establish community trust with a public-facing dashboard that shares policies, usage, and public safety outcomes related to your policing technology.

Insights Dashboard Access at-a-glance reporting to easily prove ROI, discover crime and traffic patterns and prioritize changes to your public safety strategy by using data to determine the most significant impact.

Native MDT Application Download FlockOS to your MDTs to ensure officers never miss a Hot List alert while out on patrol.

Hot List Attachments
Attach relevant information to Custom Hot List alerts. Give simple, digestible context to Dispatchers and Patrol Officers responding to Hot List alerts so they can act confidently and drive better outcomes. When you create a custom Hot List Alert, add case notes, photos, reports, and other relevant case information.

Single Sign On (SSO) Increase your login speed and information security with Okta or Azure Single Sign On (SSO). Quickly access critical
information you need to do your job by eliminating the need for password resets and steps in the log-in process.

License Plate Recognition
The Flock Safety Falcon® LPR camera uses Vehicle Fingerprint™ technology to transform hours of footage into actionable evidence, even when a license plate isn't visible, and sends Hot List alerts to law enforcement users when a suspect vehicle is detected. The Falcon has fixed and location-flexible deployment options with 30% more accurate reads than leading LPR.* *Results from the 2019 side-by-side comparison test conducted by LA County Sheriff's Department Flock Safety Falcon®LPR Camera Flock Safety Falcon® Flex Flock Safety Falcon® LR Fixed, infrastructure-free LPR camera
designed for permanent placement.
√ 1 Standard LPR Camera
√ Unlimited LTE data service + Flock OS
platform licenses
√ 1 DOT breakaway pole
√ Dual solar panels
√ Permitting, installation, and ongoing
maintenance
Location-flexible LPR camera designed
for fast, easy self-installation, which is
ideal for your ever-changing
investigative needs.
√ 1 LPR Camera
√ Unlimited LTE data service + software
licenses
√ 1 portable mount with varying-sized
band clamps
√ 1 Charger for internal battery
√ 1 hardshell carrying case
Long-range, high-speed LPR camera
that captures license plates and Vehicle
Fingerprint data for increasing
investigative leads on high-volume
roadways like highways and interstates.
√ 1 Long-Rage LPR Camera
√ Computing device in protective poly
case
√ AC Power
√ Permitting, installation, and ongoing
maintenance
Your Flock Safety Team
Flock Safety is more than a technology vendor; we are a partner in your mission to build a safer future. We work with thousands of law enforcement agencies across the US to build stronger, safer communities that celebrate the hard work of those who serve and protect. We don’t disappear after contracts are signed; we pride ourselves on becoming an extension of your hard-working team as part of our subscription service.

Implementation Meet with a Solutions Consultant (former LEO) to build a deployment plan based on your needs. Our Permitting Team and Installation Technicians will work to get your device network approved, installed, and activated.

User Training + Support Your designated Customer Success Manager will help train your power users and ensure you maximize the platform,
while our customer support team will assist with needs as they arise.

Maintenance We proactively monitor the health of your device network. If we detect that a device is offline, a full-time technician will service your device for no extra charge.

Note: Ongoing maintenance does not apply to Falcon Flex devices.

Public Relations Government Affairs
Get support educating your stakeholders, including city councils and other governing bodies.

Media Relations
Share crimes solved in the local media with the help of our Public Relations team.

EXHIBIT A

ORDER FORM
Customer: CA - Lakeport PD Initial Term: 60 Months
Legal Entity Name: CA - Lakeport PD Renewal Term: 24 Months Accounts Payable Email: [email protected] Payment Terms: Net 30 Address: 2025 S Main St Lakeport, California 95453 Billing Frequency: Annual - First Year at Signing.

Retention Period: 30 Days
Hardware and Software Products
Annual recurring amounts over subscription term
Item Cost Quantity Total
Flock Safety Platform $25,000.00
Flock Safety Flock OS
FlockOS ™ Included 1 Included
Flock Safety LPR Products
Flock Safety Falcon ® Included 10 Included
Professional Services and One Time Purchases
Item Cost Quantity Total
One Time Fees
Subtotal Year 1: $25,000.00
Annual Recurring Subtotal: $25,000.00
Discounts: $25,000.00
Estimated Tax: $0.00
Contract Total: $125,000.00
Taxes shown above are provided as an estimate. Actual taxes are the responsibility of the Customer. This Agreement will automatically renew for successive renewal terms of the greater of one year or the length set forth on the Order Form (each, a “Renewal Term”) unless either Party gives the other Party notice of non-renewal at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the then-current term.

Billing Schedule
Billing Schedule Amount (USD)
Year 1
At Contract Signing $25,000.00
Annual Recurring after Year 1 $25,000.00
Contract Total $125,000.00
*Tax not included
Discounts
Discounts Applied Amount (USD)
Flock Safety Platform $25,000.00
Flock Safety Add-ons $0.00
Flock Safety Professional Services $0.00
Product and Services Description
Flock Safety Platform Items Product Description Terms
Flock Safety Falcon ®
An infrastructure-free license plate reader camera that utilizes Vehicle Fingerprint® technology to capture vehicular attributes.

The Term shall commence upon first installation and validation of Flock Hardware.

One-Time Fees Service Description
Installation on existing
infrastructure
One-time Professional Services engagement. Includes site & safety assessment, camera setup & testing, and shipping & handling in accordance with the Flock Safety Advanced Implementation Service Brief.

Professional Services - Standard
Implementation Fee
One-time Professional Services engagement. Includes site and safety assessment, camera setup and testing, and shipping and handling in accordance with the Flock Safety Standard Implementation Service Brief.

Professional Services -
Advanced Implementation Fee
One-time Professional Services engagement. Includes site & safety assessment, camera setup & testing, and shipping & handling in accordance with the Flock Safety Advanced Implementation Service Brief.

FlockOS Features & Description
Package: Essentials
FlockOS Features Description
Community Cameras (Full Access) Access to all privately owned Flock devices within your jurisdiction that have been shared with you.

Unlimited Users Unlimited users for FlockOS
State Network (LP Lookup Only) Allows agencies to look up license plates on all cameras opted in to the statewide Flock network.

Nationwide Network (LP Lookup Only) Allows agencies to look up license plates on all cameras opted in to the nationwide Flock network.

Direct Share - Surrounding Jurisdiction (Full Access) Access to all Flock devices owned by law enforcement that have been directly shared with you. Have ability to search by vehicle fingerprint, receive hot list alerts, and view devices on the map.

Time & Location Based Search Search full, partial, and temporary plates by time at particular device locations License Plate Lookup Look up specific license plate location history captured on Flock devices Vehicle Fingerprint Search Search footage using Vehicle Fingerprint™ technology. Access vehicle type, make, color, license plate state, missing / covered plates, and other unique features like bumper stickers, decals, and roof racks.

Flock Insights/Analytics page Reporting tool to help administrators manage their LPR program with device performance data, user and network audits, plate read reports, hot list alert reports, event logs, and outcome reports.

