The Del Norte County Fish and Wildlife Commission agreed to begin drafting a county management plan for Lake Earl after members said state Fish and Wildlife staff told them they lack funds for water-quality and lake-level studies.

Commission member (Speaker 4) told the group that during a recent Sacramento Zoom meeting state staff "said that they would they don't have the money to do a study that would study the water quality or where the lake levels would have to be" and that the state is proceeding with endangered-species plans without the water-quality work. "They have at least 4 endangered species plans," Speaker 4 said, naming plans that reference the goby, western pond lily and a butterfly, and adding that salmon and likely steelhead are gone from the lake.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the lack of state studies leaves a regulatory gap that could prevent local management of lake levels. Speaker 4 argued the commission can prepare a historical management plan, submit it to the Board of Supervisors, and allow the county to act — with Army Corps of Engineers permission when breaching is required. Speaker 1 recommended preparing a CEQA negative declaration if the county returns the lake to historical levels to streamline review.

Commission members cited historical reports and local data as starting points. Speakers suggested using Gary Monroe's late-1970s Lake Earl management plan and local salinity sampling collected by duck hunters as evidence for a historically lower lake level. Speaker 4 also noted repeated gaps in mid-range water-level analysis in past studies and urged legal review to prepare the county for potential state pushback.

A motion to "start to write a county management plan for the lake" was proposed by Speaker 1. The meeting record shows verbal agreement and multiple "aye" responses during the discussion, and commissioners directed staff to develop an outline that would include background, supporting documentation, conclusions and recommendations and identify CEQA steps. The motion was recorded as the commission's direction to begin drafting the plan; no formal roll-call vote was recorded in the transcript.

Commission members raised management concerns beyond planning documents, including ecological impacts when the lake is breached at higher levels (Speaker 4 said breaching at about 11 feet "blows out" snowy plover habitat) and loss of marine-derived nutrients after salmon declines. They also discussed the credentials of a state park staffer who performs sandgrass removal; Speaker 1 said the ranger "has no credential whatsoever," which commissioners cited as reinforcing the need for local oversight.

Next steps: Commissioners instructed the commission staff to prepare a draft plan and supporting materials, consult legal counsel to anticipate state responses, and submit the draft to the Board of Supervisors for formal review and referral to community development as appropriate. The commission discussed sourcing historical reports and local monitoring to support the document.