The URL can be used to link to this page

RES 19-764 - Renewing NLMD No 2RESOLUTION NO. 19-764 A RESOLUTION of the City of Federal Way, Washington, to renew North Lake Management District Number 2 and call for a vote by affected property owners on the renewal of the proposed district. WHEREAS, the term of the current North Lake Management District Number 2 will expire at the end of 2019; and WHEREAS, North Lake contains significant natural resources, e.g., wetlands, and supports many beneficial purposes including recreation, water quality, stormwater protection, aesthetics, and property value support; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 35.21 RCW and Chapter 36.61 RCW a lake management district may be formed to provide funding to support the maintenance and improvement of lakes; and WHEREAS, the North Lake community has demonstrated continued support for the North Lake Management District Number 2 ("District") through submittal of a petition calling for the renewal of the District (Exhibit A) pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 36.61 RCW; and WHEREAS, the City completed the attached 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan ("IAVMP") and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2018) (together the "Plan") (Exhibit B), that provides the basis for the annual work plans and management goals of the District; and WHEREAS, the District Advisory Committee determined that the 2004 IAVMP remains valid and did not require an update; and WHEREAS, the Plan was initiated because of citizen interest in the long term protection of North Lake; and Resolution No. 19-764 Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, pursuant to a City resolution, a public hearing was conducted on July 16, 2019, on the renewal of the District after public notice of the hearing was provided to all affected property owners consistent with Chapter 36.61 RCW; and WHEREAS, after considering the testimony received at the public hearing, the City of Federal Way City Council declares that submitting the question of renewal of the District to a vote by the affected property owners is within the public's interest, and the proposed financing for the District is considered feasible. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City of Federal Way City Council finds that it is in the public interest to renew the North Lake Management District Number 2 (the "District") and that the financing of the lake improvement and maintenance activities is feasible. Attached as Exhibit A is the Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the District for 2020-2029 that describes (1) the proposed improvement and maintenance activities that avoid adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and provide for appropriate measures to protect and enhance fish and wildlife; (2) the number of years the District will exist; (3) the amount, method, description, and frequency of special assessments or rates and charges, and the possibility of revenue bonds that are payable from the rates and charges; and (4) the estimated special assessment or rates and charges proposed to be imposed on each parcel included in the proposed lake management district. Attached as Exhibit B is the 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan ("IAVMP") and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2018) (together the "Plan") that provides a sufficient basis for guiding the work plans and management goals of the renewed District. Resolution No. 19-764 Page 2 of'4 Section 2. Vote of Affected Property Owners. The renewal of the District shall be referred to a vote of the property owners within the proposed management district. The residents' Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 2 for North Lake, 2020- 2029 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. The City Clerk of Federal Way shall prepare the appropriate ballot, based upon criteria in RCW 36.61.080, calling for a vote on the formation of the District. The ballots shall be submitted to the affected residents no later than August 2, 2019, and shall be returned to the City of Federal Way by no later than five p.m. (5:00 p.m.) on August 23, 2019. All ballots must be signed by the owner or reputed owner of property according to the assessor's tax rolls. Each property owner shall mark his or her ballot for or against the renewal of the proposed District, with the ballot weighted so that the property owner has one vote for each dollar of estimated special assessment or rate and charge proposed to be imposed on his or her property. The valid ballots shall be tabulated and a simple majority of the votes cast shall determine whether the proposed District shall be approved or rejected. If approved by the voters within the proposed District, the implementation of the District will be effective January 1, 2020, and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years, and shall expire on December 31, 2029. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution. Section 4. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this resolution are authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any Resolution No. 19-764 Page 3 of 4 references thereto. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON this 16th day of July, 2019. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY: -CL� - J F RR L, MAYOR ATTEST:. M 1 Ali IE COURTNE j CMC, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. RYAN CALL, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 07/09/2019 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 07/16/2019 RESOLUTION NO.: 19-764 Resolution No. 19-764 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 16, 2019 TO: City Council VIA: Jim Ferrell, Mayor FROM: EJ Walsh, P.E., Public Works Director Leah Myhre, Water Quality Coordinator UA SUBJECT: Resolution to Renew North Lake Management District Number 2 and Call for a Vote by Affected Property Owners on the Renewal of the Proposed District FINANCIAL IMPACTS: North Lake Management District Number 2 (NLMD) activities are funded through the collection of special assessments that will be collected annually. These assessments are collected from property owners having properties adjacent to North Lake with lakefront footage or with deeded lake access. All City of Federal Way staff activities related to the NLMD are funded through these assessments, and thus will have no direct financial impacts on the City. BACKGROUND: After 10 years of successful lake management, 2019 will bring to a close the existing North Lake Management District Number 2 (2010-2019). The NLMD provides an organizational structure and funding mechanism that allows for proactive lake management activities focusing on the protection and enhancement of water quality, recreational use, and aesthetic value of North Lake. NLMD Advisory Committee members and other affected property owners are now interested in renewing the NLMD for another 10 -year period. Attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A, is a signed petition to the City of Federal Way City Council to renew the North Lake Management District Number 2. The petition meets the criteria set forth in RCW 36.61.030 for the initiation of a Lake Management District, and the LMD management goals contained therein are based on the 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2018) (together the "Plan"). This Plan is attached to the Resolution as Exhibit B. NLMD Advisory Committee members determined that the IAVMP did not require an update and, when accompanied by the subsequent Annual Reports, provides a sufficient basis for guiding the work plans and management goals for the renewed NLMD (2020-2029). At the May 21, 2019 City Council meeting, a public hearing date concerning the reformation of the NLMD was set for July 16, 2019, and a resolution of intent to reform the NLMD was adopted. Following the public hearing on July 16, 2019, City Council is being asked to approve the attached resolution to renew the North Lake Management District Number 2 and call for a vote by the affected property owners on the renewal of the proposed district. If the resolution is adopted, voting ballots will be prepared and mailed out to the affected parties based upon criteria in RCW 36.61.080. If the renewal of the NLMD is approved by the voters (simple majority required), then an ordinance creating the NLMD will be drafted for consideration by the City Council. Following the adoption of the Ordinance, an assessment roll will be created, published, and sent to the affected property owners. A public hearing will also be set regarding the assessment roll, after which resolutions establishing the July 16, 2019 City Council Renew North Lake Management District Number 2 and Call for a Vote Page 2 assessment roll and North Lake Advisory Committee will be brought before City Council for consideration. The adoption of an ordinance establishing the time of payment, interest, and penalties will then be brought before Council. The final step in the renewal process is the selection and appointment of the North Lake Management District Advisory Committee. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Federal Way, Washington, to renew North Lake Management District Number 2 and call for a vote by affected property owners on the renewal of the proposed district. WHEREAS, the term of the current North Lake Management District Number 2 will expire at the end of 2019; and WHEREAS, North Lake contains significant natural resources, e.g., wetlands, and supports many beneficial purposes including recreation, water quality, stormwater protection, aesthetics, and property value support; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 35.21 RCW and Chapter 36.61 RCW a lake management district may be formed to provide funding to support the maintenance and improvement of lakes; and WHEREAS, the North Lake community has demonstrated continued support for the North Lake Management District Number 2 ("District") through submittal of a petition calling for the renewal of the District (Exhibit A) pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 36.61 RCW; and WHEREAS, the City completed the attached 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan ("IAVMP") and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2018) (together the "Plan") (Exhibit B), that provides the basis for the annual work plans and management goals of the District; and WHEREAS, the District Advisory Committee determined that the 2004 IAVMP remains valid and did not require an update; and WHEREAS, the Plan was initiated because of citizen interest in the long term protection of North Lake; and Resohction No. 19- Rev 1/] 9 WHEREAS, pursuant to a City resolution, a public hearing was conducted on July 16, 2019, on the renewal of the District after public notice of the hearing was provided to all affected property owners consistent with Chapter 36.61 RCW; and WHEREAS, after considering the testimony received at the public hearing, the City of Federal Way City Council declares that submitting the question of renewal of the District to a vote by the affected property owners is within the public's interest, and the proposed financing for the District is considered feasible. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City of Federal Way City Council finds that it is in the public interest to renew the North Lake Management District Number 2 (the "District") and that the financing of the lake improvement and maintenance activities is feasible. Attached as Exhibit A is the Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the District for 2020-2029 that describes (1) the proposed improvement and maintenance activities that avoid adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and provide for appropriate measures to protect and enhance fish and wildlife; (2) the number of years the District will exist; (3) the amount, method, description, and frequency of special assessments or rates and charges, and the possibility of revenue bonds that are payable from the rates and charges; and (4) the estimated special assessment or rates and charges proposed to be imposed on each parcel included in the proposed lake management district. Attached as Exhibit B is the 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan ("IAVMP") and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2018) (together the "Plan") that provides a sufficient basis for guiding the work plans and management goals of the renewed District. Resolution No. 19- Rev 1/19 Section 2. Vote of Affected Property Owners. The renewal of the District shall be referred to a vote of the property owners within the proposed management district. The residents' Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 2 for North Lake, 2020- 2029 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. The City Clerk of Federal Way shall prepare the appropriate ballot, based upon criteria in RCW 36.61.080, calling for a vote on the formation of the District. The ballots shall be submitted to the affected residents no later than August 2, 2019, and shall be returned to the City of Federal Way by no later than five p.m. (5:00 p.m.) on August 23, 2019. All ballots must be signed by the owner or reputed owner of property according to the assessor's tax rolls. Each property owner shall mark his or her ballot for or against the renewal of the proposed District, with the ballot weighted so that the property owner has one vote for each dollar of estimated special assessment or rate and charge proposed to be imposed on his or her property. The valid ballots shall be tabulated and a simple majority of the votes cast shall determine whether the proposed District shall be approved or rejected. If approved by the voters within the proposed District, the implementation of the District will be effective January 1, 2020, and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years, and shall expire on December 31, 2029. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution. Section 4. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this resolution are authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any Resolution No. 19- Rev 1/19 references thereto. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority andprior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON this day of , 20! CITY OF FEDERAL WAY: JIM FERRELL, MAYOR ATTEST: STEPHANIE COURTNEY, CMC, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. RYAN CALL, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.: Resolution No. 19- Rev 1/19 EXHIBIT A Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 2 for North Lake, 2020-2029 We, the undersigned North Lake property owners, request that the Federal Way City Council renew the Lake Management District (LMD) Number 2 for North Lake pursuant to RCW 36.61 that will otherwise expire in 2019. The LMD funds will finance efforts to protect and enhance North Lake in terms of water quality, recreational uses, and aesthetic value. 1. Purpose of the Lake Management District • Form a Lake Management District that creates a funding source and an operational program for all future designated aquatic plant management, water quality management, and maintenance and monitoring activities. • Perform annual diver surveys to monitor changes in the aquatic plant community. • Control, remove, and contain aquatic plants, specifically non-native populations at as low a density as is environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that will not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. • Reduce all other identified species of noxious weeds per the requirements of WAC 16-750 and even further, to levels that do not impact public safety, beneficial uses, or ecology of the lake. • Use appropriate aquatic plant control and treatment methods as needed for all other problematic aquatic weeds, using the best available science to identify and understand their effects on human, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems prior to implementation. • Assess, improve, and monitor water levels and water quality. • Continue public education to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake; and to aid in the early detection of aquatic weed re -infestations. • Conduct a volunteer -driven water quality monitoring program that will track lake health based on the collection of data, including but not limited to: water level, temperature, Secchi depth, phosphorous and nitrogen. • Conduct public education to reduce the amounts of non -point source pollutants entering the lake, which can result in increased aquatic algae. • Continue to involve the North Lake Community in lake quality improvement. • Advocate for the preservation of the forested lakeshore and wetlands of the former Weyerhaeuser Campus in Federal Way, a vital component of the North Lake-Hylebos watershed. • Uphold the Shoreline Management Act that protects shoreline natural resources against adverse environmental impacts. The 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2018) include the basis for the annual LMD work plan and LMD management goals. The LMD will reimburse the City for costs incurred by staff in providing aquatic vegetation program management tasks. All management district lake improvement and maintenance activities described in RCW 36.61.020 may be considered in the LMD scope, including: (1) controlling or removing North Lake LMD Petition Pagel of 5 aquatic plants and vegetation; (2) improving water quality; (3) controlling water levels; (4) treating and diverting stormwater; (5) controlling agricultural waste; (6) studying lake water quality problems and solutions; (7) cleaning and maintaining ditches and streams entering the lake; (8) monitoring air quality; and (9) the related administrative, engineering, legal, and operational costs, including the costs of creating the LMD. 2. Boundary The proposed boundary of the LMD would include all property with lakefront on North Lake, and two individual adjacent properties that have lake access deeds. See attached map of proposed properties within the district. 3. Duration The proposed duration of the LMD renewal is 10 years. 4. Charges to Property Owners Annual rates and charges will be used to raise funds to support LMD activities. The following is the formula of rates and charges proposed for establishment of the assessment role for the LMD: Assessment Category Rate Revenue ($) Single Family Residential (RS9.6), Lakefront property Developed property (57 units) X $ 125.00 per unit $7,125 Vacant property (220 ft) X $ 0.85 per lakefront foot $187 Single Family Residential (RS9.6), Non -lakefront property with deeded lake access Developed property (2 units) X $ 90.00 per unit $180 Weyerhaeuser (CP -1) Commercial property (3,796 ft) X $ 1.00 per lakefront foot $3,796 WDFW Public Boat Launch Single annual assessment $4,000 $15,288 TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT It is proposed that unallocated funds in the current LMD at the end of 2019 roll over into the LMD Number 2 for North Lake, 2020-2029. The estimated maximum amount that is proposed for the LMD in 2020 is $15,288.00. An automatic increase based on the Seattle Consumer Price Index (CPI) will be included in each annual billing after 2020 per approval by the North Lake Advisory Committee. At no time is the increase to be more than five (5) percent per year. Total maximum LMD rate revenue for the ten-year LMD based on an annual five percent increase for inflation is $192,290.82. Issuance of revenue bonds is not proposed. North Lake LMD Renewal 2020-2029 Petition Page 2 of 5 The LMD budget and rates will be approved through a public hearing and a public vote after the city council adopts a resolution to form the LMD. Once approved by the public and city council, the annual rates and charges may not be altered without another public vote and city council approval with the exception of the CPI increase described above. 5. North Lake Management District Advisory Committee The volunteer North Lake Management District Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) is proposed to represent the interests of LMD property owners in the various neighborhoods around the lake. City staff will work with the Advisory Committee to develop the annual work plan. The annual LMD work plan and budget will be forwarded by the Advisory Committee for implementation by the City's surface water utility. The Advisory Committee will track and review activities and expenditures by the City as well as outside contractors. City staff will provide Advisory Committee support including quarterly financial reports. North Lake LMD Renewal 2020-2029 Petition Page 3 of 5 Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew tb e Lake Managenient District Nuzaber 2 for North Lake, 2020-M2 RC W 36.61-030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district. whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner Full Address Parcel Number (if known) I -731t('q - 33� L' � 2. WA 3. � zE . y .10 & r 6 /Z'a d C 0 F,n 6.',' A t � � -� ' 7 : 33 b 2-s 8. 9. r'��c�l 12. 14.15, > 1nJ kri 16. �, =-- -3 5 /�, 5. 33r,�=� s . F�, ��,U 17. ' 'S 3 w 3o se. Ke S t - r 19� -?Q 5- North Lake LMD Renewal 2020-2029 Petition Page 4 of 5 r Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District ` umber 2 for North Lake, 2020-2029 RCW 36.6LO30— A lake management district maybe initiated upon either the adoption of resolution of rdcnfion by a co=y legislative authority or the filing of petition signed by tea landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed take management district, whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner Full Address Parcel Number (if known) 23, Z6 24. 3(C, 33L4 V - 25. f//' L 7—Xpi, 7 27. 6, 5: 28. 29' 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. North Lake LMD Renewal 2020-2029 Petition Page 5 of 5 Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 2 for North Lake, 2020-2029 RCW 36.61.030 — A take management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of inantion by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner Full Address Parcel Number (if known) 2. C'yrrlht� two lcr�oq, S IJ;u�ireti nra�rt.�cr-CU�Fx: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. i 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17.. 18. 19. 20. North Lake UYID Renew.d 2020-2029 Petition Page 4 of 5 - A6 .�. O King County EXHIBIT B North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan October 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan O King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Lake Stewardship Program Noxious Weed Control Program King Street Center 201 South Jackson, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 296-6519 TTY Relay: 711 www.metrokc.gov/dnr October 2004 King County Executive Ron Sims Director of Department of Natural Resources and Parks Pam Bissonnette Division Manager of Water and Land Resources Division Daryl Grigsby Water and Land Resources Division Staff Sally Abella Beth Cullen Drew Kerr Michael Murphy Washington State Department of Ecology Staff Kathy Hamel North Lake Community Steering Committee Mark Braverman Julie Cleary Beth Cullen Chuck Gibson Cover Photos: North Lake Improvement Club Debra Hansen Wendy Honey Tom Jovanovich North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The King County Lake Stewardship Program and the Noxious Weed Control Program wish to thank the members of the Steering Committee for the North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Members include Mark Braverman, Julie Cleary, Beth Cullen, Chuck Gibson, Debra Hansen, Wendy Honey, and Tom Jovanovich. King County staff were instrumental in developing the IAVMP. Key staff included Drew Kerr and Monica Walker of the Noxious Weed Control Program, as well as Sally Abella, Michael Murphy (Murph), and Beth Cullen from the Lake Stewardship Program. Washington Department of Ecology staff provided invaluable technical guidance during development of the IAVMP. Special thanks to Kathy Hamel of the Aquatic Weeds Management Fund for her prompt, thoughtful and thorough response to all questions. Finally, special thanks to the North Lake community. Their enthusiasm and dedication to preserving the aesthetic beauty, recreational opportunities, and ecological integrity of North Lake is inspiring. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT..................................................................................................... 2 MANAGEMENTGOALS...................................................................................................... 4 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.......................................................................................... 5 CommunityHistory ................................................................................................................ 5 CommunityCommitment...................................................................................................... 6 Steering Committee, Outreach, and Education Process......................................................... 7 Publiccomment...................................................................................................................... 9 Publicconsensus.................................................................................................................... 9 Continuing Community Education........................................................................................ 9 WATERSHED AND WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS .......................................... 12 WaterbodyCharacteristics................................................................................................... 13 WaterQuality....................................................................................................................... 14 Fish and Wildlife Communities........................................................................................... 15 Beneficial and Recreational Uses......................................................................................... 18 Characterization of Aquatic Plants in North Lake............................................................... 19 Noxious Aquatic Weeds in North Lake............................................................................... 23 AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES.......................................................... 26 AquaticHerbicides............................................................................................................... 26 ManualMethods.................................................................................................................. 36 DiverDredging.................................................................................................................... 39 BottomScreens.................................................................................................................... 41 BiologicalControl................................................................................................................ 43 GrassCarp............................................................................................................................ 45 WatermilfoilWeevil............................................................................................................. 49 Rotovation, Harvesting, and Cutting.................................................................................... 51 Drawdown............................................................................................................................ 52 NutrientReduction............................................................................................................... 52 NoAction Alternative.......................................................................................................... 53 INTEGRATED TREATMENT PLAN................................................................................ 54 Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)................................................................. 54 Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata)............................................................................... 56 Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)................................................................................. 57 Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus)...................................................................................... 57 PLAN ELEMENTS, COSTS, AND FUNDING.................................................................. 58 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION...................................................................... 63 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................. 64 North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Average Values for Select Trophic Parameters at North Lake .................................. 15 Table2: Wildlife List............................................................................................................... 17 Table 3: 1996 Aquatic Plant Survey........................................................................................ 22 Table 4: Budget with use of Triclopyr..................................................................................... 58 Table 5: Project budget with use of 2,4-D............................................................................... 59 Table 6: Total Matching Funds (triclopyr).............................................................................. 60 Table 7: Total Matching Funds (2,4-D)................................................................................... 61 Table 8: In-kind Matching Funds............................................................................................. 61 Table9: Cash Matching Funds................................................................................................ 61 Table 10: KC Staff Salary and Burden Rates........................................................................... 62 Table 11: Federal Way Staff and Benefit Rates....................................................................... 62 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: North Lake Watershed and Tributary 0016.............................................................. 13 Figure 2: North Lake Land Use.........................................................................20 Figure 3: North Lake Aquatic Plant Map.............................................................22 North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is a submersed aquatic noxious weed that proliferates to form dense mats of vegetation in the littoral zone of lakes and reservoirs. It reproduces by fragmentation, and is often spread as fragments that "hitch -hike" on boat trailers from one lake to another. This noxious weed can degrade the ecological integrity of a water body in just a few growing seasons. Dense stands of milfoil crowd out native aquatic vegetation, which in turn alters predator -prey relationships among fish and other aquatic animals. M. spicatum can also reduce dissolved oxygen — first by inhibiting water mixing in areas where it grows, and then as oxygen is consumed by bacteria during decomposition of dead plant material. Decomposition of M. spicatum also adds nutrients to the water that could contribute to increased algal growth and related water quality problems. Further, dense mats of M. spicatum can increase the water temperature by absorbing sunlight, create mosquito breeding areas, and negatively affect recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, and boating. North Lake lies along the eastern border of Federal Way in the upper White River watershed in King County Washington. The 55 -acre lake is moderately infested with M. spicatum. Members of the North Lake Improvement Club (NLIC) realized the seriousness of the aquatic weed problem and initiated a partnership with staff from the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Weyerhaeuser, and the City of Federal Way to apply for an Aquatic Weeds Management Fund grant through the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). If awarded, grant money will fund initial eradication efforts, as well as several years of follow-up survey and control. Since complete eradication is very difficult to achieve, and re -introduction is very likely, the community is organizing a management structure and the funding mechanisms necessary to implement ongoing monitoring and spot control. Three other noxious weed species with expanding infestations at North Lake also threaten to degrade the ecological and recreational benefits of the system. Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) have expanded beyond a pioneering level of infestation and are well established around the shoreline and in the lake. This Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) is a planning document developed to ensure that the applicant (King County) and the community have considered the best available information about the waterbody and the watershed prior to initiating control efforts. Members of the North Lake Improvement Club, King County staff, and Weyerhaeuser staff worked in partnership to develop this IAVMP for North Lake. To tackle the difficult task of generating community concern and action for an environmental issue, a core group of residents formed a steering committee, which included one King County staff member from the King County Lake Stewardship Program. Through their work, the Steering Committee was able to educate the wider community about the problem, inspire them to contribute feedback about potential treatment options, and explore ongoing community-based funding mechanisms. The community ultimately agreed upon an integrated treatment strategy, which includes an initial chemical treatment with a systemic aquatic herbicide, followed by a combination of manual, mechanical, and cultural control methods to maintain the outcome. This plan presents lake and watershed characteristics, details of the aquatic weed problems at North Lake, the process for gaining community involvement, discussion of control alternatives, and recommendations for initial and ongoing control of noxious aquatic weeds threatening North Lake. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 PROBLEM STATEMENT North Lake is located east of the city of Federal Way and Interstate 5, south of 3201h Street and north of Highway 18. The lake is located in the White River Watershed (WRIA 10), which encompasses parts of southern King County and extends into Pierce County. North Lake is located in a very urban area of King County along with neighboring lakes Lake Killarney, Lake Geneva, and Fivemile Lake. However, at this time Weyerhaeuser has no intention of developing the west side of the lake. The 52.3 acres of land owned and maintained by Weyerhaeuser will remain undeveloped. Only the eastern and southern shorelines of the lake are developed with single family residences. North Lake drains into the Commencement Bay through the Hylebos Creek. In the past Hylebos Creek has provided good habitat for chinook salmon but the system has undergone extensive development over the years and salmon populations in the Hylebos Basin have been greatly reduced (Mobrand Biometrics, 2001). The estuarine area is still used by juvenile salmonid species including chinook and coho. North Lake and neighboring Geneva, Killarney, and Fivemile Lakes all have public boat launches and are popular boating, fishing, and swimming destinations. Residents of the North Lake watershed are very proud of their setting, are active recreational users and are committed to social and environmental issues. Due to prolific growth of several species of dense, invasive aquatic noxious weeds, North Lake is in danger of losing its aesthetic beauty, its wildlife habitat, and its recreational attributes. If left untreated, the worst of these weeds, Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), will blanket the littoral zone of the lake in a short time, preventing most recreational uses and eliminating badly needed wildlife habitat. There will be long-term financial and recreational loss and the loss of conservation areas, all affecting watershed residents and other members of the public who use the lake. Increasing development in the area is likely to increase the number of people using the lake in coming years, which can accelerate the magnitude of the loss of beneficial uses to the community. The shallow shoreline area of the lake provides excellent habitat for aquatic plants. In the past few years aggressive, non-native Eurasian water milfoil (milfoil) has invaded the lake and is colonizing the near -shore aquatic habitat. The dense submersed growth of milfoil has begun to cause a significant deterioration in the quality of the lake and its value to the community. The boat launch area has dense patches of milfoil, which can spread to other lakes by fragments on boat trailers. Nearby lakes are threatened with new introductions of milfoil if North Lake is not controlled because of the high probability of transport by boat trailers to these nearby systems. Milfoil is the most significant submersed invasive threat but other noxious weeds have also invaded North Lake. These include fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus). All of these species are considered noxious weeds as listed in WAC 16-750. Waterlilies have been a real threat to the lake, covering up sections of the lake entirely. North Lake is shallow and waterlilies grow in the middle of the lake and close off sections of the lake from recreational activities. This has been a major issue with area residents as it has decreased their recreation because of safety issues. Waterlilies can also affect water quality by decreasing dissolved oxygen, out competing native plants, and adding excessive nutrients to the lake when they die back in the fall. None of the native aquatic plants in the system are a management issue at this time. The native plants provide important benefits to the aquatic system and are not impeding any of the recreational uses of the lake. Removing the noxious invaders will halt the degradation of the system and allow the dynamic natural equilibrium to be maintained. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 Unfortunately, these invasive plants concentrate in the near shore zone which is also that portion of the lake that is valued and utilized most by lake residents and visitors. Dense weed growth poses a threat to swimmers, and the portion of the lake where people can fish is shrinking. Both milfoil and fragrant waterlilies foul fishing gear, motors, and oars. It is no longer possible to troll through large portions of the lake. As a group these invasive plants: • Pose a safety hazard to swimmers and boaters by entanglement • Snag fishing lines and hooks, eventually preventing shoreline fishing • Crowd out native plants, creating monocultures lacking in biodiversity • Significantly reduce fish and wildlife habitat, thereby weakening the local ecosystem as well as degrading wildlife and wildlife viewing opportunities • Pose a threat to adjoining ecosystems North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 MANAGEMENT GOALS The overarching management goal is to control noxious aquatic weeds in North Lake in a manner that allows sustainable native plant and animal communities to thrive, maintains acceptable water quality conditions, and facilitates recreational enjoyment of the lake. There are four main strategies to ensure success in meeting this goal: 1. Involve the community in each phase of the management process; 2. Use the best available science to identify and understand likely effects of management actions on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems prior to implementation; 3. Review the effectiveness of management actions; 4. Adjust the management strategy as necessary to achieve the overall goal. Specific details related to the implementation of management objectives are covered in subsequent sections of this plan. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT North Lake residents have been a very active community from the beginning and regularly demonstrate their commitment to improving their community and protecting the lake as well as the expansive natural areas owned by Weyerhaeuser around their homes. This section provides an overview of past, present, and future of community involvement. Community History From their earliest days, members of the North Lake community have worked together to promote common goals, including the health of the lake. The North Lake Improvement Club (NLIC) was formed in 1942 to work to maintain and improve North Lake and the region around the lake. The club has always been open to anyone living in the area. The NLIC purchased a piece of property and built a clubhouse in the early 1950's. The clubhouse has provided a convenient place for the community to get together for social gatherings and meetings to plan and execute projects to improve the North Lake neighborhood. The club membership has been active in monitoring the development of the properties around North Lake and to ensure that changes are made in a manner that is consistent with the neighborhood desires. There has been significant development in the watershed in the last five years and the community has been active in monitoring the development plans to assure the lake is protected. NLIC as an organization and members as individuals have commented at hearings on developments now underway in the watershed and hearings on developments that may have an impact on the quality of living in the North Lake area. One of the currently vested development with the greatest potential to impact the lake through stormwater runoff has been required to have the stormwater management plan reviewed by representatives of the NLIC before it is approved by the City of Federal Way. Being a participant in the King County's Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program through the Lake Stewardship Program is another way the community demonstrates its interest and commitment to lake health. Area residents have participated in the program on and off for the last 19 years. Most recently, community members became involved in the program in 2001. Initially only one community member participated in the program, but with the expansion of the program to include Level 1 and Level 2 sampling, several members joined in to share the monitoring duties. There are now six families sharing the monitoring duties, giving North Lake the distinction of having a monitoring program with the most active community participation. Lake Stewardship Program volunteers monitor lake level and precipitation daily, Secchi transparency, water temperature, algae and bird observations weekly, and collect water samples every other week from April through October. Water samples are analyzed for total phosphorus, total nitrogen, chlorophyll a and concentrations of phytoplankton species. Volunteer data are published each year in reports produced by the King County Lake Stewardship Program. To address the increasing populations of waterlilies in North Lake, lakefront property owners contracted for control of waterlilies in 1996. The control was done for one year. The contractor completed two applications on the lily pads on the residential side of the lake. This was done only in areas that fronted on property owners who agreed to pay the contractors. Qualitative evaluation of the application indicated that it was successful and reduced the expansion of coverage on the residential North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 side of the lake for a few years. However, since there was not a lake wide effort to control the lilies in following years, the infestation returned and became worse. The membership of today's NLIC reflects the strength of new perspectives and energies. As homes change hands and the last developable land disappear, families on the lake share a love of this unique ecosystem, and are committed to honor and perpetuate the legacy of good stewardship. Community Commitment The NLIC has held several informational meetings for its membership and others to learn about noxious and invasive plants identification and control. The Club has and continues to be active in public meetings where new developments plans are discussed and present comments to assure the lake water quality and area environment will continue to be healthy. Examples of issues discussed by the Community Club in recent years include: • The impact of letting purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) continue to grow • How to eradicate purple loosestrife • Problems posed by fragrant waterlilies (Nymphaea odorata) • How to eradicate fragrant waterlilies The lakefront property owners have organized to obtain funding to begin a weed control program in 2004. A Small Change for a Big Difference grant was obtained from King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (KCDNRP), which will be combined with funds from the Weyerhaeuser Company, and contributions and was used to begin waterlily control this year. The lakefront property owners intend to continue the effort to control the waterlilies and other noxious weeds in and around North Lake. The Steering Committee is spearheading this effort and is pursuing several options to eradicate noxious weeds and keep the lake free of noxious weeds in years to come. In the long run, success will require on ongoing funding mechanism for monitoring the success of control measures, surveying for noxious weed species each year, and responding to new infestations quickly to maintain a weed -free lake. The Steering Committee is exploring ways to provide maintenance funding in perpetuity. Community members are currently discussing several funding ideas; the best long-term solution will inevitably utilize multiple mechanisms. Voluntary contributions: Having enough lake front property owners commit to annual maintenance fee to maintain a fund for control of the weeds. The funding goals would be adjusted annually to meet the needs, with the largest amount needed to support the initial eradication program. Volunteer monies would be collected in several ways, including running fundraising activities as well as door to door campaigning. Although less consistent, this type of activity is expected to work because of the stability of the neighborhood. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 2. Lake Management District (LMD): Forming an LMD would levy a "tax" on all lakefront property owners. The tax paid by each lakefront property owner would be determined by the size of the property. Funds collected would be used to address specific problems at the lake. In order to form an LMD, lakefront property owners need to vote to approve it, and the governing agency (King County or Federal Way) needs to adopt an ordinance recognizing the fee collection structure, problems to be addressed, and the methods by which problems will be addressed. 3. Volunteer maintenance: Train residents to perform the monitoring and removal efforts. There are certified divers on the lake. Funds would be collected by the Community Club to purchase necessary equipment and obtain training to conduct the milfoil removal operations by volunteers after the grant funds expire. Currently, lake residents perform invasive weed control efforts voluntarily on the emergent plants at North Lake. Steering Committee, Outreach, and Education Process Community participation has been an integral part of the development of the North Lake IAVMP. Community involvement educates community members about the potential problems posed by noxious aquatic weeds. Since watershed residents were given ample opportunity to comment throughout the process, there is greater community support for implementation efforts. Meeting agendas, attendance lists, and meeting notes are contained in Appendix A. The remainder of this section provides a chronological overview of the community involvement process from the first discussions through the completion of the IAVMP. Early Discussion: Explored potential for King County — North Lake partnership Initially, two board members of the North Lake Improvement Club and lakeside residents contacted King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Lake Stewardship Program staff in winter of 2003. North Lake residents were interested in controlling noxious weeds and through the support of the community, the North Lake Steering Committee was formed. Five resident members now sit on the committee. The North Lake Steering Committee wanted to apply to the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Aquatic Weed Management Fund for money to help with North Lake weed control efforts in spring 2004. Given the amount of work required to develop an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan, which is necessary for the grant application, North Lake Steering Committee and King County staff decided it would be better to develop a strategy and work toward to applying for the grant in fall of 2004. March 2004: First meeting with North Lake Steering Committee North Lake Steering Committee invited a King County Lake Stewardship Program representative and a Weyerhaeuser representative to a North Lake Steering Committee meeting on March 17, 2004. This initial Steering Committee meeting was for general information to determine what partners on the North Lake project were setting out to accomplish and how this could be done as a joint effort between North Lake residents, Weyerhaeuser, and King County. The Steering Committee and King County staff discussed the process by which the community could work with King County to submit a grant application from Ecology to control noxious aquatic weeds in North Lake. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 April and May 2004: Project planning begins, Steering Committee meets, begins IAVMP Development A Steering Committee meeting was held on April 1, 2004 to discuss a King County Small Change grant application and initial notification to lakeside residents for an educational meeting to be held on April 5, 2004. The agenda and expectations were set for the meeting. The Steering Committee created and hand delivered all lakeside residents invitations to attend the education meeting. On April 5, 2004 thirty-two people attended the educational meeting. The primary purpose was to discuss the problem with Eurasian watermilfoil and other aquatic noxious weeds, management techniques and the IAVMP development process. The larger community's interest in furthering the process was also assessed, which was a resounding desire to pursue aquatic weed removal. Following the April 5th meeting, the Steering Committee members drafted and submitted the Small Change for a Big Difference Grant application to the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks on April 17, 2004. This grant application helped support a joint waterlily treatment with Weyerhaeuser. In May of 2004 KC DNRP staff developed a draft of a project timeline, an education and outreach plan and began to research necessary components of the IAVMP. May 5, 2004 Beth Cullen from King County and North Lake Steering Committee members met to discuss the development of the IAVMP. The primary goal was to approve the project, address any concerns, and outline necessary tasks for the grant application process. A second IAVMP planning meeting was held at the end of May. Specific tasks were assigned to each Steering Committee member and timelines for the completion of draft assignments were set. At this meeting, members discussed the approval of the Small Change for a Big Difference grant and how to notify the lakeside residents for the beginning stages of the fragrant waterlily eradication. June 2004: Steering committee continues IAVMP work, hosts first watershed -wide meeting In the beginning of June, notification was distributed to all North Lake lakeside residents regarding the first chemical treatment for the waterlily control. The dates decided for treatment were June 17th and June 18th pending weather conditions. The treatment did occur and approximately 10 acres of waterlilies were treated, three acres on June 17th and 10 acres on the June 18th. The treatment was successful and there was immediate damage to the lilies. Over the course of the month the lilies died back and areas of the lake were again open for recreation. The lily treatment had a draw -back because it opened up new ground for the milfoil to spread. With the cover of the lilies gone, sunlight was able to get to the bottom of lake, which encouraged more aggressive milfoil growth. On June 14 , 2004 the Steering Committee and Beth Cullen from King County met to discuss the progress and agenda for a watershed -wide meeting scheduled for June 28, 2004. At the June 28th meeting the North Lake Steering Committee members presented the problems posed by the noxious aquatic weeds present in North Lake. Guests to this meeting included Beth Cullen from King County, Mark Braverman the Site Forestry Manager for Weyerhaeuser, Belinda Bowman, Whitworth Pest Solutions, and Dan Smith from the City of Federal Way. The objective of this meeting was to update the community on the waterlily eradication efforts and introduce the IAVMP. Before and after herbicide treatment photos were shown to the public. Beth Cullen provided a PowerPoint presentation giving a detailed description of the aquatic weeds in North Lake and the treatment methods selected by the North Lake Steering Committee. The meeting also provided open floor time for discussion and questions of all information presented. Members from neighboring Lake Geneva came to the watershed meeting to learn about the process to possibly emulate on their lake. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 8 Public comment At the initial lakeside resident meeting, presenters encouraged attendees to ask questions and offer comments. The first lakeside residents meeting on April 5th, most comments supported acting as quickly as possible to control weeds in the lake. There were questions about the effectiveness of the various treatment options presented. Several comments expressed concern that the community members would need to "foot the bill" for control costs. Steering Committee members addressed concerns when possible and if answers were not readily apparent, offered to do more research and report back. At the June 28th watershed wide meeting, residents were still enthusiastic about the project and the results they were beginning to see from the initial treatment of Rodeo TM applied by Whitworth Pest Solutions. Many residents inquired when another later summer spray could occur and what the costs would be. The only concerns expressed by residents were the safety of the chemicals used to control invasive weeds for swimming, watering, and pets. Public consensus Members of the steering committee drafted a "Letter of Support" that members of the community could sign to demonstrate their support of the proposed milfoil control strategy while recognizing its potential cost. To date, there have been no objections to the proposed project or for the proposed methods of treatment. Every person who has learned about the project has voiced support. Given the community's small size, and their dedication and enthusiasm for keeping North Lake healthy, none of the steering committee members anticipate resistance to the proposed project prior to, during, or after implementation. The letter of support and copies of the signature sheets are in Appendix B. Continuing Community Education The North Lake Steering Committee will offer the means by which the community will organize ongoing education. In addition, the Steering Committee for the proposed aquatic weed removal project will remain intact, although membership on the steering committee is likely to change over time. To ensure that community efforts are consistent with best available science and water quality standards, the community club will designate a point of contact liaison within the KC DNRP. Information will be disseminated through community club meetings and watershed mailings when applicable. A liaison with school and youth organizations will also be designated. Additionally, the Steering Committee will work to recruit new lake monitors and surveyors. All of the documents and PowerPoint presentations generated by the Watershed -wide and Steering Committee meetings are available on request. Links are provided to the websites for the Washington State Department of Ecology, the King County Noxious Weed Control Program, and the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks to learn more about aquatic noxious weeds and other natural resource management issues. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 The public education program for North Lake will consist of two elements that will be implemented concurrently: 1. Noxious Aquatic Weeds Prevention and Detection Initial eradication and control efforts are only worth doing if future infestations are prevented, or detected and eliminated soon after detection. Since the re -introduction of milfoil and other weeds to North Lake is almost certain, a prevention and detection plan is essential. There are four main elements to the prevention and detection plan: a) Annual distribution of educational materials. Steering Committee members will compile published materials and generate literature specifically related to North Lake to distribute to all watershed residents each year at the beginning of the growing season. b) Annual aquatic plant identification workshops. Workshops each spring will cover native plants as well as noxious aquatic weeds. Samples of our target weeds will be collected and pressed in Year 1 as a permanent reference and education tool for the community. All watershed residents and lake -users will be invited and encouraged to attend. The lakefront residents at Lake Killarney, Lake Geneva and other nearby waterbodies might also be invited to expand the educational effort beyond North Lake. Aquatic plant experts could be invited from Ecology, the King County Noxious Weed Control Program, or other applicable agencies. A better -educated community of residents and lake -users will be more likely to identify and report noxious aquatic weeds and other potential problems. c) Two aquatic weed surveys each growing season. Volunteers (community members) will undergo training with lakes/aquatic plant specialists prior to conducting surveys. There are at least two certified divers living on the lake, both of whom have been active in developing the IAVMP and project proposal. Divers will be trained to survey the lake bottom to complement visual surveys from the surface and to take samples for identification. d) Boy Scout Troop 306 will be at the public boat launch on opening day of fishing to educate the public about the milfoil eradication efforts and what they can do as individuals to decrease the chances of reinfestation. They will also work on checking and cleaning boat trailers before they enter the water and after. 2. Lake Stewardship Education Program North Lake residents have a unique situation with having six families who rotate responsibility in the King County Lake Stewardship Program. While other lakes in King County may only have one or two volunteers for the lake stewardship program, North Lake has six families that volunteer. These families attend lake related workshops learning about nutrients in fertilizers, detergents, failing septic system, eroding soil, shoreline planting suggestions and resources, and how animal waste can cause algae and aquatic plants to grow and multiply. Another avenue to share information on appropriate shoreline plantings is our North Lake Garden Club. One of the goals of the steering committee is to develop a process to share this information with a broader audience of watershed residents. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 10 North Lake has a public boat launch on the northeast end of the lake. We understand that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has begun a pilot project to address the concerns of lake -users spreading noxious weeds from lake to lake. An additional goal of the steering committee is to learn and understand how the finding from this pilot can be incorporated in the health of our lake. The North Lake community is an inclusive and involved community. We have many opportunities to share lake quality information with our watershed residents. These opportunities include monthly North Lake Improvement Club board meetings that are open to all members, the annual meeting of the NLIC, Fourth of July parade and community get-together, holiday boat parade, annual community garage sale and as needed NLIC cleanup. Each of these functions offers the steering committee the avenue to provide lake -related information to all watershed residents and lake -users. Our overall goal is to develop a process to keep lake quality information current and available to all our watershed users. The Steering Committee has generated some ideas for signage related to the transport of milfoil by boats and trailers. If signs posted at the boat launch include step by step directions on how to properly clean boats and trailers, and why it is important, lake -users may be more apt to do the right thing. Obvious problems for boat cleaning involve questions of where it can be done and the right equipment to do the job. The boat launch at North Lake does not have any tools to perform this cleaning, which is similar to most other lakes in the area. Any adhering pollutants that are washed off by a diligent boat owner at the launch site will probably end up in the lake since there is no facility to collect the gray water. The Steering Committee has discussed the option of installing a Cleaning Station at the North Lake boat launch with a hose, handpump, and a catchment and drain to encourage the proper cleaning of boats and trailers. The handpump would hopefully discourage using the station for cleaning cars or other inappropriate uses. North Lake may pursue these issues with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, which has just begun a pilot program to address these concerns. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 11 WATERSHED AND WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS North Lake's watershed is located in south-western King County, Washington in an unincorporated area located right outside the Federal Way city limits. State resource agencies frequently use a system of Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) to refer to the state's major watershed basins. North Lake is located in WRIA 10, which refers to the Puyallup — White River combination watershed and includes the Puyallup and White Rivers and the southern part of King County. The North Lake watershed constitutes approximately 425 acres (2.2%) of the Hylebos Creek Sub - basin of the White — Puyallup River watershed. The Hylebos Creek Sub -basin is 19221 acres and receives a mean annual rainfall of 40 inches. The sub -basin drains approximately 18 mile2 from the cities of Federal Way to Commencement Bay in Pierce County and it encompasses 35 miles of stream and 250 acres of wetlands (FOHC 2004). According to the Soil Survey for King County Area, Washington, the soils around North Lake watershed are primarily made up of the Alderwood series (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973). The primary soil types are the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgQ and Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 % slopes (AgB). The soil is comprised of moderately to well drained soils that have a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. These soils are on uplands and formed under conifers, in glacial deposits. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and very slow in the substratum. Roots penetrate easily to the consolidated substratum where they tend to mat on the surface. Water moves on top of the substratum in winter and the available water capacity is low. Runoff is slow to medium and the hazard of erosion is slight to moderate. There is one small section of Norma sandy loam (No) in the southern part of the lake and Orcas peat (Or) in the north. The Hylebos Creek Sub -basin tributaries drain approximately 18 mit, including North Lake, Lake Killarney, and Lake Geneva. Commercial areas, single family and multifamily residences dominate the basin. North Lake is located in the upper part of the watershed by Federal Way, which is the most heavily urbanized area of the basin (King County 1991). There are now 54 lakeside homes, which indicates that single family high-density land use has continued to increase on the east side of the lake. Future land use plans include a single family, high density area stretching along the east side of the lake, east of 38th Ave South. Although not directly on the shoreline the drainage from the new development will be going into North Lake as well as increase the number of people who will use the public boat launch. The west side of the lake is located within the city limits of Federal Way, however, the property is owned by Weyerhaeuser and is not open to development. The property is approximately 52.3 acres of second growth forest that lines the whole east side of North Lake to Weyerhaeuser Way South. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 12 C3Watershed Boundary North Lake N Major Roads North w-- North Lake Outlet Figure 1: North Lake Watershed and Tributary 0016 Tributary 0016 drains North Lake from its southern tip, and joins Tributary 0006, which drains Lake Killarney, a half mile south of Tributary 0016. Tributary 0016 enters Hylebos Creek, which continues southwest and enters Pierce County where it flows directly into Commencement Bay. There is a significant amount of shoreline that remains relatively undeveloped at North Lake, thanks to Weyerhaeuser preserving their land and not allowing for development on the west side of the lake. This undoubtedly limits the nonpoint source nutrients reaching the lake. This entire sub -basin benefits from the moderating effects of its many wetlands and lakes, which act as detention ponds to reduce runoff "pulses." However, as the number of nearshore houses has increased around North Lake, so has the clearing of buffering native vegetation along the shoreline to provide landscaping or to enhance lake access and views. Nonetheless, many of the residential properties have maintained a buffer strip, which helps to filter out nutrients and pollutants before they enter the lake, as well as providing habitat. The public boat launch area is the only point where a road actually reaches the water. 334th and 33rd Ave. South provide access to all of the homes on the lake and is set several hundred feet away from the water on the other side of the homes. The runoff from the road filters through the lakeside properties. Waterbody Characteristics North Lake is a 55 -acre lake with a mean depth of 14 feet and a maximum depth of 34 feet, with an estimated lake volume of 770 acre -ft and 8930 ft. (1.69 mi.) of shoreline. There are no major surface inflows to North Lake, with outflow into an unnamed tributary into the outlet channel with a weir. There is public boat access to the lake provided by a boat launch owned by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) located on the northwest side of the lake. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 13 The sediments in North Lake are mainly loose and unconsolidated, with high silt. Some areas are flocculent, especially up at the north end. The majority of the residential parcels also have loose sediment away from the shoreline; some residents in the past have added gravel to shallow areas. Water Quality Since 1985, King County residents have participated in a volunteer monitoring program to create a long-term record of water quality for the region's small lakes. Volunteers from North Lake have contributed samples in the early 1980's, the mid 1990's, and then 2001 through 2004. (King County, 2001). Prior to this time, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) performed annual lake monitoring in the time periods 1979, 1980 and 1983. Lakes can be classified by measurements of potential and actual biological activity, also known as "trophic state." Lakes with high concentration of nutrients and algae, generally accompanied by low water transparencies, are termed eutrophic or highly productive. Lakes with low concentrations of nutrients and algae, most often accompanied by high transparencies, are categorized as oligotrophic or low in productivity. Lakes intermediate between eutrophic and oligotrophic are termed mesotrophic. A commonly used index of water quality for lakes is the Trophic State Index (TSI) originally developed by Robert Carlson (1977), which separates lakes into the three categories by scoring water clarity, and concentrations of both phosphorus and chlorophyll a, relating them to a scale based on phytoplankton biovolume. Lakes can be naturally eutrophic, mesotrophic, or oligotrophic based on the inherent character and stability of the surrounding watershed. Eutrophication or the increase in a lake's biological activity over time is a process that occurs naturally in some lakes and may be accelerated in other by human activities (King County 2003). North Lakes productivity is mesotrophic (moderate), characterized by moderate water clarity and chlorophyll a values, and low to moderate phosphorous levels. Data from the 16 -year record from 1985 to 2000 are summarized in Table 1, taken from King County Lake Water Quality: A Trend Report on King County Small Lakes (November 200 1) Summary of water quality characteristics • water clarity (Secchi depth) ranged from 2.1 — 4.1 meters (May -October average) • total phosphorous ranged from 9 — 16 µg/L (May -October average) • Chlorophyll a ranged from 2.2 — 4.2 µg/L (May -October average), but most years were below 4.0 • TSI Secchi ranged from 40 — 50 • TSI Chlorophyll a ranged from 38 — 45 • TSI TP ranged from 36 — 44 • TSI annual average 38 — 46 North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 14 Table l: Average Values for Select Trophic Parameters at North Lake Year No. of Samples Secchi (meter) Ch1 a* (µg/L) TP* (µg/L) TSI* Secchi TSI* Ch1 a TSI* TP TSI* Average 1985 8 4.1 2.2 9 40 38 36 38 1986 81 3.9 3.9 15 40 441 43 43 1987 8 3.2 3.2 13 43 42 42 42 1988 8 3.3 2.7 16 43 40 44 42 1989 9 2.7 2.3 13 45 39 41 42 1990 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1991 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1992 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1993 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1994 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1995 ill 3.8 3.3 15 41 42 43 42 1996 9 2.5 2.6 15 47 40 43 43 1997 9 2.1 4.2 16 50 45 44 46 1998 12 2.8 2.41 13 45 39 411 1999 --- --- --- I --- I --- --- I 2000 --- I --- --- I --- I --- L --- *Ch1 a=chlorophyll a, TP --total phosphorus, and TSI=Trophic State Index While nine years of data could be used to analyze trends employing the non -parametric Mann- Kendall's test for trend, the existing pattern of missing data points made trend analysis inaccurate. Therefore, trend analyses were not completed for North Lake (King County, 2001). Fish and Wildlife Communities North Lake and its surrounding habitats support a variety of fish, birds, and animals by providing nesting, forage, and cover. According to Chad Jackson at the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the lake is stocked on a yearly basis with rainbow trout. Other warm water fish are present in the lake and most likely are the following species: perch, large mouth bass, pumpkinseed, bullheads, sculpins, and suckers. Parts of the Hylebos Creek offer spawning and rearing habitat for salmonid species. Salmonids are unable to get up to North Lake because of full fish blockages along Hylebos Creek. Wendy Honey, a North Lake resident, spoke with the Department of Fish and Wildlife on August 4, 2004. It was mentioned that several times since 1950 North Lake was "rehabilitated" with Rotenone; it was put in the lake in 1950, 1954, 1963, 1968, 1972, and 1979. Rotenone is a piscicide that is used to remove undesirable fish from lakes and streams. It was likely used to manage North Lake to maintain populations of fish species popular for sport fishermen. Copies of the application records are in Appendix D of this document. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 15 The mixed forest and wetland plant communities around the lake provide non-breeding habitat for a few Puget Sound lowland amphibian species, such as the Pacific chorus frog (Psudacris regilla). The non-native bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) is also quite common the North Lake, and they can have a negative impact on our native amphibians through direct predations (Richter & Azous, 2001 a). Mammals expected to make use of the lake and adjacent forested areas include: opossum (didelphus marsupialis), bats such as the little brown bat (myotis lucifugus), Douglas squirrel (tamias doglasii), muskrat (ondatra zibethica), and raccoon (procyn lotor). River otter (Lutra canadensis) are considered a rare treat to observe. Beaver (Castor canadensis) and coyote (canis latrans) are potential visitors to the lake. Julie Cleary, a resident on North Lake, provided a bird list collected by her neighbor Beverly Rosenow. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 16 Table 2: Wildlife List Checklist of Birds Probable on North Lake In order by FAMILY Observed and Probable Birds in Bold Other Possible Birds in Italics LOON ❑ Common Loon SS GREBES ❑ Pied -billed Grebe ❑ Horned Grebe ❑ Western Grebe SC CORMORANT ❑ Double -crested Cormorant WADERS ❑ Great Blue Heron KCS ❑ Green Heron WATERFOWL ❑ Trumpeter Swan ❑ Greater White - fronted Goose ❑ Snow Goose ❑ Canada Goose ❑ Wood Duck ❑ Green -winged Teal ❑ Mallard ❑ Northern Pintail ❑ Blue -winged Teal ❑ Cinnamon Teal ❑ Northern Shoveler ❑ Eurasian Wigeon ❑ American Wigeon ❑ Canvasback ❑ Redhead ❑ Ring-necked Duck ❑ Greater Scaup ❑ Lesser Scaup ❑ Common Goldeneye ❑ Barrow's Goldeneye ❑ Bufflehead ❑ Hooded Merganser ❑ Common Merganser ❑ Red -breasted Merganser ❑ Ruddy Duck RAPTORS ❑ Osprey KCS ❑ Bald Eagle ST, FT RAI LS ❑ Virginia Rail ❑ Sora ❑ American Coot SHOREBIRDS ❑ Killdeer ❑ Spotted Sandpiper ❑ Common Snipe ❑ Long -billed Dowitcher* GULLS ❑ Mew Gull ❑ Ring -billed Gull ❑ Glaucous - winged Gull SWIFTS ❑ Black Swift ❑ Vaux's Swift SC KINGFISHER ❑ Belted Kingfisher SWALLOWS ❑ Purple Martin SC ❑ Tree Swallow ❑ Violet -green Swallow ❑ Northern Rough -winged ❑ Cliff Swallow ❑ Barn Swallow WRENS ❑ Marsh Wren WARBLERS ❑ Common Yellowthroat BLACKBIRDS ❑ Red -winged Blackbird NOTES SC = state candidate SS = state sensitive ST = state threatened FT = federally threatened KCS = King County Comprehensive Plan Shall be Protected Reported North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 17 Beneficial and Recreational Uses North Lake and its surroundings support a variety of uses to humans. Recreational activities include swimming, fishing, boating (no combustion motors), bird watching, and wildlife viewing. Residents access the lake for these activities from any of the small private docks around the lake associated with the residential parcels. A public boat launch maintained by Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife allows everybody to benefit from this beautiful resource as well. Internal combustion engines are not allowed on the lake (KCC 12.44.330), consequently there are no activities such as water skiing or jet skiing. One consequence of this ban is that the natural character and integrity of the system have been preserved. Also, the system is spared potential pollution from petroleum releases and noise pollution. There is also no hunting allowed on North Lake. Figure 2: North Lake Land Use North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 18 Characterization of Aquatic Plants in North Lake The most recent comprehensive aquatic plant survey of North Lake occurred on July 26, 1995 as part of a plant -mapping project on 36 lakes carried out by King County's Lake Stewardship Program (King County, 1996). The surveys were conducted by boat using a two -person crew plus a volunteer (or volunteers) when available. Surveyors used GPS to establish shoreline sections between two fixed points. Each shoreline section was characterized by community type, species present, percent cover of community type, and relative species density within a community type. Community types were defined as emergent, floating, or submergent North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 19 North Aquatic Plants Map Floating Emergent NM Submergent No plants or sparse F--7 No plants—deep * Loosestrife --- Shoreline — Section boundary Section 3 Aquatic Plant Mapping far Thirty -rix King County Laker Figure 3: Aquatic Plant Map section 7 Lake Area: 57.4 acres Mean Depth: 14 feet Maximum Depth: 34 feet 0 20 200 400 faet F September 1996 Page 71 North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 20 Nineteen plant species were identified at North Lake, including eight emergent types, three floating types, and eight submergent types. Emergents are plants that are rooted in the sediment at the water's edge but have stems and leaves which grow above the water surface. Floating rooted plants are rooted in the sediment and send leaves to the water's surface. Submergent plants are either freely -floating or are rooted in the lake bottom but grow within the water column. The floating plant coverage totaled 14.4 acres, while the submergent community comprised 20.7 acres. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) could be found along the entire shoreline. In 2002, two consulting firms AquaTechnex and Envirovision Corporation produced a Regional Eurasian Milfoil Control Plan for King County in 2002. At this time, North Lake was not documented to have Eurasian water milfoil. On May 4, 2004, King County Lake Stewardship staff and a member of the King County Noxious Weed Group conducted a preliminary snorkel survey, characterizing the milfoil infestation of the lake. The survey was conducted with one person in the boat taking notes and two snorkelers surveying the entire littoral zone. The catalyst for this survey was complaints from the North Lake community that non-native waterlilies and Eurasian watermilfoil were increasing in density. On the survey several fragments of milfoil were found in the lake and a few scattered rooted milfoil plants. The majority of the infestation was found at the boat launch on the north end of the lake. Waterlilies were documented in covering the majority of the littoral zone and spreading into the middle of the lake. Lythrum salicaria is now common in buffer shoreline vegetation; populations and distribution of L. salicaria have been partially contained by community efforts to stop seed production through manual control efforts. The plant has obviously continued to increase over the years despite these recent control efforts. The Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) performed a search of their Natural Heritage Information System database for rare plant species, select rare animal species, and high quality wetland and terrestrial ecosystems in the vicinity of North Lake (http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/fr/nhp/wanhp.html). This search did not find any endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species recorded for North Lake, nor did it find the presence of any animal species tracked by their system. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 21 Table 3: 1996 Aquatic Plant Survey Reformatted from Aquatic Plant Mapping for 36 King County Lakes, King County. December 1996 pp86-87 Plant Species Ab. Common Name Community Sections Found Frequency Brasenia schreberi Bs Water Shield Floating 1,4 18 Chara sp. Cs Muskgrass Submersed unidentified 22 Eleocharis sp. EI Spike Rush Emergent 4, 6, 7 5 Elodea canadensis Ec Water Weed Submersed 1, 2, 6 27 Iris pseudacorus Ip Yellow Flag Iris Emergent unidentified 32 Ludwigia palustris Lp Water Purslane Emergent 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 22 Lythrum salicaria Ls Purple Loosestrife Emergent 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 12 Myriophyllum spp Ms Watermilfoil Submersed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 15 Najas flexilis Nf Slender Water -Nymph Submersed 3,7 25 Nitella sp. Ni Nitella Submersed 3, 4, 6 27 Nuphar lutea NI Yellow Water Lily Floating 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 28 Nymphaea odorata No Fragrant Water Lily Floating 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 27 Potamogeton amplifolius Pb Largeleaf Pondweed Submersed 2, 3, 4 27 Potamogeton epihydrus Pe Ribbonleaf Pondweed Submersed 6 15 Potentilla palustris Pp Marsh Cinquefoil Emergent 1, 3, 4, 7 27 Scirpus sp. Sb Bulrush Emergent 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 4 Spiraea douglasii Sd Spiraea Emergent 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 36 Typha latifolia TI Cattail Emergent 1, 3, 7 30 Utricularia sp. Us Bladderwort Submersed 1 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 1 10 North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 22 Noxious Aquatic Weeds in North Lake The term "noxious weed" refers to those non-native plants that are legally defined by Washington's Noxious Weed Control Law (RCW 17.10) as highly destructive, competitive, or difficult to control once established. Noxious weeds have usually been introduced accidentally as a contaminant, or as ornamentals. Non-native plants often do not have natural predators (i.e. herbivores, pathogens) or strong competitors to control their numbers as they may have had in their home range. WAC 16.750 sets out three classes (A, B, C) of noxious weeds based on their distribution in the state, each class having different control requirements. County Weed Boards are given some discretion as to setting control priorities for Class B and C weeds. Table 2 shows the 19 species found in the 1995 plant survey, including three listed noxious weed species: Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus). In 1995 Eurasian watermilfoil was not detected in the lake. However, in the winter of 2004 North Lake residents discovered milfoil and upon surveying King County confirmed milfoil has been introduced into the lake. Purple loosestrife, fragrant waterlily, yellow flag iris and Eurasian water milfoil will be the focus of the plant management efforts on North Lake. Purple loosestrife and milfoil are Class B Noxious weeds; Class B are required by law to be controlled and contained. Fragrant waterlily and yellow flag iris are Class C Noxious Weeds; Class C weeds are generally not required by law to be controlled and contained, but counties may designate a Class C weed for control in their county or in certain areas of their county. Neither yellow flag iris nor fragrant waterlily are required to be controlled in King County. Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Eurasian watermilfoil is native to Europe, Asia, and North Africa and also occurs in Greenland (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 1995). The oldest record of Eurasian watermilfoil in Washington is from a 1965 herbarium specimen collected from Lake Meridian, King County. It was first identified causing problems in the 1970s in Lake Washington and proceeded to move down the I-5 corridor, probably transported to new lakes on boats and trailers. Eurasian watermilfoil is among the worst aquatic pests in North America. M. spicatum is a submersed, perennial aquatic plant with feather -like leaves. It usually has 12 to 16 leaflets (usually more than 14) on each leaf arranged in whorls of 4 around the stem. Leaves near the surface may be reddish or brown. Sometimes there are emergent flower stalks during the summers that have tiny emergent leaves. In western Washington, Eurasian watermilfoil frequently over -winters in an evergreen form and may maintain considerable winter biomass (K. Hamel, pers. comm.). This plant forms dense mats of vegetation just below the water's surface. In the late summer and fall, the plants break into fragments with attached roots that float with the currents, infesting new areas. Disturbed plants will also fragment at other times of the year. A new plant can start from a tiny piece of a milfoil plant. M. spicatum was not previously thought to reproduce from seed in this region. However, aquatic plant experts are beginning to think that milfoil seeds might be playing a bigger role in repopulating lakes than was previously hoped (K. Hamel, pers. comm.). This is especially true if the lake dewaters. Milfoil starts spring growth earlier than native aquatic plants, and thereby gets a "head start" on other plants. Eurasian watermilfoil can degrade the ecological integrity of a water body in just a few growing Dense stands of milfoil crowd out native aquatic vegetation, which in turn alters predator -prey relationships among fish and other aquatic animals. Eurasian watermilfoil can also reduce dissolved North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 23 oxygen — first by inhibiting water mixing in areas where it grows, and then as oxygen is consumed by bacteria during decomposition of dead plant material. Decomposition of M. spicatum also releases phosphorus and nitrogen to the water that could increase algal growth. Further, dense mats of Eurasian watermilfoil can increase water temperature by absorbing sunlight, raise the pH, and create stagnant water mosquito breeding areas. Eurasian watermilfoil will negatively affect recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, and boating. The dense beds of vegetation make swimming dangerous, snag fish hooks on every cast, and inhibit boating by entangling propellers or paddles and slowing the movement of boats across the water. At North Lake, M. spicatum is moderate to light in density. The infestation is still patchy with only a few high-density milfoil stands. As of 2004, most of the patches are still moderate to low density, and therefore are not yet causing enormous impacts. It is likely that the milfoil infestation will continue to expand if left untreated, dramatically increasing negative impacts to the beneficial uses of North Lake. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Purple loosestrife is native to Europe and Asia and was introduced through ship ballast water to the Atlantic Coast in the mid -1800s (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 1997). In Washington, purple loosestrife was first collected from the Seattle area in 1929 from Lake Washington. Purple loosestrife is a perennial that can reach 9 feet tall with long spikes of magenta flowers. The flowers usually have 6 petals, and the stems are squared -off Purple loosestrife is considered a facultative wetland (+) species (FACW+), with a 67-99% probability of occurring in wetlands as opposed to upland areas (Reed, 1988). Vigorous plants can produce over 2 million tiny, lightweight seeds (120,000 per spike) that are easily spread by waterfowl and other animals (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 1997). Although a prolific seeder, purple loosestrife can also spread through vegetative production by shoots and rhizomes as well as by root fragmentation. It has a woody taproot with a fibrous root system that forms a dense mat, keeping other plants from establishing in a space. Purple loosestrife has colonized the shoreline of North Lake. This plant disrupts wetland ecosystems by displacing native or beneficial plants and animals. Waterfowl, fur -bearing animals, and birds vacate wetland habitat when native vegetation is displaced by purple loosestrife. Loss of native vegetation results in decreased sources of food, nesting material, and shelter. Economic impacts are high in agricultural communities when irrigation systems are clogged or when wet pastures are unavailable for grazing. Purple loosestrife is aggressive and competitive, taking full advantage of disturbance to natural wetland vegetation caused by anthropogenic alterations of the landscape. Seed banks build for years since seeds may remain viable for up to 3 years. Monospecific stands are long- lived in North America as compared to European stands, illustrating the competitive edge loosestrife has over other plant species. The Purple loosestrife on North Lake will need a combined approach to achieve adequate control. In August 2002, approximately 200-300 beetles (Galerucella calmariensis) were released at the North Lake boat launch and in July 2003, approximately 400-500 beetles were released at the boat launch. No beetles have been released in 2004. It typically takes about five years to see any control from the beetles, so the lack of visible beetle damage at this point is not unexpected (M. Walker, pers. comm.). However, the beetles will not be sufficient in and of themselves. A portion of the lake is often shaded and the beetles need sun to thrive. An integrated approach to controlling the purple loosestrife on North Lake would be the most beneficial. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 24 Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata) This species is native to the eastern half of North America (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 2001b). It was probably introduced into Washington during the Alaska Pacific Yukon Exposition in Seattle in the late 1800's. It has often been introduced to ponds and lakes because of its beautiful, large white or pink (occasionally light yellow), many -petaled flowers that float on the water's surface, surrounded by large, round green leaves. The leaves are attached to flexible underwater stalks rising from thick fleshy rhizomes. Adventitious roots attach the horizontal creeping and branching rhizomes. This aquatic perennial herb spreads aggressively, rooting in murky or silty sediments in water up to 7 feet deep. It prefers quiet waters such as ponds, lake margins and slow streams and will grow in a wide range of pH. Shallow lakes are particularly vulnerable to being totally covered by fragrant waterlilies. Waterlily spreads by seeds and by rhizome fragments. A planted rhizome will cover about a 15 -foot diameter circle in five years (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 2001b). Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata) is quickly expanding its distribution on North Lake (W. Honey, pers. comm.). When uncontrolled, this species tends to form dense monospecific stands that can persist until senescence in the fall. Mats of these floating leaves prevent wind mixing and extensive areas of low oxygen can develop under the waterlily beds in the summer. Waterlilies can restrict lakefront access and hinder swimming, boating, and other recreational activity. They may also limit our native waterlily (Nuphar luteum) with which it overlaps in distribution. The fragrant waterlily is still expanding in patches on North Lake, and so its future impacts are not clear. Some patches have connected, limiting recreational activities such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Even canoes can have great difficulty moving across dense floating mats of fragrant waterlily, not to mention entanglement with propellers of boat motors. Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) Yellow flag iris is native to mainland Europe, the British Isles, and the Mediterranean region of North Africa (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 2001a). This plant was introduced widely as a garden ornamental. It has also been used for erosion control. The earliest collection in Washington is from Lake McMurray in Skagit County in 1948 (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 2001 a). The yellow flowers are a distinguishing characteristic, but when not flowering it may be confused with cattail (Typha sp.) or broad -fruited bur -reed (Sparganium eurycarpum). Yellow flag iris is considered an obligate wetland species (OBL), with a >99% probability of occurring in wetlands as opposed to upland areas (Reed, 1988). The plants produce large fruit capsules and corky seeds in the late summer. Yellow flag iris spreads by rhizomes and seeds. Up to several hundred flowering plants may be connected rhizomatously. Rhizome fragments can form new plants. Yellow flag iris can spread by rhizome growth to form dense stands that can exclude even the toughest of our native wetland species, such as cattail (Typha latifolia). This noxious weed has already colonized the shoreline of North Lake. In addition to threatening to lower plant diversity, this noxious weed can also alter hydrologic dynamics through sediment accretion along the shoreline. This species produces prolific seed that could easily be transported downstream to invade this valuable resource area. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 25 AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES This section outlines common methods used to control aquatic weeds. Much of the information in this section is quoted directly from the Ecology's website: htlp://www.ecy.wa.govL/programs/wg/�lants/management/index.html Additional information is derived from the field experience of the King County Noxious Weed Control Program, in particular from Drew Kerr, Aquatic Noxious Weed Specialist and WSDA licensed aquatic herbicide applicator. Recommendations found in the 2001 draft version of the "King County Regional Milfoil Plan" have also been taken into consideration. Control/eradication methods discussed herein include Aquatic Herbicide, Manual Methods, Bottom Screens, Diver Dredging, Biological Control, Rotovation, Cutting, Harvesting, and Drawdown. Aquatic Herbicides Description of Method hqp:///www. ecy.wa. gov/pro grams/wq//lants/management/aqua028.html Aquatic herbicides are chemicals specifically formulated for use in water to eradicate or control aquatic plants. Herbicides approved for aquatic use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been reviewed and considered compatible with the aquatic environment when used according to label directions. However, individual states may also impose additional constraints on their use. Aquatic herbicides are sprayed directly onto floating or emergent aquatic plants, or are applied to the water in either a liquid or pellet form. Systemic herbicides are capable of killing the entire plant by translocating from foliage or stems and killing the root. Contact herbicides cause the parts of the plant in contact with the herbicide to die back, leaving the roots alive and capable of re -growth (chemical mowing). Non-selective herbicides will generally affect all plants that they come in contact with, both monocots and dicots. Selective herbicides will affect only some plants (usually dicots — broad leafed plants like Eurasian watermilfoil will be affected by selective herbicides whereas monocots like Brazilian elodea and our native pondweeds may not be affected). Because of environmental risks from improper application, aquatic herbicide use in Washington State waters is regulated and has certain restrictions. The Washington State Department of Agriculture must license aquatic applicators. In addition, because of a March 2001 court decision (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals), coverage under a discharge permit called a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must be obtained before aquatic herbicides can be applied to some waters of the U.S. This ruling, referred to as the Talent Irrigation District decision, has further defined Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Ecology has developed a general NPDES permit which is available for coverage under the Washington Department of Agriculture for the management of noxious weeds growing in an aquatic situation and a separate general permit for nuisance aquatic weeds (native plants) and algae control. For nuisance weeds (native species also referred to as beneficial vegetation) and algae, applicators and the local sponsor of the project must obtain a North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 26 NPDES permit from the Washington Department of Ecology before applying herbicides to Washington water bodies. Although there are a number of EPA registered aquatic herbicides, the Department of Ecology currently issues permits for seven aquatic herbicides (as of 2004 treatment season). Several other herbicides are undergoing review and it is likely that other chemicals may be approved for use in Washington in the future. As an example, Renovate® (Triclopyr) has been approved by the U.S. EPA for aquatic use in November 2002, making it the first aquatic herbicide to receive registration since 1988. Renovate® was designed to be effective on both emergent and submersed plants. The chemicals that are currently permitted for use in 2004 are: Aquatic Herbicides (see Appendix for herbicide labels) Glyphosate - (Trade names for aquatic products with glyphosate as the active ingredient include Rodeo®, AquaMaster , and AquaPro®). This systemic broad-spectrum herbicide is used to control floating -leaved plants like waterlilies and shoreline plants like purple loosestrife. It is generally applied as a liquid to the leaves. Glyphosate does not work on underwater plants such as Eurasian watermilfoil or hydrilla. Although glyphosate is a broad spectrum, non-selective herbicide, a good applicator can somewhat selectively remove targeted plants by focusing the spray only on the plants to be removed. Plants can take several weeks to die and a repeat application is often necessary to remove plants that were missed during the first application. Fluridone - (Trade names for fluridone products include: Sonar and Avast!®). Fluridone is a slow -acting systemic herbicide used to control Eurasian watermilfoil, hydrilla and other underwater plants. It may be applied as a pellet or as a liquid. Fluridone can show good control of submersed plants where there is little water movement and an extended time for the treatment. Its use is most applicable to whole -lake or isolated bay treatments where dilution can be minimized. It is not considered effective for spot treatments of areas less than five acres. It is slow acting and may take six to twelve weeks before the dying plants fall to the sediment and decompose. When used to manage Eurasian watermilfoil in Washington, fluridone is applied several times during the spring/summer to maintain a low, but consistent concentration in the water. Although fluridone is considered to be a broad-spectrum herbicide, when used at very low concentrations, it can be used to selectively remove Eurasian watermilfoil. Some native aquatic plants, especially pondweeds, are minimally affected by low concentrations of fluridone. 2,4-D - There are two formulations of 2,4-D approved for aquatic use. The granular formulation contains the low -volatile butoxy-ethyl-ester (BEE) formulation of 2,4-D (Trade names include: AquaKleen and Navigate®). The liquid formulation contains the dimethylamine salt (DMA)of 2,4-D (Trade name - DMA*4IVM). 2,4-D is a relatively fast -acting, systemic, selective herbicide used for the control of Eurasian watermilfoil and other broad-leaved species. Both the granular and liquid formulations can be effective for spot treatment of Eurasian watermilfoil. 2,4-D has been shown to be selective to Eurasian watermilfoil when used at the labeled rate, leaving native aquatic species relatively unaffected. However, 2,4-D is not effective against hydrilla. • Endothall - Dipotassium Salt - (Trade name Aquathol®) Endothall is a fast -acting non- selective contact herbicide, which destroys the vegetative part of the plant but generally does not kill the roots. Endothall may be applied in a granular or liquid form. Typically endothall compounds are used primarily for short-term (one season) control of a variety of aquatic plants, North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 27 including hydrilla. However, there has been some recent research that indicates that when used in low concentrations, endothall can be used to selectively remove exotic weeds; leaving some native species unaffected. Because it is fast acting, endothall can be used to treat smaller areas effectively. Endothall is not effective in controlling American waterweed (Elodea canadensis) or Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa). Diquat — (Trade name Reward®). Diquat is a fast -acting non-selective contact herbicide that destroys the vegetative part of the plant but does not kill the roots. It is applied as a liquid. Typically diquat is used primarily for short-term (one season) control of a variety of submersed aquatic plants. It is very fast acting and is suitable for spot treatment. However, turbid water or dense algal blooms can interfere with its effectiveness. Diquat was allowed for use in Washington in 2003 and Ecology will be collecting information about its efficacy against Brazilian elodea in 2003. It is effective in controlling hydrilla. Triclopyr - (Trade name Renovate3®). There are two formulations of triclopyr. It is the triethylamine salt (TEA) formation of triclopyr that is registered for use in aquatic or riparian environments. Triclopyr, applied as a liquid, is a relatively fast -acting, systemic, selective herbicide used for the control of Eurasian watermilfoil and other broad-leaved species such as purple loosestrife. Triclopyr can be effective for spot treatment of Eurasian watermilfoil and is relatively selective to Eurasian watermilfoil when used at the labeled rate. Many native aquatic species are unaffected by triclopyr. Triclopyr is very useful for purple loosestrife control since native grasses and sedges are unaffected by this herbicide. When applied directly to water, Ecology has imposed a 12 -hour swimming restriction to minimize eye irritation. Triclopyr received its aquatic registration from EPA in 2003 and was allowed for use in Washington in 2004. Imazapyr - (Trade name Habitat®). This systemic broad spectrum herbicide, applied as a liquid, is used to control emergent plants like spartina, reed canarygrass, and phragmites and floating - leaved plants like waterlilies. Imazapyr does not work on underwater plants such as Eurasian watermilfoil. Although imazapyr is a broad spectrum, non-selective herbicide, a good applicator can somewhat selectively remove targeted plants by focusing the spray only on the plants to be removed. Imazapyr was allowed for use in Washington in 2004. Advantages • Aquatic herbicide application can be less expensive than other aquatic plant control methods. • Aquatic herbicides are easily applied around docks and underwater obstructions. • 2,4-D DMA, 2,4-D BEE, and Triclopyr TEA have been shown to be effective in controlling smaller infestations (not lake -wide) of Eurasian watermilfoil in Washington, and could also be used on the purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. • Washington has had some success in eradicating Eurasian watermilfoil from some smaller lakes (320 acres or less) using Sonar . • Glyphosate is the recommended chemical for fragrant waterlily control. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 28 Disadvantages • Some herbicides have swimming, drinking, fishing, irrigation, and water use restrictions. • Herbicide use may have unwanted impacts to people who use the water and to the environment. • Non -targeted plants as well as nuisance plants may be controlled or killed by some herbicides. • Depending on the herbicide used, it may take several days to weeks or several treatments during a growing season before the herbicide controls or kills treated plants. • Rapid -acting herbicides like Aquathol® may cause low oxygen conditions to develop as plants decompose. Low oxygen can cause fish kills. • To be most effective, generally herbicides must be applied to rapidly growing plants. • Some expertise in using herbicides is necessary in order to be successful and to avoid unwanted impacts. • Many people have strong feelings against using chemicals in water. • Some cities or counties may have policies forbidding or discouraging the use of aquatic herbicides. Permits A NPDES permit is needed. Both the noxious and nuisance NPDES permits require the development of Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans (IAVMP) by the third year of chemical control work. The requirement of monitoring of herbicide levels started in 2003, whether the chemical has been applied directly to the water or along the shoreline where it may have gotten into the adjacent surface water. For noxious weed control, the applicator must apply to the Washington Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) for coverage under their NPDES permit each treatment season. There is no permit or application fee to obtain NPDES coverage under Agriculture's permit for Noxious Weeds. Since North Lake is in unincorporated King County, the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) will require a permit for application of herbicide in Sensitive Areas to submergent, floating and emergent aquatic plants. This falls under their Clearing and Grading Permit. A Shoreline Exemption Permit will also be required by DDES. Costs Approximate costs for one -acre herbicide treatment (costs will vary from site to site): • Glyphosate: $250 • Fluridone: $900 to $1,000 • EndothalL $650 North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 29 • 2,4-D: $600 • Diquat: $300 to $400 • Triclopyr: $1,000 Other Considerations The focus of the discussion below are the active ingredients 2,4-D, Triclopyr and Glyphosate since the Steering Committee, with input from the watershed -wide public meetings, have chosen these chemicals as the best options for the start of the Integrated Treatment Strategy for North Lake. Since fluridone (Sonar®) would have required a whole lake treatment and is very expensive per unit, it was not chosen as a viable option and is not discussed in further detail. Although not the preferred method of control, 2,4-D has been an effective tool in the past in Washington lakes and will be looked at as an alternative in North Lakes integrated approach. EPA studies yield the parameters LD50 (acute lethal dose to 50% of a test population), NOEL (No Observable Effect Level, which is the highest test dosage causing no adverse responses), and RfD (EPA Reference Dose determined by applying at least a 100 -fold uncertainty factor to the NOEL). The EPA defines the RfD as the level that a human could be exposed to daily with reasonable certainty of no adverse effect from any cause, in other words, a "safe" dose. Exposures to bystanders or consumers are deemed safe when the RfD is not exceeded (Felsot, 1998). Since all substances, natural or manmade, may prove toxic at a sufficiently high dose, one should remember the old adage "dose makes the poison." The LD50 value is useful for comparing one compound with another and for grouping compounds into general hazard classes. According to Felsot (1998), any pesticide, such as triclopyr, glyphosate or 2,4-D that does not produce adverse effects on aquatic organisms until levels in water reach milligram per liter (i.e., mg/L, equivalent to a part per million, ppm) would be considered of comparatively low hazard. Substances that are biologically active in water at levels one -thousand -fold less, (i.e., gg/L, parts per billion, ppb), are considered highly hazardous to aquatic life. Most pesticides falling in the latter category are insecticides rather than herbicides. Also, compounds that have half-lives less than 100 days are considered non-persistent compared to compounds having half-lives approaching one year or longer (for example, DDT). The half-life of triclopyr in water ranges from one day to seven days, while 2,4-D is about 7 days in water and glyphosate is about 12 days in water. Since there are multiple factors that modulate the pesticides' hazard, just focusing on the half-life itself can be misleading for hazard assessment. It is now known that the longer a residue remains in soil/sediment, the less likely it will be taken up by plants, leach, or runoff (Felsot, 1998). This phenomenon is called residue aging and involves changes in the forces governing interactions of the chemical with the soil matrix over time. Triclopyr There are minimal restrictions for aquatic triclopyr applications. Washington State Department of Ecology has issued a 12 -hour restriction on swimming to minimize the potential for eye irritation. There is a 120 -day restriction on using water treated with triclopyr for irrigation on sensitive plants such as grapes and tomatoes. The alternative to waiting for 120 days is treated water can be used once it is determined that the water has reached a non-detectable level by laboratory analysis. There is no restriction for using treated water on established grasses. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 30 Animal health Sensitive and environmentally relevant species such as the various salmon species have demonstrated LC50S that range between 96 and 182 ppm acid equivalent (a.e.). These toxicity values place triclopyr TEA in the US EPA's ecotoxicological categories of slightly toxic (LC50 = >10 to 100 ppm) to practically non-toxic (LC50 = >100ppm). There have been no verified cases of toxicity to fish when triclopyr is used at the maximum use rate of 2.5 ppm a.e. In the field where triclopyr TEA was used to control Eurasian watermilfoil, waterhyacinth, or purple loosestrife, no invertebrate mortality or changes in invertebrate population structure was seen that could be attributed to the uses of triclopyr TEA. Triclopyr acid is slightly toxic to birds when orally dosed or consumed in the diet. The triethylamine salt is slightly toxic to practically non-toxic when orally dosed or consumed in the diet. Reproduction of birds may be affected at levels greater than 100 ppm (Washington Department of Ecology, 2004). Triclopyr TEA appears to be safe for use in aquatic ecosystems. When expected environmental concentrations (EEC) of triclopyr are compared with laboratory LC50s, the highest concentration that may be encountered immediately after application (2.5 ppm a.e. for control of submerged weeds or 4.4 ppm a.e. for control of floating and emerged weeds in shallow water) may affect more sensitive species. However, fish and non -mollusk species would not be harmed by these concentrations. The most sensitive fish species is rainbow trout with a 96 -hour LC50 of 82 ppm a.e. and the most sensitive non -mollusk invertebrate is the red swamp crayfish with a 96 -hour LC50 of >103 ppm a.e. Exposure to terrestrial wildlife occurs through two common routes, drinking water treated with triclopyr and eating aquatic plants, fish, or other aquatic organisms from the treatment site. Based on acute and chronic studies, triclopyr and its products used as aquatic herbicides do not pose a significant acute or chronic risk to terrestrial mammals (WDOE, 2004). Human health The Reference Dose (RfD), the amount of triclopyr residuals that could be consumed daily over a lifetime without adverse effects, was established at 0.05g mg/kg/day, based on the two generation reproduction toxicity study in rats with a no observed effect level (NOEL) of 5.0 mg/kg/day, the lowest dose tested. Concentrations of triclopyr in sites with short half-lives will typically fall below the temporary drinking water tolerance within one to three days of application (WDOE, 2004). The only health concerns for swimming are minor eye irritation and exposure to children immediately after application. Due to dilution, the chances of overexposure are limited; a mandatory waiting time after application before swimming is allowed. Exposure and risk calculations were determined for hypothetical situations involving ingestion and dermal contact with treated water while swimming and drinking potable water. Calculation of the exposures utilized the swimmer's weight, the skin surface area available for exposure, the amount of time spent in the treated water containing 2.5 and 0.5 ppm triclopyr, amount of water swallowed while swimming over specific time periods, and the estimated human skin permeability coefficient. Risk analyses were completed for various populations. The most sensitive population was found to be children who swim for three hours and ingest water while swimming. A child would have to ingest 3.5 gallons of lake water where triclopyr had been recently applied to cause risk factors to be exceeded. Based on specifications on the label and the results of triclopyr toxicity studies, the aggregate or combined daily exposure to the chemical does not pose an adverse health concern. The Washington Department of Health (WDOH) has recommended a 12 -hour restriction for reentry into treated water to assure that eye irritation North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 31 potential and any other adverse effects will not occur. WDOH also recommends that those wanting to avoid all exposures can wait one to two weeks following application when the triclopyr residues have dissipated from the water and sediments (WDOE 2004). 2,4-D As far as restrictions for aquatic 2,4-D applications, there is no fishing restriction, and three to five days after treatment the water is generally below the drinking water standard (70ppb, irrigation standard is 100ppb for broad -leafed plants). Although 2,4-D should not damage grass or other monocots, it is not recommended that one use treated water to water lawns during this first three to five days since over -spray will kill ornamentals or plants such as tomatoes and grapes that are very sensitive to 2,4-D. There is no swimming restriction for 2,4-D use. Ecology advises that swimmers wait for 24 hours after application before swimming in the treatment area, but that is an advisory only. The choice is up to the individual. Human and general mammalian health The oral LD50 for 2,4-D (acid) is 764 mg/kg and the dermal LD50 is >2000 mg/kg. This chemical has a low acute toxicity (from an LD50 standpoint, is less toxic than caffeine and slightly more toxic than aspirin). The RfD for 2,4-D (acid) is 0.01 mg/kg/d. Recent, state-of-the-art EPA studies continue to find that it is not considered a carcinogen or mutagen, nor does it cause birth defects. It has a relatively short persistence in water, since it tends to bind to organic matter in the sediments. The herbicide 2,4-D generally does not bioaccumulate to a great extent, and the small amounts which do accumulate are rapidly eliminated once exposure ceases (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001b). The risks to human health from exposure to aquatic 2,4-D applications were evaluated in terms of the most likely forms of contact between humans and the water to which the herbicide was applied. Ecology's Risk Assessment results indicate that 2,4-D should present little or no risk to the public from acute (one time) exposures via dermal contact with the sediment, dermal contact with water (swimming), or ingestion of fish (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001b). Based on the low dermal absorption of the chemical, the dose of 2,4-D received from skin contact with treated water is not considered significant. Dose levels used in studies are often far beyond what an animal or human would experience as a result of an aquatic application. Many experiments have examined the potential for contact by the herbicide applicator, although these concentrations have little relevance to environmental exposure by those not directly involved with the herbicide application. Once the herbicide has entered the water, its concentration will quickly decline because of turbulence associated mixing and dilution, volatilization, and degradation by sunlight and secondarily by microorganisms (Felsot, 1998). Results of chronic exposure assessments indicate that human health should not be adversely impacted by chronic 2,4-D exposure via ingestion of fish, ingestion of surface water while swimming, incidental ingestion of sediments, dermal contact with sediments, or dermal contact with water (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001b). Pharmacokinetic investigations have demonstrated that 2,4-D is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and is quickly excreted. Animal toxicological investigations carried out at high doses showed a reduction in the ability of the kidneys to excrete the chemical, and resulted in some systemic toxicity. However, the high doses tested may not be relevant to the typical low dose human exposures resulting from labeled use. A review of the scientific and medical literature failed to provide any human case reports of systemic North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 32 toxicity or poisoning following overexposure to these herbicide products when used according to label instructions (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001b). The risks to mammalian pets and wildlife should be closely related to these reported human risks, especially since many of the toxicity experiments are carried out on test animals by necessity. The potential hazard to pregnant women and to the reproductive health of both men and women was evaluated. The results of the 2,4-D developmental or teratology (birth defects) and multigenerational reproduction studies indicate that the chemical is not considered to be a reproductive hazard or cause birth defects (teratogen) when administered below maternally toxic doses (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001b). A review of the histopathological sections of various 2,4-D subchronic and chronic studies provides further support that the chemical does not affect the reproductive organs, except in some higher dose groups beyond the potential level of incidental exposure after an aquatic weed application. Fish health Based on laboratory data reported in the Department of Ecology's Risk Assessment of 2,4-D, 2,4-D DMA has a low acute toxicity to fish (LC50 >_100 to 524 mg a.i./L for the rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish respectively). No Federally sensitive, threatened or endangered species were tested with 2,4- D DMA. However, it is likely that endangered salmonids would not exhibit higher toxic effects to 2,4-D DMA than those seen in rainbow trout. Since the maximum use rate of 2,4-D DMA would be no higher than the maximum labeled use rate (4.8 mg a.i./L) even the most sensitive fish species within the biota should not suffer adverse impacts from the effects of 2,4-D DMA. In conclusion, 2,4- D DMA will not effect fish or free-swimming invertebrate biota acutely or chronically when applied at typical use rates of 1.36 to 4.8 mg a.i./L (Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 2001b). However, more sensitive species of benthic invertebrates like glass shrimp may be affected by 2,4-D DMA, but 80 and 90% of the benthic species should be safe when exposed to 2,4-D DMA acutely or chronically at rates recommended on the label. Field work indicates that 2,4-D has no significant adverse impacts on fish, free-swimming invertebrates and benthic invertebrates, but well designed field studies are in short supply. According to the Department of Ecology's Risk Assessment of 2,4-D, in the United States, 2,4-D BEE is the most common herbicide used to control aquatic weeds. 2,4-D BEE, has a high laboratory acute toxicity to fish (LC50 = 0.3 to 5.6 mg a.i./L for rainbow trout fry and fathead minnow fingerlings, respectively). Formal risk assessment indicates that short-term exposure to 2,4-D BEE should cause adverse impact to fish since the risk quotient is above the acute level of concern of 0.01 (RQ = 0.1 ppm/0.3 ppm = 0.33). However, the low solubility of 2,4-D BEE and its rapid hydrolysis to 2,4-D acid means fish are more likely to be exposed to the much less toxic 2,4-D acid. 2,4-D acid has a toxicity similar to 2,4-D DMA to fish (LC50 = 20 mg to 358 mg a.i./L for the common carp and rainbow trout, respectively). In contrast, formal risk assessment with 2,4-D acid indicates that short- term exposure to 2,4-D BEE should not cause adverse impact to fish since the risk quotient is below the federal level of concern of 0.01 (RQ = 0.1 ppm/20 ppm = 0.005). To conclude, 2,4-D BEE will have no significant impact on the animal biota acutely or chronically when using applied rates recommended on the label (Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 2001b). Although laboratory data indicates that 2,4-D BEE may be toxic to fish, free-swimming invertebrates and benthic invertebrates, data indicates that its toxic potential is not realized under typical concentrations and conditions found in the field. This lack of field toxicity is likely due to the low solubility of 2,4-D BEE and its rapid hydrolysis to the practically non-toxic 2,4-D acid within a few hours to a day following the application. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 33 Glyphosate Examination of mammalian toxicity has shown that the acute oral and dermal toxicity of glyphosate would fall into EPA's toxicity category III. This category characterizes slightly to moderately toxic compounds. Glyphosate is practically nontoxic by ingestion, with a reported acute oral LD50 of 5600 mg/kg in tested rats. The risks of incidental contact from swimming in treated water have also been judged as low with a dermal LD50 of 7940 mg/kg, a very high threshold. The RfD for glyphosate is 0.1 mg/kg/d. To place the level of hazard to humans in perspective, the commonly consumed chemicals caffeine (present in coffee, tea, and certain soft drinks), aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), and nicotine (the neuroactive ingredient in tobacco) have acute oral LD50's of 192, 1683, and 53 mg/kg, respectively. Thus, the herbicides for the most part are comparatively less toxic than chemicals to which consumers voluntarily expose themselves (Felsot, 1998). Since the shikimic acid pathway does not exist in animals, the acute toxicity of glyphosate is very low. Animal studies, which the Environmental Protection Agency has evaluated in support of the registration of glyphosate, can be used to make inferences relative to human health. The U.S. Forest Service's glyphosate fact sheet reports that the EPA has concluded that glyphosate should be classified as a compound with evidence of non -carcinogenicity for humans (Information Ventures, Inc.). This conclusion is based on the lack of convincing carcinogenicity evidence in adequate studies in two animal species. Laboratory studies on glyphosate using pregnant rats (dose levels up to 3500 mg/kg per day) and rabbits (dose levels up to 350 mg/kg per day), indicated no evidence of teratology (birth defects). A three -generation reproduction study in rats did not show any adverse effects on fertility or reproduction at doses up to 30 mg/kg per day. Glyphosate was negative in all tests for mutagenicity (the ability to cause genetic damage). Technically, glyphosate acid is practically nontoxic to fish and may be slightly toxic to aquatic invertebrates (EXTOXNET, 1996). Some formulations may be more toxic to fish and aquatic species due to differences in toxicity between the salts and the parent acid, or to surfactants used in the formulation. There is a very low potential for the compound to build up in the tissues of aquatic invertebrates or other aquatic organisms. In water, glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to suspended organic and mineral matter and is broken down primarily by microorganisms. In relation to shoreline applications, glyphosate is moderately persistent in soil, with an estimated average half-life of 47 days. It is strongly adsorbed to most soils, even those with lower organic and clay content. Thus, even though it is highly soluble in water, field and laboratory studies show it does not leach appreciably, and has low potential for runoff (except as adsorbed to colloidal matter). One estimate indicated that less than 2% of the applied chemical is lost to runoff (Malik et. al., 1989). Microbes are primarily responsible for the breakdown of the product, and volatilization or photodegradation losses will be negligible. The manufacturer of Rodeo®, one of the aquatic formulations of glyphosate, recommends use of a nonionic surfactant with all applications to improve efficacy. Of the approved surfactants for aquatic use in Washington, only LI -700 (Loveland Industries, Inc.) may be used for fragrant waterlily control and will therefore be applied directly to the water. Based on the results of searches of the published literature and the Toxic Substances Control Act Test Submission (TSCATS) database, little data are available regarding the toxicity of the surfactant formulations (Diamond & Durkin, 1997). The oral LD50 was >5000 and 5900 mg/kg in male and female rats, respectively, and the dermal LD50 for a 24- hour exposure was >5000 mg/kg in rabbits. These values are in the same range as glyphosate alone, EPA's toxicity category III, which puts LI -700 in a category of lower risk to mammals. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 34 Suitability for North Lake Aquatic herbicides can provide an effective method for control and eventual eradication of noxious weeds. The use of a formulation of triclopyr or 2,4-D should provide excellent initial control of the Eurasian watermilfoil while allowing for the more -appropriate spot treatments in this scattered infestation. We should be able to avoid an expensive, lake -wide treatment with fluridone for control of Eurasian watermilfoil. The loose sediments in North Lake are high in organic content and are flocculent around much of the lake's littoral zone. Triclopyr TEA and 2,4-D DMA would be applied in liquid formulation would be applied in a liquid formulation. The 2,4-D DMA also carries with it the reduced acute toxicity reported above, which could mitigate any potential harm to fish and their food web. Work in 2003 with 2,4-D DMA in Spring Lake resulted in excellent control of milfoil with no observed regrowth (M. Murphy, pers. comm.). North Lake does not have anadromous salmonids because impassable fish barriers exist along the Hylebos Creek system. Neither herbicide (Triclopyr or 2,4-D DMA) should have any downstream effects since the rapid hydrolysis produces a chemical that is practically non-toxic. Glyphosate should be very effective on the other target species: purple loosestrife, fragrant waterlily, and yellow flag iris. Westerdahl and Getsinger (1988) report excellent control of the fragrant waterlily with glyphosate. Generally glyphosate is the recommended herbicide for waterlily control because it can be applied directly to the floating leaves, unlike fluridone or endothall which must be applied to the water. The application of glyphosate allows specific plants or areas of plants to be targeted for removal. Generally two applications of glyphosate are needed. The second application later in the summer controls the plants that were missed during the first herbicide application. The control effectiveness of fragrant waterlily is easy to measure through visual surveys due to the floating leaves. Glyphosate should provide excellent systemic control of mature purple loosestrife plants and seedlings. This herbicide is very effective on purple loosestrife and we can expect better than 70-80% control on existing plants after Year 1. Seeds of purple loosestrife can remain viable for three years in the laboratory, but may remain viable for a much shorter time in the natural environment (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 1997). Therefore, the existing mature plants and seedbank may be exhausted within the time frame of the project. Finally, Glyphosate should also provide excellent systemic control of yellow flag iris. This species has an abundant leaf surface area to absorb the chemical for translocation to the rhizome. The use of a herbicide will enable the elimination of the mature plants without potentially destructive disturbance of the shoreline by excavation. Both triclopyr and 2,4-D used for milfoil control, may also be an effective alternative for the purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris control efforts. However, this chemical is more expensive, so an evaluation of the effectiveness of glyphosate on these species will determine whether a change in herbicide would be beneficial. One of the main reasons to eradicate milfoil and fragrant waterlily is to maintain the health of the native aquatic plant community for all of the species that utilize them in their life cycles, as well as to maintain the viability of the lake for human recreational uses. The nature of the control methods to be implemented will minimize impacts to native aquatic vegetation. The control of the Eurasian watermilfoil and fragrant waterlily will be conducted by methods designed to preserve (and eventually enhance or conserve) the native plant communities. Herbicide selective to Eurasian watermilfoil will be used for its control and will not require a whole -lake treatment that would expose North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 35 all the submersed plants to the herbicide. The herbicide for the fragrant waterlily will be applied to the floating leaves, and therefore should be easily focused to kill only the target vegetation. Follow- up control methods (diver hand pulling and/or diver dredging) will focus specifically on these two target species and should also leave beneficial plants intact. With these constraints in place, conservation areas should not need to be established to serve vital ecosystem functions until native plants re-establish. The application of herbicide to the emergent species (purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris) will also be conducted by manual spot applications. An experienced herbicide applicator can selectively target individual weed species and limit collateral damage to other species to a minimum. This is especially true when infestations are small so that large areas with a diverse plant distribution don't have to be treated. Emergent noxious weed infestations at North Lake are wide spread in the lake but careful application of herbicide to the waterlilies should avoid collateral damage and preserve the native plant community. We do not anticipate any need to revegetate after controlling the milfoil and fragrant waterlily since less than 25% of the lake is currently colonized with aquatic plants. In the terrestrial environment in the Pacific Northwest, bare ground will often be colonized rapidly by invasive species, but this is not usually a problem in lacustrine areas. A drawback of using herbicides is the "uplifting" of mats of decomposing waterlily roots that can form large floating islands in the waterbody after the herbicides have killed the plants. The waterlilies are in large monospecific stands around the lake. These areas could potentially generate floating sediment mats because of their size. Volunteers from the community will remove any sediment mats created in these areas, for which we will need to get Hydraulic Project Approval from WDFW. For smaller mats, we may tow them to shore and remove the sediment with hand tools. If larger mats occur, we will have to investigate machinery mounted on a barge to dig or dredge out the sediment mat. Past community efforts at North Lake have used aquatic herbicides, so we do not anticipate disagreement with this recommendation from the community. Initial support has been documented in the form of signatures on a Letter of Support distributed after the second watershed -wide meeting on June 28th, 2004. Prior to any activities on the lake, outreach materials will be sent to all watershed residents informing them of the actions and appropriate contact information will be provided for any questions or comments. The watershed residents will be notified prior to any treatments with the anticipated treatment dates Some residences on North Lake have water rights. To ensure that all residents who might draw water from the lake are aware of water use restrictions, there will be announcements sent to all lakeside residents prior to each herbicide treatment. One announcement will be sent at the beginning of the summer with approximate dates of planned treatments, and subsequent announcements will be sent 7- 10 days prior to each treatment, with exact dates of treatment and use restrictions. The announcement must let water right holders know who to contact should this interfere with their rights. The lake group may have to provide alternate water sources to these people should they object to the treatment Manual Methods Hand -Pulling Hand -pulling aquatic plants is similar to pulling weeds out of a garden. It involves removing entire plants (leaves, stems, and roots) from the area of concern and disposing of them in an area away from the shoreline. In water less than three feet deep no specialized equipment is required, although a North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 36 spade, trowel, or long knife may be needed if the sediment is packed or heavy. In deeper water, hand pulling is best accomplished by divers with SCUBA equipment and mesh bags for the collection of plant fragments. Some sites may not be suitable for hand pulling such as areas where deep flocculent sediments may cause a person hand pulling to sink deeply into the sediment. Cutting Cutting differs from hand pulling in that plants are cut and the roots are not removed. Cutting is performed by standing on a dock or on shore and throwing a cutting tool out into the water. A non- mechanical aquatic weed cutter is commercially available. Two single -sided, razor sharp stainless steel blades forming a "V" shape are connected to a handle, which is tied to a long rope. The cutter can be thrown about 20 — 30 feet into the water. As the cutter is pulled through the water, it cuts a 48 - inch wide swath. Cut plants rise to the surface where they can be removed. Washington State requires that cut plants be removed from the water. The stainless steel blades that form the V are extremely sharp and great care must be taken with this implement. It should be stored in a secure area where children do not have access. Raking A sturdy rake makes a useful tool for removing aquatic plants. Attaching a rope to the rake allows removal of a greater area of weeds. Raking literally tears plants from the sediment, breaking some plants off and removing some roots as well. Specially designed aquatic plant rakes are available. Rakes can be equipped with floats to allow easier plant and fragment collection. The operator should pull towards the shore because a substantial amount of plant material can be collected in a short distance. Cleanup All of the manual control methods create plant fragments. It's important to remove all fragments from the water to prevent them from re -rooting or drifting onshore. Plants and fragments can be composted or added directly to a garden. Advantages • Manual methods are easy to use around docks and swimming areas. • The equipment is inexpensive. • Hand -pulling allows the flexibility to remove undesirable aquatic plants while leaving desirable plants. • These methods are environmentally safe. • Manual methods don't require expensive permits, and can be performed on aquatic noxious weeds with Hydraulic Project Approval obtained by reading and following the pamphlet Aquatic Plants and Fish (publication #APF -1-98) available from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 37 Disadvantages • As plants re -grow or fragments re -colonize the cleared area, the treatment may need to be repeated several times each summer. • Because these methods are labor intensive, they may not be practical for large areas or for thick weed beds. • Even with the best containment efforts, it is difficult to collect all plant fragments, leading to re - colonization. • Some plants, like waterlilies, which have massive rhizomes, are difficult to remove by hand pulling. • Pulling weeds and raking stirs up the sediment and makes it difficult to see remaining plants. Sediment re -suspension can also increase nutrient levels in lake water. • Hand pulling and raking impacts bottom -dwelling animals. • The V-shaped cutting tool is extremely sharp and can be dangerous to use. Permits Permits are required for many types of manual projects in lakes and streams. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife requires a Hydraulic Project Approval permit for all activities taking place in the water including hand pulling, raking, and cutting of aquatic plants. Costs • Hand -pulling costs up to $130 for the average waterfront lot for a hired commercial puller. A commercial grade weed cutter costs about $130 with accessories. A commercial rake costs about $95 to $125. A homemade weed rake costs about $85 (asphalt rake is about $75 and the rope costs 35-75 cents per foot). Other Considerations The community may need to invest money into buying the equipment and operation. Manual methods must include regular scheduled surveys to determine the extent of the remaining weeds and/or the appearance of new plants after eradication has been attained. This is a large time investment by lakeside residents. Suitability for North Lake Manual methods will be important in assisting in milfoil eradication, after the chemical control methods have been evaluated for their effectiveness. At this point, diver hand -pulling should be sufficient to remove all of the remaining Eurasian watermilfoil plants. Manual methods will also be vital in combating new infestations of Eurasian watermilfoil in subsequent years, especially around the boat launch. Based on the ways in which milfoil propagates, most manual methods are not North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 38 appropriate for milfoil eradication. Several of the methods create plant fragments, which can spread the milfoil throughout the lake. Manual methods have the potential for missing Eurasian watermilfoil plants, especially after stirring up sediments. Cutting can be used to control small areas of fragrant waterlily, especially those close to the shoreline. Using this method out in the open water would require a stable boat (not canoe) and great care not to injure oneself or another passenger. Since repeated cutting over several seasons may be required to starve the roots, this would fit best as a supplement to other control methods. Many landowners have already been manually removing their loosestrife for several seasons. This does not kill the mature perennial plants, but does halt seed production and can contain the infestation at current levels. If done repeatedly over several seasons it should starve the roots and kill the plants. Manual removal of seedlings (pulling) of purple loosestrife is much easier than the removal of well - rooted, mature plants. This technique can be used to exhaust the seed bank and supplement other eradication efforts. Manual efforts are much more difficult on yellow flag iris since the plants don't emerge from simple stems that can be cut, and they arise from massive rhizomes inhibiting pulling or digging. There is a large amount of root mass associated with the iris in this area that would take a significant effort to remove by excavation. Diver Dredging Diver dredging (suction dredging) is a method whereby SCUBA divers use hoses attached to small dredges (often dredges used by miners for mining gold from streams) to suck plant material from the sediment. The purpose of diver dredging is to remove all parts of the plant including the roots. A good operator can accurately remove target plants, like Eurasian watermilfoil, while leaving native species untouched. The suction hose pumps the plant material and the sediments to the surface where they are deposited into a screened basket. The water and sediment are returned back to the water column (if the permit allows this), and the plant material is retained. The turbid water is generally discharged to an area curtained off from the rest of the lake by a silt curtain. The plants are disposed of on shore. Removal rates vary from approximately 0.25 acres per day to one acre per day depending on plant density, sediment type, size of team, and diver efficiency. Diver dredging is more effective in areas where softer sediment allows easy removal of the entire plants, although water turbidity is increased with softer sediments. Harder sediment may require the use of a knife or tool to help loosen sediment from around the roots. In very hard sediments, milfoil plants tend to break off leaving the roots behind and defeating the purpose of diver dredging. Diver dredging has been used in British Columbia, Washington, and Idaho to remove early infestations of Eurasian watermilfoil. In a large-scale operation in western Washington, two years of diver dredging reduced the population of milfoil by 80 percent (Silver Lake, Everett). Diver dredging is less effective on plants where seeds, turions, or tubers remain in the sediments to sprout the next growing season. For that reason, Eurasian watermilfoil is generally the target plant for removal during diver dredging operations. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 39 Advantages • Diver dredging can be a very selective technique for removing pioneer colonies of Eurasian watermilfoil. • Divers can remove plants around docks and in other difficult to reach areas. • Diver dredging can be used in situations where herbicide use is not an option for aquatic plant management. Disadvantages • Diver dredging is very expensive. • Dredging stirs up large amounts of sediment. This may lead to the release of nutrients or long - buried toxic materials into the water column. • Only the tops of plants growing in rocky or hard sediments may be removed, leaving a viable root crown behind to initiate growth. • In some states, acquisition of permits can take years. Permits Permits are required for many types of projects in lakes and streams. Diver dredging requires Hydraulic Approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Check with your city or county for any local requirements before proceeding with a diver -dredging project. Also diver dredging may require a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Costs Depending on the density of the plants, specific equipment used, number of divers and disposal requirements, costs can range from a minimum of $1,500 to $2,000 per day. Other Considerations Could be good spot control method in subsequent years (coordinated with diver survey). Suitability for North Lake Diver dredging removes the plant in its entirety. It removes the biomass above the sediment as well as the tubers in the sediment. This option is best used for pioneering infestation and in soft sediments. Diver dredging could be used after the initial herbicide applications to remove plants that were missed or unaffected by the herbicide. The soft organic sediments in North Lake should make this method effective. However, permit costs may warrant having this work done as diver hand pulling since the roots should be largely removed from the loose sediments without the need for dredging. Diver dredging greatly disturbs sediments and can affect nutrient concentrations and algal production in the lake (see Disadvantages above). If other techniques of for removal are suitable, this should not be considered. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 40 Bottom Screens A bottom screen or benthic barrier covers the sediment like a blanket, compressing aquatic plants while reducing or blocking light. Materials such as burlap, plastics, perforated black Mylar, and woven synthetics can all be used as bottom screens. Some people report success using pond liner materials. There is also a commercial bottom screen fabric called Texel, a heavy, felt -like polyester material, which is specifically designed for aquatic plant control. An ideal bottom screen should be durable, heavier than water, reduce or block light, prevent plants from growing into and under the fabric, be easy to install and maintain, and should readily allow gases produced by rotting weeds to escape without "ballooning" the fabric upwards. Even the most porous materials, such as window screen, will billow due to gas buildup. Therefore, it is very important to anchor the bottom barrier securely to the bottom. Unsecured screens can create navigation hazards and are dangerous to swimmers. Anchors must be effective in keeping the material down and must be regularly checked. Natural materials such as rocks or sandbags are preferred as anchors. The duration of weed control depends on the rate that weeds can grow through or on top of the bottom screen, the rate that new sediment is deposited on the barrier, and the durability and longevity of the material. For example, burlap may rot within two years, plants can grow through window screening material, and can grow on top of felt -like Texel fabric. Regular maintenance is essential and can extend the life of most bottom barriers. Bottom screens will control most aquatic plants, however freely -floating species such as the bladderworts or coontail will not be controlled by bottom screens. Plants like Eurasian watermilfoil will send out lateral surface shoots and may canopy over the area that has been screened giving less than adequate control. In addition to controlling nuisance weeds around docks and in swimming beaches, bottom screening has become an important tool to help eradicate and contain early infestations of noxious weeds such as Eurasian watermilfoil and Brazilian elodea. Pioneering colonies that are too extensive to be hand pulled can sometimes be covered with bottom screening material. For these projects, we suggest using burlap with rocks or burlap sandbags for anchors. By the time the material decomposes, the milfoil patches will be dead as long as all plants were completely covered. Snohomish County staff reported native aquatic plants colonizing burlap areas that covered pioneering patches of Eurasian watermilfoil. When using this technique for Eurasian watermilfoil eradication projects, divers should recheck the screen within a few weeks to make sure that all milfoil plants remain covered and that no new fragments have taken root nearby. Bottom screens can be installed by the homeowner or by a commercial plant control specialist. Installation is easier in winter or early spring when plants have died back. In summer, cutting or hand pulling the plants first will facilitate bottom screen installation. Research has shown that much more gas is produced under bottom screens that are installed over the top of aquatic plants. The less plant material that is present before installing the screen, the more successful the screen will be in staying in place. Bottom screens may also be attached to frames rather than placed directly onto the sediment. The frames may then be moved for control of a larger area. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 41 Advantages • Installation of a bottom screen creates an immediate open area of water. • Bottom screens are easily installed around docks and in swimming areas. • Properly installed bottom screens can control up to 100 percent of aquatic plants. • Screen materials are readily available and can be installed by homeowners or by divers. Disadvantages • Because bottom screens reduce habitat by covering the sediment, they are suitable only for localized control. • For safety and performance reasons, bottom screens must be regularly inspected and maintained. • Harvesters, rotovators, fishing gear, propeller backwash, or boat anchors may damage or dislodge bottom screens. • Improperly anchored bottom screens may create safety hazards for boaters and swimmers. • Swimmers may be injured by poorly maintained anchors used to pin bottom screens to the sediment. • Some bottom screens are difficult to anchor on deep muck sediments. • Bottom screens interfere with fish spawning and bottom -dwelling animals. • Without regular maintenance aquatic plants may quickly colonize the bottom screen. Permits Bottom screening in Washington requires Hydraulic Project Approval. Local jurisdictions may require shoreline permits. Costs Barrier materials cost $0.22 to $1.25 per square foot. The cost of some commercial barriers includes an installation fee. Commercial installation costs vary depending on sediment characteristics and type of bottom screen selected. It costs up to about $750 to have 1,000 square feet of bottom screen installed. Maintenance costs for a waterfront lot are about $120 each year. Other Considerations None North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 42 Suitability for North Lake Bottom barriers have been used in other lakes to control aquatic plants. Without constant upkeep and maintenance the long-term benefits of bottom barriers are minimal. Currently, infested areas are to spread out to use a bottom barrier without becoming cost prohibitive. Most of the lakeshore residences have only small infestations and the bottom barrier would just reduce habitat by covering the sediment. Barriers could be effective at the boat ramp to prevent re -infestation after initial control, or in areas that have dense milfoil and have shown resistance to the herbicide. Installing a bottom barrier at the boat launch can provide these benefits. Since there is not a swimming beach at North Lake, the boat launch seems the only appropriate place to install a bottom barrier to enhance the recreational potential of the lake. Biological Control General Overview Many problematic aquatic plants in the western United States are non -indigenous species. Plants like Eurasian watermilfoil, Brazilian elodea, and purple loosestrife have been introduced to North America from other continents. Here they grow extremely aggressively, forming monocultures that exclude native aquatic plants and degrade fish and wildlife habitat. Yet, often these same species are not aggressive or invasive in their native range. This may be in part because their populations are kept under control by insects, diseases, or other factors not found in areas new to them. The biological control of aquatic plants focuses on the selection and introduction of other organisms that have an impact on the growth or reproduction of a target plant, usually from their native ranges. Theoretically, by stocking an infested waterbody or wetland with these organisms, the target plant can be controlled and native plants can recover. Classic biological control uses control agents that are host specific. These organisms attack only the species targeted for control. Generally these biocontrol agents are found in the native range of the nuisance aquatic plants and, like the targeted plant, these biocontrol agents are also non -indigenous species. With classic biological control an exotic species is introduced to control another exotic species. However, extensive research must be conducted before release to ensure that biological control agents are host specific and will not harm the environment in other ways. The authors of Biological Control of Weeds A World Catalogue of Agents and Their Target Weeds state that after 100 years of using biocontrol agents, there are only eight examples, world-wide, of damage to non - target plants, "none of which has caused serious economic or environmental damage...". Search for a classical biological control agent typically starts in the region of the world that is home to the nuisance aquatic plant. Researchers collect and rear insects and/or pathogens that appear to have an impact on the growth or reproduction of the target species. Those insects/pathogens that appear to be generalists (feeding or impacting other aquatic plant species) are rejected as biological control agents. Insects that impact the target species (or very closely related species) exclusively are considered for release. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 43 Once collected, these insects are reared and tested for host specificity and other parameters. Only extensively researched, host -specific organisms are cleared by the United States for release. It generally takes a number of years of study and specific testing before a biological control agent is approved. Even with an approved host -specific bio -control agent, control can be difficult to achieve. Some biological control organisms are very successful in controlling exotic species and others are of little value. A number of factors come into play. It is sometimes difficult to establish reproducing populations of a bio -control agent. The ease of collection of the biocontrol and placement on the target species can also have a role in the effectiveness. Climate or other factors may prevent its establishment, with some species not proving capable of over -wintering in their new setting. Sometimes the bio -control insects become prey for native predator species, and sometimes the impact of the insect on the target plant just isn't enough to control the growth and reproduction of the species. People who work in this field say that the more biological control species that you can put to work on a problem plant, the better success you will have in controlling the targeted species. There are some good examples where numerous biological control agents have had little effect on a targeted species, and other examples where one bio -control agent was responsible for the complete control of a problem species. However, even when biological control works, a classic biological control agent generally does not totally eliminate all target plants. A predator -prey cycle establishes where increasing predator populations will reduce the targeted species. In response to decreased food supply (the target plant is the sole food source for the predator), the predator species will decline. The target plant species rebounds due to the decline of the predator species. The cycle continues with the predator populations building in response to an increased food supply. Although a successful biological control agent rarely eradicates a problem species, it can reduce populations substantially, allowing native species to return. Used in an integrated approach with other control techniques, biological agents can stress target plants making them more susceptible to other control methods. A number of exotic aquatic species have approved classic biological control agents available for release in the US. These species include Hydrilla, water hyacinth, alligator weed, and purple loosestrife. In 1992 three beetles were released in Washington for purple loosestrife control. Their damaging impact on purple loosestrife populations was evident in the Winchester Wasteway area of Grant County in 1996. In 1998, 1999, and 2000, the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board organized insect collection for state, local, and federal staff. Thousands of insects were collected and distributed to purple loosestrife sites throughout the state and even the United States. The King County Noxious Weed Control Program has placed Galerucella sp. from the Winchester Wasteway on a number of purple loosestrife sites, including North Lake. North Lake was chosen because of a high density of the target plant and the fact that other control methods were impractical. Large numbers of purple loosestrife dominates the boat launch at North Lake and surrounding shoreline. Chemical control was a much more expensive alternative and the beetle is showing success at being a control tool. Three releases have been done at the North Lake boat launch, one in 2002 and two in North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 44 2003. Approximately 800 beetles were released and have since been found in other areas of the lake. In the summer of 2004, a homeowner along the north shore of the lake found the beetles on her stand of purple loosestrife. However, if the beetles are not expected to rid the lakeshore of the purple loosestrife, an integrated approach will be necessary to achieve eradication. Another type of biological control uses general agents such as grass carp (see below) to manage problem plants. Unlike classical bio -control agents, these fish are not host specific and will not target specific species. Although grass carp do have food preferences, under some circumstances, they can eliminate all submersed vegetation in a waterbody. Like classic biological control agents, grass carp are exotic species and originate from Asia. In Washington, all grass carp must be certified sterile before they can be imported into the state. There are many waterbodies in Washington (mostly smaller sites) where grass carp are being used to control the growth of aquatic plants. During the past decade a third type of control agent has emerged. In this case, a native insect that feeds and reproduces on northern milfoil (Myriophyllum sibericum) which is native to North America, was found to also utilize the non-native Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). Vermont government scientists first noticed that Eurasian watermilfoil had declined in some lakes and brought this to the attention of researchers. It was discovered that a native watermilfoil weevil (Euhrychiopsis lecontei) feeding on Eurasian watermilfoil caused the stems to collapse. Because native milfoil has thicker stems than Eurasian watermilfoil, the mining activity of the larvae does not cause it the same kind of damage. A number of declines of Eurasian watermilfoil have been documented around the United States and researchers believe that weevils may be implicated in many of these declines. Several researchers around the United States (Vermont, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, & Washington) have been working to determine the suitability of this insect as a bio -control agent. The University of Washington conducted research into the suitability of the milfoil weevil for the biological control of milfoil in Washington lakes and rivers. Surveys have shown that in Washington the weevil is found more often in eastern Washington lakes and it seems to prefer more alkaline waters. However, it is also present in cooler, wetter western Washington. The most likely candidates for use as biological controls are discussed in the following section. Grass Carp hllp://www. ecy.wa. gov//pro grams/wq//lants/management/aqua024.html The grass carp (Cteno pharynogodon), also known as the white amur, is a vegetarian fish native to the Amur River in Asia. Because this fish feeds on aquatic plants, it can be used as a biological tool to control nuisance aquatic plant growth. In some situations, sterile (triploid) grass carp may be permitted for introduction into Washington waters. Permits are most readily obtained if the lake or pond is privately owned, has no inlet or outlet, and is fairly small. The objective of using grass carp to control aquatic plant growth is to end up with a lake that has about 20 to 40 percent plant cover, not a lake devoid of plants. In practice, grass carp often fail to control the plants, or in cases of overstocking, all the submersed plants are eliminated from the waterbody. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 45 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife determines the appropriate stocking rate for each waterbody when they issue the grass carp -stocking permit. Stocking rates for Washington lakes generally range from 9 to 25 eight- to eleven -inch fish per vegetated acre. This number will depend on the amount and type of plants in the lake as well as spring and summer water temperatures. To prevent stocked grass carp from migrating out of the lake and into streams and rivers, all inlets and outlets to the pond or lake must be screened. For this reason, residents on waterbodies that support a salmon or steelhead run are rarely allowed to stock grass carp into these systems. Once grass carp are stocked in a lake, it may take from two to five years for them to control nuisance plants. Survival rates of the fish will vary depending on factors like presence of otters, birds of prey, or fish disease. A lake will probably need restocking about every ten years. Success with grass carp in Washington has been varied. Sometimes the same stocking rate results in no control, control, or even complete elimination of all underwater plants. Bonar et. Al. Found that only 18 percent of 98 Washington lakes stocked with grass carp at a median level of 24 fish per vegetated acre had aquatic plants controlled to an intermediate level. In 39 percent of the lakes, all submersed plant species were eradicated. It has become the consensus among researchers and aquatic plant managers around the country that grass carp are an all or nothing control option. They should be stocked only in waterbodies where complete elimination of all submersed plant species can be tolerated. Grass carp exhibit definite food preferences and some aquatic plant species will be consumed more readily than others. Pauley and Bonar performed experiments to evaluate the importance of 20 Pacific Northwest aquatic plant species as food items for grass carp. Grass carp did not remove plants in a preferred species -by -species sequence in multi -species plant communities. Instead they grazed simultaneously on palatable plants of similar preference before gradually switching to less preferred groups of plants. The relative preference of many plants was dependent upon what other plants were associated with them. The relative preference rank for the 20 aquatic plants tested was as follows: Potamogeton crispus (curly leaf pondweed) = P. pectinatus (sago pondweed) > P. zosteriformes (flat - stemmed pondweed) > Chara sp.(muskgrasses) = Elodea canadensis (American waterweed) = thin - leaved pondweeds Potamogeton spp. > Egeria densa (Brazilian elodea) (large fish only) > P. praelongus (white -stemmed pondweed) = Vallisneria americana (water celery) > Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil) > Ceratophyllum demersum (coontail) >Utricularia vulgaris (bladderwort) > Polygonum amphibium (water smartweed) > P. natans (floating leaved pondweed) > P. amplifolius (big leaf pondweed) > Brasenia schreberi (watershield) = Juncus sp.(rush) > Egeria densa (Brazilian elodea) (fingerling fish only) > Nymphaea sp. (fragrant waterlily) > Typha sp. (cattail) > Nuphar sp. (spatterdock). Generally in Washington, grass carp do not consume emergent wetland vegetation or waterlilies even when the waterbody is heavily stocked or over stocked. A heavy stocking rate of triploid grass carp in Chambers Lake, Thurston County resulted in the loss of most submersed species, whereas the fragrant waterlilies, bog bean, and spatterdock remained at pre -stocking levels. A stocking of 83,000 triploid grass carp into Silver Lake Washington resulted in the total eradication of all submersed species, including Eurasian watermilfoil, Brazilian elodea, and swollen bladderwort. However, the extensive wetlands surrounding Silver Lake have generally remained intact. In southern states, grass carp have been shown to consume some emergent vegetation (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2002). North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 46 Grass carp stocked into Washington lakes must be certified disease free and sterile. Sterile fish, called triploids because they have an extra chromosome, are created when the fish eggs are subjected to a temperature or pressure shock. Fish are verified sterile by collecting and testing a blood sample. Triploid fish have slightly larger blood cells and can be differentiated from diploid (fertile) fish by this characteristic. Grass carp imported into Washington must be tested to ensure that they are sterile. Because Washington does not allow fertile fish within the state, all grass carp are imported into Washington from out of state locations. Most grass carp farms are located in the southern United States where warmer weather allows for fast fish growth rates. Large shipments are transported in special trucks and small shipments arrive via air. Here are some facts about grass carp: • Are only distantly related to the undesirable European carp, and share few of its habits. • Generally live for at least ten years and possibly much longer in Washington State waters. • Will grow rapidly and reach at least ten pounds. They have been known to reach 40 pounds in the southern United States. • Feed only on plants at the age they are stocked into Washington waters. • Will not eat fish eggs, young fish or invertebrates, although baby grass carp are omnivorous. • Feed from the top of the plant down so that mud is not stirred up. However, in ponds and lakes where grass carp have eliminated all submersed vegetation the water becomes turbid. Hungry fish will eat organic material out of the sediments. • Have definite taste preferences. Plants like Eurasian milfoil and coontail are not preferred. American waterweed and thin leaved pondweeds are preferred. Waterlilies are rarely consumed in Washington waters. • Are dormant during the winter. Intensive feeding starts when water temperatures reach 68° F. • Prefer flowing water to still waters (original habitat is fluvial). • Are difficult to recapture once released. • They may not feed in swimming areas, docks, boating areas, or other sites where there is heavy human activity. Advantages • Grass carp are inexpensive compared to some other control methods and offer long-term control, but fish may need to be restocked at intervals. • Grass carp offer a biological alternative to aquatic plant control. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 47 Disadvantages • Depending on plant densities and types, it may take several years to achieve plant control using grass carp and in many cases control may not occur. • If the waterbody is overstocked, all submersed aquatic plants may be eliminated. Removing excess fish is difficult and expensive. • The type of plants grass carp prefer may also be those most important for habitat and for waterfowl food. • If not enough fish are stocked, less -favored plants, such as Eurasian milfoil, may take over the lake. • Stocking grass carp may lead to algae blooms. • All inlets and outlets to the lake or pond must be screened to prevent grass carp from escaping into streams, rivers, or other lakes. Permits Stocking grass carp requires a fish -stocking permit from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Also, if inlets or outlets need to be screened, an Hydraulic Project Approval application must be completed for the screening project. Costs In quantities of 10,000 or more, 8 to 12 inch sterile grass carp can be purchased for about $5.00 each for truck delivery. The cost of small air freighted orders will vary and is estimated at $8 to $10 per fish. Other Considerations • Would not achieve immediate results — takes time and is not guaranteed to work. • Community may have concerns with introduced species • Potential damage to the native plant community of the lake, which could result in the establishment of other aggressive plant species as pioneers • Concerns from fishermen about grass carp • Initial investment very expensive • The introduction of grass carp has generally been discouraged by State agencies, especially in systems like North Lake. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 48 Suitability for North Lake Grass carp are not suitable for aquatic plant control in North Lake. The infestation of milfoil has not reached a level where a bio -control such as grass carp would be necessary and the carp could remove all the beneficial plants that support a healthy fish population. Without cover and the invertebrates associated with beneficial native aquatic vegetation, the system would be degraded and some species (invertebrates, fish, etc.) may be extirpated. Watermilfoil Weevil The following information and citations on the watermilfoil weevil are taken from the Washington State Department of Ecology's website on Aquatic Plant Management. hqp://www.ecy.wa.aovL/proarams/wq/�lants/manaaement/weevil.html The milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei, has been associated with declines of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) in the United States (e.g. Illinois, Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin). Researchers in Vermont found that the milfoil weevil can negatively impact Eurasian watermilfoil by suppressing the plants growth and reducing its buoyancy (Creed and Sheldon 1995). In 1989, state biologists reported that Eurasian watermilfoil in Brownington Pond, Vermont had declined from approximately 10 hectares (in 1986) to less than 0.5 hectares. Researchers from Middlebury College, Vermont hypothesized that the milfoil weevil, which was present in Brownington Pond, played a role in reducing Eurasian watermilfoil (Creed and Sheldon 1995). During 1990 through 1992, researchers monitored the populations of Eurasian watermilfoil and the milfoil weevil in Brownington Pond. They found that by 1991 Eurasian watermilfoil cover had increased to approximately 2.5 hectares (approximately 55-65 g/m2) and then decreased to about 1 hectare (<15 g/m2) in 1992. Weevil abundance began increasing in 1990 and peaked in June of 1992, where 3 — 4 weevils (adults and larvae) per stem were detected (Creed and Sheldon 1995). These results supported the hypothesis that the milfoil weevil played a role in reducing Eurasian watermilfoil in Brownington Pond. Another documented example where a crash of Eurasian watermilfoil has been attributed to the milfoil weevil is in Cenaiko Lake, Minnesota. Researchers from the University of Minnesota reported a decline in the density of Eurasian watermilfoil from 123 g/m2 in July of 1996 to 14 g/m2 in September of 1996. Eurasian watermilfoil remained below 5 g/m2 in 1997, then increased to 44 g/m2 in June and July of 1998 and declined again to 12 g/m2 in September of 1998 (Newman and Biesboer, in press). In contrast, researchers found that weevil abundance in Cenaiko Lake was 1.6 weevils (adults and larvae) per stem in July of 1996. Weevil abundance, however, decreased with declining densities of Eurasian watermilfoil in 1996 and by September 1997 weevils were undetectable. In September of 1998 weevil abundance had increased to >2 weevils per stem (Newman and Biesboer, in press). Based on observations made by researchers in Vermont, Ohio and Wisconsin it seems that having 2 weevils (or more) per stem is adequate to control Eurasian watermilfoil. However, as indicated by the study conducted in Cenaiko Lake, Minnesota, an abundance of 1.5 weevils per stem may be sufficient in some cases (Newman and Biesboer, in press). In Washington State, the milfoil weevil is present primarily in eastern Washington and occurs on both Eurasian and northern watermilfoil (M. sibiricum), the latter plant being native to the state (Tamayo et. Al. 1999). During the summer of 1999, researchers from the University of Washington determined the abundance of the milfoil weevil in 11 lakes in Washington. They found, that weevil North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 49 abundance ranged from undetectable levels to 0.3 weevils (adults and larvae) per stem. Fan Lake, Pend Oreille County had the greatest density per stem of 0.6 weevils (adults, larvae and eggs per stem). The weevils were present on northern watermilfoil. These abundance results are well below the recommendations made by other researchers in Minnesota, Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin of having at least 1.5 — 2.0 weevils per stem in order to control Eurasian watermilfoil. To date, there have not been any documented declines of Eurasian watermilfoil in Washington State that can be attributed to the milfoil weevil, although Creed speculated that declines of Eurasian watermilfoil in Lake Osoyoos and the Okanogan River may have been caused by the milfoil weevil. In Minnesota, Cenaiko Lake is the only lake in that state that has had a Eurasian watermilfoil crash due to the weevil; other weevil lakes are yet to show declines in Eurasian watermilfoil. Researchers in Minnesota have suggested that sunfish predation may be limiting weevil densities in some lakes (Sutter and Newman 1997). The latter may be true for Washington State, as sunfish populations are present in many lakes in the state, including those with weevils. In addition, other environmental factors that may be keeping weevil populations in check in Washington, but have yet to be studied, include over -wintering survival and habitat quality and quantity (Jester et. Al. 1997; Tamayo et. Al., in press). Although the milfoil weevil shows potential as a biological control for Eurasian watermilfoil more work is needed to determine which factors limit weevil densities and what lakes are suitable candidates for weevil treatments in order to implement a cost and control effective program. Advantages • Milfoil weevils offer a biological alternative to aquatic plant control. • They may be cheaper than other control strategies. • Biocontrols enable weed control in hard -to -access areas and can become self-supporting in some systems. • If they are capable of reaching a critical mass, biocontrols can decimate a weed population. Disadvantages • There are many uncertainties as to the effectiveness of this biocontrol in western Washington waters. • There have not been any documented declines of Eurasian watermilfoil in Washington State that can be attributed to the milfoil weevil. • Many of our lakes, including North Lake, have introduced sunfish populations that may predate on the milfoil weevils. • Bio -controls often don't eradicate the target plant species, and there would be population fluctuations as the milfoil and weevil follow predator -prey cycles. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 50 Permits The milfoil weevil is native to Washington and is present in a number of lakes and rivers. It is found associated with both native northern milfoil and Eurasian watermilfoil. A company is selling milfoil weevils commercially. However, to import these out-of-state weevils into Washington requires a permit from the Washington Department of Agriculture. As of October 1, 2002 no permits have been issued for Washington. Costs The costs for researchers to locate, culture, and test bio -control agents is high. Once approved for use, insects can sell for $1.00 or more per insect. Sometimes it is possible to establish nurseries where weed specialists can collect insects for reestablishment elsewhere. Suitability for North Lake Since the milfoil weevil is a new bio -control agent, it has not been released yet intentionally in western Washington to control Eurasian watermilfoil. It is uncertain how effective the weevil will be and whether populations per stem can be maintained at levels high enough to eradicate Eurasian watermilfoil. Also, as with the grass carp, the infestation of milfoil in North Lake is not heavy enough to warrant bio -control introduction when other methods are still available. Rotovation, Harvesting, and Cutting Rotovation Rotovators use underwater rototiller-like blades to uproot Eurasian watermilfoil plants. The rotating blades churn seven to nine inches deep into the lake or river bottom to dislodge plant root crowns that are generally buoyant. The plants and roots may then be removed from the water using a weed rake attachment to the rototiller head or by harvester or manual collection. Harvesting Mechanical harvesters are large machines, which both cut and collect aquatic plants. Cut plants are removed from the water by a conveyor belt system and stored on the harvester until disposal. A barge may be stationed near the harvesting site for temporary plant storage or the harvester carries the cut weeds to shore. The shore station equipment is usually a shore conveyor that mates to the harvester and lifts the cut plants into a dump truck. Harvested weeds are disposed of in landfills, used as compost, or in reclaiming spent gravel pits or similar sites. Cutting Mechanical weed cutters cut aquatic plants several feet below the water's surface. Unlike harvesting, cut plants are not collected while the machinery operates. Suitability for North Lake None of these options are suitable for the level of infestation at North Lake. They are not eradication tools, but rather are used to manage and control heavy, widespread infestations of aquatic weeds. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 51 These processes create plant fragments, and therefore should not be used in systems where milfoil is not already widespread. In a moderate infestation such as North Lake, these methods would probably serve to spread and expand the infestation. According to Ecology, "There is little or no reduction in plant density with mechanical harvesting." Since the aim of this project is to eliminate milfoil from the system, these are not compatible control strategies. Harvesting and cutting do not remove root systems. Rotovation would cause damage to the lake sediments and associated animals in a system that does not already receive dredging for navigability. Drawdown Lowering the water level of a lake or reservoir can have a dramatic impact on some aquatic weed problems. Water level drawdown can be used where there is a water control structure that allows the managers of lakes or reservoirs to drop the water level in the waterbody for extended periods of time. Water level drawdown often occurs regularly in reservoirs for power generation, flood control, or irrigation; a side benefit being the control of some aquatic plant species. However, regular drawdowns can also make it difficult to establish native aquatic plants for fish, wildlife, and waterfowl habitat in some reservoirs. Suitability for North Lake Drawdown is not a viable control strategy for North Lake. The outlet from North Lake has a permanent weir with limited drawdown capacities. Not only would drawdown be difficult to achieve, it would also cause significant damage to the ecosystem. The amount of drawdown required to impact milfoil would dry out the littoral zone of the lake. This would damage native plants and animals in the lake and have many negative consequences for residents living around the lake. Without a surface inflow to the system, returning the water level to a previous state would be both cost and time prohibitive. Nutrient Reduction Nutrient Reduction Alternative At lakes in watersheds with identifiable sources of excess nutrients, a program to reduce nutrients entering the lake could possibly be an effective method of controlling aquatic vegetation. Sources of excessive nutrients might include failing septic tanks, other accidental or planned wastewater effluent, or runoff from agricultural lands. If nutrient reduction were enacted as the primary method of weed control, extensive research would be necessary to determine the current nutrient budget for the lake and surrounding watershed, whether nutrient reduction would result in milfoil reduction, and to identify and mitigate the natural and human -mediated nutrient sources. Suitability for North Lake Nutrient reduction is not an appropriate control measure for the following reasons: • It is not an eradication method. • There is no evidence that there is significant point -source nutrient loading at North Lake. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 52 There is no evidence that reducing nutrient loads to the water column would impact milfoil growth. However, all lake groups should strive to reduce nutrient loading to their lake by practicing and implementing Best Management Practices. No Action Alternative One option for managing aquatic weeds in North Lake is to let aquatic weeds continue to grow, and do nothing to control them. This "no action" alternative would acknowledge the presence of the aquatic weeds but would not outline any management plan or enact any planned control efforts. Effectively, a no action determination would preclude any integrated treatment and/or control effort, placing the choice and responsibility of aquatic weed control with lakefront property owners. Suitability for North Lake The milfoil infestation is currently light to moderate in density; unless control measures are enacted, it is likely to increase each growing season in the future until the entire littoral zone of the lake is dominated by milfoil. Based on results of informal surveys by residents and King County staff, the infestations of milfoil, purple loosestrife, and fragrant waterlily have greatly increased since the last comprehensive plant survey in 1995 (King County, 1996). If there is no control effort, it is likely that weed infestations will continue to grow, making North Lake a prime source of milfoil fragments for other nearby lakes with public access and boat launch facilities, as well as a potential source of seed spread by purple loosestrife. Even if some of the residents chose to control the aquatic weeds near their properties, pockets of milfoil would remain. The surviving plants would fragment each autumn, spreading to other areas of the lake, including those that were treated by residents. The no action alternative is not preferred by members of the North Lake community, Weyerhaeuser, or the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 53 INTEGRATED TREATMENT PLAN North Lake and its associated shoreline contain four listed noxious weed species that should have control measures implemented to halt the spread of their invasions and reverse the degradation currently occurring. The four target species are the Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus). Although all four species at North Lake are highly aggressive and are difficult to control/eradicate, we believe that the goal of eradication is reasonable for all of them, and we can be successful within the time frame of the project. Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Year Initial control of Eurasian watermilfoil will be accomplished using an aquatic formulation of Triclopyr TEA (Renovate3 ®) in late May to early June over approximately 10 acres of milfoil- infested area as estimated in 2004 by King County Lake Stewardship and Noxious Weed staff (depending on court decisions and award money or 2,4-D (DMA*4IVM®, Aquakleen® or Navigate°) could be used). The contractor should survey the entire lake with divers using a GPS and marking all the points that need treatment. The areas are marked on the water's surface with buoys and then the application is performed from a boat using trailing hoses to disperse the herbicide underwater. Due to the nature of the sediments in North Lake (as described in Aquatic Plant Control Alternatives), Triclopyr TEA is the preferred formulation. Eradication of Eurasian watermilfoil is the end goal. A follow-up application in Year 1, about three weeks after the first, may be applied to pick up missed plants or late emergents. Only 2.5 mg/L of the herbicide is allowed to be applied during the growing season in the treatment area. We will plan for a maximum of 25% of the original area of 10 acres to need the second treatment. Diver hand -pulling (or diver dredging) will clean up any remaining milfoil found after both herbicide applications have had time to take effect (i.e. two to three weeks after the second herbicide treatment). A bottom barrier will be installed at the boat launch in the winter of Year 1 to ensure eradication in the vicinity, and to aid in preventing new introductions. Community education efforts will be continued, including training in milfoil identification and survey methods. There will also be an increase in the signage at the boat launch. The NPDES permit coverage from WSDA requires notification and posting of the waterbody, and these specific protocols will be followed. The NPDES permit also requires monitoring of the herbicide levels in the lake after treatment. Independent samples will be collected at the time of the application and again five days post treatment. A baseline sample will also be taken before the application, especially since Water Quality experts at Ecology report heightened levels of 2,4-D in our surface waters due to runoff after heavy storm events (K. Hamel, pers. comm.) One sample is taken from within the treatment area, and one from outside. These four samples (per application) will be sent to an independent, Ecology -accredited laboratory for the analysis. As more of these samples need to be analyzed to meet NPDES requirements, some companies may get an ELIZA test accredited through Ecology which will be less expensive. As the permit stands in 2003, this procedure will be performed each year an application for milfoil is conducted. Surveys after the initial application are essential to determining the success of the effort, and will be used to determine North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 54 what measures need to be implemented to complete the milfoil control for Year 1 (and subsequent years). Problems may arise if the same firm that conducted the herbicide application also surveys for the success of the effort. We plan to hire a separate, independent firm to conduct these surveys to overcome this potential problem. Volunteers from the North Lake community will be directly involved with overseeing the implementation of control work to keep the contractors accountable. Year 2 Year 2 will begin with diver surveys of the lake to check the status of the infestation. Spot herbicide treatment with triclopyr (Renovate3e) or 2,4-D (DMA*4IVM8, Aquakleen® or Navigate®) will begin in late May to early June over an estimated maximum of 50% of the original milfoil infested area (max. six acres). Obviously, if the diver surveys find greater than six acres need to be treated, the real infestation size will be accommodated. At this point we will have a sense as to whether the herbicide has eliminated a significant amount of the Eurasian watermilfoil, or whether it has seemed to become less effective. After the first herbicide application in Year 2, we will conduct the first diver hand -pulling/ diver dredging about three to four weeks after the herbicide treatment. We plan for a maximum of 25% of the original area (or three acres) to need the first manual removal. We will follow this with a second survey in August with diver hand -pulling/ dredging as needed. At this point, we hope that less than 10% of the original area (or one acre) will be involved. Annual maintenance of the bottom barrier at the boat launch will consist of removal of rooted plants and sediment accumulations, as well as securing the barrier to the bottom to ensure safety and effectiveness. Continued community education will complete our Eurasian watermilfoil efforts for Year 2. Year 3 Year 3 will again begin with diver surveys of the lake to assess the milfoil distribution. If herbicide is needed we will stay with the original active ingredient for the herbicide treatment in Year 3. We project that no more than an acre total of Eurasian watermilfoil will need this treatment. We will then use diver hand -pulling/ diver dredging as necessary if individual plants are discovered in our mid- summer survey. Annual maintenance of the bottom barrier at the boat launch and continued community education will complete our Eurasian watermilfoil efforts for Year 3. In Years 4-7 (and beyond), diver and surface surveys will occur at least twice during the growing season. Because permits for herbicide applications must be acquired far in advance, we plan to rely on diver hand -pulling as the control method. If at any point we find that we are losing ground on eradication efforts, we will apply for the appropriate permits and perform spot applications with herbicide. We will need to continue the bottom barrier maintenance annually. There should be no need to revegetate the areas of Eurasian watermilfoil after treatment. Most of the native submersed species are monocots (Potamogeton sp.) that should be relatively unaffected by either the Triclopyr or 2,4-D application. Removing the noxious invaders will halt the degradation of the system and allow the dynamic natural equilibrium to be maintained. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 55 Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) may be eliminated by this outlined integrated approach. Two herbicide applications per season in the first year(s), followed by manual methods, should ensure that no milfoil plants survive. Once the established plants are eradicated, and follow up surveys have verified their absence for several seasons, potential reintroduction will be a remaining challenge. Any areas that dewater will be checked for milfoil seedlings. Since North Lake does not currently have prolific plant growth, milfoil plants should be found easily and manual control methods should prove more effective than in a lake with dense beds of native vegetation. Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata) Year Control efforts on the fragrant waterlily began in the summer of 2004 with Glyphosate. 10 acres of the lake was treated. The intensity of control will be equal across the entire lake, with eradication as the end goal. Triclopyr and 2,4-D may have some effect on fragrant waterlily since it is also a broad - leafed plant and there is some overlap in the distribution of these plants in North Lake. However, 2,4- D is reported as not being very effective on this species (K. Hamel, pers. comm.). At the same time as the second herbicide application for the Eurasian watermilfoil in Year 1, we will use Glyphosate (Rodeo® or Aquamaster ) on the fragrant waterlilies around the lake to continue control. In addition to posting requirements, the NPDES permit requires monitoring of the glyphosate levels in the lake after treatment. Independent samples will be collected about one hour after the application and again 24 hours post treatment. One sample is taken from within the treatment area, and one from outside. These four samples (per application) will be sent to an independent, Ecology -accredited laboratory for the analysis. A follow up treatment may be done in the later summer of 2004 to insure control over the fragrant waterlily population. It is not likely that the lilies will be eradicated by year 1. Year 2 Year 2 will likely include another glyphosate application. Since milfoil will be treated with herbicide, we may get some control on the waterlilies from the triclopyr application. However, since triclopyr will be applied in spot applications to milfoil, there may be less and less overlap between milfoil and fragrant waterlily. In either case, a glyphosate application will be performed when floating leaves have formed on the waterlily (approximately the same time as Year 1). One glyphosate application is planned in Year 2 and will be followed by cutting and removing any plants not killed by the herbicide. This manual control will be performed by the end of the summer before the plants set seed. Year 3 In future years, we may need to eliminate returning plants or new infestations. We have planned for a "final" herbicide application in Year 3 as a contingency. Cutting will be used to control small areas of waterlily. If the level of waterlily infestation again gets to the point where manual control is no longer feasible, we will plan for an herbicide application the following summer. This lead-time is required to get the necessary permits. The native waterlily (Nuphar luteum) is well represented in the south end of the lake where much of the fragrant waterlily is currently found and is likely to expand its distribution. The selective nature of spot applications of Glyphosate should minimize impacts to non - target vegetation, and may allow the native waterlily to rebound or expand. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 56 Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) North Lake was chosen for Galerucella calmariensis, a biological control, release because of a high density of the target plant and the fact that other control methods were impractical. Large numbers of purple loosestrife dominates the boat launch at North Lake and surrounding shoreline. Chemical control was a much more expensive alternative and the beetle has proven to be a successful management tool. Three releases have been done at the North Lake boat launch, one in 2002 and two in 2003. Approximately 800 beetles were released and have since been found in other areas of the lake. According to the King County Noxious Weed specialist, Monica Walker, beetles alone are not sufficient to eradicate the purple loosestrife. An integrated approach will be necessary for eradication to be successful. One glyphosate application per year is planned for Years 1-3. Glyphosate will be wicked on to each plant, taking care that no other native, desirable plants receive the herbicide treatment. Plants will be rechecked 1 month after herbicide application, and any that have produced flowers will be manually controlled before they set seed. These plants will be cut at the base and disposed of as garbage. Guidance will be provided to residential landowners as to which native plants or non-aggressive exotics would serve well to perform the desired functions of buffer vegetation along their shorelines. Some landowners are concerned with aesthetic elements and would like to replace the beautiful floral display of purple loosestrife, whereas others have ecological concerns about buffering a waterbody with wetland vegetation to help maintain the health of the system. Part of the community education process will be bringing these two different views together to establish more natural landscapes on the residential parcels around the lake, and develop sustainable, noxious -weed -free systems. Purple loosestrife has decreased slightly due to four years of manual and biological control methods. Yellow flap iris (Iris pseudacorus) Control efforts on the yellow flag iris will focus on the entire shoreline. We plan to use a treatment with glyphosate (Rodeo® or Aquamaster ), which should be done at the same time as the purple loosestrife and fragrant waterlily control. We plan to make one herbicide application in each of the first 3 years. Control efforts around the remainder of the lake will be accomplished through educational outreach. We will begin by asking residents to continue taking seed heads off the plants in late summer before they expand the infestation. We will also encourage landowners to start digging out the individual plants on their shoreline. Caution must be taken when working the yellow flag iris as the plant sap is poisonous and can cause severe blistering and irritation, if ingested it can cause vomiting and diarrhea. Gloves and care must be used when working with this plant. Permission from all of the individual landowners will be necessary before any herbicide work can proceed on their land. These efforts will be ongoing. Suggestions will be provided to residential landowners as to native plants or non-aggressive exotics that would serve well to perform the desired functions of buffer vegetation along their shorelines. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 57 PLAN ELEMENTS, COSTS, AND FUNDING Table 3 outlines the tasks and estimated costs of implementation on an annual basis. Implementation of the North Lake IAVMP will span at least seven years, at a total estimated cost of $58,272. The majority of the costs accrue in the first several years, which is the period of most aggressive treatment. Beyond that, costs are directed at detecting and controlling re -introduction of noxious aquatic plant species. Table 4: Budget with use of Triclopyr Task Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 7 year total Lily Treatment $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Herbicide (triclopyr) $ 10,000.00 $ 3,900.00 $ 13,900.00 Emergent Weed Treatment $ 1,500.00 $ 1,125.00 $ 300.00 $ 2,925.00 Diver Survey $ 1,100.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 7,900.00 Diver Dredge/ handpull $ 7,680.00 $ 10,240.00 $ 1,280.00 $ 1,280.00 $ 1,280.00 $ 640.00 $ 640.00 $ 23,040.00 Boat launch bottom barrier $ 1,250.00 $ 215.00 $ 215.00 $ 215.00 $ 215.00 $ 215.00 $ 215.00 $ 2,540.00 Education and Outreach $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 5,000.00 Printing Costs $ 1,000.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 1,750.00 Project Management $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 8,500.00 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Totals $25,930.00 $21,330.00 $5,395.00 $5,095.00 $4,095.00 $2,855.00 $2,855.00 $67,555.00 w/ tax $5,923.63 10% contingency $6,731.40 Grand Total $80,210.03 North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 58 Table 5: Project budget with use of 2,4-D Task Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 7 year total Lily Treatment $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Herbicide (2,4 D) $9,759.00 $3,900.00 $ 13,659.00 Emergent Weed Treatment $ 1,500.00 $ 1,125.00 $ 300.00 $ 2,925.00 Diver Survey $1,100.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $ 7,900.00 Diver Dredge/ handpull $7,680.00 $10,240.00 $1,280.00 $1,280.00 $1,280.00 $640.00 $640.00 $ 23,040.00 Boat launch bottom barrier $1,250.00 $215.00 $215.00 $215.00 $215.00 $215.00 $215.00 $ 2,540.00 Education and Outreach $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $750.00 $750.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $ 5,000.00 Printing Costs $1,000.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $ 1,750.00 Project Management $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 8,500.00 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Totals $25,689.00 $21,330.00 $5,395.00 $5,095.00 $4,095.00 $2,855.00 $2,855.00 $67,314.00 w/ tax $5,791.63 10% contingency $6,581.40 Grand Total $79,687.03 North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 59 Sources of Funding There are several likely sources of funding available for project implementation: Grants The Washington State Department of Ecology has an Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (AWMF). This IAVMP was developed to be consistent with all AWMF guidelines and requirements. Given the relatively low-level infestation, outstanding ecological value of North Lake and its watershed, and the potential for infestation of neighboring lakes, it is hoped that Ecology and other grant programs will offer funding. Other possible funding sources include King County's WaterWorks and the Natural Resources Stewardship Network. Dedicated non -grant funds from King County The King County Noxious Weed Program has limited funds available to contribute to weed control projects. While this can not be considered an ongoing source of funding, $1000 is promised to the project in the first year of implementation. Community -Based Funding There is a proposal before the North Lake Improvement Club to begin collecting annual contributions estimated at $50, with the additional revenue to be dedicated to projects and programs designed to improve lake and watershed conditions. This could generate several thousand dollars over the first five years of the project. Noxious aquatic weed management currently tops the list of threats to the lake. If funds raised by requesting contributions prove insufficient, community members have discussed forming a Lake Management District (LMD). If implemented, a LMD would collect an annual fee from all watershed property owners. Fees would be weighted based on property size and proximity to the lake. Money collected through a LMD must be dedicated to addressing specific problems facing the lake and watershed. This IAVMP will provide some guidance should watershed residents choose to pursue a LMD. Matching Funds Table 6 shows the matching requirements outlined by Ecology's AWMF and the estimated in-kind match and cash match provided by King County and the North Lake Community. Table 6: Total Matching Funds (triclopyr) Total Project cost = $80,210.03 Budgeted Match %of Total 75% of total project $60,157.52 Required match $20,052.51 Budgeted in-kind match $13,825.00 17.2% Budgeted cash match $ 6,450.40 8.0% Ecology $ after match $59,934.63 North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 60 Table 7: Total Matching Funds (2,4-D) Total Project cost = $79,687.03 Cost Units Budgeted %of Total 75% of total project $59,765.27 Notes Required match $19,921.76 $ 13,825.00 17.3% $ 15.00 $ 6,450.40 8.1% 135 Ecology $ after match $59,411.63 Table 8: In-kind Matching Funds Item Cost Units Units/ year Years Notes Total Volunteer hours $ 15.00 per hour 135 5 8-10 very active $10,125.00 community members. -2 certified divers on lake. Time estimates include boats urveys, diver training, bottom barrier maintenance, steering KC DNRP Noxious Weed $ 1,000.00 per year 1 1 committee meetings,ID $ 1,000.00 Control Program Cost Share workshops, educational flyer development. Educational Materials $ 500.00 peryear 1 5 Communitymember $ 2,500.00 Development and time spent developing Presentation $31.68 per hour 10 3 materials and presenting $ 950.40 Weed Specialist materials to youth Total est. cash match $ 6,450.40 groups and other organizations Boat rental $ 40.00 1 per day 6 5 $ 1,200.00 Total est. in-kind match $13,825.00 Table 9: Cash Matching Funds Item Cost Units Units/ year Years Notes Total Community self -tax $ 500.00 per year 1 5 Based on $ 2,500.00 implementation of one or more community-based funding strategies outlined in IAVMP. Will be assessed annually into future (indefinitely). KC DNRP Noxious Weed $ 1,000.00 per year 1 1 Dedicated cost share $ 1,000.00 Control Program Cost Share funds from Noxious Weed Control Program Grants $ 1,000.00 per year 1 2 Estimate based on likely $ 2,000.00 sources. KC Staff - Aquatic Noxious $31.68 per hour 10 3 See below for salary and $ 950.40 Weed Specialist burden rates as of 2003. Total est. cash match $ 6,450.40 North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 61 Table 10: KC Staff Salary and Burden Rates Table 11: Federal Way Staff and Benefit Rates O Burdened Burdened .Z �e Position le \°�� e �e Hourly Burdened Position Hourly Rate 8.40 $43.40 Q O ti a Rate Environmental Scientist $ 27.16 $ 7.99 $ 4.07 $ 6.79 $46.01 Water Quality Planner $ 25.29 $ 7.44 $ 3.79 $ 6.32 $42.84 Aquatic Weed Specialist $ 18.70 $ 5.50 $ 2.81 1 $ 4.68 1 $31.68 Table 11: Federal Way Staff and Benefit Rates North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 62 Hourly Burdened Burdened Position Hourly Rate �e Rate Smith $ 35.00 $ 8.40 $43.40 Russel $ 22.70 $ 6.13 $28.83 Donald $ 30.27 $ 7.87 $ 38.14 North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 62 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION The implementation of the plan will follow the process outlined below: 1. Convene a project Implementation Committee. Many Steering Committee members have indicated their willingness to transition into this role. 2. Review proposed plan and develop timeline with specific tasks. The IAVMP will guide this process. 3. Assign tasks to Implementation Committee members. 4. Issue a Request for Proposals for weed survey and control work. 5. Secure necessary permits. Permit application will be coordinated with the contracted applicator. 6. Implement community education plan. 7. Apply herbicide treatment. Application will be completed as prescribed in IAVMP, unless consultation with Ecology and the applicator leads to defensible changes in the plan. 8. Conduct follow-up surveys. Professional contractors and community members who have received adequate training can complete this work, with community participation under supervision of King County staff 9. Apply follow-up herbicide treatment if necessary. Follow-up surveys will determine the extent to which this work is necessary. 10. Conduct diver surveys and hand -pulling as necessary. Professional contractors and community members who have received adequate training can complete this work, with community participation under supervision of King County staff. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 63 mlawleldsm= Aiken, S. G., P.R. Newroth, and I. Wile. 1979. The biology of Canadian weeds. 34. Myriophyllum spicatum L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 59:201-215. Cited in Sheldon and Creed, 1995. Beavers, Tom. July 2004. Personal communication. White River Basin Steward, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Seattle, WA. Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 22:361- 368. Cleary, Julie. July 2004. E-mail correspondence. Resident of North Lake. King County, WA. Creed, R.P., Jr., and S.P. Sheldon. 1995. Weevils and watermilfoil: Did a North American herbivore cause the decline of an exotic weed? Ecological Applications 5(4): 1113-1121. Diamond, Gary L. and Patrick R. Durkin. 1997. Effects of Surfactants on the Toxicity of Glyphosate, with Specific Reference to RODEO. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), SERA TR 97-206-1b. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). 1996. Pesticide Information Profiles: Glyphosate. Oregon State University. Retrieved August 14, 2002. Available online at: hqp:Hace.orst.edu/cai- bin/mfs/0l/Tips/gIyphosa.htrn Felsot, Allan S. 1998. Hazard Assessment of Herbicides Recommended for Use by the King County Noxious Weed Control Program. Prepared for the Utilities and Natural Resources Committee of the Metropolitan King County Council. Available online at: httD://dnr.metrokc.izov/wlr/lands/weeds/herbicid.htm Friends of Hylebos Creek, 2004. The Hylebos Watershed Webpage. Available online at: http://www.hylebos.org/watershed/index.htm Hamel, Kathy. September 2002- February 2003. Personal communication. Aquatic Plant Specialist, Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. Honey, Wendy. June 2004. Personal communication. Resident of North Lake community. King County, WA. Information Ventures, Inc. 1995. Pesticide Fact Sheet: Glyphosate. Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available online at: hqp://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pestcide/glyphos.html Jackson, Chad. October 2002. Personal Communication. Area Fish Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. King County, 1991. Draft Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan. Surface Water Management Division. King County, 1996. Aquatic Plant Mapping for 36 King County Lakes. Surface Water Management Division. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 64 King County, 200 1. King County Lake Water Quality: A Trend Report on King County Small Lakes. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Lake Stewardship Program. King County, 2003. Data from King County's Lake Stewardship Volunteer Monitoring Program. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Malik, J., G. Barry, and G. Kishore. 1989. Mini -review: The herbicide glyphosate. BioFactors. 2(1): 17 25, 1989.10-100 Reed, P. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest Region 9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88 (26.9). Richter, K. 0. and A.L. Azous, 2001 a. Amphibian Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use in: Wetlands and Urbanization: Implication for the Future. Azous, A.L. and R.R. Horner (eds), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. 338 pp. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey King County Area Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C. Walker, Monica. August 2004. E-mail correspondence. Noxious Weed Specialist, King County Noxious Weed Group. Seattle, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001 a. An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington's Freshwater Plants. 195pp. Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001b. Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant Management Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Appendix C - Volume 3: 2,4-D). Available online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0010043.pdf Washington State Department of Ecology, 2002. Aquatic Plant Management website. Retrieved July 25, 2002. Available online at: htlp://www.ecy.wa. og_v/programs/wq//plants/management/index.html Washington State Department of Ecology, 2004. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Permitted use of Triclopyr. 115pp. Available online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0410018.html Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 1995. Eurasian watermilfoil. In: Written Findings. Available online at: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed info/milfoil.html Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 2001. Iris pseudacorus. In: Written Findings. Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 1997. Lythrum salicaria. In: Written Findings. Available online at: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed info/ploosestrife.html Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 2001b. Nymphaea odorata. In: Written Findings. Westerdahl, H.E. and K.D. Getsinger (eds), 1988. Aquatic Plant Identification and Herbicide Use Guide; Volume L• Aquatic Herbicides and Application Equipment. Technical Report A-88-9, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, TAS. North Lake IAVMP 12/21/2004 65 APPENDIXA Appendix A documents the public involvement process during the development of the North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Throughout this process, the Steering Committee made decisions based on input from and interactions with the wider community. Documents contained herein relate to planning and implementation of outreach and education activities including steering committee meeting agendas, meeting notes, flyers, and handouts. Documents appear in their original form, and have not been edited after the fact to reflect subsequent decisions or changes in the proposed project. As such, there are spelling and grammar errors, and varied document formats. North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A-1 3-17-04 North Lake Steering Committee meeting Attendees: Julie Cleary, Tom Jovanovich, Wendy Honey, Debra Hansen, Mark Braverman representing Weyerhaeuser and Beth Cullen representing The King County Lake Stewardship Program (2 hour meeting) Notes: • Need to apply State Grant for Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan • State Grant can sustain for a couple of years • Beth Cullen would be the project manager including handling funds • Weyerhaeuser has a permit for treating the Lilly pads for 2004 and plans to do treatment end of May • Look at Spring Lake model at http:Hdnr.metrokc.gov • Watershed Grant for $2000 available on-line o Identify scope of work (Wendy to talk to Dr. Whitworth of Whitworth Pest Solutions) o Receiving this grant would help in getting the State grant o First step is to partner with Weyerhaeuser, community and King County o Need to chip in $$ o Ken Pritchard is grant coordinator o Need to get this in quickly after April 5 meeting • Application for State Grant needs to be completed before October o Kathy Hammil in charge of State Grants o Possibility of up to $50,000 o Again look at Spring Lake process • We agreed to try to get the lakeside residents to the monthly board meeting on April 5. Wendy to contact Lois (NLIC Secretary) about possibility. • HPA needed to pull out Lilies, Milfoil by hand. HPA free from King County North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A-2 4/01/04 North Lake Steering Committee Attendees: Debra Hanson, Wendy Honey, Julie Cleary (90 minute meeting) Meeting for April 5h with North Lake Community • How will we know if we have been successful with this meeting? o Vote of support and address concerns • What do we need to do in preparation for this meeting? o Distribute flyers o Coffee/tea o Set up club house o What else? ■ Sign in sheet with Name/Address/Phone/email • What do we want to accomplish? o Community support and education Who is going to give an explanation of what we are trying to do and introduce Beth Cullen as a speaker? o Wendy Honey, Steering Committee Chairperson • Introduce Steering Committee members • Explain that we are starting a 7-1Oyear community maintenance to control our communities noxious and invasive weed/plant problem • Introduce Beth Cullen to speak on educating community on noxious and invasive weed/plant • Small Change Grant Writing o Handouts provided by King County o Who is going to do what by when? ■ Questions were assigned to Steering Committee members to draft and complete by 4/07/04 (Wednesday) North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A-3 PLEASE JOIN US!! North Lakeside residents, we need your help in returning North Lake to a Clean, recreational lake to live and play on. Milfoil, Lilly pads and Purple Loosestrife are threatening the health of our lake. We need to take action. Please join us for a discussion and direction setting Date: April Where: North Lake Improvement Club Time: 7:15pm Speaker: Beth Cullen from King County Lake Stewardship Program We have an opportunity to participate in clean up by using the permit Weyerhaeuser has obtained to address the Lilly problem in May of 2004 and the possibility of a grant from King County. Your participation in direction setting is critical to a successful clean up. North Lake Steering Committee Julie Cleary (253)874-9138 Debra Hansen (253)927-7789 Wendy Honey (253)952-5283 Tom Jovanovich (253)874-8239 North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A-4 4/05/04 Speakers Notes (Wendy Honey) (attended by 31 residents including steering committee members 90 minute meeting) Thank neighbors for attending and support (include those not able to attend) Introduce Steering Committee: Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Tom Jovanovich, Wendy Honey Brief overview: • Began last year with conversations of the lily pads. Many neighbors have noticed and commented on increased lake weeds over the years. • Invited Beth Cullen and Katie Sauter Messick to talk with the North Lake Improvement Club Board members about weed control and funding options through grants • Our goal is to begin eradication of the non-native lily pads. Begin this process this spring. Count grant application for this process may be available. Cost is approximately $1500.00 in conjunction with Weyerhaeuser. Cost saving to begin now is $1050.00 ($250.00 per acre savings on treatment and shared permit) • Long term goal is to request a grant through the State Department of Ecology and develop an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan for our lake. 7-10 year process. This will result in controlling other noxious weeds such as the Milfoil, Purple Loosestrife, and Yellow Flag Iris. • Approximately 50 lakeside neighbors contacted over the weekend. 30 (100%) that we were able to speak with gave their support o Support may come in the form of: Financial assistance Volunteer time • Introduce Beth Cullen, Water Quality Planner I Lake Stewardship Program, King County Water and Land Resources (206)263-6242 / beth.cullenffinetrokc. og_v North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A-5 North Lake Steering Committee Wednesday May 5, 2004 Discussion Items: Next Steps: Community Feedback: Grant Process: Task Delegation: Dan Smith, City of Federal Way: North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A-6 North Lake Steering Committee Wednesday May 5, 2004 Attendees: Wendy Honey, Julie Cleary, Tom Jovanovich, Chuck Gibson, Beth Cullen (6:30pm-8:30pm 2 hour meeting) Discussion Items: The goal of the committee is to eradicate milfoil, lilies, loosestrife and iris. The first few years of the management plan will focus on herbicide treatments but begin to add diver surveys and resident monitoring to the plan Next Steps: Start aggressive eradication. Consider $20,000 a year for first couple of years for herbicide treatments. 3-4 years for control of non-native water lilies/Purple Loosestrife/Milfoil Educational grant may be available. Could we utilize the Boy Scouts for volunteers? 2"d stage -monitoring / hand pulling We need to consider obtaining at least: 10% cash matching / 5% volunteer matching Community Feedback: All feedback from 4/05/2004 meeting positive and all committee members report positive feedback. No objections to the program mentioned. Grant Process: The King County grant to piggy -back on the lily control should be awarded by min -May Weyerhaeuser is waiting to hear about that grant before the contract begins IAVMP Grant available $60,000-$75,000 Due by October DOE grant contact: Kathy Hammil Neighboring Lakes Geneva, Killarney, and 5 mile have same problems with non-native and noxious weeds/plants Initial control of non-native water lilies will probably need 2 treatments of RODEO to be effective Need to develop letter of support and receive signatures for grant application Task Delegation: • Link for IAVMP • Draft budget • Community history -importance of North Lake to its residence, history of weeds, and previous treatments • Write Problem Statement -safety of waters, spreading to neighboring lakes, Goal is to eradiate non- native and noxious weeds and reintroduce native plants. Include undeveloped lake area in King County • Keep sign in sheets/agendas/time logs Other contacts: Dan Smith, City of Federal Way: Public Works, Surface Water Lake Management District. Discussion on weeds: results of King County dive survey: Native water lilies -shaped like ace of spades and stand up on waters surface. There are not many patches of these on North Lake. More fragrant non-native lilies Eurasian Milfoil-big puffy -leaflets -fluorescent bright. Northern is native-darker/olive green. Milfoil is everywhere in the lake. Early season for milfoil probably due to weather conditions Native Pond weed. Important Notes: Removing the lilies may increase milfoil. Lilies shade milfoil from sunlight/growth HPA Hydraulic Permit Approval is needed for hand pulling of weeds North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A-7 Monetary matches with Weyerhaeuser for match and budget timing. Weyerhaeuser may continue funding lake management Next meetings: Steering Committee May 24"' Steering Committee June 14`i' with Beth Cullen Watershed meeting June 28th North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A-8 5/24/04 Steering Committee Meeting Attendees: Wendy Honey, Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Tom Jovanovich, Chuck Gibson (6:30pm-8:OOpm 90 minutes) • Discuss planning and assign problem statement and lake history. • Who are our contact? o Long time residents Objective to have draft completed by next meeting. All committee members assigned a section to write. Circulate by email and each committee member will review and provide feedback. Next meeting: June 14th with Steering Committee members and Beth Cullen North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A-9 6/28/2004 Meeting Agenda Welcome -Neighbors Guests- Detrich and Glenda Jones, North Lake Residents Beth Cullen, Water Quality Planner, Lake Stewardship Program King County Water and Land Resources Mark Braverman, Site Forestry Manager for Weyerhaeuser Belinda Bowman, General Manager, Whitworth Pest Solutions Dan Smith, City of Federal Way Introduce Committee Members: Wendy Honey, Debra Hanson, Julie Cleary, Tom Jovanovich, Chuck Gibson Objective: To update the community on the Small Change Grant, water lilly eradication efforts currently taking place, and introduce IAVMP — Speaker Wendy Honey Small Change for a Big Difference Grant from King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks: North Lake Photo presentation: Whitworth Pest Solutions: update on 6/17 spray of Fragrant Water Lilies: Belinda Bowman Introduce IAVMP, Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan: IAVMP PowerPoint presentation: Beth Cullen Open floor for discussion and questions. Close meeting / Collect Letter of Support from each household attending North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A- 10 6/28/2004 Meeting Agenda (Speaker Notes: Wendy Honey) Welcome -Neighbors Guests - Dietrich and Glenda Jones, North Lake Residents Beth Cullen, Water Quality Planner, Lake Stewardship Program King County Water and Land Resources Mark Braverman, Site Forestry Manager for Weyerhaeuser Belinda Bowman, General Manager, Whitworth Pest Solutions Dan Smith, City of Federal Way Introduce Committee Members: Wendy Honey, Debra Hanson, Julie Cleary, Unable to attend: Tom Jovanovich, Chuck Gibson Objective: To update the community on the Small Change Grant, water lily eradication efforts currently taking place, and introduce IAVMP — Speaker Wendy Honey In June we received approval on the Small Change for a Big Difference Grant from King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. This grant was for $2000.00 and allowed funding for the first stage of fragrant water lily eradication that took place on June 17, and 18th. This first stage seems to be a successful start as many of the fragrant water lilies are beginning to die. As this continues to happen, they may sink to the bottom and it is possible that some masses of them may rise and float. If they float onto your shoreline and it is more thank you can handle for cleaning up to recycle or compost, please contact a member of the Steering Committee and we will organize a work party to assist. We may need follow-up treatments as we get into the later summer months. In order to schedule future funding of this project, we need to determine the financial support. There is approximately $360.00 left from the grant funds, and we would need to ask residents to assist in funding. We can still use the Weyerhaeuser permit for future treatments, even if they are not in conjunction. It is important to mention that the Native Lilies were not sprayed as part of the eradication. The contractor was very careful not to spray these lilies and they will remain as part of the native habitat. North Lake PowerPoint presentation: Wendy Honey, photos of the lake during the water lily eradication efforts June 16th, June 17th, and June 24th. Whitworth Pest Solutions: update on 6/17 spray of Fragrant Water Lilies: Belinda Bowman Our next step: Introduce IAVMP, Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan: The grant application the Steering Committee is currently drafting. This grant is from the State Department of Ecology. The due date for the grant application is October 2004 for funding eradication project to begin in 2005. (Include request for matching funds both in kind and monetary) We are considering the first 3 years to be the most costly and are hoping to receive $100.00 per household in order to meet our match funds. We do need ongoing financial support from the homeowners as at some point, when funding has run out, we will be self funding to keep our lake free of the weeds that today infest the shoreline and water surface. We also receive credit for in kind North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A- 11 matches of time such as monitoring progress. To date the Steering committee has dedicated in excess of 100 hours to these projects. If you are working with any Steering Committee member on any project efforts, it is important that all time is logged for credit IAVMP PowerPoint presentation: Beth Cullen Open floor for discussion and questions. Close meeting with thanks and support / Collect Letter of Support from each household attending North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A- 12 7/26/04 Steering Committee Meeting Agenda Attendees: Tom Jovanovich, Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Chuck Gibson, Wendy Honey, Beth Cullen Informational discussion on herbicides to consider: o Approximately 3-5 acres of milfoil 0 24D -higher toxicity -not for use in Salmon bearing streams Approx. Cost $600.00 per acre o Triclopere-less toxic -new approved approx. cost $1000.00 per acre -spot treat shallows o Map out Eurasian milfoil o Glysophate considered for Purple Loosestrife and yellow flag iris o Consider herbicide treatments matched with diver hand pulling o Discuss fabric barrier at the boat launch. Annual housekeeping o Need to set up lake patrol • Discuss further work on IAVMP application o How are we doing? On target! • Update on lake management fund o Need to get this account established. It was determined to request $50.00 from each lakeside resident. If we are able to collect 80% that would cover this year's expenses as well as a seed account for next year. • Discuss next RODEO application o To be applied by Whitworth Pest Solutions end of Aug or by Mid September. Approx. const $750.00 plus tax • Other items as needed: o Continue drafting IAVMP and working on application. o Get account established through NLIC treasurer, Simone • Next meeting after the first of September. North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A- 13 9/02/04 Steering Committee Meeting Attendees: Wendy Honey, Debra Hansen, Julie Cleary, Chuck Gibson (6:30pm-8:00pm 90minutes) Items to discuss: • Review our notes/comments on the draft IAVMP • Review and discuss the application document (Wendy is still working on this) o Draft answers and discuss format to use • Review the attachments for the IAVMP o Letter of support and signatures o Meeting agendas and notes o Correspondence from the Dept. of Fisheries (Larry T. is to be mailing this to Wendy) regarding Rotenone restoration of North Lake in 1950's -1970's o Community feedback (ANY?) Non reported Next step is to forward completed draft to Beth Cullen at King County with completed application, attachments, and disc of pictures of North Lake, history, and 2004 lily eradication progress. This will be sent by 9/04/2004. Next meeting to be determined North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A A- 14 APPENDIX B Appendix B contains a copy of the Letter of Support distributed at the watershed -wide community meeting. Prior to distributing the letter and the signature sheets at the end of the watershed -wide meeting on June 28, 2004, King County staff and the Steering Committee members presented full details of the proposed treatment strategy and answered questions from those present at the meeting. In addition to signatures of support gathered at the end of the meeting, several Steering Committee members took sheets with them so they could explain the proposal to their neighbors and have them sign if they supported the proposal. There are 54 signatures in support of the proposed treatment plan presented in detail at the watershed -wide meeting and summarized in the Letter of Support. North Lake IAVMP — Appendix B B-1 North Lake Noxious Weed Project Letter of Community Support June 28, 2004 By signing this letter, we, the members of the North Lake community, agree ❖ that Eurasian watermilfoil and other listed noxious aquatic weeds present a serious threat to the natural beauty, ecological integrity, and safe recreational activities on Spring Lake. ❖ that controlling the noxious weeds is an immediate priority and that ongoing monitoring and control should be a continuing priority into the future ❖ that community-based funding will be necessary to maintain a milfoil-free lake after initial eradication efforts ❖ that the proposed treatment strategy outlined below is reasonable but may be altered by experts at the Department of Ecology to achieve the greatest likelihood of success Kecommenctea treatment Ntrategy Initial Treatment (Year 1) Treat infested areas with 2, 4 D or triclopyr Diver hand -pulling Install bottom barrier at boat ramp Community education — milfoil ID and survey methods training Year 2 Diver surveys Triclopyr/ 2,4-D for spot control as necessary Diver hand -pulling and dredging as necessary Bottom barrier maintenance Continued community education Ongoing management Continued community education Community survey Diver survey Diver hand -pulling as necessary Bottom barrier maintenance North Lake IAVMP — Appendix B B-2 APPENDIX C Appendix C contains product labels from aquatic herbicide formulations that are included in the proposed treatment plan for aquatic noxious weeds at North Lake. These include the labels for two aquatic glyphosate products (Rodeo and Aquamaster), one granular 2,4-D BEE product (Navigate), and one liquid 2,4-D DMA product (DMA*4IVM). AquaKleen is essentially the same formulations as Navigate by a different manufacturer. A liquid formulation of triclopyr (Renovate 3) is also included as possible treatment for Eurasian watermilfoil. North Lake IAVMP — Appendix C C-1 APPENDIX D Appendix D contains some historical documents regarding work done on North Lake over the years. The Rotenone records were requested from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, documenting application since 1950. Records of King County Noxious Weed Control Galerucella beetle release forms for purple loosestrife control. This appendix concludes with the herbicide application notices from the Whitworth Pest Solutions distributed to the lakeside residents in the summer of 2004 for fragrant water lily control work. North Lake IAVMP — Appendix D D-1 NORTH LAKE Aquatic Weed Management Program 2005 Final Report Prepared by: City of Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division Author: Dan Smith TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................2 2.1 LAKE COMMUNITY HISTORY.........................................................................................................................2 2.2 1995 NORTH LAKE SURVEY..........................................................................................................................2 2.3 1996 WATER LILY TREATMENT....................................................................................................................3 2.3 NORTH LAKE 2002........................................................................................................................................3 2.4 NORTH LAKE 2003........................................................................................................................................3 2.5 NORTH LAKE 2004........................................................................................................................................4 3.0 DOE GRANT AGREEMENT......................................................................................................................5 4.0 NPDES AOUATIC NOXIOUS WEED PERMIT.......................................................................................6 5.0 2005 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES..........................................................................7 5.1 CONTRACT FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT................................................................................7 5.2 INITIAL SYSTEMATIC SURVEY.......................................................................................................................7 5.2.1 Eurasian Watermilfoil.....................................................................................................................7 First North Lake Meeting.............................................................................................................19 5.2.2 Fragrant Water Lily.........................................................................................................................8 7.1.2 5.2.3 Yellow Flag Iris ................................................................................................................................8 5.2.4 Purple Loosestrife............................................................................................................................8 Development of 2005 Work Plan................................................................................................20 5.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS..............................................................................................................................9 7.1.4 5.3.1 Eurasian Watermilfoil Treatment...............................................................................................10 5.3.2 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment...................................................................................................10 Boater Education...........................................................................................................................21 5.3.3 Yellow Flag Iris Treatment..........................................................................................................11 7.2 5.3.4 Purple Loosestrife Treatment......................................................................................................11 5.4 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................................12 Ouarterly Newsletter....................................................................................................................22 5.5 SECOND SYSTEMATIC SURVEY...................................................................................................................13 7.2.2 5.6 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL..................................................................................................................15 5.7 BOTTOM BARRIER INSTALLATION...............................................................................................................16 Educational Flyers and Signs......................................................................................................22 5.8 WEED RAKES..............................................................................................................................................16 7.2.4 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING.......................................................................................................16 6.1 2005 WATER QUALITY MONITORING..........................................................................................................16 7.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...............................................................................................19 7.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.......................................................................................................................19 7.1.1 First North Lake Meeting.............................................................................................................19 7.1.2 Formation of Steering Committee...............................................................................................20 7.1.3 Development of 2005 Work Plan................................................................................................20 7.1.4 Plant ID Workshop........................................................................................................................21 7.1.5 Boater Education...........................................................................................................................21 7.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION....................................................................................................................................22 7.2.1 Ouarterly Newsletter....................................................................................................................22 7.2.2 Public Notices................................................................................................................................22 7.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs......................................................................................................22 7.2.4 Web Page Development................................................................................................................23 7.2.5 Annual Report.................................................................................................................................23 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 8.0 2005 BUDGET REVEIW............................................................................................................................23 8.1 TASKS 1 & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION/ VEGETATION MANAGEMENT......................................24 8.2 TASK 3 BUDGET, PUBLIC EDUCATION.........................................................................................................24 9.0 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2006 ...................................................25 9.1 2005 EVALUATION......................................................................................................................................25 9.1.1 Aquatic Vegetation Management.................................................................................................25 9.1.2 Contract Mana em�ent...................................................................................................................25 9.1.3 Public Education............................................................................................................................25 9.1.4 Algae .................................................................................................................................................26 9.1.5 Other.................................................................................................................................................26 9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2006...................................................................................................................26 9.2.1 Aquatic Vegetation Management.................................................................................................26 9.2.2 Contract Mana e�...................................................................................................................26 9.2.3 Public Education............................................................................................................................27 9.2.4 Algae.................................................................................................................................................27 9.2.5 Other.................................................................................................................................................27 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. 2005 North Lake 2,4-D Water Sampling ............................17 Table 2. 2005 North Lake Glyphosate Water Sampling...................18 Table 3. 2005 North Lake Budget Overview..................................23 Table 4. 2005 North Lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2 ..............................24 Table 5. 2005 North Lake Budget, Task 3 ......................................24 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE (http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1061) North Lake Grant Agreement 2005 WSDA Extension of Coverage 2005 DOE Aquatic Noxious Weed Control NPDES Permit AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year End Report 2005 North Lake YFI & PL Right of Entry Parcel Map NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way wishes to acknowledge the significant contribution provided by the members of the North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC). Through 2005, the members of the NLSC helped prioritize lake management activities, and provided input regarding the implementation of the annual work plan. The NLSC includes the following members: Lake residents: Wendy Honey (Chairperson), Chuck Gibson (Co -Chair), Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Barry James, and James Chastain. • Weyerhaeuser is represented by Jennifer Hale and Alex Juchems. Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Don Robinett (ESA & NPDES Coordinator). The backing of the City Council and City Manager is also appreciated. The collective support received by Surface Water Management staff — beginning with the acceptance of the Ecology Grant followed by approval to proceed with the request for proposals from aquatic weed management firms — helped move the project forward in a timely fashion. This project was made possible through the development of an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). King County staff developed the IAVMP, and applied for Aquatic Weeds Management Grant funding from the Department of Ecology in 2004. Recognition is awarded to the following individuals who were instrumental with these efforts: Kathy Hamel (Department of Ecology); Sally Abella (King County Water and Land Resources Division); and Beth Cullen (King County Water and Land Resources Division). NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION The end of 2005 marks a very successful year in the continuing efforts to eradicate noxious aquatic weeds in North Lake. This annual report summarizes the steps taken by the Surface Water Management staff and the North Lake Steering Committee during 2005 to conform to the aquatic weed management program established in the 2004 Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). The IAVMP is a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed control efforts in North Lake. The IAVMP also forms the basis for the scope of work outlined in the North Lake Aquatic Weeds Control Project Grant. This grant funding was offered to the city in 2005 by the Department of Ecology (DOE) through the Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (AWMF). Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are generally of limited distribution, tend to be invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's waterbodies such as North Lake if left unchecked. Because non-native plants have few natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out -competing native plant and animal habitats, and degrading recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds has the potential to lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2005). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; to contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur, and to prevent their movement to un -infested areas of Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the seriousness of the threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide -spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 2.0 The joint efforts undertaken by the North Lake Steering Committee, lake residents, and SWM staff are described in this year-end report. The document also outlines the work completed to eradicate the following four noxious weed species detected in 2005: Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum B Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria B Fragrant water lily Nymphaea spp. C Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus C BACKGROUND 2.1 Lake Community History In 1942, the North Lake Improvement Club (NLIC) was formed with the goal to maintain and improve the waterbody. Since then, the club membership has been active in monitoring the development of the properties around North Lake, ensuring that improvements are consistent with the neighborhood desires. Up until incorporation by the City of Federal Way, the NLIC was a participant in the King County's Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program. By participating in the program on and off for approximately 19 years, the group demonstrated a significant commitment to the overall health of North Lake. There are presently 54 single-family homes primarily on the 55 -acre lake, located primarily on the eastern shoreline. Weyerhaeuser owns most of the undeveloped property on the west side of the lake that contains approximately 52 acres of second growth forest. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) continues to own and operate the public boat launch located at the northwest side of the lake. 2.2 1995 North Lake Survey Under the King County Lake Stewardship program, a boat survey was conducted on North Lake in July of 1995. The lake's littoral zone was split into seven individual sections. Each section was then characterized by community type, species present, percent cover of community type and relative species density within a community type. Community types were defined as emergent, floating, or submergent. Among the nineteen aquatic plant species present, four noxious aquatic plants were identified. Fragrant water lily and purple loosestrife were each inhabiting all seven sections. Although yellow flag iris was detected, it's location was listed as "unidentified". NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT The plant Myriophyllum spp was also detected. (The abbreviation "spp." is used to denote species). Because it was not precisely identified, it is not known whether the 1995 survey is referring to an infestation of the noxious plant Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil) or the native milfoil species. Myriophyllum spp was found inhabiting all seven littoral zone sections. 