ESRI Based Map Interface
Flock Safety’s maps are powered by ESRI, which offers the ability for 3D visualization, viewing of floor plans, and layering of external GIS data, such as City infrastructure (i.e., public facilities, transit systems, utilities), Boundary mapping (i.e., precincts, county lines, beat maps), and Interior floor plans (i.e., hospitals, corporate campuses, universities)
Real-Time NCIC Alerts on Flock ALPR Cameras Alert sent when a vehicle entered into the NCIC crime database passes by a Flock camera Unlimited Custom Hot Lists Ability to add a suspect’s license plate to a custom list and get alerted when it passes by a Flock camera By executing this Order Form, Customer represents and warrants that it has read and agrees all of the terms and conditions contained in the Terms of Service located at https://www.flocksafety.com/terms-and-conditions/L1/
The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates set forth below.

FLOCK GROUP, INC. Customer: CA - Lakeport PD
By:
\FSSignature2\
By:
\FSSignature1\
Name:
\FSFullname2\
Name:
\FSFullname1\
Title:
\FSTitle2\
Title:
\FSTitle1\
Date:
\FSDateSigned2\
Date:
\FSDateSigned1\
PO Number:

Date: January 5, 2024
Re: Flock Safety Camera System
From: Matt Bullard, Superintendent
To: City of Lakeport / Lakeport Police Department
It has recently come to the Lakeport Unified School District’s (LUSD) attention that Flock Safety is planning a rate increase associated with the monitoring of the two networked cameras at LUSD. An option available to avoid the monitoring increase is to enter a five-year agreement with Flock Safety. LUSD is in support of this solution. If the District is able to save money through a multi-year contract, we will enter into a long-term contract.

In order to facilitate formal school board action, please provide contract terms and conditions to LUSD no later than Wednesday, February 7, 2024 for inclusion on our agenda for the regularly scheduled school board meeting on Thursday, February 15, 2024.

Feel free to contact me directly if you have any additional questions or concerns.

Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 1 Agenda Item #VI.C.1.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council ☒
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District ☐
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority ☐
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport ☐

STAFF REPORT
RE: Retail Storefront Cannabis Businesses / Temporary Cannabis Events
MEETING DATE: 01/16/2024
SUBMITTED BY: Joey Hejnowicz, Community Development Director PURPOSE OF REPORT: ☐Information only ☒ Discussion ☐Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to receive a study session on retail storefront cannabis businesses and temporary cannabis events and provide direction on the topics. Staff requests the City Council recommend whether or not Lakeport should permit retail storefront cannabis businesses and/or temporary cannabis events.

If City Council elects to permit retail storefront cannabis businesses and/or temporary cannabis events staff would come back to the Planning Commission at a future date with a draft ordinance for review. Once the prospective draft ordinance(s) are reviewed by the Planning Commission, staff will bring the item back to City Council for further review and potential action.

BACKGROUND
California became the first state to allow medicinal marijuana or cannabis use when voters passed the Compassionate Use Act in 1996. On November 8, 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative. Proposition 64, commonly referred to as the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, legalized recreational marijuana by allowing adults aged 21 years or older to possess and use marijuana for recreational purposes. The measure created two new excise taxes on marijuana:
• A cultivation tax of $9.25 per ounce for flowers and $2.75 per once for leaves, with exceptions for certain medical marijuana sales and cultivation (the Legislature subsequently ended this cultivation tax on July 1, 2022); and
• A 15 percent tax on the retail price of marijuana that goes to the state.

The main statute for cannabis businesses is in the California Business and Professions Code. It is called the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA). MAUCRSA sets up a basic framework for licensing, oversight, and enforcement related to cannabis businesses. In addition to cannabis-specific laws, cannabis businesses must follow the same rules that other businesses in California must follow. For example, there are rules and regulations about waste disposal, protecting the environment, vehicle registration and paying taxes.

The California Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) licenses and regulates cannabis businesses on the state level. DCC regulates the:
• Growing of cannabis plants;
Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 2 Agenda Item #VI.C.1.
• Manufacture of cannabis products;
• Transportation and tracking of cannabis goods throughout the state; • Sale of cannabis goods;
• Events where cannabis is sold or used; and
• Labeling of goods sold at retail.

All commercial cannabis activity must be licensed by the state. The cannabis industry is strictly regulated to make sure businesses operate safely, products are contaminant free and labeled to inform purchasers and cannabis is kept away from children. DCC’s mission is to facilitate a well-regulated, legal market for cannabis that benefits all Californians.

DISCUSSION
Commercial Cannabis Businesses
In addition to state regulation by the DCC, local agencies also have the authority to regulate commercial cannabis activity and all commercial cannabis businesses require local approval to operate lawfully. Each city or county can decide whether to license cannabis businesses in their respective jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions may license all cannabis businesses, license some types and prohibit others or prohibit all cannabis businesses.

As a result, the state has a patchwork of local laws surrounding cannabis businesses. A few statewide cannabis statistics reflecting this patchwork of local laws are found below. • 44% of cities and counties allow at least one type of cannabis business • 56% of cities and counties allow no type of cannabis business • 61% of cities and counties allow no retail cannabis business The DCC issues licenses based on the type of cannabis activity performed. If you do more than one activity, you may need more than one license. You must have a valid DCC license before performing any commercial cannabis activity, including:
• Growing cannabis (Cultivation)
• Transporting cannabis (Distribution)
• Making cannabis products (Manufacturing)
• Testing cannabis or cannabis products (Testing Laboratory) • Selling Cannabis (Retail)
• Holding an event where cannabis will be sold (Event Organizers) Lakeport Commercial Cannabis Landscape
The Lakeport City Council codified certain commercial cannabis business regulations in 2018 through the creation of Chapter 5.34 (COMMERCIAL CANNABIS) of the Lakeport Municipal Code. Chapter 5.34 regulates commercial cannabis activities in the City and is described in further detail below. For further reference, the City of Lakeport Zoning Map can be found here.

Lakeport Municipal Code - Cannabis Cultivation
The Lakeport Municipal Code allows personal cultivation in these residential zoning districts: Urban Reserve (UR), Low Density Residential (R1), Medium Density Residential (R2), High Density Residential (R3) and Resort/Residential (R5). Cultivation shall only be permitted in detached, fully enclosed and secure accessory structures and cultivation area shall be limited to eighty square feet per parcel or residence, or six plants, whichever is less. The accessory structure shall be in the rear portion of the lot and maintain a ten-foot setback from the side and rear property lines and from any other building on the parcel. Additionally, the accessory structure used for cannabis cultivation must have a ventilation and filtration system to prevent nuisance cannabis plant odors from exiting the interior of the structure.

Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 3 Agenda Item #VI.C.1.

Lakeport Municipal Code – Commercial Cannabis Testing
Commercial Cannabis Testing is allowed in the following zoning districts subject to the regulations listed in Chapter 5.34 (Commercial Cannabis) and a Use Permit: Professional Office (PO), Major Retail (C2), Service Commercial (C3), and Industrial (I).

Lakeport Municipal Code – Commercial Cannabis Distribution Commercial Cannabis Distribution is allowed in the following zoning districts subject to the regulations listed in Chapter 5.34 (Commercial Cannabis) and a Use Permit: Service Commercial (C3) and Industrial (I).