2.3 1996 Water Lily Treatment To address the increasing populations of water lilies in North Lake, lakefront property owners contracted with an aquatic weed applicator to control the noxious weed in 1996. Two separate herbicide applications were made on the residential side of the lake. Treatment only took place in areas that individual property owners arranged to make payment directly to the contractor. Costing was determined by the amount of lake front footage treated. The control measure appeared to be successful, but was limited to only the east side of the lake. The lake residents intended for the contractor to return again the following year, but apparently the firm went out of business. 2.3 North Lake 2002 In 2002, two consulting firms, AquaTechnex and Envirovision Corporation, produced a Regional Eurasian Milfoil Control Plan for King County in 2002. North Lake was included as part of this county -wide lake survey effort that inspected only for milfoil. The survey for North Lake did not document the presence of Eurasian water milfoil. Also in 2002, personnel from King County Noxious Weed Control Program released approximately 200-300 beetles (Galerucella calmariensis) at the boat launch in August in an effort to build a population of bugs that might control the spread of purple loosestrife (PL). Several years were planned for this control measure before any desired results would become evident. 2.4 North Lake 2003 The King County Noxious Weed Control Board requires property owners to control and prevent the spread of PL (Class B species) on private and public lands throughout the county. In 2003, King County assisted North Lake residents with the containment of PL infestations through the program that helps homeowners to implement actions to stop seed production using manual control efforts. Each noxious weed species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority for King County. Where Class B species are already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment being the primary goal. 3 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT In 2003, King County provided public education to all lake residents concerning the control of PL. In addition, the program also offered residents vouchers toward proper disposal of the plant waste for those willing to participate. Following evaluation of the 2002 beetle release, no visible damage was noted to purple loosestrife colonies. Beetles were again released (approximately 400-500) by King County staff in July of 2003 at the boat launch. Despite these control efforts, the plant was reported to increase in density. 2.5 North Lake 2004 The North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) was formed in early 2004 and began a concerted effort to begin a formal aquatic plant management program in the early part of the year. The Steering Committee partnered with Weyerhaeuser representatives and King County Lake Stewardship personnel to begin this process. King County Lake Stewardship staff and a member of the King County Noxious Weed Program conducted a preliminary survey in the spring of 2004. The survey characterized the aquatic weed populations throughout the entire littoral zone of the lake. The effort was completed by a three- person team (one in the boat, and two divers). The following is an outline of the 2004 survey: • Several floating fragments of milfoil were found in the lake, along with a few scattered rooted milfoil plants. The majority of the milfoil infestation was found at the boat launch on the north end of the lake. • Fragrant waterlily was covering the majority of the littoral zone and was reported to be spreading into the middle of the lake. • Purple loosestrife was noted as having colonized the shoreline • Yellow flag iris was also documented to have colonized the lake's shoreline. A short-term strategy to control fragrant water lily during the 2004 growing season was developed. The NLSC and Weyerhaeuser devised a plan to work together to treat the majority of the existing fragrant water lily infestation on the lake. The herbicide treatment would be performed by Whitworth Pest Solutions (a local contractor working under an agreement with Weyerhaeuser). In addition, the work would be covered under Weyerhaeuser's Noxious Weed Permit. Because treatment would now include areas along the residential shoreline, the expanded scope would require an additional funding source. The funding came in the form of a $2,000 Small Change for a Big Difference grant from the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (KCDNRP). This grant allowed a more extensive fragrant water lily herbicide treatment program to take place in North Lake. Whitworth treated approximately ten (10) acres of fragrant water lily on the Weyerhaeuser side of the lake; and approximately three (3) acres on the residential side. The work required two 4 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT separate applications of glyphosate (RODEO) to effectively eradicate the targeted areas of infestation. In order to be considered for future grant funding from Department of Ecology (DOE), a long- term strategy for developing an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) was planned. In addition, it was also reasoned that an Ecology -approved IAVMP would be necessary to receive DOE Noxious Weed Permit coverage (a requirement if herbicides are to be applied to the lake). With assistance from the NLSC, King County Lake Stewardship staff began developing the IAVMP. Concurrently, the options for grant funding from the DOE Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (AWMF) were explored. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer in order to gather public comment, and to finalize the IAVMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way, Surface Water Management staff were brought into the process. The King County (KC) Noxious Weed Control Program continued to support the purple loosestrife control efforts on North Lake. The KC Program pledged a maximum of $1,000 for treatment of purple loosestrife during the first full year of IAVMP implementation (2005). The IAVMP was submitted on September 16, 2004. DOE issued final approval for the plan on October 8. With an approved IAVMP, application was made to DOE for a long-term AWMF grant (King County listed as the recipient of the funding). The grant application proposed a multi-year effort to fully eradicate milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The plan included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, control, and public education. The proposal grant budget totaled approximately $80,000. During the year, lake residents continued to participate in purple loosestrife control and disposal through the program managed by the King County Noxious Weed Control Board. 3.0 DOE GRANT AGREEMENT Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal Way. As a result, DOE provided the city a draft of the Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (AWMF) Grant Agreement that was modified by SWM staff. Following internal review by legal staff, a final version of the Grant Agreement was submitted to DOE. On January 20, the Department of Ecology formally offered the City of Federal Way funding for the North Lake Aquatic Weeds Control Project through the Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (AWMF). The application for this project was one of twelve state-wide projects selected for funding. DOE offered the city up to 75 percent of the eligible project costs. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT The Grant Agreement was formally initiated on May 26 totaling $80,210, with a 25 percent ($20,052) of in-kind contributions and cash matching funds. The Agreement (htip://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1061) is scheduled to expire no later than December 31, 2009. The Scope of Work is broken out into the following four tasks: Task 1 — Project Administration/Management Task 2 — Vegetation Management Task 3 — Public Education Task 4 — Reporting Task 1 (Project Administration/Management) involves the maintenance of project records; submittal of payment vouchers, fiscal forms and project reports; compliance with procurement and contracting requirements; attainment of all permits, licenses, easements of property rights; and submittal of all required performance items. Task 2 (Vegetation Management) and Task 3 (Public Education) are action items specifically required by this agreement, and are outlined and described in the 2005 North Lake Work Plan. Task 4 (Reporting) involves the preparation of a final report summarizing the actions taken during the entire period of the Grant Agreement. 4.0 NPDES AQUATIC NOXIOUS WEED PERMIT Coverage under a general NPDES Aquatic Noxious Weed Permit is required for all noxious weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. The permitting agency is the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). Discharges from aquatic weed control and eradication activities may contain pollutants in excessive amounts that have a reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to, violations of state water quality standards. Violations may be due to the presence of toxic materials (herbicides) or may result from the effects of dying vegetation (low oxygen levels). DOE has determined through a risk assessment that, when properly applied and handled in accordance with the terms and conditions of the general permit, aquatic weed control and eradication activities will: comply with state water quality standards; will maintain and protect the existing characteristic beneficial uses of the surface waters of the state; and will protect human health (Ecology, 2005). The 2005 permit process required that the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) obtain coverage under the NPDES Noxious Weed Permit from DOE. Under contract with WSDA, the city agreed to comply with all terms, conditions, and requirements described in the DOE Aquatic Noxious Weed Permit (http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1061). NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 5.0 2005 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 5.1 Contract for Aquatic Vegetation Management On February 28, the City of Federal Way Land Use and Transportation Committee recommended that the City Manager authorize the Surface Water Utility to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) for aquatic vegetation management for both Steel Lake and North Lake. Action was approved by City Council on March 15, 2005. Following a review of submitted proposals, a two-year (2005 to 2006) Professional Services Agreement (contract) was executed between the City of Federal Way and AquaTechnex to perform aquatic plant management activities in Steel Lake and North Lake pursuant to the Scope of Services contained therein. 5.2 Initial Systematic Survey On June 21, 2005, AquaTechnex performed the first part of the initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake. On this day the survey team operated from a mapping vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), to record the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake. A boat survey was performed to map submerged, floating, and emergent noxious weeds. Observations of milfoil populations, if visible, were made from the vessel. Although the initial survey detected Najas sp. and Chara as the primary native vegetation the team decided that additional native plant colonies would most likely be found during the second survey (see Section 5.5 for more detailed native plant information). The second part of the initial survey resumed on June 27, utilizing a diver team to perform a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. In addition to making a visual inspection, a number of rake samples were collected at various GPS points. These points were collected to define each treatment area through diver communication to the mapping vessel team. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the initial survey. More detailed information and maps may be found in the 2005 AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year End Report (http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1061). 5.2.1 Eurasian Watermilfoil The initial survey presented a complicated situation due to the lack of any known milfoil treatments. As a result, milfoil plants were distributed throughout the littoral area in the northern and central part of the lake. While there were no plants observed in the south basin, it was deemed likely that milfoil fragments had probably dispersed into this area, and would emerge as viable plants in the future. 7 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT The areas of milfoil infestation were estimated to be ten (10) acres in size. AquaTechnex agreed with the IAVMP and recommended aquatic herbicide to target this species. The contractor noted the possibility for additional herbicide treatments later in the summer if the second survey detected surviving milfoil plants. 5.2.2 Fragrant Water Lily The initial survey located fragrant water lily growth in the North Lake system representative of one-year post treatment. Some areas displayed obvious misses and skips in treatment from the prior year, such as a linear patch to the right of the public access boat launch. More common were scattered lily colonies emerging in areas where there had been dense lily growth the previous year. The contractor recommended targeting this species as necessary based on discussions with the City, and the requirements outlined in the DOE Grant Agreement that specified complete eradication using glyphosate. The creation of water lily "mud islands" was also discussed. These structures generally occur where large areas of lilies have been treated and the sediments are organic or peat in nature. As the plants die, the decomposition of the roots and rhizomes can cause these areas to lift to the surface and float for some time. These islands can also move around the lake. Due to the extensive 2004 treatment of lilies, a number of these islands were located in the south end of the lake. The features of these islands were mapped, but the contractor noted that some of the features would change based upon their potential mobility. 5.2.3 Yellow Flag Iris The initial survey indicated yellow flag iris (YFI) to be scattered along the shoreline in a number of locations. The species was reported by AquaTechnex to be relatively easy to control. The contractor recommended using glyphosate, an aquatic herbicide that provides an effective long- term control of this weed. Applications are generally made in mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide into the root system, insuring longer-term control. A plan was devised by SWM staff to obtain permission from landowners around the lake to treat this weed. The proposed control action involved herbicide application to YFI on those properties where permission was granted (see Public Notices, section 7.2.2). 5.2.4 Purple Loosestrife An aquatic plant survey provides a snapshot of the conditions present in the lake at the time of the survey. As the summer progresses, purple loosestrife (PL) seedlings can emerge from the lake sediments along the shorelines. PL was observed at North Lake during the initial June survey. As with YFI, PL was reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake. It was determined that the survey would resume in early July when the plant flowers. The contractor noted that any mapping completed 8 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT prior to flowering may lead to errors and omissions in areas where the weed is mixed with dense native wetland plant communities. This would be especially true where there are a significant number of seedlings present. 5.3 Herbicide Treatments The herbicide treatment program was designed to meet the requirements of both the DOE Grant Agreement and NPDES permit. Within this framework, Year 1 Integrated Treatment Plan benchmarks were followed where practical. The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator must also comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. Glyphosate Glyphosate (either Rodeo or AquaPRO) was used to treat fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris and purple loosestrife on North Lake in 2005. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic applications. The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within 2 to 4 days, 7 days on more on most perennial weeds, and 30 days or more on most woody plants. Extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above -ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. The advantages of glyphosate include: The product is a fast -acting systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with no impact to plants not treated. It's application can be conducted in a spot -treatment or isolated area fashion. There are no water use restrictions. 2,4-D DMA4*IVM was the post -emergent aquatic herbicide chosen to control milfoil on North Lake in 2005. DMA4*IVM (active ingredient 2,4-D) is a systemic herbicide registered by the USEPA for freshwater applications. Herbicides containing 2,4-D can be effectively used for spot -treatment programs in lakes. Effectiveness of the treatment is dependent upon the timing of the application and density of the target plant community. Following application, the targeted plants begin to show signs of injury in approximately two weeks, followed by plant breakdown and death. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT The advantages of 2, 4-D include: • It is a fast -acting systemic herbicide, effective in removing selected plants (especially milfoil) with little to no impact on native plants at labeled rates. • The application can be conducted in a spot -treatment or isolated area. • Treated waters can be used for swimming following a 24 hour advisory. • There are no fish consumption restrictions. 5.3.1 Eurasian Watermilfoil Treatment Based upon the initial survey results, approximately ten (10) acres of lake area were infested with Eurasian Watermilfoil. The areas of the lake targeted for milfoil herbicide treatment using 2,4-D are illustrated in the AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year End Report. Application of 2,4-D was completed on August 2. 2,4-D (DMA4*IVM) was injected into the water column (at the rate specified) directly over the submerged milfoil plant populations. The herbicide was applied from a motorboat equipped with a 50 gallon spray tank connected to an array of weighted drop hoses. The treatment areas were applied with 2,4-D at a rate of 7 -gallons per acre, for a concentration of 2.0 ppm. A total of 70 gallons of herbicide was used for this treatment. 5.3.2 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All fragrant water lily colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined in the DOE Grant Agreement. Complete eradication would allow for the gradual replacement of native vegetation in treated areas over time. This is an important step toward fish habitat preservation that will improve boater access and provide safer recreation opportunities. Because the treatment areas were smaller than in 2004, the potential for extensive floating mud island formation was expected to be less likely. In addition, defined treatment of water lily colonies would achieve the following: • The gradual replacement of native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish habitat. A reduction in the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would contribute to increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms). A reduction in the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a demand on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life. The areas designated for white water lily treatment are illustrated in the AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year End Report. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the lily pads by a two -person crew using boat - mounted low-pressure spray equipment. The aquatic herbicide and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank to achieve a 1.75 percent solution, and applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process was repeated a second time to 10 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT touch up any areas that did not uptake a sufficient amount of enough herbicide. The individual treatment areas totaled approximately one -and -one-half (1.5) acre. The first glyphosate application of fragrant water lily was conducted on August 2. The weather was sunny, but the application was suspended later in the afternoon due to windy conditions. A second application was attempted the morning of August 10. Due to precipitation, wind and wave action, this application effort was ended in mid-morning. By August 15, areas of treatment were evidenced by the appearance of yellow and brown lily pads on the surface of the lake. AquaTechnex visited the lake a third time on August 26 to complete glyphosate touch-up treatment of the surviving water lily colonies. (To effectively eradicate white water lily populations, it is characteristic to perform a second treatment during the growing season). 5.3.3 Yellow Flag Iris Treatment Yellow flag iris (YFI) colonies were treated by a licensed applicator using glyphosate. The noxious weeds were either sprayed from the lake -side from a motorboat, or from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent ornamental plants or grasses. The aquatic herbicide and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank to achieve a 1.75 percent solution, and applied in the same fashion as fragrant water lily. The individual YFI-treated areas, identified on the 2005 North Lake YFI Right of Entry Parcel Map (http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1061), totaled less than 0.25 acres. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete the YFI work from the land -side of the lake. The AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year End Report shows the locations of all yellow flag iris (YFI) infestations identified in the initial survey. The first application of glyphosate to YFI colonies began on the morning of August 10, but wind and rain caused the effort to conclude before midday. AquaTechnex returned on August 16, and completed the remainder of work that was accessible by motorboat. The final treatment of YFI took place on August 26 when the crew, using an airboat, finished up areas of the lake that were more difficult to access. 5.3.4 Purple Loosestrife Treatment Glyphosate was also used to control purple loosestrife (PL) colonies. The Vegetation Management Plan, outlined in the DOE Grant Agreement, required "wicking" each PL plant with herbicide to achieve desired results. On August 10, the AquaTechnex crew was observed spraying both PL and YFI colonies. The spraying efforts were implemented in a fashion that took care not to impact native, and/or desirable plants. As with yellow flag iris treatment, some of the emergent noxious weeds (PL) were treated directly from a motorboat from the lake -side. The hard to reach areas were treated 11 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT from the land -side by crew, and individually wicked and/or directly sprayed using a backpack unit. SWM staff informed the crew that "wicking" was the preferred DOE method (per Grant Agreement) for treating PL with herbicide on North Lake. On August 16, AquaTechnex returned with equipment to wick the remaining PL plants on the residential side of the lake (east shore) that were easily accessible from land. Terry McNabb with AquaTechnex consulted with Kathy Hamel, Department of Ecology, concerning the pros and cons of wicking. It was determined that wicking would be more effective in the treatment of monocultures (single PL plants) where they were easily accessible; and either method could be used (spraying or wicking) as long as the techniques used were proven to be effective given the issues of work efficiency and accessibility. On August 26 the crew used an airboat to mobilize to the remaining areas of the lake that were difficult to access (primarily Weyerhaeuser property on the west shore). Here, the PL plants were sprayed with herbicide. The aquatic herbicide and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank to achieve a 1.75 percent solution, and applied in the same fashion as that for YFL The individual PL -treated areas, identified on the 2005 North Lake PL Right of Entry Parcel Map, totaled less than 0.25 acres. Following the herbicide application, SWM staff sent out notices to lake residents regarding PL seed head removal to help prevent the propagation of new plants. Flyers described methods that homeowner could undertake to cut off, bag up, and dispose of PL seed heads. Fourteen residents contributed 44 volunteer hours removing PL seed heads and disposing of the plant waste. 5.4 Post Control Visual Assessment On September 1, an AquaTechnex biologist/diver team returned to North Lake to determine the effectiveness of the 2,4-D and glyphosate herbicide treatments. Through visual inspection and plant grab sampling, the viability of the four targeted species (milfoil, fragrant water lily,YFI, and PL) were assessed by the biologist. Eurasian Milfoil responded very well to the Dow DMA 4 IVM application. At two weeks and at four weeks post treatment the target vegetation showed injury symptoms and dropped out of the water column. The first application to fragrant water lily was noted to be chiefly effective, but there were some areas where weather caused the herbicide to be washed off the plants. Results were excellent where the herbicide was re-applied in missed areas. YFI takes a slightly longer duration for control to be evident. At the time of the visual assessment, all of the treated areas showed advanced symptoms of glyphosate injury, with control expected to be in excess of 95%. 12 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT Targeted purple loosestrife plants responded very well to the herbicide treatment. In all cases, the plants showed injury symptoms in a two-week time frame, and were dead by four weeks post treatment. 5.5 Second Systematic Survey The second survey was performed on August 15 to document the presence of native aquatic weeds. The objective was to quantify the vegetation present and to provide a continued baseline of the condition of the plant communities. DOE protocol was utilized for the survey (the collection of at least one sampling point per acre of littoral area in the lake). A rake is tossed at each sampling point around the lake as determined along selected transects. The survey ended up generating four points along each of 22 transects, for a total of 88 sampling points. A biologist separated and identified the collected plants by species at each site, and logged the points into a GPS database. The information was returned to the mapping laboratory and processed, where the points and the associated species were converted into shape files. Maps were then created that illustrated the frequency and location of each species detected. The species observed during this sampling effort were: Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Muskgrass Chara sp. Native Water nymph Najas sp. Native Big leaf pondweed Potamogeton Amplifoious Native Slender leaf pondweed Potamogeton filiformis Native Common waterweed Elodea Canadensis Native Fanwort Cabomba caroliniana B Also observed, but not present at any of the sampling sites was Potamogeton illinoensis and Utricularia. P. illinoensis was located in deeper water along the 10 foot contour in scattered small patches from the Public Access south along the west shoreline to where the lake narrows prior to the south basin. Utricularia was noted in two small locations mixed in the water lilies on the west shoreline in the south basin. There were also a few locations in the lake where the native yellow water lily (Nuphar polysepala) were observed. Plant population locations are displayed on maps in the AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year End Report. The dominant species observed through the point sampling protocols and through visual observation was Najas sp. This native aquatic plant was present at 56 of 88 sampling points and was observed at many locations between these transects. Najas sp. (or Naiad) is an annual aquatic plant. It reproduces from seed each year unlike most other aquatic plants that are perennials. It generally will grow rapidly in the spring, produce seeds and drop the seeds to the lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank will develop and this weed can expand to the point of excluding other native plants as well as causing a weed problem in shallower areas of the lake. 13 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT The second most dominant species in the lake was Potamogeton amplifolious. This native member of the Pondweed family occurred in small clumps where sampled. It also was observed in some areas throughout the remaining littoral areas in similar density. It occurred at 5 of 88 sampling sites. The third most dominant species in the lake is Cabomba caroliniana, a state of Washington Class B Weed. This plant can be invasive and it not native to this region. It was sampled at 5 of 88 sites in the southern portion of the lake. This plant should be carefully monitored from this point forward to insure it does not become a weed problem in this system. Although Cabomba has developed into a major weed problem in a number of lakes in the southeastern United States, it has caused limited problems in this region (see Note below). The fourth most dominant species in the lake was Potamogeton filiformis, occurring at 2 of 88 sampling locations. This plant occurred sporadically elsewhere in the littoral area of the lake, as did Potamogeton Amplifoious. Elodea was the fifth most dominate species in the lake, occurring at 2 of 88 sampling locations. This plant also occurred sporadically elsewhere in the littoral area of the lake. Chara is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. This plant is low growing and will occupy space on the lake bottom without in most cases posing a weed problem to lake users. Chara was found at 2 of 88 sampling points and is not considered dominant at this point. NOTE: Native milfoil was also observed in North Lake by SWM staff and residents, but was not included in the AquaTechnex plant survey. Because of the possible existence of another noxious weed species (Cabomba caroliniana), and due to possible plant identification confusion with native milfoil, a brief survey was performed late in the season. On January 6, 2006, SWM staff and King County Noxious Weed Specialist Roy Brunskill performed a cursory lake survey in an attempt to locate native milfoil and/or Cabomba caroliniana. A few surviving native milfoil were located at both the north end and south end of the lake. This aquatic plant was tentatively identified from an emailed image as Myriophyllum hippuroides by Jennifer Parsons, DOE. This native species (Western milfoil) provides habitat and food to aquatic animal species. Due to these findings, SWM and King County will use the GPS coordinates generated by AquaTechnex to either confirm or refute the existence of Cabomba caroliniana early during the 2006 growing season. If detected, an action plan can be developed to combat this invasive noxious weed. AquaTechnex reported that approximately 35 percent of the lake bottom is covered with native aquatic vegetation. These species are generally fairly low growing in the water column and will not pose a weed problem except in shallower waters. The dominant species in this area are Naiad; with very small patches of the pondweed species and elodea. In their professional opinion, these species are not interfering with the beneficial uses 14 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT of the lake at this point; but some areas could benefit from native plant control efforts in future years should they continue to expand. 5.6 Water Lily Island Control Following water lily treatment in 2004, North Lake witnessed the emergence of floating masses of roots and muck, primarily along the south shore. The Steering Committee discussed water lily island removal options during the preparation of the 2005 Work Plan. Because of unknowns, a budget figure necessary to fund such action was not established. Although mud island removal is action approved and funded by the DOE Grant for North Lake, no firm methods were adopted by the Steering Committee concerning this type of work. In addition, there is no known reliable methodology in the aquatic weed management industry for mud island removal. During a number of visits throughout the summer, AquaTechnex surveyed the extent and nature of the mud islands. On August 26, a crew pushed some of the larger masses at the south end with an airboat in an attempt to determine their potential for mobility. On September 1, during the Post Control Visual Survey, a diver assessed the thickness of these masses. Following these exercises to evaluate the mud island situation, SWM staff requested a scope of work from AquaTechnex. It was expected that control methods selected would be refined over time as field experience is obtained. The following outlines the initial thoughts regarding the problem: Following the exercise with the airboat, it was determined that lower tech approaches (hand work or grappling with hooks and anchors) would not be efficient and cost effective to impact these larger "beached" masses. A harvester, in combination with hydro -blasting, could be a method employed to remove and transport the muck and dead vegetation in selected areas in order to gain lake access for affected property owners. In this case, WDFW approval would have to be obtained due to work being conducted outside of the timing window established by the WDFW Aquatic Plants & Fish pamphlet. For this method, waste disposal options would also have to be explored. If the harvester was not successful, larger equipment could be employed. This would involve greater expense. During this period, Chuck Gibson, lake resident, accumulated over 21 volunteer hours performing manual hand -work on the floating masses. His work created a narrow channel from the lake to the shoreline. This action caused some larger sections of the floating mass to drop out where the cross section of the material was thin, but was not entirely successful in mitigating the problem. In October of 2005, SWM staff requested an exception from WDFW to conduct mud island removal outside of the timing window specified within the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet. After several rounds of communication, WDFW determined that a formal HPA would be required to due to downstream habitat concerns. 15 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT Upon review of the HPA application, WDFW notified SWM staff that given the proposed scope of work, a HPA would not be required if the work was carried out between October 15th and May 15th. This notice was received on December 2, 2005. However, since the time of HPA submittal, SWM staff has decided to delay island removal until July of 2006, when the habitat window re -opens. Water lily island removal will be included as a scope of work item for 2006 and may be planned to be completed as a volunteer effort. If warranted, the contractor may be requested to perform the work using mechanical equipment where necessary. 5.7 Bottom Barrier Installation The DOE Grant Agreement included the requirement for bottom barrier installation in the winter of 2005 at the public boat launch area to deter the invasion of milfoil into the lake. A bottom barrier covers the sediment like a blanket, compressing aquatic plants while reducing or blocking light. In addition to controlling nuisance weeds, bottom screening has become an important tool to help eradicate and contain early infestations of noxious weeds such as milfoil. Bottom barrier installation, although a 2005 Work Plan item, was not completed this year. Efforts to immediately perform aquatic plant surveys and to begin herbicide treatment were given top priority to control the current noxious weed infestations. To meet the Grant Agreement timetable, this control measure is planned to be completed before the onset of the 2006 growing season. 5.8 Weed Rakes Two styles of weed rakes were purchased in 2005. One is used for floating plants and algae; and one is designed for submerged weeds. They were not offered for resident use because lake surveys were initiated late in the season; and also due to the presence of noxious weed species. The Committee could not begin the weed rake loan program until the lake community had adequate information to determine whether noxious weeds were present in the area they were planning on raking. Because herbicide treatments did not take place until late July, and post visual inspections of the treatment efficiency did not occur until September 1, weed rakes were not provided for lake resident use in 2005. 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING 6.1 2005 Water Quality Monitoring Per the DOE Grant Agreement, SWM Water Quality personnel collected samples from North Lake to determine both glyphosate and 2,4-D concentrations before and after treatment. The 16 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT sampling procedure was undertaken to determine lake concentrations of herbicides and to provide an analytical measurement of the contractor's performance. Background samples (before treatment) and post treatment samples were collected at time intervals prescribed in the Grant Agreement. Samples were taken in the middle of the lake (outside the treatment areas), and inside the two individual treatment sites: one for fragrant water lily (glyphosate) and one for milfoil (2,4-D). All samples were collected using a Wildco Alpha 2.2 liter Van Dorn style water bottle. The samples were retrieved from various depths and combined into individual composite samples. Samples were chilled and delivered the same day to Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. (STL Seattle). Sampling times were adjusted to accommodate weekends and staff schedules. 2,4-D samples were analyzed by STL (DOE accredited laboratory #C1226) using USEPA Chromatography Method 8151 GUMS Modified. Glyphosate samples were submitted to STL, and subcontracted to Coffey Labs in Portland through Edge Analytical in Burlington. Coffey Labs (DOE accredited laboratory #C1264) used USEPA Chromatography Method 547. Tables 1 and 2 below outline the results of the sampling. Table 1. 2005 North Lake 2,4-D Water Sampling Date Pre/Post Inside/Outside Location Concentration (ppb) Treatment Zone 7/21/05 Pre Inside In littoral zone, approximately 300' south of Non Detect public boat launch 7/21/05 Pre Outside In middle of lake, approximately 200' from Non Detect outer edge of expected treatment plot, directly west of 3610 S. 334th St. 8/3/05 Post Inside In littoral zone, approximately 300' south of 330 24 -hours public boat launch 8/8/05 Post Inside In littoral zone, approximately 300' south of 188 6 -days public boat launch 17 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT Table 2. 2005 North Lake Glyphosate Water Sampling Date Pre/Post Inside/Outside Location Concentration (ppb) Treatment Zone 7/21/05 Pre Inside In littoral zone, approximately 700' south of Non Detect public boat launch 7/21/05 Pre Outside In littoral zone, approximately 700' south of Non Detect public boat launch, immediately adjacent to expected treatment plot 8/2/05 Post Inside In littoral zone, approximately 700' south of 19 1 -hour public boat launch 8/3/05 Post Inside In littoral zone, approximately 700' south of Non Detect 21 -hours public boat launch The following outlines several key sample result observations: • Specific use directions from the EPA label establish application concentrations for 2,4-D DMA4*fVM of 2,000 to 4,000 ppb for treatment of submerged aquatic weeds (including Eurasian watermilfoil). • 2,4-D samples remained above the EPA drinking water standard of 70 ppb (0.07 ppm) for at least six days (no additional sampling was conducted after 6 days). • By day -six, the results were near the EPA irrigation water restriction of 100 ppb (0.1 ppm). • Note that post treatment sampling did not occur outside of the treatment zones. The analytical findings, combined with observations made during the Post Control Visual Assessment, indicate that 2,4-D and glyphosate were applied in sufficient concentrations to achieve the intended results. In addition, there were no reports of damage to lawns or gardens from irrigated water. Water quality monitoring at several other Washington lakes in 2004 (Steel, Sacheen, Hideaway, Washington) and 2005 (Serene) indicated that 2,4-D DMA4*fVM also persisted for some time at detectable concentrations post treatment (Ecology, 2005). From an aquatic weed control aspect this is good — milfoil is more effectively impacted by the herbicide. Although the lake is not a source of drinking water, the city recommended an additional 24-hour wait (for a total of 96 - hours) until using treated water for domestic irrigation purposes. 18 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 7.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The elements of the Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake are based primarily on the IAVMP — a dynamic document initially prepared by King County staff in 2004. The DOE Grant Agreement incorporates the information in the IAVMP, and forms two primary components for Education and Public Involvement (which are also mirrored by the 2005 North Lake Work Plan). The two components focus on prevention and detection of noxious aquatic and emergent weeds, and lake stewardship. 7.1 Community Involvement North Lake Community Involvement program for 2005 involved the following: 7.1.1 First North Lake Meeting The North Lake Community Meeting was held on March 16, 2004 at City Hall. SWM staff outlined the proposed 2005 Work Plan, the DOE Grant, and the Noxious Weed Permit requirements. Various questions from lake residents were addressed and citizen feedback was solicited. The meeting was attended by approximately 16 lake residents. The North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) was also elected at this public meeting. The following NLSC members were appointed by a majority vote of the lake community residents in attendance: Lake Residents Wendy Honey — (Chair) * James Chastain Chuck Gibson — (Co -Chair)* Julie Cleary Debra Hansen Barry James * Appointed to their respective positions on April 21, 2005 Weyerhaueser Representitives ** Jennifer Hale Alex Juchems ** Lake residents and SWM staff agreed to make a Committee position available to a Weyerhaueser Representitive City of Federal Way Dan Smith, Surface Water Management Don Robinett, Surface Water Management Per the consensus of the North Lake Steering Committee, the Annual Spring Meeting was waived for 2005. In lieu of a Spring Meeting, a copy of the proposed 2005 Work Plan was mailed to all lake residents requesting comments. 19 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT Z 1.2 Formation of Steering Committee The NLSC is charged with setting the lake management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. The NLSC is comprised of North Lake Improvement Club members, Weyerhaeuser representatives, and Surface Water Management staff. The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities of the NLSC: • Reviews annual plant survey information. • Develops an annual aquatic plant management Work Plan based upon the information revealed in the annual plant surveys. The Work Plan prioritizes aquatic weed problem areas, identifies preferred control methods for each species, and develops the anticipated budget. • Assists the City of Federal Way with oversight of control work to keep contractors accountable. • Participates in preparation of an annual evaluation report that summarizes plant control activities, lake user's perspectives on the plant community, and recommendations for the next year's control strategy. • Assists with presentation of aquatic plant management efforts to lake residents at an annual community meeting and Plant ID Workshop. • Helps the City of Federal Way to ensure that all lake residents receive proper notification pursuant to the requirements of the NPDES Noxious Weed Permit. • Determines and participates in other annual community involvement/education strategies and plant control efforts as needed. The NLSC met two times in 2005. The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the web page devoted to North Lake publications at (http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=713). The following are brief abstracts from each NLSC meeting: April 21— The group met at the North Lake Club House to discuss several topics, including but not limited to: Boater/Milfoil Education, Role of Committee Members and the 2005 Work Plan. .Tule 14 — The NLSC met in City Council Chambers to review the results of the Initial Aquatic Plant Survey conducted in June, treatment strategies and recommendations, and tracking volunteer time for DOE grant. The meeting was also used for a joint session with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee to coordinate the Plant ID Workshop. 7.1.3 Development of 2005 Work Plan On April 21, the NLSC discussed both the structure and content of the 2005 North Lake Aquatic Plant Management Draft Work Plan (Work Plan). Following the meeting, SWM staff finalized the Work Plan, which included the goals and anticipated budget for the up -coming year. The goals and budget were based upon both the requirements outlined in the IAVMP and the specific requirements prescribed by the pending DOE Grant Agreement. 20 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT Because an accurate and systematic plant survey was not performed in recent years, approximate acreages for the four primary aquatic weeds in the lake were used. Estimated costs for control and/or treatment activities were derived for the Work Plan. Other Work Plan budget items, such as public education efforts, were more easily identifiable based upon similar work completed recently for the Steel Lake Management District. On May 2, SWM staff sent a letter with the Annual Work Plan to all lake residents requesting feedback concerning the planned aquatic plant management program. No comments were received. The following is a brief outline of the 2005 Work Plan: Task 1: Aquatic Vegetation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife, and yellow flag iris), and other problematic aquatic plant issues (i.e. mud island removal) for the year. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the task. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 5.0. Task 2: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items included in Task 2 include: annual community meeting (spring) and annual Plant ID Workshop (summer); quarterly newsletter (The Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers; improved signage at boat launch; web site development; and development of an annual report. 7.1.4 Plant ID Workshop A joint North Lake—Steel Lake Plant ID Workshop was held on July 23 at Steel Lake Park. This event provided an atmosphere of learning within a social setting. Residents from both lakes were presented information describing each aquatic plant management program. They were also able to pose questions to both Surface Water Management (SWM) staff and individual NLSC members. Over 25 households, totaling more than 35 people, attended the event. North Lake residents were afforded the opportunity to review the Work Plan and examine maps depicting noxious weed infestation areas and proposed treatment locations. In addition, various public education displays provided hands-on opportunities for individuals to view both native and noxious plants (good and bad) retrieved from their lake. Both SWM staff and lake residents harvested the live plant specimens found in North Lake for the displays. 7.1.5 Boater Education On April 30, a local Boy Scout troop volunteered to hand out the milfoil education brochures at the public boat launch on the opening day of fishing season. A total of 22 volunteers contributed over 65 hours to distribute the brochures. Due to poor weather, boater turn -out was low. As a result, the group passed out approximately 40 brochures. 21 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 7.2 Public Education The North Lake Public Education program for 2005 involved the following: 7.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter SWM staff began issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Management District, includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, as well as education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 7.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via email prior to contractor activities including surveys and treatments. Also, lake residents were informed concerning all public meetings. A total of six formal public notices were mailed out to all lake property owners during 2005. In addition to these mailings, the information was posted on the North Lake web page and e-mailed to lake residents and interested parties. In July of 2005, SWM staff established an "Aquatic Weed Management" E -Subscribe account where lake residents could receive electronic updates regarding current lake activities, as well as other aquatic weed management information. In addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work plan activities were e- mailed to E -Subscribe participants approximately 24 hours prior to the activity on the lake. 7.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs SWM staff developed and distributed the following lake -related informational flyers: • Milfoil • The Lake Friendly Landscape • Good Plants/Bad Plants • Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal • Blue Green Algae • Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese Noxious weed identification signs were also installed at the public boat launch. The improved signage includes: (1) "Remember to Check Your Boat for Milfoil", and (2) a new DOE/WDFW sign that alerts the public that North Lake waters contain the non-native plant milfoil and the non- native animal red swamp crayfish. The signs visually identify the species of concern, and illustrate how boat owners should clean their boats before entering and when leaving the lake. 22 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT Z2.4 Web Page Development In 2005, SWM staff developed a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the year. Web site information includes: • Current IAVMP (with figures and maps) • 2005 Work Plan • Chronology and description of important 2005 North Lake activities • North Lake publications such as: The Lake View; informative flyers (milfoil, blue-green algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plants bad plants); public notices; and NLSC Meeting notes. 7.2.5 Annual Report SWM staff develops a final year-end report to all lake residents and parties of interest that describes the activities of the prior year; and provides a budget overview. 8.0 2005 BUDGET REVEIW The 2005 Work Plan budget was derived from the scope of aquatic weed management expected to be accomplished during the year. Table 3 below provides an overview of the final North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2005: Tahip 3_ 2005 Nnrth Lake RwinPt OvPrviPw TASK Estimates Actual Expenses Task 1 & 2, Project AdministrationNegetation Management $17,800.00 $21,859.25 Task 3, Public Education $1,674.00 $5,423.88 King County Grant (-) $ 1,000.00 O $618.75 YEAR END $ 18,474.00 $ 26,664.38 The following sections outline the estimated expenses compared to the actual end -of -year expenses for each task: 23 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 8.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administration/ Vegetation Management Table 4 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2. Table 4. 2005 North Lake Budget. TASK 1 & 2. Proiect Administration/Vegetation Mamt. GOAL 2005 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses Two diver surveys (Spring & Summer) $4,225.00 $4,596.80 Milfoil herbicide treatment $1,500.00 $2,992.00 Fragrant water lily herbicide treatment $1,500.00 $448.30 Yellow flag iris; purple loosestrife treatment $4,100.00 $2,244.00 Bottom barrier installation $250.00 0 Water lily island removal 0 0 Water quality monitoring $1,600.00 $1,400.00 NPDES notifications $625.00 $680.00 Post control survey $850.00 $924.80 Contractor letter report $700.00 $380.80 Contractor final report $500.00 $544.00 Yellow flag iris public education $100.00 0 Electric boat motor $210.00 $199.08 Weed rakes $160.00 $182.04 Refreshments and supplies for NLSC quarterly meetings $160.00 $15.69 SWM staff wages and benefits ` 0 $6,269.24 Lake volunteer time` 0 $982.50 TOTALS $17,800.00 $21,859.25 The expenses related to SWM staff wages and benefits and volunteer time was not accounted for in the initial development of the 2005 Work Plan 8.2 Task 3 Budget, Public Education Table 5 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3. Tahle 5_ 2005 North Lake Rudaet_ TASK 3 Puhlic Education GOAL 2005 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses Quarterly newsletter $400.00 $163.52 Annual evaluation report* $200.00 0 Community Meeting $50.00 $15.69 Plant ID works ho /cookout $200.00 0 Public education printing $300.00 $102.13 Boater outreach program $100.00 0 New signs at boat launch $200.00 $114.46 Materials for Plant ID workshop $100.00 $58.00 City LIVID web page 0 0 SWM staff wages and benefits " 0 $4,617.58 Lake volunteer time" 0 $352.50 Taxes $124.00 N/A TOTALS $1,674.00 $5,423.88 * The cost to print, bind and deliver full-color copies of this report to all North Lake property owners will be charged to the 2006 budget. ** The expenses related to SWM staff wages and benefits and volunteer time was not accounted for in the initial development of the 2005 Work Plan 24 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 9.0 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2006 The following provides an evaluation of the 2005 aquatic vegetation management program for North Lake, and recommendations offered for 2006: 9.1 2005 Evaluation 9. 1.1 Aquatic Vegetation Management Because contact aquatic herbicides cause a burning back of treated plants, they have a potential to adversely affect dissolved oxygen concentrations within a water body. As a result of a massive aquatic plant die -off in a specific area, there may be a rapid expansion of bacterial populations feeding on the dying plants. SWM staff inspected areas of the lake undergoing contractor herbicide treatments during and after application activities. No observations were made of stress conditions or death exhibited by fish or fauna within or adjacent to treatment areas. In addition, no individual reported any toxic and/or allergic response as a result of the treatments. Post Control Visual Surveys indicated that herbicide treatment was effective this year for milfoil, fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris and purple loosestrife. All colonies of targeted plants showed expected stress. Due to contractor scheduling of treatments and follow-ups, the evaluation process for water lily island removal was delayed. In addition, there were additional delays with the receipt of approvals from WDFW for this action. In the meantime, SWM staff was able to monitor the mud island removal techniques employed by the contractor on Steel Lake and decided that these methods would not be successful on the large island masses adhering to the south shore of North Lake (see Section 5.6). Large colonies of native milfoil were missed during the survey effort (see Section 5.5). 9.1.2 Contract Management On a number of instances throughout the 2005 plant management season, the contractor, AquaTechnex, provided poor communication to SWM staff. Communication issues resulted in SWM staff not being able to furnish lake residents timely information as designed by the scope of the work in the contract. 9.1.3 Public Education The public education program (various efforts accomplished through email notifications, web site information, aquatic weed workshop event and direct mailing of educational materials) was effective in 2005. Through this program, North Lake property owners were provided many different avenues to access important information about their lake investment and performance of the aquatic weed management program under the DOE Grant Agreement. The summer aquatic weed workshop — attended by both North Lake and Steel Lake communities — was a great opportunity for education. The Steel Lake LMD Advisory Committee made an observation that it could have been better attended by all lake 25 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT residents. Complacency by Steel Lake LMD members (a general attitude that the program is successful and does not need their input or cooperation) was one reason suggested. Also, it was noted that many residents may have been out of town during that particular weekend. 9.1.4 Algae • Due to aquatic plants dying in the lake following herbicide treatment, phosphorous may be released into the water column. The rapid release of phosphorous can trigger algae blooms, which can adversely impact human and environmental health. Although some Committee members commented on the growth of filamentous algae (pond scum), SWM did not receive any reports of toxic algae blooms on North Lake in 2005. 9.1.5 Other • Bottom barrier installation at the boat launch did not occur in 2005 due to the focus on the completion of herbicide treatment surveys and treatment scheduling. 9.2 Recommendations for 2006 9.2.1 Aquatic Vegetation Management • Continue an aggressive strategy per the DOE Grant Agreement targeting all discovered colonies of milfoil, fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris, and purple loosestrife. Pursue Right of Entry from lakefront residents for emergent vegetation treatment on private property. • The densities of native aquatic weeds should be determined as early as possible by the contractor in the initial survey in order to educate SWM staff and North Lake residents on how the plants are impacting beneficial uses. This information would be used to teach residents how the plants can be manually controlled using hand pulling techniques or weed rakes. • North Lake Steering Committee members agreed to consider volunteer mud island control and removal efforts due to the lack of success seen on Steel Lake in 2005, and the expected high costs proposed by the contractor for mechanical removal. SWM staff will assist with communication and scheduling. Proper WDFW HPA permitting will be followed to ensure that aquatic habitat is not degraded due to mud island removal methods. • SWM staff will coordinate with King County staff in spring of 2006 to attempt to locate possible fanwort colonies. 9.2.2 Contract Management Due to the communication and performance concerns with the contractor in 2005, the North Lake Steering Committee will meet with AquaTechnex prior to the commencement of the 2006 program. The Committee will stress the importance of the required advance notices, firm scheduling, timely reporting and accurate invoicing. 26 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 9.2.3 Public Education • Continue the successful public education program in 2006. Efforts may be implemented to boost aquatic plant ID Workshop attendance if possible and to expand the lake resident email data base. The Committee suggested that the Spring Meeting be held at the North Lake Club House to improve attendance. • The City's 2006 Natural Yard Care Program will be targeting the North Lake watershed and surrounding communities. 9.2.4 Algae • Due to the new housing development in the North Lake watershed, and the potential for increased nutrient loading, the emergence of algae blooms will be closely monitored and followed up with timely public education when warranted. 9.2.5 Other • The North Lake Improvement Club (through the North Lake Management Fund) continues to be committed to an annual in-kind cash contribution of $500.00 per the 2004 IAVMP and the DOE Grant Agreement budget. • Also, the lake group is also committed to contributing a minimum of 135 volunteer hours per year toward aquatic weed management efforts; and will track appropriate hours on time sheets provided by SWM staff. 