Lakeport Municipal Code – Commercial Cannabis Manufacturing (without volatile solvents) Commercial Cannabis Manufacturing (without volatile solvents) is allowed in the following zoning districts subject to the regulations listed in Chapter 5.34 (Commercial Cannabis) and a Use Permit: Service Commercial (C3) and Industrial (I).

Lakeport Municipal Code – Commercial Cannabis Manufacturing (with volatile solvents) Commercial Cannabis Manufacturing (with volatile solvents) is allowed in the following zoning districts subject to the regulations listed in Chapter 5.34 (Commercial Cannabis) and a Use Permit: Industrial (I).

Lakeport Municipal Code – Commercial Cannabis Retailers Activities The only commercial cannabis retail activity allowed in Lakeport is retail delivery of cannabis, cannabis products or devices. Retail delivery may not include a retailer with a storefront business.

Temporary Cannabis Events
Temporary cannabis events where sales and consumption may occur on-site is permitted under the California Code of Regulations Title 4, Division 19, Department of Cannabis Control, Chapter 5, Cannabis Events. To host temporary cannabis events where sales and consumption occur, event organizers must receive approval from the local jurisdiction where the event is proposed. It should be noted that Chapter 5.34.090(F) of the Lakeport Municipal Code prohibits cannabis events where sales and consumption take place. An overview of cannabis event regulations at the state level is found below.

Cannabis Event Organizer License
• Cannabis events can only be held by a person who has been issued a cannabis event organizer license by the DCC.
• The cannabis event organizer license is an annual license, with fees based on the number of events organized by the licensee per year.
• The cannabis event organizer may not cultivate, distribute, manufacture, or sell cannabis or cannabis products, unless the licensee holds a separate license for that activity.

Cannabis Event Sales & Consumption
All temporary cannabis event sales must adhere to the rules and requirements for on-site sales and consumption of cannabis goods:
• All cannabis goods shall be transported to the event site by a licensed distributor. • All cannabis goods must be tested before retail sale.

Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 4 Agenda Item #VI.C.1.
• Only a licensed retailer or microbusiness licensed to sell cannabis goods to retail customers can sell at a temporary cannabis event.
• All cannabis goods shall adhere to retailer requirements pertaining to displays, exit packaging, customer returns, daily sales limits, and free samples.
• All cannabis goods sales at the event must be limited to persons 21 years of age or older. • Licensees engaging in sales of cannabis goods shall only conduct sales activities within their designated area. Sales through use of a mobile cart or similar means are prohibited. • Access to the area where cannabis consumption is allowed shall be restricted to persons 21 years of age or older and shall not be visible from any public place or non-age-restricted area. • Consumption of alcohol or tobacco shall not be allowed on the cannabis event premises. • Payment to a cannabis event organizer may not be determined based on, or tied to, the sale of cannabis goods.

Temporary Cannabis Event License
• To obtain a temporary cannabis event license, the cannabis event organizer licensee must apply to the DCC at least 60 days before the first day of the cannabis event. • Each temporary cannabis event must be issued a separate temporary cannabis event license by the DCC for the specific date(s) and location of the event.
• A temporary cannabis event license will not be issued for over four (4) consecutive days. • Cannabis events must be held at a county fair or district agricultural association event, or at another venue approved by a local jurisdiction for temporary cannabis events. • Written approval from the local jurisdiction authorizing on-site cannabis sales and consumption by persons aged 21 or older at the event is required for all temporary cannabis events. • The cannabis event organizer must provide the following to the DCC:
o A diagram of the physical layout of the event, which includes information in section 5601 (h)(5) of the DCC’s regulations.
o A list of all licensees providing on-site sales at the event. o Contact information for a designated contact person(s) who shall be on-site at the event and reachable by phone during the event.
• The licensed cannabis event organizer shall hire or contract for security personnel to provide security services at the licensed temporary cannabis event. The Bureau of Security and Investigative Services must license security personnel.
• The DCC may require the event organizer and all participants to cease operations without delay if, in the opinion of the DCC or local law enforcement, it is necessary to protect the immediate public health and safety of the people of the state.

Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 5 Agenda Item #VI.C.1.

Retail Storefront Cannabis Businesses and Temporary Cannabis Event Considerations Chapter 5.34 (Commercial Cannabis) of the Lakeport Municipal code was passed by City Council in 2018 regulating commercial cannabis activities in the City. Cannabis retailers with storefront sales is not included in Chapter 5.34. Nearby jurisdictions including Clearlake, Ukiah, Willits, Ft. Bragg and the County of Lake, among others, all permit retail storefront cannabis sales to various degrees. A City Council goal for FY 23/24 was to revisit the retail storefront cannabis business issue. Staff would like to provide City Council the opportunity to revisit this discussion understanding that City Council’s views on the matter may have changed.

Staff would also like to bring the discussion of temporary cannabis events in Lakeport to City Council for their review and direction. Chapter 5.34.090(F) currently prohibits cannabis events within the City. City staff was contacted by the Lake County Fairgrounds about the potential of hosting future cannabis events. Cannabis events are legally permitted through the state of California ‘s Department of Cannabis Control. Written approval from the local jurisdiction authorizing on-site cannabis sales and consumption by persons aged 21 or older at the event is required for all temporary cannabis events.

Lakeport Planning Commission Support
On October 11, 2023, staff brought forth this discussion to the Lakeport Planning Commission for review and direction. Most of the Planning Commissioners supported permitting retail cannabis storefront businesses and permitting temporary cannabis events. Discussion around the topic included a comment by one Planning Commissioner that this should be permitted in any zoning district and that dispensaries that have been seen in other jurisdictions have no issues or dereliction to the community. Another Planning Commissioner mentioned that these items should have been approved back in 2018 and there should be no difference when comparing it to alcohol sales and consumption in the City. If you can have a few beers at the Fair, why shouldn’t we allow you to consume legal cannabis products in a regulated setting separate from any other type of event. Another Planning Commissioner mentioned now that cannabis is legal at the state level, we should craft local cannabis regulations like the booming wine industry here as people drink all the time. Cannabis should have the same rules that apply to alcohol businesses and regulation. Another Planning Commissioner mentioned that permitting cannabis businesses could be an investment in the community by increasing economic development and vitality. This comment was furthered with the notion that many if not all the retail cannabis facilities are designed very nicely and have significantly better security presence than a liquor store. All the supportive Planning Commissioners agreed that the City would have the opportunity to review each individual project through the Use Permit process to ensure the location, design, aesthetics, impact to the neighborhood, etc. would be appropriate. Any retail use would be subject to all components of the Lakeport Municipal Code 5.34 regardless of allowance in the Zoning Ordinance.

One of the only concerns discussed was regarding temporary cannabis events and the potential for intoxicated drivers after the event. While there was some back and forth on this topic eventually the Planning Commission came to a consensus that government can’t control everything, everyone has their own personal responsibility and that this should be no different than having drinks at a local bar or other event where alcohol is served.

The only Planning Commissioner not in support of permitting retail cannabis and cannabis events discussed that cannabis businesses and cannabis events are not appropriate for Lakeport. This discussion already occurred back in 2018 and the City Council determined the negative impacts to outweigh the positive impacts. Negative impacts to nearby businesses are real and the potential public safety issues around cannabis businesses exceeds any potential economic benefit. Most Lakeport citizens were against permitting retail storefront cannabis businesses with concerns over the image and perception of drug use and abuse in our town.

Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 in favor of permitting retail storefront cannabis businesses and voted 4-1 in favor of permitting temporary cannabis events at the Lake County Fairgrounds.

Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 6 Agenda Item #VI.C.1.

Questions for City Council Discussion and Direction

1. Should the city permit retail cannabis storefront businesses? If so, in what zoning districts?

2. Should the city allow temporary cannabis events?
If City Council elects to permit retail storefront cannabis businesses and/or temporary cannabis events staff would come back to the Planning Commission at a future date with a draft ordinance for review. Once the prospective draft ordinance(s) are reviewed by the Planning Commission, staff will bring the item back to City Council for further review and potential action. So, staff welcomes any additional direction and feedback on policy relating to retail cannabis storefront businesses and/or temporary cannabis events.

Potential policy items for further consideration could include whether Lakeport would want to enact a retail cannabis sales tax (above the 15% state tax), whether to permit on-site consumption, whether to enact a retail cannabis storefront license site limit within the City, or any other pertinent policy matters that may be essential to the City Council to include in a draft ordinance(s).

The City is currently facing a notable concentration in its general fund revenue sources. Specifically, around 70% of the total general fund revenue is derived from sales tax, and within that, approximately 80% is contributed by the City's top 25 sales tax remitters. Although the introduction of a retail cannabis industry is not anticipated to have a substantial impact on the revenue landscape, the objective is to enhance diversity. Permitting such an industry would serve as an additional instrument in our strategic toolkit, facilitating one of the many incremental changes required to achieve a more diversified revenue stream.

OPTIONS:

1. Direct staff to prepare a retail storefront cannabis ordinance and return to City Council at a future date for review, discussion, and potential action.

2. Direct staff to prepare a temporary cannabis event ordinance and return to City Council at a future date for review, discussion, and potential action.

3. Direct staff to prepare a retail storefront cannabis ordinance and a temporary cannabis event ordinance and return to City Council at a future date for review, discussion, and potential action.

4. Direct staff to take no further action as the City Council is not inclined to permit retail storefront cannabis businesses and temporary cannabis events.

FISCAL IMPACT:
☒ None ☐ $ Budgeted Item? ☐Yes ☐ No
Budget Adjustment Needed? ☐Yes ☒ No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $ Affected fund(s): ☐ General Fund ☐ Water OM Fund ☐ Sewer OM Fund ☐ Other:

Comments:

COUNCIL PRIORITIES:
☐ Priority #1: Public Safety & Crisis Response
☐ Priority #2: Disaster Resiliency
☐ Priority #3: Good Governance & Fiscal Stability
☐ Priority #4: Capital Infrastructure Improvement
☐ Priority #5: Safe, Sustainable & Attractive Neighborhoods ☒ Priority #6: Economic Development
Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 7 Agenda Item #VI.C.1.

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Discuss and provide staff direction
☒ Attachments: 1. City of Lakeport Land Use – Cannabis

2. Retail Cannabis Environmental Scan
Zoning Districts Notes
Urban Reserve (UR)
In conformance with Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996) & Proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act) where cultivation shall only be permitted in detached, fully enclosed and secure accessory structures and said cultivation area shall be limited to eighty square feet per parcel or residence, whichever is less, or six plants. Cultivated cannabis may not be sold.

Low Density Residential (R1)
In conformance with Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996) & Proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act) where cultivation shall only be permitted in detached, fully enclosed and secure accessory structures and said cultivation area shall be limited to eighty square feet per parcel or residence, whichever is less, or six plants. Cultivated cannabis may not be sold.

Medium Density Residential (R2)
In conformance with Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996) & Proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act) where cultivation shall only be permitted in detached, fully enclosed and secure accessory structures and said cultivation area shall be limited to eighty square feet per parcel or residence, whichever is less, or six plants. Cultivated cannabis may not be sold.

High Density Residential (R3)
In conformance with Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996) & Proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act) where cultivation shall only be permitted in detached, fully enclosed and secure accessory structures and said cultivation area shall be limited to eighty square feet per parcel or residence, whichever is less, or six plants. Cultivated cannabis may not be sold.

Resort/Residential (R5)
In conformance with Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996) & Proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act) where cultivation shall only be permitted in detached, fully enclosed and secure accessory structures and said cultivation area shall be limited to eighty square feet per parcel or residence, whichever is less, or six plants. Cultivated cannabis may not be sold.

Professional Office (PO) Subject to regulations set forth in Chapter 5.34 (Commercial Cannabis) and Use Permit Light Retail (C1)
Major Retail (C2) Subject to regulations set forth in Chapter 5.34 (Commercial Cannabis) and Use Permit Service Commercial (C3) Subject to regulations set forth in Chapter 5.34 (Commercial Cannabis) and Use Permit Open Space (OS)
Industrial (I) Subject to regulations set forth in Chapter 5.34 (Commercial Cannabis) and Use Permit City of Lakeport Land Use - Cannabis
N/A
Cultivation, manufacturing with and without volatile solvents, testing, distribution, and retailers activities (delivery) Cultivation, manufacturing without volative solvents, testing, distribution, and retailers activities (delivery)
Cannabis Uses Permitted
Personal cultivation
Personal cultivation
Personal cultivation
Personal cultivation
Personal cultivation
Testing
N/A
Testing
City County Population Retail Cannabis Allowed Zoning Districts Notes Clearlake Lake 16,777 Yes
CBR (Commercial Cannabis
Dispensary Combining Zone)
Specific for commercial cannabis
dispenseries within limited areas of
community commercial zones
(3) Dispensary Permit
limit; Use Permit
Required
Ukiah Mendocino 16,728 Yes
C1 (Community Commercial), C2
(Heavy Commercial), CN
(Neighoborhood Commercial), DC
(Downtown Core), Urban Center
(UC), General Urban (GU), M
(Manufacturing) PD Commercial
(Planned Development
Industrial/Light
Manufacturing/Mixed Use)
Use Permit Required
Willits Mendocino 4,969 Yes
C2 (Heavy Commercial), ML
(Limited Industrial) MH (Heavy
Industrial) IP (Industrial Park)
(3) Dispensary Permit
limit; Use Permit
Required
Ft. Bragg Mendocino 6,970 Yes
CBD (Central Business District), CG
(General Commercial), CH (Highway
Visitor Commercial)
Use Permit Required
Willows Glenn 6,244 Yes
CH (Highway Commercial), ML
(Light Industrial), CG (General
Commercial)
(2) Dispensary Permit
limit; Use Permit
Required
Retail Cannabis Environmental Scan
Colusa Colusa 6,428 No
Inconsistent with Federal
law and would create
public nuisance
Crescent City Del Norte 6,676 Yes
C1 (Downtown Business District),
C2 (General Commercial District),
CW (Waterfront Commercial), HS
(Highway Services)
Use Permit Required
Williams Colusa 5,615 No
Inconsistent with Federal
law and would create
public nuisance
St. Helena Napa 5,386 No
To protect the public
health, safety and
welfare of residents
Woodside San Mateo 5,131 No
To protect the public
health, safety and
welfare of residents
Winters Yolo 7,305 No
To protect the public
health, safety and
welfare of residents
Gridley Butte 7,356 No
To protect the public
health, safety and
welfare of residents
Sebastopol Sonoma 7,448 Yes
CO (Office Commercial), CG
(General Commercial), CD (Central
Core), CM (Commercial Industrial),
M (Industrial), O/LM (Office/Light
Industrial),
(2) Dispensary Permit
limit; Use Permit
Required
Cotati Sonoma 7,498 Yes CG (Gravenstein Highway Corridor) (2) Dispensary Permit
limit; Use Permit
Required
Cloverdale Sonoma 8,954 Yes
DTC (Downtown Commercial), TOD
(Transit Oriented Commercial), GC
(General Commercial), SC (Service
Commercial), MP (Industrial Park),
MI (General Industrial)
(2) Dispensary Permit
limit; Use Permit
Required