27 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT NORTH LAKE Aquatic Weed Management Program 2006 Final Report Prepared by: City of Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division Author: Dan Smith TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................1 2.1 IAVMP DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................................1 2.2 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM....................................................................................................................2 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT......................................................................................3 4.0 2006 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES..........................................................................3 4.1 CONTRACT FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT................................................................................3 4.2 INITIAL SYSTEMATIC SURVEY.......................................................................................................................4 4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily.................................................................................................................................4 4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris.......................................................................................................................................5 4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife....................................................................................................................................5 4.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS..............................................................................................................................5 4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment...............................................................................................................6 4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment...................................................................................7 4.4 YFI AND PL MANUAL CONTROL...................................................................................................................8 4.5 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL....................................................................................................................8 4.6 BOTTOM BARRIER INSTALLATION.................................................................................................................9 4.7 WEED RAKES................................................................................................................................................9 4.8 SECOND SYSTEMATIC SURVEY.....................................................................................................................9 4.9 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SURVEY...........................................................................................................11 4.10 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................................12 4.11 ALGAE........................................................................................................................................................13 5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING.......................................................................................................13 5.1 2006 WATER QUALITY MONITORING..........................................................................................................13 6.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...............................................................................................15 6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.......................................................................................................................15 6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee(NLSC)...............................................................................................15 6.1.2 Development of 2005 Work Plan..........................................................................................................17 6.1.3 Annual Spring Meeting.........................................................................................................................17 6.1.4 Plant ID Workshop...............................................................................................................................17 6.1.5 Boater Education..................................................................................................................................18 6.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION....................................................................................................................................18 6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter.............................................................................................................................18 6.2.2 Public Notices.......................................................................................................................................18 6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs...............................................................................................................18 6.2.4 Web Page Development........................................................................................................................19 6.2.5 Annual Report........................................................................................................................................19 7.0 2006 BUDGET REVIEW............................................................................................................................19 7.1 TASKS 1 & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION/ VEGETATION MANAGEMENT......................................20 7.2 TASK 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION........................................................................................................................20 7.3 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET REVIEw............................................................................................................21 8.0 2006 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2007 ..........................................21 8.1 2006 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARY.............................................................................21 8.2 2007 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................22 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 8.3 2006 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARY..........................................................................................................23 8.4 2007 PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................23 8.5 2006 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET SUMMARY...............................................................................................23 8.6 2006 ALGAE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................23 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. 2006 North Lake Glyphosate Water Sampling...................14 Table 2. 2006 North Lake Budget Overview..................................19 Table 3. 2006 North Lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2 ..............................20 Table 4. 2006 North Lake Budget, Task 3 ......................................20 Table 5 North Lake Grant Running Balance..................................21 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE (http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1219) North Lake Grant Agreement 2006 DOE Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit AquaTechnex North Lake 2006 Year End Report 2006 North Lake YFI & PL Right of Entry Parcel Map NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided by all North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) members and the lake community who contributed to the successful 2006 aquatic plant management program. The Committee includes the following members: Lake residents: Wendy Honey (Chairperson), Chuck Gibson (Co -Chair), Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Barry James, and James Chastain. • Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Jennifer Hale. • City of Federal Way: Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Don Robinett (ESA & NPDES Coordinator). In addition, Surface Water Management (SWM) staff wishes to thank the City Council and City Manager for their collective support of our aquatic weed management efforts. We also recognize Kathy Hamel, Department of Ecology (Ecology), for her continuing aquatic plant management advice and encouragement. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2006, the aquatic vegetation management actions and public education goals outlined in the North Lake 2006 Work Plan were successfully implemented. Noxious aquatic plants —fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife, and yellow flag iris — were targeted for control at as low a density as was environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that did not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. In addition, an effective public education program was conducted that helped to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake. This program also aided in the early detection of aquatic weed re -infestations by continuing to involve the North Lake community in the aquatic plant management process. This annual report summarizes the steps taken by North Lake during 2006 to conform to the aquatic weed management program established in the 2004 Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) — a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed eradication efforts in North Lake. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IAVMP Development An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) is a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed control efforts. In 2004, the North Lake community coordinated with the King County Lake Stewardship group to develop an IAVMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up- to-date IAVMP was required by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to be submitted prior to seeking future grant funding from the State. With assistance from King County, the lake community began developing an IAVMP. During this period, efforts began to prepare an Ecology Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (AWMF) grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public comment and to finalize the IAVMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way, Surface Water Management staff began participating in the process. The IAVMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the plan on October 8. With an approved IAVMP, application was made to Ecology for an AWMF grant. Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal Way. As a result, an AWMF grant was awarded to the city that included a multi-year effort to fully eradicate the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The action plan included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT control, and public education. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75% of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology. The Grant Agreement is scheduled to expire no later than December 31, 2009. The Scope of Work is broken out into the following four tasks: Task 1 — Project Administration/Management Task 2 — Vegetation Management Task 3 — Public Education Task 4 — Reporting Task 1 (Project Administration/Management) involves the maintenance of project records; submittal of payment vouchers, fiscal forms and project reports; compliance with procurement and contracting requirements; attainment of all permits, licenses, easements of property rights; and submittal of all required performance items. Task 2 (Vegetation Management) and Task 3 (Public Education) are action items specifically required by this agreement, and are outlined and described in the 2006 North Lake Work Plan. Task 4 (Reporting) involves the preparation of a final report summarizing the actions taken during the entire period of the Grant Agreement. 2.2 The Aquatic Weed Problem Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are generally of limited distribution, tend to be invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's water bodies — such as North Lake — if left unchecked. Because non-native plants have few natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out -compete native plant and animal habitats, and degrade recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2006). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un -infested areas of Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the seriousness of the threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide -spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. 2 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 3.0 c Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. The joint efforts undertaken by the North Lake Steering Committee, lake residents, and SWM staff are described in this year-end report. The document also outlines the work completed to eradicate the following three noxious weed species detected in 2006: Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Fragrant water lily Nymphaea odorata C Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus C Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria B NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT On March 31, 2006, an application for coverage under the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae in North Lake was submitted. The permit combined and replaced portions of the Aquatic Noxious Weed Control General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the Aquatic Nuisance Weed and Algae Control General NPDES Permit that was issued prior to 2006. The permit (#WAG -994094) was issued to the City's aquatic plant management contractor AquaTechnex on June 2, 2006. It governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The five-year permit expires on April 1, 2011. Ecology's new permit is issued under the authority of RCW 90.48. Such issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. Ecology decided to issue a permit that is based solely on state authority to regulate the discharge of waste materials into waters of the state. 2006 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 4.1 Contract for Aquatic Vegetation Management In 2006, AquaTechnex, Inc. operated under the last year of a two-year Professional Services Agreement (contract) with the City of Federal Way that is managed by SWM staff. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology -approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, reports as required, and attending meetings as required. 3 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 4.2 Initial Systematic Survey On June 2, 2006, AquaTechnex performed an initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake. The survey team mapped all submerged, floating and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. In addition to making a visual inspection, the survey team collected a number of rake samples at various GPS points. These points were collected to define each treatment area through diver communication to the mapping vessel team. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex 2006 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page). Native plant information may be found in Section 4.8. Although colonies of Eurasian watermilfoil (milfoil) were distributed throughout the littoral area in the northern and central part of North Lake in 2005, no milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) was detected during the 2006 initial systematic survey. Herbicide treatment with 2,4-D in 2005 appeared to be successful in completely eradicating this State of Washington Class B Weed from North Lake. It is important to note that Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana), a state of Washington Class B Weed, also was not found in 2006, contrary to the 2005 initial systematic survey results. Additionally, a survey performed by Ecology in 2006 also confirmed that Fanwort was not present (see Section 4.9). Based on these findings, it is probable that the plant was misidentified. Noxious weeds found during the North Lake initial systematic survey include: • Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odroata) • Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) • Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the initial survey. 4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Fragrant waterlily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins, and can be recognized by the fragrant white, pink to purple, many -petaled flowers that float on the water surface. Their large, round, floating leaves have a distinctive slit on one side. Due to its attractiveness, this nonnative plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has been introduced to many lakes in Washington, but can be invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas (Ecology 2006). The June 2 survey located FWL growth in North Lake, and as with prior years, the colonies were noted to be emerging in areas along the shoreline perimeter. In 2006, the densities of FWL were reported to be less than in 2005. Based on the survey results, AquaTechnex recommended 4 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT targeting this species with the aquatic herbicide glyphosate (Rodeo) as necessary for complete eradication. 4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable with its showy yellow flowers colorfully displayed along the edge of water and in wetlands. The flowers occur in late spring or early summer. The noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed), including flower stalk, will grow up to nearly five feet tall. The rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense stands that exclude native wetland species (WA State Noxious Weed Control Board). The initial survey found YFI populating the shoreline perimeter, but scattered in selected locations. Because the proposed control action would involve herbicide application to YFI on private property, permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see Section 4.3.2). Identical to the control plan implemented in 2005, glyphosate (Rodeo) would be utilized for YFI treatments. Glyphosate provides effective long-term control, with applications generally made in mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide into the root system. AquaTechnex indicated that populations of the noxious weed decreased in density from that identified in 2005. 4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple -pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This erect, robust, square -stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an invasive, rapidly -spreading European species that is a State of Washington Class C Weed (Ecology, 2006). PL was observed at North Lake during the initial June survey and was reported to be in lesser densities than what was recorded in 2005. Identical to YFI treatment, the proposed control action for PL would involve herbicide application on private property. Therefore, permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see Section 4.3.2). The noxious emergent plant was reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake, although the survey occurred early in the growing season for this perennial weed. Because an aquatic plant survey only provides a snapshot of the conditions present in the lake at the time of the inspection, it was expected that additional PL seedlings would emerge from the lake sediments along the shorelines later in the growing season. 4.3 Herbicide Treatments The herbicide treatment program was designed to meet the requirements of both the Ecology Grant Agreement and NPDES permit. Within this framework, Year Two Integrated Treatment Plan benchmarks were followed where practical. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator also must comply all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. Glyphosate Glyphosate (Rodeo) was used to treat FWL, YFI and PL on North Lake in 2006. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic applications. The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days, seven days on more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody plants. It is known that extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above -ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. The advantages of glyphosate include: • The product is a fast -acting systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with no impact to plants not treated. • Application can be conducted in a spot -treatment or isolated area fashion. • There are no water use restrictions. 4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined in the Ecology Grant Agreement. Eradication will improve boater access and provide safer recreation opportunities. Because the treatment areas were smaller than in 2005, the potential for extensive floating mud island formation was expected to be less likely. In addition, defined treatment of water lily colonies would achieve the following: • The gradual replacement of native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish habitat. • A reduced possibility that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would contribute to increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms). • A reduction in the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a demand on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life. The AquaTechnex 2006 North Lake Year End Report (found on the SWM website) contains maps with locations of FWL colonies. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the lily pads by a two -person crew using boat -mounted low-pressure spray equipment. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process included reapplication to areas that did not uptake enough herbicide because of weather or plant wash off. The total area treated equaled less than one acre. The first glyphosate application of FWL was conducted on the morning of August 11. Due to high winds, the application was suspended. A second application was attempted on August 29, but windy conditions prevented further treatment activity. To effectively eradicate FWL populations, it is characteristic to perform additional treatments during the growing season. A third spot treatment was scheduled for the last week of August, but SWM staff voiced concern about predicted wet weather and possible community disruptions due to the upcoming Labor Day weekend. AquaTechnex agreed to postpone treatment. Because of the treatment postponement, AquaTechnex was required to obtain approval from Ecology to apply herbicide beyond the last day (September 1) that was indicated on the residential notices. The Department of Ecology granted approval for treatment date extension, and the third application took place on September 5, 2006. The contractor reported that wind again became a limiting factor in herbicide effectiveness. 4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment Following the requirements outlined in the Grant Agreement, eradication of all YFI and PL continued in 2006. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds. Maps showing YSI and PL colony locations and all lake parcels granting access for treatment may be found on the SWM website. YFI and PL colonies were treated on August 11 with glyphosate, but the application was suspended due to high winds. The crew returned on August 29, focusing on the residential side of the lake, but poor weather conditions again stopped applications. A follow-up spot treatment was scheduled for the last week of August. As with the fragrant water lily follow-up treatment described above, herbicide application was postponed due to advancing wet weather and the holiday weekend. With Ecology approval, the last application took place on September 5, 2006 during windy conditions when AquaTechnex accessed the south end of the lake via airboat. The YFI and PL -treated areas in 2006 totaled less than one acre. During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (Rodeo). The noxious weeds were either sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat, or from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent ornamental plants or grasses. For PL, spraying individual plant was deemed the most effective application method (versus wicking) given the issues of work efficiency and accessibility. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for FWL. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 4.4 YFI and PL Manual Control The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake to help control the spread of both YFI and PL. SWM staff issued notices to all lake residents regarding proper hand pulling and digging techniques for YFL For PL, hand removal methods (digging up the roots or cutting back the stalks) were offered as effective options, including proper disposal of all organic debris (roots, seed heads and stems). Three residents contributed 21 volunteer hours removing PL seed heads and stalks on private parcels around the lake. On September 19, Washington Department of Wildlife personnel (contracted by King County Noxious Weed Control Program) performed manual removal and treatment of PL at the public boat launch property. All seed heads were removed and properly disposed of, and the remaining stalks were treated with glyphosate. This work was not included in the scope of work covered by the Ecology AWMF Grant Agreement. On October 6, Mark Braverman with McKinstry (Weyerhaeuser contractor) reported that all PL was removed from the Weyerhaeuser property as part of their annual weed control efforts. PL was hand -removed on upland areas adjacent to the lake that are not included as part of the city's Grant Agreement scope of work. AquaTechnex also undertook controls to manually remove PL seed heads. On October 12, the contractor removed a large amount of surviving PL plants (some flowering and some with intact seed heads). A total of three 40 -gallon bags of plant waste were removed, primarily from the south side of the lake (on the floating masses and on the Weyerhaeuser property side). Because it appeared that many of these plants had not been properly treated with herbicide, AquaTechnex did not charge the city for the manual removal effort. 4.5 Water Lily Island Control North Lake continued to experience the emergence of floating masses of dead FWL roots and muck, primarily along the south shore. Early in the year, the NLSC agreed that floating FWL island removal action would continue to be implemented on an as -needed basis if the masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake. The NLSC assessed all of the control options and costs provided by AquaTechnex and agreed to proceed only with volunteer mud island removal efforts this year. As a result, Chuck Gibson and Terry Thomas, lake residents, began limited manual hand -work on the floating masses at the south end of North Lake during the spring. Similar to the year before, they continued to chop at the islands (ranging in thickness from one to four feet) with lawn edgers. This action released trapped gases and allowed some of the sediment to sink. They were also able to push small pieces (ten to twelve feet across) to deeper water, where they broke up and sank after prodding with an oar. Their work was successful in creating additional narrow channels from the lake to the shoreline On August 26, a larger mud island removal volunteer effort took place at the south end of the lake. A total of nine lake residents, piloting six different boats, were able to destroy large 8 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT portions of the floating masses using manual methods. The work helped to deepen and expand the open water into several lake residents' dock areas. A total of thirty-three volunteer hours were completed for this effort. 4.6 Bottom Barrier Installation The Ecology Grant Agreement included the requirement for bottom barrier installation at the public boat launch area. A bottom barrier covers the sediment like a blanket, compressing aquatic plants while reducing or blocking light. Bottom screening can be an important tool to help eradicate and contain early infestations of noxious weeds such as milfoil. Because the boat launch area is not infested with milfoil, and given the possibility that the mat may interfere with boat navigation and fishing activities, SWM staff requested that Ecology waive this requirement. On May 18, Kathy Hamel, Aquatic Weed Specialist with Ecology, granted the waiver. 4.7 Weed Rakes The weed rake loan program continued in 2006, providing North Lake residents an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes were used as necessary through the summer to maintain the beneficial uses of the shoreline for fishing, boating and swimming. Weed rakes can only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish Pamphlet. Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two different styles of rakes depending on the type of plant targeted: a rake with a sharp cutting blade for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged plants. Because milfoil was not detected during the June 2 initial survey, weed rakes were loaned out immediately to lake residents impacted only by native weed infestations. Rakes were checked out to approximately eleven households until September 15 when the program was shut down for the season pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet requirements. 4.8 Second Systematic Survey The second survey was performed on October 3. The objective was to quantify the vegetation present and to provide a continued baseline of the condition of the lake plant communities. Methods used were identical to the initial survey. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex 2006 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page). Due to the warm and sunny summer, the growth of all aquatic vegetation in North Lake was reported to be vigorous. In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section 4.0, the native species documented during the second systematic survey included: 9 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT EMERGENT PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Cattail Typha spp. Native Spike Rush Eleocharis sp. Native Bull Rush Scirpus spp. Native FLOATING PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Yellow pond lily Nuphar spp. Native Spatterdock Nuphar polysepalum Native Watershield Brasenia schreberi Native SUBMERSED PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Muskgrass Chara sp. Native Naiad Najas sp. Native Large leaf pondweed Potamogeton Amplifoious Native Clasping -leaf pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii Native American elodea Elodea Canadensis Native Bladderwort Utricularia sp. Native Northern watermilfoil Myriophyllum sibericum Native Emergent Plants Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species, Typha spp. (Cattail), Eleocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush), that grow in the shallow margins of a lake. The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and mammals, and Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese. All North Lake's emergent vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and help to stabilize shorelines. Floating Plants Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and provides spawning habitat for fish. Nuphar polysepalum (Spatterdock) is a perennial waterlily-like plant that forms extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. When mature, spatterdock has large elephant -ear - shaped leaves and yellow flowers. Brasenia schreberi (Water -shield) was reported to be increasing in density. The native plant, similar to water lily, are identified by their long reddish leaf stalks attached to the centers of the floating oval leaves, giving them an umbrella -like appearance. Water -shield flowers are small, purplish, and rise slightly above the water. 10 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT Submersed Plants Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that was reported to have increased in density from 2005. Unlike most other perennial aquatic plants, it reproduces from seed each year. The aquatic plant generally grows rapidly in the spring, producing seeds, and then dropping them to the lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed population to the point of excluding other native plants. Although they have the potential to cause problems for swimmers and boaters in shallow waters, the absence of complaints indicate that beneficial uses of the lake have not yet been adversely impacted by this species. Other submerged plant species in the lake included Potamogeton amplifolious (Large leaf pondweed) and Potamogeton richardsonii (Clasping leaf pondweed). These native members of the pondweed family occur in small clumps where mapped, and were observed in similar density throughout the remaining littoral lake zones. Of these two plant species, P. richardsonii was reported to be increasing in density from the previous year, but not to the point of becoming problematic. The native aquatic plant Elodea was also reported to be increasing in density. It is found as an under story or secondary plant in the lake, and can expand to the point of causing major problems. The absence of complaints from lake residents concerning this species indicate that beneficial uses were not impacted. Chara (Muskgrass) is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases, this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem to lake users. Utricularia sp or Bladderwort was also present. Bladderworts are unique in the aquatic environment in that they are carnivorous, with a number of small bladders along the stems and leaves. The is plant similar to milfoil, but the bladders distinguish it from that species. The AquaTechnex 2006 North Lake Year End Report states that approximately 65% of the lake littoral zone is covered by both floating and submerged aquatic plants. Based upon these figures, North Lake is well within the WDFW and Ecology criteria for a minimum of 35% native vegetation littoral zone coverage to support good fish habitat. 4.9 Department of Ecology Survey On July 6, Ecology personnel performed an aquatic survey of North Lake by collecting rake samples from a boat and observing the entire shoreline and littoral zone for plant species identification. The field work was completed per their Environmental Assessment Program as a means to follow up on lakes that received Ecology grant funding for aquatic plant management activities. In addition, Ecology field staff were concerned about the possible presence of Fanwort (Cabomba Carolinian), a state of Washington Class B Weed, that was documented by AquaTechnex in 2005 as populating North Lake. Ecology did not find this plant species during their survey effort. 11 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT Aquatic plants identified in 2006 by Ecology, but not by AquaTechnex , included: EMERGENT PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Spreading rush Juncus sp. Native Naked -stemmed bulrush Schoenoplectus sp. Native Purple marshlocks Comarum palustre Native Narrow leaf cattail Typha angustifolia Non-native FLOATING PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Water -purslane Ludwigia palustris Native It is important to note that Jennifer Parsons, Ecology Aquatic Plant Specialist, made a second visit to North Lake at the end of September. The additional survey work was required in order to make a positive identification of Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) during the late summer period when the plant's mature flower spikes finally emerged. Parsons positively confirmed the presence of the non-native weed, which was isolated on a single property near the north end of the lake. Narrow leaf cattail is currently on the noxious weed monitor list. According to Parsons, it has caused considerable problems in the Midwest, and can hybridize with native cattail to form an even more invasive strain. Due to these factors, Ecology has approved the addition of this noxious plant to the North Lake Grant Agreement scope of work. Narrow leaf cattail will be targeted for herbicide treatment in 2007, provided that affected property owners grant permission for entry. 4.10 Post Control Visual Assessment During the Second Systematic Survey on September 29, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the glyphosate herbicide treatments and control methods conducted in 2006 on the three targeted species (FWL, PL and YFI). AquaTechnex reported that weather prevented maximum control of FWL, reducing their densities but not fully eradicating the noxious weed. In addition, visual observations provided by lake residents (Debra Hansen and Chuck Gibson) concerning FWL survivability at both ends of the lake indicated that the treatments were not fully effective (lack of browning vegetation). The contractor recommends follow up control, and projects that 99% or greater of the original FWL population will be eradicated by the end of 2007. The AquaTechnex Final report also states that the 2006 PL and YFI control efforts provided good results in all areas treated. However, many surviving and emerging PL and YFI plants were observed by lake residents along shoreline areas presumed to be treated. During an October 12 return visit, AquaTechnex staff commented that an unusual number of PL plants were thriving along the west side of the lake and throughout the floating mats at the south end. As a result, a manual control effort was implemented to remove PL before additional seed heads dropped from the surviving plants (See Section 4.4). 12 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 4.11 Algae Many common fresh water blue-green algae species are known to produce toxins at varying concentrations depending on the lake conditions. Because of possible toxic algal blooms with the potential of producing toxins at levels dangerous to small children and animals, SWM staff issued an algae alert flyer to all North Lake residents during the summer. The caution warned of the possible presence of algal blooms during warmer months, and recommended safe actions designed to prevent exposure. AquaTechnex identified both filamentous green algae (Cladophora spp.) and filamentous blue- green algae (Anabaena spp.) to be present during the systematic aquatic plant surveys, although the distribution or density of the algae species were not recorded in the survey report. In 2006, no complaints were received by SWM staff concerning the presence of blue-green algal blooms or other problematic algae concentrations in North Lake. In 2005, the Washington State Legislature established funding for an algae control program and asked Ecology to develop the program. The program focuses on providing local governments with the tools they need to manage algae problems. A total of $250,000 will be earmarked each year to target blue-green algae due to the health risks posed to humans, pets, and livestock. Ecology will begin funding small grants to local governments in fall 2007. In the interim, the Washington Department of Health (DOH) will develop statewide guidelines for toxic algae blooms under a grant provided by Ecology. These guidelines will help local governments make decisions about when to post health advisories and when to close waters to recreation. In addition, DOH will provide and post educational signs and outreach materials concerning algal blooms for all troubled waterbodies. 5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING 5.1 2006 Water Quality Monitoring Per the Ecology Grant Agreement, SWM Water Quality personnel collected samples from North Lake to determine glyphosate concentrations before and after treatment. North Lake was not treated with 2,4-D in 2006. The sampling procedure was undertaken to determine lake concentrations of herbicides, and to provide an analytical measurement of the contractor's performance. Background samples (before treatment) and post treatment samples were collected at time intervals prescribed in the Grant Agreement. Samples were taken in the middle of the lake (outside the treatment areas), and inside an individual FWL treatment site and analyzed for glyphosate. All samples were collected using a Wildco Alpha 2.2 liter Van Dorn style water bottle. The samples were retrieved from various depths, and combined into individual composite samples. 13 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT Each sample was immediately chilled, refrigerated, and shipped within holding time to Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. in Kelso, Washington (Ecology accredited laboratory #C1203) and analyzed by USEPA Chromatography Method 547. Table 1 below outlines the results of the sampling. Table 1. 2006 North Lake Glyphosate Water Sampling Date Pre/Post Inside/Outside Location Concentration (ppb) Treatment Zone Background in littoral zone, 6/30/06 Pre Inside approximately 700' south of Non Detect public boat launch, inside water lily populated area Background outside littoral zone, approximately 700' 6/30/06 Pre Outside south of public boat launch, Non Detect outside water lily populated area Outside littoral zone, 8/11/06 Post Outside approximately 700' south of Non Detect 1 -hour public boat launch, outside water lily populated area Inside littoral zone, 8/11/06 Post Inside approximately 700' south of 26 1 -hour public boat launch, inside water lily treated area Outside littoral zone, 8/11/06 Post Outside approximately 700' south of Non Detect 4.5 -hours public boat launch, outside water lily populated area Inside littoral zone, 8/11/05 Post Inside approximately 700' south of Non Detect 4.5 -hours public boat launch, inside water lily treated area No water use restrictions are indicated for glyphosate, however Ecology recommends a 24-hour swimming advisory for areas treated with this herbicide. In addition, the product's label restrictions and requirements in the NPDES permit do not allow application directly to water within 0.5 mile of a potable water intake. (Note, North Lake is not known to be a source of drinking water). The USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act determines safe levels of chemicals in drinking water which do or may cause health problems. These non -enforceable levels, based solely on possible 14 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT health risks and exposure, are called Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLG). The MCLG for glyphosate has been set at 700 parts per billion (ppb). The analytical findings above demonstrate that glyphosate concentrations in the water column (26 ppb) were well below the USEPA MCLG levels (700 ppb) immediately after treatment (one hour), and appear to have completely dissipated before the end of the 24-hour swimming advisory. In addition, there were no reports of damage to lawns or gardens from the application of irrigated water. 6.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The elements of the Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake are based primarily on the Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). The Ecology Grant Agreement incorporates the information in the IAVMP, forming two primary components for Education and Public Involvement. The two components focus on prevention and detection of noxious aquatic and emergent weeds, and lake stewardship. The North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) oversees the implementation of the Ecology Grant Agreement, which is outlined in the 2006 North Lake Work Plan. 6.1 Community Involvement North Lake Community Involvement program for 2006 involved the following: 6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) The NLSC is charged with setting the aquatic plant management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. The NLSC is comprised of North Lake residents, Weyerhaeuser representatives and City of Federal Way staff. The Committee meets quarterly, or more often as necessary to implement Work Plan goals. The following members comprise the NLSC: Lake Residents Wendy Honey — (Chair) Debra Hansen Chuck Gibson — (Co -Chair) Barry James Julie Cleary James Chastain Weverhaueser Representitive Jennifer Hale City of Federal Way Dan Smith, Surface Water Management Don Robinett, Surface Water Management 15 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities of the NLSC: • Reviews annual plant survey information. • Develops an annual aquatic plant management Work Plan based upon the information revealed in the annual plant surveys. The Work Plan prioritizes aquatic weed problem areas, identifies preferred control methods for each species, and develops the anticipated budget. • Assists the City of Federal Way with oversight of control work to keep contractors accountable. • Participates in preparation of an annual evaluation report that summarizes plant control activities, lake -user's perspectives on the plant community, and recommendations for the next year's control strategy. • Assists with presentation of aquatic plant management efforts to lake residents at an annual community meeting and Plant ID Workshop. • Helps the City of Federal Way to ensure that all lake residents receive proper notification pursuant to the requirements of the Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit. • Participates in other annual community involvement/education strategies and plant control efforts as needed. The NLSC met four times in 2006. The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. The following are brief abstracts from each NLSC meeting: February 9, 2006 • Reviewed new committee member roles and duties. • Reviewed Grant Agreement requirements. • Discussed 2005 Work Plan and budget, and offered recommendations for 2006. • Reviewed grant -related volunteer service and recordkeeping. • Began crafting 2006 Work Plan. March 21, 2006 • Met jointly with Steel Lake Steering Committee and aquatic plant management contractor (AquaTechnex) representative. • Discussed new NPDES permit requirements and legal issues. • Reviewed contractor issues: communication problems and expectations for 2006. May 4, 2006 • Annual Spring Meeting was conducted to formally review the 2005 program and to review the 2006 Work Plan with lake residents. October 12, 2006 • End -of -season review of 2006 survey results and herbicide treatment effectiveness. • Reviewed public education program. • Reviewed status of Ecology Grant budget to -date. • Discussed contractor performance issues and plans for a new contract in 2007. 16 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 6.1.2 Development of 2005 Work Plan On February 9, the NLSC discussed both the structure and content of the 2006 North Lake Aquatic Plant Management Draft Work Plan (Work Plan). The goals and budget were based upon both the requirements outlined in the IAVMP and the specific requirements prescribed by the Ecology Grant Agreement. Following the meeting, SWM staff finalized the Work Plan, which included the goals and anticipated budget for the up -coming year. The following is a brief outline of the 2006 Work Plan: Task 1: Aquatic Vegetation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife, and yellow flag iris), and other problematic aquatic plant issues (i.e. mud island removal) for the year. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 4.0. Task 2: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items included in Task 2 include: annual community meeting (spring) and annual Plant ID Workshop (summer); quarterly newsletter (The Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers; web site development; and development of an annual report. 6.1.3 Annual Spring Meeting The North Lake Spring Community Meeting was held on May 4, 2006 at the North Lake Clubhouse. SWM staff reviewed the efforts undertaken in 2005, and outlined the proposed 2006 Work Plan and budget, implications of new NPDES Permit, weed treatment options, right -of - entry procedures, and recordkeeping/reporting of volunteer hours. Various questions from lake residents were addressed and citizen feedback was solicited. The meeting was attended by approximately eighteen lake residents. 6.1.4 Plant ID Workshop A joint Steel Lake—North Lake Plant ID Workshop was held on July 8 at Steel Lake Park. This event provided an atmosphere of learning within a social setting. Residents from both lakes were presented information describing each aquatic plant management program. They were also able to pose questions to both SWM staff and individual NLSC members. Over thirteen households, totaling more than nineteen residents, attended the event. At the Workshop, North Lake residents were afforded the opportunity to review the 2006 Work Plan and examine maps depicting noxious weed infestation areas and proposed treatment locations. In addition, various public education displays provided hands-on opportunities for individuals to view both native and noxious plants (good and bad) retrieved from their lake. Both SWM staff and lake residents harvested the live plant specimens found in North Lake for the displays. 17 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 6.1.5 Boater Education On April 28 (Opening Day of Fishing Season), a local Boy Scout Troop handed out approximately 20 Milfoil Education Brochures to boaters at the North Lake Boat Ramp. Although boater turnout was low due to inclement weather, the brochure outlined the detrimental effect milfoil has on fresh water lakes, the propagation of the noxious plant, and how to properly clean vessels prior to entering or leaving the boating area. 6.2 Public Education The North Lake Public Education program for 2006 involved the following: 6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter SWM staff continued issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, and education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 6.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via mail and email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. Lake residents were also sent notices prior to all public meetings. During the course of 2006, SWM staff mailed out four formal public notices and emailed approximately six supplemental notices to lake residents. All public notices were posted on the North Lake web page. In addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work plan activities were e-mailed to E -Subscribe participants approximately 24 hours prior to the activity on the lake. 6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs SWM staff developed and distributed the following lake -related informational flyers: • Milfoil • Good Plants/Bad Plants • Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal • Blue Green Algae • Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese • Aquatic Weed Rake Program 18 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 6.2.4 Web Page Development In 2006, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the year. Web site information includes: • Current IAVMP (with figures and maps) • 2006 Work Plan • Chronology and description of important 2006 North Lake activities • North Lake publications such as: The Lake View; informative flyers (milfoil, blue-green algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plants bad plants); public notices; and NLSC Meeting notes. 6.2.5 Annual Report SWM staff develops a final year-end report to all lake residents and parties of interest that describes the activities and a budget review of the prior year. 7.0 2006 BUDGET REVIEW The 2006 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the scope of aquatic weed management expected to be accomplished during the year. Table 2 below provides an overview of the final North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2006: Tahla 2 2006 Nnrth Lake gudnPt OvPrviPw TASK Estimates Actual Expenses Task 1 & 2, Project AdministrationNegetation Management 22,044 13,967 Task 3, Public Education 5,450 5,834 YEAR END $ 27,494 $ 19,801 19 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 7.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administration/ Vegetation Management Table 3 below illustrates the grant -eligible budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2. Table 3. 2006 North Lake Budget, TASK 1 & 2, Project Administration/Vegetation Mgmt. GOAL 2006 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) 2006 Permit Public Notice requirement 150.00 163.00 Two diver surveys (Spring & Summer) 4,597.00 4,597.00 Milfoil herbicide treatment 1,500.00 0 Fragrant water lily herbicide treatment 500.00 224.00 Yellow flag iris and purple loosestrife treatment 980.00 224.00 Advance resident notifications & shoreline posting 680.00 680.00 Water quality monitoring 1,400.00 990.00 Water sample shipping 0 43.00 Post control survey 925.00 0 Contractor letter report 381.00 0 Contractor final report 544.00 544.00 Bottom barrier installation 250.00 0 Water lily island control 3,000.00 0 Miscellaneous water quality issues (i.e. algae) 300.00 7.00 Refreshments and supplies for NLSC quarterly meetin s 60.00 12.00 Grant-eli ible SWM staff wages and benefits 4,500.00 5,070.00 Grant -eligible lake volunteer time 2,250.00 1,413.00 TOTALS 1 $ 21,717.00 $ 13,967.00 Note: The 2006 Weed Permit & Application fee ($327.00) and the 2007 Weed Permit Fee ($338.00) were not grant eligible expenses. 7.2 Task 3 Public Education Table 4 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3 Table 4. 2006 North Lake Budget, TASK 3 Public Education GOAL 2006 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Quarterly newsletter 350.00 309.00 Annual evaluation report 100.00 96.00 Annual Spring Community Meeting 50.00 0 Plant ID works ho /cookout 300.00 88.00 Public education printing 150.00 51.00 Boater outreach program 100.00 102.00 City LIVID web page 0 0 Grant -eligible SWM staff wages and benefits 3,500.00 1 4,753.00 Grant -eligible lake volunteer time 900.00 435.00 TOTALS 5,450.00 5,834.00 20 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 7.3 Ecology Grant Budget Review Table 5 below summarizes the running balance of the Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund grant for North Lake, set to expire December 31, 2009: Table 5. North Lake Grant Running Balance Year Grant Funds Used Running Balance Start N/A $60,158 2005 18,882 $41,276 2006 14,849 $26,427 8.0 2006 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2007 The following discussion summarizes the 2006 North Lake program, and outlines recommendations for 2007: 8.1 2006 Aquatic Vegetation Management Summary The NLSC agreed that the aquatic vegetation management actions included in the 2006 Work Plan were fully implemented and that program spending did not exceed the beginning of the year budget estimates. Targeted weeds — FWL, PL and YFI — continued to be controlled. The following outlines the major 2006 developments worth noting: The on-going success of the zero -tolerance milfoil eradication program was evidenced by the absence of the noxious weed found during the survey. As a result, 2,4-D (or equivalent) was not applied, saving program funds and eliminating concerns regarding ecological impacts of the herbicide. Both SWM staff and NLSC Committee members agreed that herbicide treatments for FWL, YFI and PL were not completely effective in 2006. Despite a meeting held early in the year to discuss communication and staffing issues, AquaTechnex still fell behind schedule. Due to the contractor's workload, treatments for FWL, YFI and PL took place late in the season. The delay was further complicated toward the end of summer when the amount of available calendar days became limited, and weather (wind and rain) became a factor. This resulted in reduced herbicide effectiveness. Because of the time constraints experienced toward the end of the growing season, SWM granted AquaTechnex approval to proceed with herbicide treatments with less than the normal advance notification. Due to this, SWM staff was not able not provide the necessary contractor oversight on such short notice. Thereby, observations of key weed management activities did not occur as planned. 21 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT • The final visual evaluation of FWL and YFI treatment effectiveness by the contractor was questionable. There was some doubt as to whether the browning of targeted plants observed by SWM staff and lake residents was due to effects of herbicide application or by the normal end of season die back. • Admission by the contractor supported the observations made by residents concerning the survival of PL plants at the south end of the lake, indicating that the plants were not properly treated. Due to this, it is probable that PL seed heads were allowed to mature and drop before being manually removed in this area on October 12. • Approximately 90% of affected lake properties submitted Rights of Entry for permission to treat YFL Although maps were provided to the contractor, there was question whether the contractor utilized them to accurately treat required areas. A visual method to mark properties was recommended for implementation in 2007. • Comments were received that the aquatic weed eradicator rake (with sharp blade used for cutting), was not useful. Also, concerns were raised regarding the difficulty in obtaining the rakes for use on weekends and holidays. • The waiving of the requirement to install a bottom barrier at the boat launch resulted in cost savings. • AquaTechnex missed the identification of Narrow leaf cattail during their two separate survey efforts. Fortunately, the Department of Ecology discovered this plant. This will allow the noxious plant to be included in the 2007 Work Plan, • Because of the explosive growth of Naiad (Najas sp.) reported in Washington lakes in 2006, Ecology plans to return to North Lake to monitor the situation concerning native weed populations. 8.2 2007 Aquatic Vegetation Management Recommendations The majority of the problems encountered in 2006 revolved around contractor performance — primarily communication and staffing -related issues. Many of these issues will be addressed in new 2007 contract language requiring specific calendar dates for control actions and timetables for notification. The following outlines recommendations for 2007: Following the evaluation of proposals, and the selection of an aquatic plant management firm for 2007, contract language should be developed that requires: (1) earlier growing season treatments to allow for adequate follow-up applications, (2) all herbicide treatment completion by date -certain timetables, (3) strict 48-hour prior notification from contractor for all lake -related work so that SWM staff can provide oversight, and (4) a means to visually mark shorelines by the contractor that properly identifies emergent plant colonies targeted for herbicide treatment. • Narrow leaf cattail will be added to the Work Plan scope of action. • Continue to stress open, frequent, and accurate communication with the selected contractor. 22 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT Continue to solicit contractor oversight assistance and follow-up observations from lake residents so that issues concerning poor treatment effectiveness can be addressed in a timely manner. • Due to demand, the NLSC agreed to purchase one more 36 -inch wide weed rake (with tines), and to have one of the lake residents handle the storage and loaning of the rakes to facilitate use on weekends and holidays. 8.3 2006 Public Education Summary The wide variety of Public Education products offered and distributed in 2006 appeared to be effective. The following outlines the major 2006 developments: • The annual Plant ID Workshop functioned as a great public education tool. SWM staff received positive feedback from attendees regarding the event and the material presented. 8.4 2007 Public Education Recommendations • Continue aggressive public education effort targeting all lake properties identified as being infested with noxious weeds in order to prevent their spread. • Implement more efficient volunteer timesheet recordkeeping and submittal procedure. • Because there were problems with lake residents submitting volunteer hours in a timely fashion, a better system needs to be implemented in order for Grant Payment Request to be submitted to Ecology on time on a bi-annual basis. 8.5 2006 Ecology Grant Budget Summary North Lake completed the second year of the Ecology AWMF Grant. At the end of 2006, $26,427 was left out of the initial $60,000 grant. Based on the expected annual expenditures for aquatic plant management, it is likely that all grant funds will be used after the 2008 season. Throughout 2006, the NLSC began preliminary discussions concerning possible Lake Management District (LMD) formation after grant expiration. The committee benefited by participating in joint -meetings with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, learning that utility formation takes months of public process. It is expected that the NLSC will continue considering LMD formation, and begin a formal plan of action by year end. 8.6 2006 Algae Summary SWM staff were well prepared in 2006 to alert lake residents to possible blue-green algae blooms. SWM staff will continued to follow development of the evolving Department of Ecology algae program throughout 2007 to keep informed concerning funding options, sampling protocols, and the development of new public health standards. 