RETAIL STOREFRONT

CANNABIS BUSINESS /

TEMPORARY CANNABIS

EVENTS DISCUSSION
City Council – January 16, 2024
Joey Hejnowicz – Community Development Director

PURPOSE FOR DISCUSSION
• Chapter 5.34 (Commercial Cannabis) of the Lakeport Municipal Code was passed by City Council in 2018 regulating commercial cannabis activities • Five (5) years has passed since Chapter 5.34 was enacted and staff would like to provide City Council the opportunity to revisit the retail storefront cannabis discussion, especially as this was a City Council 2023/24 goal, in case views on the matter have changed over time
• Staff was contacted by the Lake County Fairgrounds regarding temporary cannabis events and would also like to bring this discussion to City Council for their review and direction
• On October 11, 2023, the Lakeport Planning Commission voted 4-1 in favor of permitting retail storefront cannabis businesses and temporary cannabis events at the Lake County Fairgrounds
• Staff is seeking City Council’s input and ultimate recommendation whether to permit retail storefront cannabis businesses and/or temporary cannabis events in Lakeport

BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2016, California voters passed proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act), legalizing recreational marijuana for adults aged 21 years or older
The main statute for cannabis businesses in the California Business and Professions Code is called the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA).

MAUCRSA sets up a basic framework for licensing, oversight, and enforcement related to cannabis businesses.

DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL
The California Department of
Cannabis Control (DCC)
licenses and regulates
cannabis businesses.

DCC regulates:
•Growing of cannabis plants
•Manufacture of cannabis products
•Transportation and tracking of
cannabis goods throughout the state
•Sale of cannabis goods
•Events where cannabis is sold or used
•Labeling of goods sold at retail

CANNABIS REGULATION
All commercial cannabis activity must be licensed by the state.

The cannabis industry is strictly regulated to make sure businesses operate safely, products are contaminant
free, labeled to inform purchasers and cannabis is kept away from children.

DCC’s mission is to facilitate a well-regulated, legal
market for cannabis that benefits all Californians.

CALIFORNIA CANNABIS

OVERVIEW
• Int addition to state regulation by the DCC, local agencies also have the authority to regulate commercial cannabis activity and all commercial cannabis businesses require local approval to operate lawfully.
• The type of cannabis business licenses allowed in California: cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, testing, retail and events. • 44% of cities and counties allow at least one type of cannabis business • 56% of cities and counties allow no type of cannabis business • 61% of cities and counties allow no retail cannabis business Retail Cannabis Environmental Scan
City County Population Retail Cannabis Allowed Zoning Districts Notes Clearlake Lake 16,777 Yes
CBR (Commercial Cannabis Dispensary
Combining Zone)
Specific for commercial cannabis
dispensaries within limited areas of
community commercial zones
(3) Dispensary Permit limit;
Use Permit Required
Ukiah Mendocino 16,728 Yes
C1 (Community Commercial), C2 (Heavy
Commercial), CN (Neighborhood
Commercial), DC (Downtown Core), UC
(Urban Center) , GU (General Urban ), M
(Manufacturing) PD Commercial (Planned
Development Industrial/Light
Manufacturing/Mixed Use)
Use Permit Required
Willits Mendocino 4,969 Yes
C2 (Heavy Commercial), ML (Limited
Industrial) MH (Heavy Industrial) IP
(Industrial Park)
(3) Dispensary Permit limit;
Use Permit Required
Ft. Bragg Mendocino 6,970 Yes
CBD (Central Business District), CG
(General Commercial), CH (Highway Visitor
Commercial)
Use Permit Required
Willows Glenn 6,244 Yes CH (Highway Commercial), ML (Light Industrial), CG (General Commercial)
(2) Dispensary Permit limit;
Use Permit Required
Colusa Colusa 6,428 No
Inconsistent with Federal law
and would create public
nuisance
Crescent City Del Norte 6,676 Yes
C1 (Downtown Business District), C2
(General Commercial District), CW
(Waterfront Commercial), HS (Highway
Services)
Use Permit Required
Williams Colusa 5,615 No
Inconsistent with Federal law
and would create public
nuisance
St. Helena Napa 5,386 No To protect the public health,
safety and welfare of residents
Woodside San Mateo 5,131 No To protect the public health, safety and welfare of residents
Winters Yolo 7,305 No To protect the public health,
safety and welfare of residents
Gridley Butte 7,356 No To protect the public health,
safety and welfare of residents
Sebastopol Sonoma 7,448 Yes
CO (Office Commercial), CG (General
Commercial), CD (Central Core), CM
(Commercial Industrial), M (Industrial),
O/LM (Office/Light Industrial),
(2) Dispensary Permit limit;
Use Permit Required
Cotati Sonoma 7,498 Yes CG (Gravenstein Highway Corridor) (2) Dispensary Permit limit; Use Permit Required
Cloverdale Sonoma 8,954 Yes
DTC (Downtown Commercial), TOD
(Transit Oriented Commercial), GC
(General Commercial), SC (Service
Commercial), MP (Industrial Park), MI
(General Industrial)
(2) Dispensary Permit limit;
Use Permit Required

LAKEPORT

CANNABIS

LANDSCAPE
Cannabis Cultivation
• Personal cultivation is allowed in these
residential zoning districts: Urban Reserve
(UR), Low Density Residential (R1), Medium
Density Residential (R2), High Density
Residential (R3) and Resort/Residential (R5)
• Cultivation shall only be permitted in
detached, fully enclosed and secure
accessory structures
• Limited to 80 square feet per parcel or
residence, or six plants, whichever is less
• Ten-foot setback from side and rear of
property lines and any other building on
property
• Structure must have ventilation and filtration
system to prevent nuisance odors

LAKEPORT

CANNABIS

LANDSCAPE
Commercial Cannabis Testing
• Commercial Cannabis Testing is
allowed in the following zoning
districts: Professional Office (PO),
Major Retail (C2), Service
Commercial (C3), and Industrial (I)
• Subject to regulations listed in
Chapter 5.34 (Commercial
Cannabis)
• Subject to Use Permit

LAKEPORT

CANNABIS

LANDSCAPE
Commercial Cannabis
Distribution
• Commercial Cannabis Distribution is
allowed in the following zoning
districts: Service Commercial (C3)
and Industrial (I)
• Subject to regulations listed in
Chapter 5.34 (Commercial
Cannabis)
• Subject to Use Permit

LAKEPORT

CANNABIS

LANDSCAPE
Commercial Cannabis
Manufacturing (without
volatile solvents)
• Commercial Cannabis
Manufacturing (without volatile
solvents) is allowed in the
following zoning districts:

Service Commercial (C3) and
Industrial (I)
• Subject to regulations listed in
Chapter 5.34 (Commercial
Cannabis)
• Subject to Use Permit

LAKEPORT

CANNABIS

LANDSCAPE
Commercial Cannabis
Manufacturing (with volatile
solvents)
• Commercial Cannabis
Manufacturing (without volatile
solvents) is allowed in the
following zoning districts:

Industrial (I)
• Subject to regulations listed in
Chapter 5.34 (Commercial
Cannabis)
• Subject to Use Permit

LAKEPORT

CANNABIS

LANDSCAPE
Commercial Cannabis
Retailers Activities
• Commercial Cannabis Retailers
Activities are only permitted for retail
delivery of cannabis, cannabis
products or devices
• Retail delivery may not include a
retailer with a storefront business
• Subject to regulations listed in
Chapter 5.34 (Commercial
Cannabis)
• Subject to Use Permit
• Retail delivery authorized into “any
jurisdiction in the state”

ZONING CODE MAP

TEMPORARY

CANNABIS
EVENTS
Cannabis events where sales and
consumption occur on-site is permitted under
the California Code of Regulations Title 4,
Division 19, Department of Cannabis Control,
Chapter 5, Cannabis Events.

Chapter 5.34.090(F) prohibits cannabis
events within the City
The City was approached by the Lake County
Fairgrounds regarding the possibility of
hosting temporary cannabis events

CANNABIS EVENT

REGULATIONS
Cannabis Event Organizer
License
• Cannabis events can only be held by
a person who has been issued a
cannabis event organizer license by
the DCC
• The cannabis event organizer
license is an annual license, with
fees based on the number of events
organized by the licensee per year
• The cannabis event organizer may
not cultivate, distribute,
manufacture, or sell cannabis or
cannabis products, unless the
licensee holds a separate license for
that activity

CANNABIS EVENT

REGULATIONS
Cannabis Event Sales &
Consumption
All temporary cannabis event sales must adhere to the
rules and requirements for on-site sales and
consumption of cannabis goods:
• All cannabis goods shall be transported to the
event site by a licensed distributor
• All cannabis goods must be tested before retail
sale
• Only a licensed retailer or microbusiness licensed
to sell cannabis goods to retail customers can sell
at a temporary cannabis event
• All cannabis goods shall adhere to retailer
requirements pertaining to displays, exit
packaging, customer returns, daily sales limits, and
free samples

CANNABIS EVENT

REGULATIONS
Cannabis Event Sales &
Consumption (cont’d)
• All cannabis goods sales at the event must be
limited to persons 21 years of age or older
• Licensees engaging in sales of cannabis goods
shall only conduct sales activities within their
designated area. Sales through use of a mobile cart
or similar means are prohibited.
• Access to the area where cannabis consumption is
allowed shall be restricted to persons 21 years of
age or older and shall not be visible from any public
place or non-age restricted area
• Consumption of alcohol or tobacco shall not be
allowed on the cannabis event premises
• Payment to a cannabis event organizer may not be
determined based on, or tied to, the sale of
cannabis goods

CANNABIS EVENT

REGULATIONS
Temporary Cannabis Event
License
• To obtain a temporary cannabis event license, the
cannabis event organizer licensee must apply to
the DCC at least 60 days before the first day of the
cannabis event
• Each temporary cannabis event must be issued a
separate temporary cannabis event license by the
DCC for the specific date(s) and location of the
event
• A temporary cannabis event license will not be
issued for over four (4) consecutive days
• Cannabis events must be held at a county fair or
district agricultural association event, or at another
venue approved by a local jurisdiction for
temporary cannabis events

CANNABIS EVENT

REGULATIONS
Temporary Cannabis Event
License (cont’d)
• Written approval from the local jurisdiction
authorizing on-site cannabis sales and
consumption by persons aged 21 or older at the
event is required for all temporary cannabis
events
• The cannabis event organizer must provide the
following to the DCC:
o A diagram of the physical layout of the event
o A list of all licensees providing on-site sales
at the event
o Contact information for a designated
contact person(s) who shall be on-site at the
event and reachable by phone during the
event

CANNABIS EVENT

REGULATIONS
Temporary Cannabis Event
License (cont’d)
• The licensed cannabis event organizer
shall hire or contract for security
personnel to provide security services at
the licensed temporary cannabis event
• The Bureau of Security and Investigative
Services must license all temporary
cannabis event security personnel
• The DCC may require the event organizer
and all participants to cease operations
without delay if, in the opinion of the DCC
or local law enforcement, it is necessary to
protect the immediate public health and
safety of the people of the state
RETAIL

STOREFRONT

CANNABIS

BUSINESSES &

TEMPORARY

CANNABIS EVENT

CONSIDERATIONS
• Chapter 5.34 (Commercial Cannabis) of the Lakeport Municipal Code was passed by City Council in 2018 regulating commercial cannabis activities
• Cannabis retailers with storefront sales is not permitted in Chapter

5.34 • Nearby jurisdictions including Clearlake, Willits, Ft. Bragg and the County of Lake, among others, all permit retail storefront cannabis sales to various degrees.
• Temporary cannabis events are legally permitted through California’s Department of Cannabis Control. Written approval from the local jurisdiction authorizing on-site cannabis sales and consumption by persons aged 21 or older at the event is required. • Staff contacted by Lake County Fairgrounds regarding the potential to host future temporary cannabis events

LAKEPORT PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORT
• Reviewed during October 11, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting • Dispensaries seen in other jurisdictions have no issues or dereliction to community and are generally designed very nicely with much better security than liquor stores • Should align similarly to alcohol sales and consumption regulations • Permitting cannabis businesses is an investment in our community by increasing economic development and vitality
• Use Permit allows for individual project review and would still be subject to regulations set forth in Municipal Code 5.34
• Some concern around potential for intoxicated drivers after a cannabis event, but this should really be no different than having a drink at a bar or event • One Planning Commissioner not in favor due to negative outcomes outweighing positive outcomes and concern over image and perception of drug use in our town • Planning Commission voted 4-1 in favor of permitting retail storefront cannabis businesses and voted 4-1 in favor of permitting temporary cannabis events at the Lake County Fairgrounds

QUESTIONS FOR

DISCUSSION

1. Should the city
permit retail
cannabis storefront
businesses? If so, in
what zoning district?

2. Should the city
permit temporary
cannabis events?
Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 1 Agenda Item # VI.D.1.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council ☒
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District ☐
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority ☐
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport ☐

STAFF REPORT
RE: 1st Quarter Update, FY 2023/24 MEETING DATE: 01/16/2024 SUBMITTED BY: Nicholas Walker, ACM/ Finance Director
PURPOSE OF REPORT: ☒Information only ☐ Discussion ☐Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to review and file the 1st Quarter Financial Update.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Financial Update
Attachment A to this staff report includes summarized unaudited financial statements for the general fund, water operating and maintenance fund, and the sewer operating and maintenance fund, which include revenue and expense activity through September 30, 2023. The format in which the statements are prepared is similar to the annual budget. The schedule includes amounts available for discretionary spending for each fund anticipated to be presented in the 2022-23 audited financial statements, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), as well as the amounts of anticipated ending discretionary spending expected to be available at the 2022-23 year-end. In the enterprise funds this term “working capital” is defined as current assets minus current liabilities. For budgeting purposes, the modified accrual method is used and this is common practice among governmental agencies. Working capital is the enterprise funds equivalent of the general funds amounts available for discretionary spending.

In accordance with GAAP, financial statements in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) are presented in two distinctly different ways, (1) the governmental fund financial statements and (2) government wide and enterprise fund financial statements. Governmental fund financial statements present balances using a current financial resources measurement focus which emphasizes the current available spendable resources available for appropriation. This method of accounting is known as modified accrual. Government wide and enterprise fund financial statements are presented on a flow of economic resources measurement focus which reports all assets and liabilities whether current or long term. This method is referred to as accrual accounting and is similar to the type of presentation that is used in private industry.

Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 2 Agenda Item # VI.D.1.

Investments
According to the idle funds investment policy for the City of Lakeport, the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District (CLMSD) and Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport (MFAL) quarterly updates are to be provided to the City Council for review.

This schedule provides detailed information on each individual CD as of September 30, 2023:

This schedule provides balances and concentration percentages of the City-wide cash and investment balances as of September 30, 2023:

OPTIONS:

1. Review and file the 1st Quarter Financial Update.

2. Do not review and file but provide direction to staff.

Comments:

General Fund Settlement Original Estimated Current Accrued Interest CD Title Yield FDIC # Date Amount Market Value Through 9/30/23 Total Fidelity Govt MMKT Capital 4.22% 77,341.50 77,341.50
Morgan Stanley Bank 3.55% 61690UAZ3 11/8/2023 5 Years 200,000.00 199,576.00 2,840.00 202,416.00 UBS Bank Salt Lake 3.09% 90348J3H1 11/18/2024 2 Years 200,000.00 194,108.00 213.70 194,321.70 Capital One National 3.21% 14042TGE1 5/19/2025 3 Years 200,000.00 192,180.00 2,310.14 194,490.14 State Bank India 1.03% 856283P26 7/10/2025 5 Years 200,000.00 184,376.00 432.05 184,808.05 Discover Bank 3.18% 254673Z74 11/15/2027 5 Years 243,000.00 242,479.98 4,626.99 247,106.97 Total 1,043,000.00 1,090,061.48 10,422.88 1,100,484.36
Wastewater Settlement Original Estimated Current Accrued Interest CD Title Yield FDIC # Date Amount Market Value Through 9/30/23 Total Fidelity Govt MMKT Capital 4.22% 89,201.66 89,201.66
Morgan Stanley Private Bank 3.58% 61760ARS0 11/8/2023 5 Years 200,000.00 199,562.00 2,840.00 202,402.00 Northern Bank 4.76% 66476QDC9 8/15/2024 1 Years 244,000.00 242,123.64 4,413.73 246,537.37 Wells Fargo Bank 2.05% 949763R73 1/17/2025 5 Years 200,000.00 190,712.00 149.59 190,861.59 American Express National 3.21% 02589ACS9 5/19/2025 3 Years 200,000.00 192,180.00 2,310.14 194,490.14 Synchrony Bank 3.21% 87165HP79 5/20/2025 3 Years 200,000.00 192,168.00 2,276.16 194,444.16 Total 1,044,000.00 1,105,947.30 11,989.62 1,117,936.92
Term
Term
Investment Type Fair Value Concentration
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) $ 2,768,160 13.83%
Certificates of Deposit 2,218,421 11.08%
PARS Mutual Funds 958,193 4.79%
Demand Deposits (checking) 14,071,385 70.30%
Total Funds $ 20,016,159 100.00%
Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 3 Agenda Item # VI.D.1.

Receive and file the First Quarter Financial Statements. ☒ Attachments: 1. Summarized unaudited financial statements for the general fund, water operating and maintenance fund and the sewer operating and maintenance fund.

Fund: 110
Name: General Fund
2023-24 2023-24
Adjusted Budget As of September
30, 2023 Remaining $ % Collected/
Used
Taxes $ 1,096,508 5,507,335 $ 4,410,827 $ 20%
Franchises 63,665 326,000 262,335 20%
Licenses 55 200 145 28%
Permits 18,897 107,500 88,603 18%
Fines, forfeitures, and penalties 11,000 1,372 9,628 12% Use of money and property 87,000 5,121 81,879 6%
Income from other agencies 244,000 - 244,000 0%
Federal funding - 1,000 1,000 0%
State funding 103 102,500 102,397 0%
Charges for service 27,122 80,000 52,878 34%
Other revenue 58,419 34,300 (24,119) 170%
Total revenue 6,500,835 1,271,262 5,229,573 20%
718,444 3,967,068 3,248,624 18%
373,715 2,319,053 1,945,338 16%
115,764 610,038 494,274 19%
Total expenditures 6,896,159 1,207,923 5,688,236 18%
Use of fund balance - -
- 35,000
- (457,810)
Net sources (uses) (422,810) -
Resources - Use
Surplus (deficit) $ 63,339 (818,134) $
Beginning General Fund Balance 6,732,550 6,523,962
Nonspendable (289,481) (289,481)
Restricted (24,462) (24,462)
Operating Reserve (1,101,595) (926,118)
Reserve for Economic Uncertainties (1,468,794) (1,234,824) Disaster Reserve (734,397) (617,412)
VERF (147,735) (117,735)
RIMF (214,253) (114,492)
PORF (986,866) (946,490)
Beginning Discretionary General Fund Balance 1,764,967 2,252,948 Inflows 6,535,835 1,271,262
Outflows 7,353,969 1,207,923
63,339 (818,134)
Anticipated Ending Discretionary General Fund Balance 946,833 $ 2,316,287 $ Adjusted Budget As of September
30, 2023
Non-Departmental 1,983 794,811 792,828 0%
Legislative 14,650 115,476 100,826 13%
Administration 65,410 430,142 364,732 15%
Economic Development 23,170 117,000 93,830 20%
City Attorney 18,099 50,000 31,901 36%
Finance and Information Technology 405,227 75,366 329,861 19% Community Development:

Planning 79,567 490,233 410,666 16%
Building 89,680 371,478 281,798 24%
Engineering 16,664 154,203 137,539 11%
Police 563,472 3,073,539 2,510,067 18%
Public Works:

Administration and Compliance 141,105 23,571 117,534 17% Roads and Infrastructure 577,206 126,055 451,151 22%
Parks, Buildings, and Grounds 633,549 110,236 523,313 17% Total use 1,207,923 7,353,969 6,146,046 16%
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in
Transfers (out)
Revenue Sources
Salaries and benefits
Operations
Capital outlay/CIP
Departmental Use
Expenditures
Change to fund balance
Fund: 501
Name: Water Utility M & O Fund
2023-24 2023-24
Adjusted Budget As of September
30, 2023 Remaining $ % Collected/
Used
Charges for service 2,827,00 0 807,192 29% 2,019,808
Interfund services provided 120,00 0 - 0% 120,000
Total revenue 2,947,00 0 807,192 27% 2,139,808
-
1,376,277 250,110 18% 1,126,167
781,839 128,280 16% 653,559
Debt service 756,891 255,732 34% 501,159
5,159,061 40,984 1% 5,118,077
Total expenditures 8,074,06 8 675,106 8% 7,398,962
-
Net sources (uses) - - -
Resources - Use -
Surplus (deficit) 132,086 (5,127,068)
Beginning Working Capital 1,949,86 0 1,949,860
Inflows 2,947,00 0 807,192
Outflows 8,074,06 8 675,106
Change to fund balance (5,127,068) 132,086
Anticipated Ending Working Capital $ (3,177,208) $ 2,081,946 Adjusted Budget As of September
30, 2023
Non-Departmental 826,891 257,221 31% 569,670
Legislative 17,00 0 3,943 23% 13,057
Administration 140,86 4 25,051 18% 115,813
City Attorney 28,000 4,263 15% 23,737
Finance and Information Technology 318,80 6 55,849 18% 262,957 Community Development: -
Planning 24,30 6 3,031 12% 21,275
Building 29,35 8 6,863 23% 22,495
Engineering 64,29 8 12,647 20% 51,651
Public Works: -
Administration and Compliance 215,596 25,271 12% 190,325 Water O&M 6,408,94 9 280,967 4% 6,127,982
Total use 8,074,06 8 675,106 8% 7,398,962
Departmental Use
Financing Sources (Uses)
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Revenue Sources
Expenditures
Salaries and benefits
Operations
Capital outlay/CIP
Fund: 601
Name: Sewer Utility M & O Fund
2023-24 2023-24
Adjusted Budget As of September
30, 2023 Remaining $ % Collected/Used
Taxes $ 55,050 $ - $ 0% 55,050
Use of money and property 52,500 7,500 14% 45,000
Charges for service 3,071,00 0 764,843 25% 2,306,157
Interfund services provided 18,000 - 0% 18,000
Total revenue 3,196,55 0 772,343 24% 2,424,207
1,393,118 242,051 17% 1,151,067
1,058,472 205,560 19% 852,912
Debt service 675,36 7 334,566 50% 340,801
1,435,211 7,394 1% 1,427,817
Total expenditures 4,562,16 8 789,571 17% 3,772,597
Net sources (uses) - -
Resources - Use
Surplus (deficit) (17,228) (1,365,618)
Audited Beginning Working Capital 6,320,690 6,320,690
Inflows 3,196,55 0 772,343
Outflows 4,562,16 8 789,571
Change to fund balance (1,365,618) (17,228)
Anticipated Ending Working Capital $ 4,955,072 $ 6,303,462 Adjusted Budget As of September
30, 2023
Non-Departmental 745,36 7 336,054 45% 409,313
Legislative 17,000 3,942 23% 13,058
Administration 140,81 4 25,051 18% 115,763
City Attorney 28,000 4,263 15% 23,737
Finance and Information Technology 316,755 58,168 18% 258,587 Community Development:

Planning 24,306 3,031 12% 21,275
Building 29,358 6,913 24% 22,445
Engineering 64,298 14,185 22% 50,113
Public Works:

Administration and Compliance 215,596 25,159 12% 190,437 Sewer O&M 2,980,67 4 312,805 10% 2,667,869
Total use 4,562,16 8 789,571 17% 3,772,597
Departmental Use
Financing Sources (Uses)
Expenditures
Salaries and benefits
Operations
Capital outlay/CIP
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Revenue Sources
Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 1 Agenda Item #VI.E.1.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council ☒
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District ☐
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority ☐
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport ☐

STAFF REPORT
RE: Contract Award and Budget Adjustment Executive
Recruitment Firm
MEETING DATE: 01/16/2024
SUBMITTED BY: Kelly Buendia, Administrative Services Director PURPOSE OF REPORT: ☐Information only ☐ Discussion ☒Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Bob Hall and Associates for the executive recruitment of a new Chief of Police and approve a budget amendment in the amount of $27,000 for the same.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Several months ago, Lakeport Chief of Police, Brad Rasmussen, announced his intention to retire by the fall of 2024. In anticipation of such, the Administrative Services Director, at the direction of the City Manager, issued a Request for Quote and Qualifications to solicit the services of an executive recruiting firm.

Among other services, the recruitment firm was asked to conduct a comprehensive outreach campaign aimed at producing the highest quality candidate pool; coordinate the interview selection process; assist in compensation negotiations and conduct a POST-level background investigation. There were five responsive proposals.

A selection committee made up of the City Manager, Administrative Services Director, Assistant City Manager and Police Chief met and selected the top three firms based upon cost, experience and overall fit for the City of Lakeport. The firms were interviewed, and Bob Hall and Associates was selected. Bob Hall and Associates demonstrated the strongest law enforcement experience and credentials. They also exhibited experience in understanding and working with the challenges of small agencies. While, they were not the lowest bidder, Bob Hall was also not the highest bidder, falling somewhere in the middle.

The basic bid amount fell at $23,500 with an additional $3500 built in to cover the POST level background investigation and any additional travel costs. The City Council is asked to authorize the City Manager to execute the attached agreement with Bob Hall and Associates in an amount not to exceed $27,000 and approve a budget amendment for this expenditure.

OPTIONS:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and budget amendment.

2. Provide alternative direction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Meeting Date: 01/16/2024 Page 2 Agenda Item #VI.E.1.
☐ None ☒ $27,000 Budgeted Item? ☐Yes ☒ No
Budget Adjustment Needed? ☒Yes ☐ No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $27,000 Affected fund(s): ☒ General Fund ☐ Water OM Fund ☐ Sewer OM Fund ☐ Other:

Comments: None
COUNCIL PRIORITIES:
☒ Priority #1: Public Safety & Crisis Response
☒ Priority #2: Disaster Resiliency
☒ Priority #3: Good Governance & Fiscal Stability
☐ Priority #4: Capital Infrastructure Improvement
☒ Priority #5: Safe, Sustainable & Attractive Neighborhoods ☐ Priority #6: Economic Development
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Move to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Bob Hall and Associates for the executive recruitment of a new Chief of Police and approve a budget amendment in the amount of $27,000 for the expenditure.
☒ Attachments: 1. Professional Services Agreement with Bob Hall and Associates

2. Proposal from Bob Hall and Associates
C#___________
Professional Services Agreement
(City of Lakeport / Company or Individual])

Page 1 of 14 ends

Lakeport City CouncilJanuary 16, 2024

Lakeport City Council
January 16, 2024