23 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT NORTH LAKE Aquatic Weed Management Program 2007 Final Report Prepared by: City of Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division Author: Dan Smith TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................1 2.1 IAVMP DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................................1 2.2 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM....................................................................................................................2 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT......................................................................................3 4.0 2007 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES..........................................................................4 4.1 CONTRACT FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ................................................................................4 4.2 INITIAL SYSTEMATIC SURVEY.......................................................................................................................4 4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily.................................................................................................................................5 4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris.......................................................................................................................................5 4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife....................................................................................................................................5 4.2.4 Narrow leaf cattail...................................................................................................................................6 4.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS..............................................................................................................................6 4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment...............................................................................................................7 4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris and Purple Loosestrife Treatment ................................................................................ 7 4.3.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment...............................................................................................................8 4.4 YFI AND PL MANUAL CONTROL...................................................................................................................8 4.5 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL....................................................................................................................9 4.6 WEED RAKES................................................................................................................................................9 4.7 SECOND SYSTEMATIC SURVEY.....................................................................................................................9 4.8 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................................11 4.9 ALGAE........................................................................................................................................................12 5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING.......................................................................................................12 6.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...............................................................................................13 6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.......................................................................................................................13 6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee(NLSC)...............................................................................................13 6.1.2 Development of 2007 Work Plan..........................................................................................................14 6.1.3 Annual Spring Meeting.........................................................................................................................14 6.1.4 Plant ID Workshop...............................................................................................................................15 6.1.5 Boater Education..................................................................................................................................15 6.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION....................................................................................................................................15 6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter.............................................................................................................................15 6.2.2 Public Notices.......................................................................................................................................15 6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs...............................................................................................................16 6.2.4 Web Page Development........................................................................................................................16 6.2.5 Annual Report........................................................................................................................................16 7.0 2007 BUDGET REVIEW............................................................................................................................17 7.1 TASKS 1 & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION/ VEGETATION MANAGEMENT......................................17 7.2 TASK 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION........................................................................................................................18 7.3 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET RFVIEw............................................................................................................18 8.0 2007 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2007 ..........................................19 8.1 2007 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARY.............................................................................19 8.2 2008 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................19 8.3 2007 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARY..........................................................................................................20 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 8.4 2008 PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................20 8.5 2007 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET SUMMARY...............................................................................................20 8.6 2007 ALGAE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................20 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. 2007 North Lake Budget Overview..................................17 Table 2. 2007 North Lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2 ..............................17 Table 3. 2007 North Lake Budget, Task 3 ......................................18 Table 4 North Lake Grant Running Balance..................................18 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE (http://www.citvoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1219) North Lake Grant Agreement 2006 DOE Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit AquaTechnex North Lake 2007 Year End Report 2007 North Lake YFI & PL Right of Entry Parcel Map NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution by all North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) members and the lake community who contributed to a successful aquatic plant management program in 2007. The Committee includes the following members: Lake residents: Wendy Honey (Chairperson), Chuck Gibson (Co -Chair), Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Barry James, and James Chastain. • Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Jennifer Hale. • City of Federal Way: Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Don Robinett (ESA & NPDES Coordinator). In addition, Surface Water Management (SWM) staff wishes to thank the City Council and City Manager for their collective support of our aquatic weed management efforts. We also recognize Kathy Hamel, Department of Ecology (Ecology), for her continuing aquatic plant management advice and expertise. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The aquatic vegetation management actions and public education goals outlined in the North Lake 2007 Work Plan were successfully implemented. Noxious aquatic plants —fragrant water Illy, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris and narrow leaf cattail — were targeted for control at as low a density as was environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that did not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. In addition, an effective public education program was conducted that helped to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake. This program also aided in the early detection of aquatic weed re -infestations by continuing to involve the North Lake community in the aquatic plant management process. This annual report summarizes the steps taken by North Lake during 2007 to conform to the aquatic weed management program established in the 2004 Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IAVMP Development An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) is a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed control efforts. In 2004, the North Lake community coordinated with the King County Lake Stewardship group to develop an IAVMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up- to-date IAVMP was required by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to be submitted prior to seeking future grant funding from the State. With assistance from King County, the lake community began developing an IAVMP. During this period, efforts began to prepare an Ecology Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (AWMF) grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public comment and to finalize the IAVMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way, Surface Water Management staff began participating in the process. The IAVMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the plan on October 8. With an approved IAVMP, application was made to Ecology for an AWMF grant. Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal Way. As a result, an AWMF grant was awarded to the city that included a multi-year effort to fully eradicate the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The action plan included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, control, and public education. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75% of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT The Grant Agreement is scheduled to expire no later than December 31, 2009. The Scope of Work is broken out into the following four tasks: Task 1 — Project Administration/Management Task 2 — Vegetation Management Task 3 — Public Education Task 4 — Reporting Task 1 (Project Administration/Management) involves the maintenance of project records; submittal of payment vouchers, fiscal forms and project reports; compliance with procurement and contracting requirements; attainment of all permits, licenses, easements of property rights; and submittal of all required performance items. Task 2 (Vegetation Management) and Task 3 (Public Education) are action items specifically required by this agreement, and are outlined and described in the 2007 North Lake Work Plan. Task 4 (Reporting) involves the preparation of a final report summarizing the actions taken during the entire period of the Grant Agreement. 2.2 The Aquatic Weed Problem Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are generally of limited distribution, tend to be invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's water bodies, such as North Lake, if left unchecked. Because non-native plants have few natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out -compete native plant and animal habitats, and degrade recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2006). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un -infested areas of Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the seriousness of the threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class A Weeds detected in North Lake in 2007: • None NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide -spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class B Weeds detected in North Lake in 2007: • Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. Class C Weeds detected in North Lake in 2007: • Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata) • Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) In addition to the weeds listed above, Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) was positively identified as populating a single property near the north end of the lake. Although the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board has not classified this noxious weed, Narrow leaf cattail is currently on the noxious weed monitor list because it has caused considerable problems in the Midwest, and can hybridize with native cattail to form an even more invasive strain. Due to these factors, Ecology approved the addition of this noxious plant to the North Lake Grant Agreement scope of work, and it was targeted for herbicide treatment in 2007. 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT On March 31, 2006, an application for coverage under the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae in North Lake was submitted. The permit combined and replaced portions of the Aquatic Noxious Weed Control General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the Aquatic Nuisance Weed and Algae Control General NPDES Permit that was issued prior to 2006. The NPDES permit (#WAG -994094) was issued to the City's aquatic plant management contractor AquaTechnex on June 2, 2006. It governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The five- year permit expires on April 1, 2011. Ecology's new permit is issued under the authority of RCW 90.48. Such issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. Ecology decided to issue a permit that is based solely on state authority to regulate the discharge of waste materials into waters of the state. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 4.0 2007 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 4.1 Contract for Aquatic Vegetation Management In 2007, AquaTechnex, Inc. operated under the first year of a new two-year Professional Services Agreement (contract) with the City of Federal Way that is managed by SWM staff. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, and treatment with Ecology - approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, reports as required, and attending meetings as required. 4.2 Initial Systematic Survey On June 12, 2007, AquaTechnex performed an initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake. The survey team mapped all submerged, floating and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment). The location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake were recorded from the surface and subsurface. The plant survey on North Lake consisted of deploying a diver to perform a detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone while a crew member collected a number of rake samples (point intercept method) from the surface at various GPS points. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex 2007 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page). Native plant information may be found in Section 4.7. The point intercept sampling method consisted of using the WA Department of Ecology (DOE) protocols to sample aquatic plants. A rake toss was made using a double sided sampling rake at various GPS sampling stations across the littoral area of the lake. On retrieval of each toss, the plants present and species abundance were noted and recorded using a Trimble GeoXT datalogging GPS receiver Noxious weeds found during the North Lake initial systematic survey included: • Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odroata) • Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) • Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) • Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the initial survey. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Fragrant waterlily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins, and can be recognized by the fragrant white, pink to purple, many -petaled flowers that float on the water surface. Their large, round, floating leaves have a distinctive slit on one side. Due to its attractiveness, this nonnative plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has been introduced to many lakes in Washington, but can be invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas (Ecology 2006). The June 12 survey located FWL growth in North Lake, and as with prior years, the colonies were noted to be emerging in areas along the shoreline perimeter. AquaTechnex recommended targeting this species with the aquatic herbicide glyphosate as necessary for complete eradication. 4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable with its showy yellow flowers colorfully displayed along the edge of water and in wetlands. The flowers occur in late spring or early summer. The noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed), including flower stalk, will grow up to nearly five feet tall. The rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense stands that exclude native wetland species (WA State Noxious Weed Control Board). The initial survey found YFI populating the shoreline perimeter, but scattered in selected locations. Because the proposed control action would involve herbicide application to YFI on private property, permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see Section 4.3.2). Identical to the control plan implemented in 2005 and 2006, glyphosate was utilized for YFI treatments. Glyphosate provides effective long-term control, with applications generally made in mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide into the root system to ensure longer term control. 4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple -pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This erect, robust, square -stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an emergent, invasive, rapidly -spreading European species that is a State of Washington Class C Weed (Ecology, 2006). PL colonies were reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake, although the survey occurred early in the growing season for this perennial weed. Because an aquatic plant survey only provides a snapshot of the conditions present in the lake at the time of the inspection, it was expected that additional PL seedlings would emerge from the lake sediments along the shorelines later in the growing season. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT Identical to YFI treatment, the proposed control action for PL would involve herbicide application on private property. Therefore, permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see Section 4.3.2). 4.2.4 Narrow leaf cattail Narrow leaf cattail is a herbaceous, rhizomatous, perennial plant with long, slender, green stalks topped with brown, fluffy, sausage-shaped flowering heads. It spreads both vegetatively and by seed, particularly under drawdown conditions, and is generally found in deeper water than native cattail. Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) is a non-native aquatic weed currently on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board "monitor list". This plant has not been classified yet based on the species stage of invasion, but the Board is keeping watch to see if it warrants addition to the Noxious Weed list. The initial survey found narrow leaf cattail populating a singular private shoreline at the north west corner of the lake. Permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see Section 4.3.2) because the proposed control action would involve herbicide application (glyphosate) on private property. 4.3 Herbicide Treatments The herbicide treatment program was designed Grant Agreement and NPDES permit. Within benchmarks were followed where practical. to meet the requirements of both the Ecology this framework, the Integrated Treatment Plan The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator also must comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. Glyphosate Glyphosate (AquaPro) was chosen as the preferred herbicide to treat FWL, YFI, PL and narrow leaf cattail on North Lake in 2007. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic applications. The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days, seven days on more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody plants. It is known that extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT yellowing of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above -ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. The advantages of glyphosate include: • The product is a fast -acting systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with no impact to plants not treated. • Application can be conducted in a spot -treatment or isolated area fashion. • There are no water use restrictions. 4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined in the Ecology Grant Agreement. This aggressive plan was designed to achieve the following: • Gradually replace FWL with native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish habitat. • Improve boater access and provide safer recreation opportunities, • Reduce the possibility of excessive amounts of dying vegetation that could contribute to increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms). • Reduce the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a demand on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life. The initial and follow-up glyphosate treatments of FWL were conducted on July 25, August 7, 8, and 15. It is characteristic to perform additional treatments such these during the growing season to effectively eradicate FWL populations. The AquaTechnex 2007 North Lake Year End Report (found on the SWM website) contains maps with locations of FWL colonies. Glyphosate (AquaPro), a liquid, was applied directly on the lily pads by a two -person crew using boat -mounted low-pressure spray equipment. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process included reapplication to areas that did not uptake enough herbicide because of weather or plant wash off. The total area treated was approximately one acre. 4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris and Purple Loosestrife Treatment Following the requirements outlined in the Grant Agreement, eradication of all YFI and PL continued in 2007. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds. Maps showing YFI and PL colony locations and all lake parcels granting access for treatment may be found on the SWM website. 7 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT YFI and PL colonies were treated on July 25, August 7, 8, and 15 with glyphosate. A final PL treatment was conducted on September 18. The YFI and PL -treated areas equaled approximately two acres. During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (AquaPro). The noxious weeds were either sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat, or from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent ornamental plants or grasses. For PL, spraying individual plant was deemed the most effective application method (versus wicking) given the issues of work efficiency and accessibility. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for FWL. 4.3.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment Pursuant to an approval received from the Department of Ecology to include Narrow leaf cattail to the North Lake treatment plan, a single stand of this invasive aquatic weed was treated on September 18 with glyphosate (less than one acre). During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (AquaPro). The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for the other targeted noxious species. 4.4 YFI and PL Manual Control The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake to help control the spread of both YFI and PL. SWM staff issued notices to all lake residents regarding proper hand pulling and digging techniques for YFI. For PL, hand removal methods (digging up the roots or cutting back the stalks) were offered as effective options, including proper disposal of all organic debris (roots, seed heads and stems). On July 16, King County Noxious Weed Control Program staff performed manual removal of approximately 100 square feet of small vegetative PL plants along the shoreline near the WDFW public boat launch property. All plants (including most roots) were removed and properly disposed of. In addition, Weyerhaeuser also actively removes PL from upland areas of their property as part of their annual weed control efforts. This effort is conducted outside of the city's Grant Agreement scope of work. AquaTechnex also undertook controls to manually remove PL seed heads. On August 8, the contractor removed accessible PL plants (some flowering and some with intact seed heads) all along the lake shoreline. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 4.5 Water Lily Island Control Water lily islands have diminished in size and scope since 2005, particularly at the south end of the lake. As a result, lake access has improved tremendously following the volunteer efforts beginning in 2006 that eventually permanently opened and deepened water access for a number of lake residents. The NLSC agreed that floating FWL island removal action would continue to be implemented on an as -needed basis if floating masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake. In 2007, limited manual hand -work was conducted on several floating islands during the year. A total of nine (9) volunteer hours were completed by lake residents. 4.6 Weed Rakes The weed rake loan program continued in 2007, providing North Lake residents an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes were used as necessary through the summer to maintain the beneficial uses of the shoreline for fishing, boating and swimming. Weed rakes were only to be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish Pamphlet. Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two different styles of rakes depending on the type of plant targeted: a rake with a sharp cutting blade for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged plants. Because milfoil was not detected during the initial survey, weed rakes were loaned out immediately to lake residents impacted only by native weed infestations. Rakes were checked out to households until September 15 when the program was shut down for the season pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet requirements. 4.7 Second Systematic Survey The second survey was performed on September 12. The objective was to quantify the vegetation present and to provide a continued baseline of the condition of the lake plant communities. Methods used were identical to the initial survey. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex 2007 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page). In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section 4.0, the following native species have been known to inhabit North Lake: EMERGENT PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Cattail Typha spp. Native Spike Rush Eleocharis sp. Native Bull Rush Scirpus spp. Native 9 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT FLOATING PLANTS Common Name Yellow pond lily Spatterdock Watershield SUBMERSED PLANTS Common Name Muskgrass Naiad Large leaf pondweed Clasping -leaf pondweed American elodea Bladderwort Northern watermilfoil Scientific Name Weed Class Nuphar spp. Native Nuphar polysepalum Native Brasenia schreberi Native Scientific Name Weed Class Chara sp. Native Najas sp. Native Potamogeton Amplifoious Native Potamogeton richardsonii Native Elodea Canadensis Native Utricularia sp. Native Myriophyllum sibericum Native Emergent Plants Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species, Typha spp. (Cattail), Eleocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush), that grow in the shallow margins of a lake. The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and mammals, and Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese. All North Lake's emergent vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and help to stabilize shorelines. Floating Plants Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and provides spawning habitat for fish. Nuphar polysepalum (Spatterdock) is a perennial waterlily-like plant that forms extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. When mature, Spatterdock has large elephant -ear - shaped leaves and yellow flowers. Brasenia schreberi (Water -shield) is a native plant, similar to water lily. It is identified by their long reddish leaf stalks attached to the centers of the floating oval leaves, giving them an umbrella -like appearance. Water -shield flowers are small, purplish, and rise slightly above the water. Submersed Plants Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that reproduces from seed each year. The aquatic plant generally grows rapidly in the spring, producing seeds, and then dropping them to the lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed population to the point of excluding other native plants. Although they have the potential to cause problems for swimmers and boaters in shallow waters, the absence of complaints indicate that beneficial uses of the lake have not yet been adversely impacted by this species. 10 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT Other submerged plant species in the lake included Potamogeton amplifolious (Large leaf pondweed) and Potamogeton richardsonii (Clasping leaf pondweed). These native members of the pondweed family occur in small clumps, and have been historically observed in similar density throughout the littoral lake zones. No negative reports from lake residents or users were received concerning increasing densities of these species. The native aquatic plant Elodea is found as an under story or secondary plant in the lake and has the potential to expand to the point of causing major problems. Chara (Muskgrass) is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases, this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem to lake users. Utricularia sp or Bladderwort was also present. Bladderworts are unique in the aquatic environment in that they are carnivorous, with a number of small bladders along the stems and leaves. The is plant similar to milfoil, but the bladders distinguish it from that species. The AquaTechnex 2007 North Lake Year End Report states that the submerged aquatic plant growth present at the time of the survey did not appear to be interfering with the water uses designated for this lake community. The plants were observed to be well below the lake surface, with good bottom coverage. The plants were also noted to be generally low growing and not forming surface mats. 4.8 Post Control Visual Assessment During the Second Systematic Survey on September 12, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the glyphosate herbicide treatments and control methods conducted in 2007 on the three targeted species (FWL, PL and YFI). A review of the aquatic plant communities on North Lake shorelines focused on the results of the control effort. The majority of treatment areas showed good signs of herbicide injury and the treatments were considered a success. Some additional Purple Loosestrife plants had flowered and were now visible and this was a concern. Most of them were small seedlings that had grown since the last visit to the lake. There were also a few larger plants now visible in the dense wetland growth on the undeveloped west shoreline that had not been visible in prior inspections. These were mapped and targeted for control. One solitary colony of the invasive thin leaf cattail was still present on the northwest corner of the lake and was scheduled for treatment. Milfoil plants were not observed at any location in the lake during the detailed boat survey. The native plant communities had not changed from the time of the first treatment. In addition, no areas in the littoral area of the lake populated by native aquatic weeds plant were impacting the recreational use of the lake. 11 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 4.9 Algae Cyanobacteria are common in freshwater lakes, frequently forming dense populations or water blooms in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development of algae blooms are light, temperature, pH, and nutrient concentrations. Because of the potential that the blooms may occur, SWM staff issues annual algae information, and algae alerts when present, to all North Lake residents. The alerts caution residents and users of the presence of toxic -producing algae and recommends safe action to prevent exposure. In addition, the information concerning the Department of Ecology Algae Control Program is provided — a program that focuses on providing local governments with the tools they need to manage algae problems. A total of $250,000 will be earmarked each year to target blue-green algae due to the health risks posed to humans, pets, and livestock. In mid-April, SWM received a complaint concerning an unusual murkiness of North Lake. At the request of SWM staff, Department of Ecology DOE conducted an algal bloom test on North Lake in response to residents concerns over the persistent murky water condition in North Lake. A sample was collected by Department of Ecology staff on April 26, 2007. The testing indicated that more than a dozen different species of freshwater micro-organisms (including algae and diatoms) were detected and identified by the King County Environmental Lab, but none were at concentrations of concern for Ecology or the Department of Health. The murky nature of North Lake appears to have been due to a natural spring bloom of diatoms. 5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING During the first two years of the Ecology Grant Agreement (2005 and 2006), SWM Water Quality personnel collected herbicide samples from North Lake in the water column before and after treatment (2,4-D and glyphosate in 2005, and glyphosate only in 2006). The sampling effort was required by the Grant Agreement, and was undertaken to determine lake concentrations of herbicides, and to provide an analytical measurement of the contractor's performance. Background samples (before treatment) and post treatment samples were collected at time intervals prescribed in the Grant Agreement. Samples were taken in the middle of the lake (outside the treatment areas), and inside an individual treatment site and analyzed for the targeted herbicides. The sampling results obtained during the first two years of monitoring detected very low concentrations. Additionally, there was limited persistence of the herbicides in the water column after initial application. For these reasons, sampling in 2007 per the Grant Agreement was waived by Ecology. 12 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 6.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The elements of the Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake are based primarily on the Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). The Ecology Grant Agreement incorporates the information in the IAVMP, forming two primary components for Education and Public Involvement. The two components focus on prevention and detection of noxious aquatic and emergent weeds, and lake stewardship. The North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) oversees the implementation of the Ecology Grant Agreement, which is outlined in the 2007 North Lake Work Plan. 6.1 Community Involvement North Lake Community Involvement program for 2007 involved the following: 6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) The NLSC is charged with setting the aquatic plant management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. The NLSC is comprised of North Lake residents, Weyerhaeuser representatives and City of Federal Way staff. The Committee meets quarterly, or more often as necessary to implement Work Plan goals. The following members comprise the NLSC: Lake Residents Wendy Honey — (Chair) Debra Hansen Chuck Gibson — (Co -Chair) Barry James Julie Cleary James Chastain Weverhaueser Reimesentitive Jennifer Hale City of Federal Way Dan Smith, Surface Water Management Don Robinett, Surface Water Management The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities of the NLSC: Reviews annual plant survey information. Develops an annual aquatic plant management Work Plan based upon the information revealed in the annual plant surveys. The Work Plan prioritizes aquatic weed problem areas, identifies preferred control methods for each species, and develops the anticipated budget. Assists the City of Federal Way with oversight of control work to keep contractors accountable. 13 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT • Participates in preparation of an annual evaluation report that summarizes plant control activities, lake -user's perspectives on the plant community, and recommendations for the next year's control strategy. • Assists with presentation of aquatic plant management efforts to lake residents at an annual community meeting and Plant ID Workshop. • Helps the City of Federal Way to ensure that all lake residents receive proper notification pursuant to the requirements of the Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit. • Participates in other annual community involvement/education strategies and plant control efforts as needed. The NLSC met two times in 2008. The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. The following are brief abstracts from each NLSC meeting: 6.1.2 Development of 2007 Work Plan In May, the draft 2007 North Lake Aquatic Plant Management Draft Work Plan (Work Plan) was sent to all committee members via email for their comment. The goals and budget were based upon both the requirements outlined in the IAVMP and the specific requirements prescribed by the Ecology Grant Agreement. No comments were received, therefore SWM staff finalized the Work Plan, which included the goals and anticipated budget for the up -coming year. The following is a brief outline of the 2007 Work Plan: Task 1: Aquatic Vegetation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water Illy, purple loosestrife, and yellow flag iris), and other problematic aquatic plant issues (i.e. mud island removal) for the year. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 4.0. Task 2: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items included in Task 2 include: annual community meeting (spring) and annual Plant ID Workshop (summer); quarterly newsletter (The Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers; web site development; and development of an annual report. 6.1.3 Annual Spring Meeting The annual North Lake Spring Community Meeting was waived in 2007 due to historically poor attendance at this event. In lieu of the meeting, SWM staff mailed out copies of the final 2007 North Lake Work Plan to all lake residents, with a letter explaining the 2007 program. Comments were also requested, however no comments were received. 14 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 6.1.4 Plant ID Workshop A joint Steel Lake—North Lake Plant ID Workshop was held on July 8 at Steel Lake Park. This event provided an atmosphere of learning within a social setting. Residents from both lakes were presented information describing each aquatic plant management program. They were also able to pose questions to Surface Water Management (SWM) staff, AquaTechnex personnel and individual NLSC members. North Lake residents were afforded the opportunity to review the 2007 Work Plan and examine maps depicting noxious weed infestation areas and proposed treatment locations. In addition, various public education displays provided hands-on opportunities for individuals to view both native and noxious plants (good and bad) retrieved from their lake. Both SWM staff and lake residents harvested the live plant specimens found in North Lake for the displays. 6.1.5 Boater Education On opening day of fishing season, a local Boy Scout Troop handed out Milfoil Education Brochures to boaters at the North Lake Boat Ramp. Although boater turnout was low due to inclement weather, the brochure outlined the detrimental effect milfoil has on fresh water lakes, the propagation of the noxious plant, and how to properly clean vessels prior to entering or leaving the boating area. 6.2 Public Education The North Lake Public Education program for 2007 involved the following: 6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter SWM staff continued issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, and education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 6.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via mail and email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. Lake residents were also sent notices prior to all public meetings. During the course of 2007, SWM staff mailed out formal public notices and emailed supplemental notices to lake residents. All public notices were posted on the North Lake web page. In addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work plan activities were e-mailed to E -Subscribe participants approximately 24 hours prior to the activity on the lake. 15 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs SWM staff developed and distributed the following lake -related informational flyers: • Milfoil • Good Plants/Bad Plants • Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal • Blue Green Algae • Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese • Aquatic Weed Rake Program 6.2.4 Web Page Development In 2007, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the year. Web site information includes: • Current IAVMP (with figures and maps) • 2007 Work Plan • Chronology and description of important 2006 North Lake activities • North Lake publications such as: The Lake View; informative flyers (milfoil, blue-green algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plants/bad plants); public notices; and NLSC Meeting notes. 6.2.5 Annual Report SWM staff develops a final year-end report to all lake residents and parties of interest that describes the activities and a budget review of the prior year. 16 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 7.0 2007 BUDGET REVIEW The 2007 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the scope of aquatic weed management expected to be accomplished during the year. Table 1 below provides an overview of the final North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2007: Table 1. 2007 North Lake Budget Overview TASK Estimates Actual Expenses Task 1 & 2, Project Administration/Vegetation Management $11,995 $10,936 Task 3, Public Education $4,230 $4,347 YEAR END $16,225 $15,283 7.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administration/ Vegetation Management Table 2 below illustrates the grant -eligible budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2. Table 2. 2007 North Lake Budget, TASK 1 & 2, Project Administration/Vegetation Mgmt. GOAL 2007 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Annual Permit Fee for 2008 coverage) $338.00 $357.00 New contract RFP Advertisement $0 $43.82 Two diver surveys (Spring & Summer $2,024.00 $1.012.16 Weed rake $0 $97.91 Milfoil herbicide treatment $762.00 $0 Fragrant water lily herbicide treatment $480.00 $2,111,33 Yellow flag iris, purple loosestrife and narrow leaf cattail treatment $480.00 $2,111.33 Diver removal of milfoil $590.00 $0 Advance resident notifications & shoreline posting $705.00 $606.89 Native weed manual removal $1,350.00 $0 Water lily island control $0 $0 Post control visual inspection $751.00 $750.72 Contractor final report $0 $0 Contractor attendance at meetings $915.00 $0 Grant -eligible SWM staff wages and benefits $2,250.00 $1,692.00 Grant -eligible lake volunteer time $1,350.00 $2.153.00 TOTALS $11,995.00 $10,936.16 Note: The 2008 Weed Permit Fee ($357.00) was not a grant eligible expense. 17 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 7.2 Task 3 Public Education Table 3 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3. Table 3. 2007 North Lake Budget, TASK 3 Public Education GOAL 2007 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Refreshments & supplies for quarterly meetings $60.00 $10.63 Quarterly newsletter Lakeview $350.00 $309.08 SWM Annual Lake Report $120.00 $0 Annual Spring Community Meeting $0 $0 Plant ID workshop/cookout $200.00 $0 Public education printings $150.00 $80.47 Boater outreach program $0 $9.41 City LIVID web page $0 $0 Grant -eligible SWM staff wages and benefits $2,750.00 $3,022.00 Grant -eligible lake volunteer time $600.00 $915.00 TOTALS $4,230.00 $4,346.59 7.3 Ecology Grant Budget Review Table 5 below summarizes the running balance of the Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund grant for North Lake, set to expire December 31, 2009: Table 4. North Lake Grant Running Balance Year Grant Funds Used Running Balance Start N/A $60,158 2005 $18,882 $41,276 2006 $14,849 $26,427 2007 $11,246 $15,181 18 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 8.0 2007 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2007 The following discussion summarizes the 2006 North Lake program, and outlines recommendations for 2008: 8.1 2007 Aquatic Vegetation Management Summary The NLSC agreed that the aquatic vegetation management actions included in the 2007 Work Plan were fully implemented and that program spending did not exceed the beginning of the year budget estimates. Targeted weeds — FWL, PL and YFI — continued to be controlled. The following outlines the major 2007 developments worth noting: • The on-going success of the zero -tolerance milfoil eradication program was evidenced by the absence of the noxious weed found during the survey. As a result, 2,4-D (or equivalent) was not applied, saving program funds and eliminating concerns regarding ecological impacts of the herbicide. • Both SWM staff and NLSC Committee members agreed that herbicide treatments for FWL, YFI and PL were mostly effective in 2007. 8.2 2008 Aquatic Vegetation Management Recommendations The following outlines recommendations for 2008: • Continue implementing annual Work Plan, including conducting annual surveys and controlling noxious plants when documented. • Due to a Grant fund balance, the North Lake community should begin to seriously consider moving forward with LMD formation. Grant funds should only be enough to carry the aquatic weed management efforts through 2008. • Continue to stress open, frequent, and accurate communication with the contractor. • Continue to solicit contractor oversight assistance and follow-up observations from lake residents so that issues concerning poor treatment effectiveness can be addressed in a timely manner. • Conduct a more aggressive outreach to the property owners with purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris who have not granted access to treat. • Hold a Plant ID Workshop every two years instead of annually. 19 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 8.3 2007 Public Education Summary A wide variety of Public Education products were offered and distributed in 2007. In addition to the quarterly newsletter, the LMD distributed a blue/green algae program public notice, milfoil boater education brochures, good plant/bad plant flyers, Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese flyers, and a newly developed Be a Lake Steward flyer. The lake steward flyer describes everyday practices lake residents can adopt to help improve aquatic weed control and water quality of the lake. 8.4 2008 Public Education Recommendations Continue aggressive public education effort targeting all lake properties identified as being infested with noxious weeds in order to prevent their spread. • Implement more efficient volunteer timesheet recordkeeping and submittal procedure. Because there were problems with lake residents submitting volunteer hours in a timely fashion, a better system needs to be implemented in order for Grant Payment Request to be submitted to Ecology on time on a bi-annual basis. 8.5 2007 Ecology Grant Budget Summary North Lake completed the third year of the Ecology AWMF Grant. At the end of 2007, $15,181 was remaining from the initial $60,000 grant. Based on the expected annual expenditures for aquatic plant management, it is likely that all grant funds will be used after the 2008 season. Throughout 2007, the NLSC continued discussions concerning possible Lake Management District (LMD) formation after grant expiration. The committee benefited by participating in joint -meetings with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, learning that utility formation takes months of public process. It is expected that the NLSC will continue considering LMD formation, and begin a formal plan of action in 2008. 8.6 2007 Algae Summary SWM staff were well prepared in 2007 to alert lake residents to possible blue-green algae blooms. SWM staff will continued to follow development of the evolving Department of Ecology algae program throughout 2008 to keep informed concerning funding options, sampling protocols, and the development of new public health standards. 20 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT NORTH LAKE Aquatic Weed Management Program 2008 Final Report Prepared by: City of Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division Author: Dan Smith TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................1 2.1 IAVMP DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................................1 2.2 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM....................................................................................................................2 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT......................................................................................3 4.0 2006 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES..........................................................................4 4.1 CONTRACT FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT................................................................................4 4.2 INITIAL SYSTEMATIC SURVEY.......................................................................................................................4 North Lake Steering Committee(NLSC)...............................................................................................12 4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily.................................................................................................................................4 Development of 2008 Work Plan..........................................................................................................14 4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris.......................................................................................................................................5 Spring Meeting......................................................................................................................................14 4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife....................................................................................................................................5 Plant ID Workshop...............................................................................................................................15 4.2.4 Narrow leaf cattail...................................................................................................................................6 Boater Education..................................................................................................................................15 4.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS..............................................................................................................................6 PUBLIC EDUCATION....................................................................................................................................15 4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment...............................................................................................................7 Quarterly Newsletter.............................................................................................................................15 4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment................................................................................... 7 4.3.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment...............................................................................................................8 Educational Flyers and Signs...............................................................................................................15 4.4 YFI AND PL MANUAL CONTROL...................................................................................................................8 Press Releases.......................................................................................................................................16 4.5 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL....................................................................................................................8 Web Page Development........................................................................................................................16 4.6 WEED RAKES................................................................................................................................................8 Annual Report........................................................................................................................................16 4.7 SECOND SYSTEMATIC SURVEY.....................................................................................................................9 4.8 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................................11 4.11 ALGAE........................................................................................................................................................11 5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING.......................................................................................................12 6.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...............................................................................................12 6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.......................................................................................................................12 6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee(NLSC)...............................................................................................12 6.1.2 Development of 2008 Work Plan..........................................................................................................14 6.1.3 Spring Meeting......................................................................................................................................14 6.1.4 Plant ID Workshop...............................................................................................................................15 6.1.5 Boater Education..................................................................................................................................15 6.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION....................................................................................................................................15 6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter.............................................................................................................................15 6.2.2 Public Notices.......................................................................................................................................15 6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs...............................................................................................................15 6.2.4 Press Releases.......................................................................................................................................16 6.2.5 Web Page Development........................................................................................................................16 6.2.6 Annual Report........................................................................................................................................16 7.0 2008 BUDGET REVIEW............................................................................................................................17 7.1 TASKS 1 & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION/ VEGETATION MANAGEMENT......................................17 7.2 TASK 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION........................................................................................................................18 7.3 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET REVIEw............................................................................................................18 8.0 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT.........................................................................18 9.0 2008 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2009 ..........................................21 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 9.1 2008 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARY.............................................................................21 9.2 2009 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................21 9.3 2008 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARY..........................................................................................................22 9.4 2009 PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................22 9.5 2008 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET SUMMARY...............................................................................................22 9.6 2008 ALGAE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................22 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. 2008 North Lake Budget Overview...................................17 Table 2. 2008 North Lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2 ...............................17 Table 3. 2008 North Lake Budget, Task 3 .......................................18 Table 4. North Lake Grant Running Balance..................................18 Table 5. LIVID Assessment........................................................... 20 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE (http://www.citvoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?paqe=713) North Lake Grant Agreement 2006 DOE Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit AquaTechnex North Lake 2008 Year End Report 2008 North Lake YFI & PL Right of Entry Parcel Map NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided by all North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) members and the lake community who contributed to the successful 2008 aquatic plant management program. The Committee includes the following members: Lake residents: Wendy Honey (Chairperson), Chuck Gibson (Co -Chair), Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Barry James, and James Chastain • Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Megan Lum • City of Federal Way: Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Don Robinett (ESA & NPDES Coordinator) In addition, Surface Water Management (SWM) staff wishes to thank the City Council and City Manager for their collective support of our aquatic weed management efforts. We also recognize Kathy Hamel, Department of Ecology (Ecology), for her continuing aquatic plant management advice and encouragement. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2008, the aquatic vegetation management actions and public education goals outlined in the North Lake 2008 Work Plan were successfully implemented. Noxious aquatic plants —fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris and narrow leaf cattail — were targeted for control at as low a density as was environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that did not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. In addition, an effective public education program was conducted that helped to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake. This program also aided in the early detection of aquatic weed re -infestations by continuing to involve the North Lake community in the aquatic plant management process. This annual report summarizes the steps taken by North Lake during 2008 to conform to the aquatic weed management program established in the 2004 Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) — a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed eradication efforts in North Lake. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IAVMP Development An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) is a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed control efforts. In 2004, the North Lake community coordinated with the King County Lake Stewardship group to develop an IAVMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up- to-date IAVMP was required by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to be submitted prior to seeking future grant funding from the State. With assistance from King County, the lake community began developing an IAVMP. During this period, efforts began to prepare an Ecology Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (AWMF) grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public comment and to finalize the IAVMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way, Surface Water Management staff began participating in the process. The IAVMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the plan on October 8. With an approved IAVMP, application was made to Ecology for an AWMF grant. Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal Way. As a result, an AWMF grant was awarded to the city that included a multi-year effort to fully eradicate the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The action plan included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT control, and public education. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75% of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology. The Grant Agreement is scheduled to expire no later than December 31, 2009. The Scope of Work is broken out into the following four tasks: Task 1 — Project Administration/Management Task 2 — Vegetation Management Task 3 — Public Education Task 4 — Reporting Task 1 (Project Administration/Management) involves the maintenance of project records; submittal of payment vouchers, fiscal forms and project reports; compliance with procurement and contracting requirements; attainment of all permits, licenses, easements of property rights; and submittal of all required performance items. Task 2 (Vegetation Management) and Task 3 (Public Education) are action items specifically required by this agreement, and are outlined and described in the 2008 North Lake Work Plan. Task 4 (Reporting) involves the preparation of a final report summarizing the actions taken during the entire period of the Grant Agreement. 2.2 The Aquatic Weed Problem Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are generally of limited distribution, tend to be invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's water bodies — such as North Lake — if left unchecked. Because non-native plants have few natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out -compete native plant and animal habitats, and degrade recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2006). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un -infested areas of Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the seriousness of the threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide -spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species arc widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. The joint efforts undertaken by the North Lake Steering Committee, lake residents, and SWM staff are described in this year-end report. The document also outlines the work completed to eradicate the following three noxious weed species detected in 2008: Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Fragrant water lily Nymphaea odorata C Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus C Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria B In addition to the weeds listed above, Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) was positively identified as populating a single property near the north end of the lake in 2007. Although the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board has not classified this noxious weed, Narrow leaf cattail is currently on the noxious weed monitor list because it has caused considerable problems in the Midwest, and can hybridize with native cattail to form an even more invasive strain. Due to these factors, Ecology approved the addition of this noxious plant to the North Lake Grant Agreement scope of work. It was targeted for herbicide treatment in 2007, and again in 2008. 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT On March 31, 2006, an application for coverage under the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae in North Lake was submitted. The permit combined and replaced portions of the Aquatic Noxious Weed Control General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the Aquatic Nuisance Weed and Algae Control General NPDES Permit that was issued prior to 2006. The permit (#WAG -994094) was issued to the City's aquatic plant management contractor AquaTechnex on June 2, 2006. It governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The five-year permit expires on April 1, 2011. Ecology's new permit is issued under the authority of RCW 90.48. Such issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. Ecology decided to issue a permit that is based solely on state authority to regulate the discharge of waste materials into waters of the state. 3 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 4.0 2006 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 4.1 Contract for Aquatic Vegetation Management In 2008, AquaTechnex, Inc. operated under the last year of a two-year Professional Services Agreement (contract) with the City of Federal Way that is managed by SWM staff. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology -approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, reports as required, and attending meetings as required. 4.2 Initial Systematic Survey Due to a late start to the growing season, AquaTechnex did not complete the initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake until July 11, 2008. The survey team mapped all submerged, floating and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. In addition to making a visual inspection, the survey team collected a number of rake samples at various GPS points. These points were collected to define each treatment area through diver communication to the mapping vessel team. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex 2008 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page). Native plant information may be found in Section 4.7. Although colonies of Eurasian watermilfoil (milfoil) were distributed throughout the littoral area in the northern and central part of North Lake in 2005, no milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) has been detected since. The 2005 herbicide treatment with 2,4-D appeared to be successful in completely eradicating this State of Washington Class B Weed from North Lake. Noxious weeds found during the North Lake initial systematic survey include: • Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odroata) • Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) • Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) • Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the initial survey. 4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Fragrant waterlily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins, and can be recognized by the fragrant white, pink to purple, many -petaled flowers that float on the water surface. Their large, round, floating leaves have a distinctive slit on one side. Due to its attractiveness, this nonnative plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has been introduced to 4 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT many lakes in Washington, but can be invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas (Ecology 2006). The July 11 survey located sparse FWL growth in North Lake, and as with prior years, the colonies were noted in selected areas along the shoreline perimeter. The population densities of FWL were reported to be declining in response to treatments, and nearly eliminated in developed shoreline areas at the north end of the lake. Based on the survey results, AquaTechnex recommended targeting this species with the aquatic herbicide glyphosate (Rodeo) as necessary for complete eradication. 4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable with its showy yellow flowers colorfully displayed along the edge of water and in wetlands. The flowers occur in late spring or early summer. The noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed), including flower stalk, will grow up to nearly five feet tall. The rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense stands that exclude native wetland species (WA State Noxious Weed Control Board). The initial survey found YFI populating the shoreline perimeter, but scattered in selected locations, primarily where permission to treat was not provided by the land owners (see Section 4.3.2). Identical to the control plan implemented during the last three seasons, glyphosate (Rodeo) would be utilized for YFI treatments. Glyphosate provides effective long-term control, with applications generally made in mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide into the root system. 4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple -pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This erect, robust, square -stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an invasive, rapidly -spreading European species that is a State of Washington Class C Weed (Ecology, 2006). The noxious emergent plant was reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake, although the survey occurred early in the growing season for this perennial weed. Because an aquatic plant survey only provides a snapshot of the conditions present in the lake at the time of the inspection, it was expected that additional PL seedlings would emerge from the lake sediments along the shorelines later in the growing season. Identical to YFI treatment, the proposed control action for PL would involve herbicide application on private property. Therefore, permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see Section 4.3.2). NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 4.2.4 Narrow leaf cattail Narrow leaf cattail is a herbaceous, rhizomatous, perennial plant with long, slender, green stalks topped with brown, fluffy, sausage-shaped flowering heads. It spreads both vegetatively and by seed, particularly under drawdown conditions, and is generally found in deeper water than native cattail. Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) is a non-native aquatic weed currently on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board "monitor list". This plant has not been classified yet based on the species stage of invasion, but the Board is keeping watch to see if it warrants addition to the Noxious Weed list. The initial survey found a dwindling stand of narrow leaf cattail populating a singular private shoreline at the northwest corner of the lake. The 2007 herbicide treatment was effective at the margins of the stand, but internal plant sections were noted to be surviving in 2008. This was supported by observations made by Jenifer Parsons (Department of Ecology) during a survey the first week of June. 4.3 Herbicide Treatments The herbicide treatment program was designed to meet the requirements of both the Ecology Grant Agreement and NPDES permit. Within this framework, Year Two Integrated Treatment Plan benchmarks were followed where practical. The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator also must comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. Glyphosate Glyphosate (Rodeo) was used to treat FWL, YFI, PL and narrow leaf cattail on North Lake in 2006. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic applications. The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days, seven days on more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody plants. It is known that extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above -ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT The advantages of glyphosate include: • The product is a fast -acting systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with no impact to plants not treated. • Application can be conducted in a spot -treatment or isolated area fashion. • There are no water use restrictions. 4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined in the Ecology Grant Agreement. The plan was designed to achieve the following: • Gradually replace FWL with native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish habitat. • Improve boater access and provide safer recreation opportunities, • Reduce the possibility of excessive amounts of dying vegetation that could contribute to increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms). • Reduce the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a demand on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life. The AquaTechnex 2006 North Lake Year End Report (found on the SWM website) contains maps with locations of FWL colonies. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the Illy pads by a two -person crew using boat -mounted low-pressure spray equipment. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process included reapplication to areas that did not uptake enough herbicide because of weather or plant wash off. The total area treated equaled less than one acre. The first glyphosate application of FWL was conducted on the morning of August 1. A second and final application occurred August 28. 4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment Following the requirements outlined in the Grant Agreement, eradication of all YFI and PL continued in 2008. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds. Maps showing YSI and PL colony locations and all lake parcels granting access for treatment may be found on the SWM website. YFI and PL colonies were treated on August 1, follow-up spot treatment occurred on August 28. The YFI and PL -treated areas in 2008 totaled less than one acre. During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (Rodeo). The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent 7 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT ornamental plants or grasses. For PL, spraying individual plant was deemed the most effective application method (versus wicking) given the issues of work efficiency and accessibility. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for FWL. 4.3.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment The single stand of this invasive aquatic weed was treated on August 1 with glyphosate. Permission (right of entry) from the affected landowner was obtained because the proposed control action would involve herbicide application (glyphosate) on private property. The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for the other targeted noxious species. 4.4 YFI and PL Manual Control The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake to help control the spread of both YFI and PL. SWM staff issued notices to all lake residents regarding proper hand pulling and digging techniques for YFI. For PL, hand removal methods (digging up the roots or cutting back the stalks) were offered as effective options, including proper disposal of all organic debris (roots, seed heads and stems). 4.5 Water Lily Island Control Water lily islands have decreased considerably around the lake, particularly at the south end of the lake. As a result, lake access has improved tremendously following the volunteer efforts beginning in 2006 that eventually permanently opened and deepened water access for a number of lake residents. The NLSC agreed that floating FWL island removal action would continue to be implemented on an as -needed basis if floating masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake. C 94RT1T _:I:F1ITM The weed rake loan program continued in 2008, providing North Lake residents an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes were used as necessary through the summer to maintain the beneficial uses of the shoreline for fishing, boating and swimming. Weed rakes can only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the "FW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet. Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two different styles of rakes depending on the type of plant targeted: a rake with a sharp cutting blade NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged plants. Because milfoil was not detected during the initial survey, weed rakes were loaned out immediately to lake residents impacted only by native weed infestations. Rakes were checked out to approximately three households until September 15 when the program was shut down for the season pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet requirements. 4.7 Second Systematic Survey The second survey was performed on August 21. The objective was to quantify the vegetation present and to provide a continued baseline of the condition of the lake plant communities. Methods used were identical to the initial survey. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex 2008 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page). In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section 4.0, the native species documented during the second systematic survey was reported to be identical to 2007 populations and included: EMERGENT PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Cattail Typha spp. Native Spike Rush Eleocharis sp. Native Bull Rush Scirpus spp. Native FLOATING PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Yellow pond lily Nuphar spp. Native Spatterdock Nuphar polysepalum Native Watershield Brasenia schreberi Native SUBMERSED PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Muskgrass Chara sp. Native Naiad Na/as sp. Native Large leaf pondweed Potamogeton Amplifoious Native Clasping -leaf pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii Native American elodea Elodea Canadensis Native Bladderwort Utricularia sp. Native Northern watermilfoil Myriophyllum sibericum Native Emergent Plants Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species, Typha spp. (Cattail), Eleocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush), that grow in the shallow margins of a lake. The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and mammals. Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese. All of North NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT Lake's emergent vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and help to stabilize shorelines. Floating Plants Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and provides spawning habitat for fish. Nuphar polysepalum (Spatterdock) is a perennial waterlily-like plant that forms extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. When mature, Spatterdock has large elephant -ear - shaped leaves and yellow flowers. Brasenia schreberi (Water -shield) is a native plant, similar to water lily. They are identified by their long reddish leaf stalks attached to the centers of the floating oval leaves which give them an umbrella -like appearance. Water -shield flowers are small, purplish, and rise slightly above the water. Submersed Plants Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that dominates the lake bottom. Unlike most other perennial aquatic plants, it reproduces from seed each year. The aquatic plant generally grows rapidly in the spring, produces seeds that drop them to the lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed population to the point of excluding other native plants. AquaTechnex reports that the areas in the northern area of the lake that were dominated by Najas sp. become extremely dense by mid summer. Although these plants have the potential to cause problems for swimmers and boaters in shallow waters, the absence of complaints indicate that beneficial uses of the lake have not yet been adversely impacted by this species. Other submerged plant species in the lake include Potamogeton amplifolious (Large leaf pondweed) and Potamogeton richardsonii (Clasping leaf pondweed) and Potamogeton praelongus (White stemmed pondweed). These native members of the pondweed family occur in small clumps and were observed in similar density throughout the remaining deeper littoral lake zones. Because of their depth, these plants did not appear to be impacting beneficial uses of the lake. The native aquatic plant Elodea acts as an under story or secondary plant in the lake, and can expand to the point of causing major problems. The absence of complaints from lake residents concerning this species indicate that beneficial uses were not impacted. Chara (Muskgrass) is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases, this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem to lake users. Utricularia sp or Bladderworts are unique in the aquatic environment in that they are carnivorous, with a number of small bladders along the stems and leaves. The plant is similar to milfoil, but the bladders distinguish it from that species. 10 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT Assuming that there are no changes in the plant density from 2007, North Lake remains well within the WDFW and Ecology criteria for a minimum of 35% native vegetation littoral zone coverage to support good fish habitat. 4.8 Post Control Visual Assessment During the Second Systematic Survey on August 21, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the glyphosate herbicide treatments and control methods conducted in 2008 on the four targeted species (FWL, PL, YFI and narrow leaf cattail). The cool and prolonged spring weather prevented a normal start to aquatic plant management activities in 2008. In addition, continued wet weather throughout the summer delayed treatments. As a result, maximum control may have not been achieved compared to past years. In all, the densities of all targeted species have been reduced, but not fully eradicated. The AquaTechnex Final report states that the 2008 control efforts provided good results in all areas treated, with visible signs of herbicide injury: • FWL is close to being eliminated. • YFI continues to remain on properties not providing rights of entry for treatment. • Shoreline stands of PL are close to being eliminated, but the presence of seedlings each year indicate that a seed bank has been established. • The stand of Narrow leaf cattail showed signs of extreme browning. 4.11 Algae Cyanobacteria are common in freshwater lakes, frequently forming dense populations or water blooms in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development of algae blooms are light, temperature, pH, and nutrient concentrations. Because of the potential that the blooms may occur, SWM staff issues annual algae information, and algae alerts when present, to all North Lake residents. The alerts caution residents and users of the presence of toxic -producing algae and recommends safe action to prevent exposure. In addition, the information concerning the Department of Ecology Algae Control Program is provided — a program that focuses on providing local governments with the tools they need to manage algae problems. A total of $250,000 will be earmarked each year to target blue-green algae due to the health risks posed to humans, pets, and livestock. In late June, SWM received a complaint from a lakefront owner concerning a possible toxic algae bloom. Upon review of electronic photographs, it was determined to be filamentous algae — harmless but unsightly. No further testing was conducted. 11 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING During the first two years of the Ecology Grant Agreement (2005 and 2006), SWM Water Quality personnel collected herbicide samples from North Lake in the water column before and after treatment (2,4-D and glyphosate in 2005, and glyphosate only in 2006). The sampling effort was required by the Grant Agreement, and was undertaken to determine lake concentrations of herbicides, and to provide an analytical measurement of the contractor's performance. Background samples (before treatment) and post treatment samples were collected at time intervals prescribed in the Grant Agreement. Samples were taken in the middle of the lake (outside the treatment areas), and inside an individual treatment site and analyzed for the targeted herbicides. The sampling results obtained during the first two years of monitoring detected very low concentrations. Additionally, there was limited persistence of the herbicides in the water column after initial application. For these reasons, sampling in 2007 and 2008 per the Grant Agreement was waived by Ecology. 6.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The elements of the Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake are based primarily on the Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). The Ecology Grant Agreement incorporates the information in the IAVMP, forming two primary components for Education and Public Involvement. The two components focus on prevention and detection of noxious aquatic and emergent weeds, and lake stewardship. The North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) oversees the implementation of the Ecology Grant Agreement, which is outlined in the 2008 North Lake Work Plan. 6.1 Community Involvement North Lake Community Involvement program for 2008 involved the following: 6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) The NLSC is charged with setting the aquatic plant management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. The NLSC is comprised of North Lake residents, Weyerhaeuser representatives and City of Federal Way staff. The Committee meets quarterly, or more often as necessary to implement Work Plan goals. 12 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT The following members comprise the NLSC: Lake Residents Wendy Honey — (Chair) Debra Hansen Chuck Gibson — (Vice Chair) Barry James Julie Cleary James Chastain Weyerhaeuser Representative Megan Lum City of Federal Way Dan Smith, Surface Water Management Don Robinett, Surface Water Management The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities of the NLSC: • Reviews annual plant survey information. • Develops an annual aquatic plant management Work Plan based upon the information revealed in the annual plant surveys. The Work Plan prioritizes aquatic weed problem areas, identifies preferred control methods for each species, and develops the anticipated budget. • Assists the City of Federal Way with oversight of control work to keep contractors accountable. • Participates in preparation of an annual evaluation report that summarizes plant control activities, lake -user's perspectives on the plant community, and recommendations for the next year's control strategy. • Assists with presentation of aquatic plant management efforts to lake residents at an annual community meeting and Plant ID Workshop. • Helps the City of Federal Way to ensure that all lake residents receive proper notification pursuant to the requirements of the Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit. • Participates in other annual community involvement/education strategies and plant control efforts as needed. The NLSC met two times in 2008. The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. The following are brief abstracts from each NLSC meeting: May 8, 2008 • Review of Ecology Grant funding balance (expires December 31, 2009). • Discussion of LMD development process. Committee representatives in attendance reaffirm their intention to form a LMD by the end of 2009. • Review of proposed 2008 Work Plan and budget. 13 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT October 8, 2008 • Update information presented concerning balance of Ecology Grant funding. • Review of 2008 Work Plan accomplishments. • Committee agrees to offer a one-year contract extension to AquaTechnex. • Begin deciding key first elements of LMD formation, including: (1) scope, (2) costs, (3) boundary, and (4) rate structure. 6.1.2 Development of 2008 Work Plan On May 8, the NLSC discussed both the structure and content of the 2008 North Lake Aquatic Plant Management Draft Work Plan (Work Plan). The goals and budget were based upon both the requirements outlined in the IAVMP and the specific requirements prescribed by the Ecology Grant Agreement. Following the meeting, SWM staff finalized the Work Plan, which included the goals and anticipated budget for the up -coming year. The following is a brief outline of the 2008 Work Plan: Task 1: Aquatic Vegetation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water Illy, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris, and narrow leaf cattail), and other problematic aquatic plant issues (i.e. mud island removal) for the year. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 4.0. Task 2: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items included in Task 2 include: community meetings (spring) and Plant ID Workshops (summer); quarterly newsletter (The Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers and press releases; web site development; and development of an annual report. 6.1.3 Spring Meeting Due to historically poor attendance, the North Lake Spring Community Meeting was not held this year. In year's past, the meeting was used to allow staff to review the efforts undertaken the previous year, allowing questions from lake residents to be addressed. In lieu of the meeting, SWM staff mailed out copies of the final 2008 North Lake Work Plan to all lake residents, with a letter explaining the 2008 program. Comments were also requested, however no comments were received. 14 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 6.1.4 Plant ID Workshop At the end of 2007, the North Lake committee agreed to hold the Plant ID Workshop every other year. This was due to declining attendance (most of the attendees are committee members that do not necessarily benefit from the education). It was noted that the poor attendance may have been a reflection of the program's success. As a result, the next Plant ID Workshop would not be held until 2009. In the interim, educational materials typically distributed during the workshop (Good Plant/Bad Plant) were made available on North Lake's web site year round and were discussed in the July 2008 issue of the newsletter. 6.1.5 Boater Education On April 26 (Opening Day of Fishing Season), five lake resident volunteers handed out approximately 30 Milfoil Education Brochures to boaters at the North Lake Boat Ramp. The brochure outlines the detrimental effect milfoil has on fresh water lakes, the propagation of the noxious plant, and reminds boaters to properly clean their vessels prior to entering or leaving the boating area. 6.2 Public Education The North Lake Public Education program for 2008 involved the following: 6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter SWM staff continued issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, and education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 6.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via mail and email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. Lake residents were also sent notices prior to all public meetings. During the course of 2008, SWM staff mailed out three formal public notices and emailed approximately four supplemental notices to lake residents. All public notices were posted on the North Lake web page. In addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work plan activities were e-mailed to E -Subscribe participants approximately 24 hours prior to the activity on the lake. 6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs SWM staff developed and/or distributed the following lake -related informational flyers and brochures: 15 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT • Milfoil Boater Education • Good Plants/Bad Plants • Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal • Washington State Department of Health — Toxic Blue Green Algae • Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese • Aquatic Weed Rake Program • Be Lake Steward 6.2.4 Press Releases At the request of the North Lake Steering Committee and Steel Lake Advisory Committee, SWM staff developed and distributed a press release on every day practices City residents can adopt which will help improve the water quality in the lake and reduce the propagation of invasive aquatic plants. The goal of the press release was to expand the publication education target audience to include lake users and City residents in the watershed. The press release was distributed on June 24, 2008. 6.2.5 Web Page Development In 2008, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the year. Web site information includes: • Current IAVMP (with figures and maps) • 2008 Work Plan • Chronology and description of important 2008 North Lake activities • North Lake publications such as: The Lake View; informative flyers (milfoil, blue-green algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plants/bad plants); public notices; and NLSC Meeting notes. 6.2.6 Annual Report SWM staff develops and distributes a final year-end report for all lake residents and parties of interest that describes the activities and a budget review of the prior year. 16 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 7.0 2008 BUDGET REVIEW The 2008 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the scope of aquatic weed management expected to be accomplished during the year. Table 1 below provides an overview of the final North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2008: Table 1. 2008 North Lake Budget Overview TASK Estimates Actual Expenses Task 1 & 2, Project Administration/Vegetation Management $10,935 $6,069 Task 3, Public Education $4,200 $1,161 YEAR END $15,135 $7,230 7.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administration/ Vegetation Management Table 2 below illustrates the grant -eligible budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2. Table 2. 2008 North Lake Budget, TASK 1 & 2, Project Administration/Vegetation Mgmt. GOAL 2008 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Annual Permit Fee for 2009 coverage) 338 397 Two diver surveys (Spring & Summer 2,024 2,029 Milfoil herbicide treatment 762 0 Fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris, purple loosestrife and narrow leaf cattail treatment 2,000 442 Diver removal of milfoil 590 0 Advance resident notifications & shoreline posting 705 353 Native weed manual removal 1,350 0 Water lily island control 0 0 Post control visual inspection 751 752 Contractor attendance at meetings 915 126 Contractor final report 0 0 Grant eligible SWM staff time 1,500 1,970 TOTALS 10,935 6,069 Note: The 2008 Weed Permit Fee ($397.00) was not a grant eligible expense. 17 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 7.2 Task 3 Public Education Table 3 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3. Table 3. 2008 North Lake Budget, TASK 3 Public Education GOAL 2008 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Meeting refreshments 50 16 Quarterly newsletter 500 255 Annual evaluation report 150 0 Annual Spring Community Meeting 0 0 Plant ID workshop/cookout 600 0 Public education printing 150 165 Boater outreach program 0 0 City LMD web page 0 0 Grant -eligible SWM staff wages and benefits 2,750 725 TOTALS 4,200 1,161 7.3 Ecology Grant Budget Review Table 4 below summarizes the running balance of the Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund grant for North Lake, set to expire December 31, 2009: Table 4. North Lake Grant Running Balance Year Grant Funds Used Running Balance Start N/A $60,158 2005 $18,882 $41,276 2006 $14,849 $26,427 2007 $11,246 $15,181 2008 $5,623 $9,558 8.0 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT In mid 2007, SWM staff began preparing the NLSC for the development of a Lake Management District (LMD) with a series of committee meetings. With the expectation that grant funding would be exhausted by the end of 2009, it was stressed that the process for LMD formation should begin near the end of 2008 in order to provide a continuous funding source. 18 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT The NLSC benefited by participating in joint -meetings with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, learning that utility formation takes months of public process. During the May 8, 2008 meeting, SWM staff requested that a formal letter from lake residents be issued to the City Manager which expresses their interest in forming a LMD for North Lake. A letter signed by 16 lake residents was received by Public Works on August 25. Soon after, SWM staff began assembling information concerning other Washington State LMDs. From this information, several assessment rate structure options were developed that reflected the various zoning types and quantity of parcels surrounding the lake. This information was presented to the NLSC on October 8. The committee was able to agree upon the following: scope, annual cost, boundary, and duration. Scope The NLSC agreed that the primary scope would include a continuation of the present aquatic weed management activities (annual surveys, selected control, and public education), and also include a limited water quality monitoring program based loosely on the previously discontinued King County Lake Stewardship program which was disbanded in 2005 when the city annexed North Lake. In addition, other items could be added as needed pursuant to the broader scope outlined in RCW 36.61.020. Annual Cost The annual cost was derived from the expected contractor services, printing and laboratory fees. In addition, SWM staff time would also be built into the annual expenses. Boundary It was agreed that the boundary only include lakefront properties. Duration The duration of the LMD would be for ten (10) years. The following is the LMD rate structure developed by SWM staff and presented at a public meeting on February 24, 2009: On December 8, SWM staff and NLSC Vice -Chair Chuck Gibson met with a Weyerhaeuser representative to provide basic LMD information and proposed assessment rates. It is anticipated that a draft petition (pursuant to RCW 36.61.030) that addresses the items listed above will be developed early in 2009. 19 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT Table 5. LMD Assessment Assessment Category Rate Revenue ($) Single Family Residential (RS9.6), Lakefront property Developed property (53 units) X $100.00 per unit $5,300 Vacant property (168 ft) X $0.70 per lakefront foot $118 Single Family Residential (RS9.6), Non -lakefront property with deeded lake access Developed property (1 unit) X $75.00 per unit $75 Vacant property (1 unit) X $15.00 per unit $15 Weyerhaeuser (RS9.6) Vacant property (82 ft) X $0.70 per lakefront foot $ 57 Weyerhaeuser (CP -1) Commercial property (3,714 ft) X $0.80 per lakefront foot $2,971 WDFW Public Boat Launch Single annual assessment $4,000 TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT $12,536 City of Federal Way Zoning Designations: Office Zone CP -1 Corporate Park -1 Single Family Residential RS9.6 0 unit/9,600 square feet) 20 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 9.0 2008 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2009 The following discussion summarizes the 2008 North Lake program, and outlines recommendations for 2009: 9.1 2008 Aquatic Vegetation Management Summary The NLSC agreed that the aquatic vegetation management actions included in the 2008 Work Plan were fully implemented. Targeted weeds — FWL, PL, YFI, and Narrow leaf cattail — continued to be controlled. The following outlines the major 2008 developments worth noting: • The NLSC • The on-going success of the zero -tolerance milfoil eradication program was evidenced by the absence of the noxious weed found during the survey. As a result, 2,4-D (or equivalent) was not applied, saving program funds and eliminating concerns regarding ecological impacts of the herbicide. • Both SWM staff and NLSC Committee members agreed that herbicide treatments for FWL, YFI and PL were not completely effective in 2008 due to the late start (cool spring) and other wet weather delays. • GPS shape files locating properties giving rights of entry were provided to the contractor. This method proved to be a much better way to identify properties to be treated, and ensured that all targeted plants were properly sprayed with herbicide. • The Department of Ecology approved that SWM staff time hours spent toward LMD development in 2008 and 2009 may be submitted for grant reimbursement. 9.2 2009 Aquatic Vegetation Management Recommendations The following outlines recommendations for 2009: • Continue implementing annual Work Plan, including conducting annual surveys and controlling noxious plants when documented. • Continue moving forward with LMD formation. Grant funds should only be enough to carry the aquatic weed management efforts through 2009. • Continue to stress open, frequent, and accurate communication with the contractor. • Continue to solicit contractor oversight assistance and follow-up observations from lake residents so that issues concerning poor treatment effectiveness can be addressed in a timely manner. • Conduct a more aggressive outreach to the property owners with purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris who have not granted access to treat. • Hold a Plant ID Workshop every two years instead of annually. 21 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 9.3 2008 Public Education Summary A wide variety of Public Education products were offered and distributed in 2008. In addition to the quarterly newsletter, the LMD distributed Washington Department of Health Toxic Blue Green Algae brochure, milfoil boater education brochures, good plant/bad plant flyers, Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese flyers, and a Be a Lake Steward flyer and press release. The lake steward flyer and press release describe everyday practices lake residents can adopt to help improve aquatic weed control and water quality of the lake. 9.4 2009 Public Education Recommendations Continue aggressive public education effort targeting all lake properties identified as being infested with noxious weeds in order to prevent their spread. • Implement more efficient volunteer timesheet recordkeeping and submittal procedure. Because there were problems with lake residents submitting volunteer hours in a timely fashion, a better system needs to be implemented in order for Grant Payment Request to be submitted to Ecology on time on a bi-annual basis. 9.5 2008 Ecology Grant Budget Summary North Lake completed the fourth year of the Ecology AWMF Grant. At the end of 2008, $9,558 was left out of the initial $60,000 grant. Based on the expected annual expenditures for aquatic plant management, it is likely that all grant funds will be used after the 2009 season. 9.6 2008 Algae Summary SWM staff were well prepared in 2008 to alert lake residents to possible blue-green algae blooms. SWM staff will continued to follow development of the evolving Department of Ecology algae program throughout 2008 to keep informed concerning funding options, sampling protocols, and the development of new public health standards. 22 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT NORTH LAKE Aquatic Weed Management Program 2009 Final Report Prepared by: City of Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division Author: Dan Smith TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................1 2.1 IAVMP DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................................1 2.2 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM....................................................................................................................2 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT......................................................................................3 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT....................................................................................4 5.0 2009 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES..........................................................................4 5.1 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY -NOXIOUS PLANTS....................................................................................................4 5.1.1 Fragrant Water Lily.................................................................................................................................5 Quarterly Newsletter.............................................................................................................................14 5.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris.......................................................................................................................................5 Public Notices.......................................................................................................................................14 5.1.3 Purple Loosestrife....................................................................................................................................5 Educational Flyers and Signs...............................................................................................................14 5.1.4 Narrow leaf cattail...................................................................................................................................6 Web Page Development........................................................................................................................15 5.2 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS..............................................................................................................................6 Annual Report........................................................................................................................................15 5.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment...............................................................................................................7 2009 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARY.............................................................................19 5.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment................................................................................... 7 5.2.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment...............................................................................................................8 5.3 YFI AND PL MANUAL CONTROL...................................................................................................................8 5.4 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL....................................................................................................................8 5.5 WEED RAKES................................................................................................................................................8 5.6 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY -NATIVE PLANTS......................................................................................................9 5.7 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................................10 5.8 ALGAE........................................................................................................................................................10 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING.......................................................................................................11 7.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...............................................................................................11 7.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.......................................................................................................................12 7.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee(NLSC)...............................................................................................12 7.1.2 Development of 2009 Work Plan..........................................................................................................13 7.1.3 Plant ID Workshop...............................................................................................................................13 7.1.4 Boater Education..................................................................................................................................14 7.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION....................................................................................................................................14 7.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter.............................................................................................................................14 7.2.2 Public Notices.......................................................................................................................................14 7.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs...............................................................................................................14 7.2.4 Web Page Development........................................................................................................................15 7.2.5 Annual Report........................................................................................................................................15 8.0 2009 BUDGET REVIEW............................................................................................................................15 8.1 TASKS 1 & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION/ VEGETATION MANAGEMENT......................................15 8.2 TASK 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION........................................................................................................................16 8.3 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET REVIEw............................................................................................................16 9.0 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT.........................................................................17 10.0 2009 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2010 ..........................................18 10.1 2009 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARY.............................................................................19 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT 10.2 2010 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................19 10.3 2009 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARY..........................................................................................................19 10.4 2010 PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................20 10.5 2009 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET SUMMARY...............................................................................................20 10.6 2009 ALGAE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................20 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. 2009 North Lake Budget Overview....................................15 Table 2. 2009 North Lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2 ................................16 Table 3. 2009 North Lake Budget, Task 3 ........................................16 Table 4. North Lake Grant Running Balance...................................17 Table 5. LIVID Assessment Rates .................................................. 18 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE (http://www.citvoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?paqe=713) North Lake Grant Agreement 2006 DOE Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit AquaTechnex North Lake 2009 Year End Report 2009 North Lake YFI & PL Right of Entry Parcel Map NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided by all North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) members and the lake community who contributed to the successful 2009 aquatic plant management program. The Committee includes the following members: Lake residents: Wendy Honey (Chairperson), Chuck Gibson (Co -Chair), Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Barry James, and James Chastain • Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Jerry heinz • City of Federal Way: Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Hollie Shilley (ESA & NPDES Coordinator) In addition, Surface Water Management (SWM) staff wishes to thank the City Council and City Manager for their collective support of our aquatic weed management efforts. We also recognize Kathy Hamel, Department of Ecology (Ecology), for her continuing aquatic plant management advice and encouragement. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2009, the aquatic vegetation management actions and public education goals outlined in the North Lake 2009 Work Plan were successfully implemented. Noxious aquatic plants —fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris and narrow leaf cattail — were targeted for control at as low a density as was environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that did not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. In addition, an effective public education program was conducted that helped to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake. This program also aided in the early detection of aquatic weed re -infestations by continuing to involve the North Lake community in the aquatic plant management process. North Lake remains well within the WDFW and Ecology criteria for a minimum of 35% native vegetation littoral zone coverage to support good fish habitat. This annual report summarizes the steps taken by North Lake during 2009 to conform to the aquatic weed management program established in the 2004 Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) — a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed eradication efforts in North Lake. In addition, all activities undertaken were within the scope of work authorized by the five-year Department of Ecology (Ecology) Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (AWMF) grant 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IAVMP Development An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) is a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed control efforts. In 2004, the North Lake community coordinated with the King County Lake Stewardship group to develop an IAVMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up- to-date IAVMP was required by Ecology to be submitted prior to seeking future grant funding from the State. With assistance from King County, the lake community began developing an IAVMP. During this period, efforts began to prepare an AWMF grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public comment and to finalize the IAVMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way, Surface Water Management staff began participating in the process. The IAVMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the plan on October 8. With an approved IAVMP, application was made to Ecology for an AWMF grant. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal Way. As a result, an AWMF grant was awarded to the city that included a multi-year effort to fully eradicate the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The action plan included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, control, and public education. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75% of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology. The Grant Agreement was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2009. The Scope of Work is broken out into the following four tasks: Task 1 — Project Administration/Management Task 2 — Vegetation Management Task 3 — Public Education Task 4 — Reporting Task 1 (Project Administration/Management) involves the maintenance of project records; submittal of payment vouchers, fiscal forms and project reports; compliance with procurement and contracting requirements; attainment of all permits, licenses, easements of property rights; and submittal of all required performance items. Task 2 (Vegetation Management) and Task 3 (Public Education) are action items specifically required by this agreement, and are outlined and described in the 2009 North Lake Work Plan. Task 4 (Reporting) involves the preparation of a final report summarizing the actions taken during the entire period of the Grant Agreement. 2.2 The Aquatic Weed Problem Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are generally of limited distribution, tend to be invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's waterbodies, such as North Lake, if left unchecked. Because nonnative plants have few natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out -competing and effectively destroying native plant and animal habitats. This can lead to a degradation of recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2005). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un -infested areas of Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the seriousness of the threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide -spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. The joint efforts undertaken by the North Lake Steering Committee, lake residents, and SWM staff are described in this year-end report. The document also outlines the work completed to eradicate the following three noxious weed species detected in 2009: Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Fragrant water lily Nymphaea odorata C Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus C Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria B In addition to the weeds listed above, Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) was positively identified as populating a single property near the north end of the lake in 2007. Although the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board has not classified this noxious weed, Narrow leaf cattail is currently on the noxious weed monitor list because it has caused considerable problems in the Midwest, and can hybridize with native cattail to form an even more invasive strain. Due to these factors, Ecology approved the addition of this noxious plant to the North Lake Grant Agreement scope of work. It was targeted for herbicide treatment in 2007, 2008, and 2009. 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT On March 31, 2006, an application for coverage under the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae in North Lake was submitted. The permit combined and replaced portions of the Aquatic Noxious Weed Control General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the Aquatic Nuisance Weed and Algae Control General NPDES Permit that was issued prior to 2006. The permit (#WAG -994094) was issued to the City's aquatic plant management contractor AquaTechnex on June 2, 2006. It governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The five-year permit expires on April 1, 2011. Ecology's new permit is issued under the authority of RCW 90.48. Such issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. 3 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT Ecology decided to issue a permit that is based solely on state authority to regulate the discharge of waste materials into waters of the state. 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT In 2009, AquaTechnex, Inc. operated under the last year of a two-year Professional Services Agreement (contract) with the City of Federal Way. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology -approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, reports as required, and attending meetings as required. 5.0 2009 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 5.1 Systematic Survey — Noxious Plants AquaTechnex completed the initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake on June 17, and followed up with a second survey on September 18. For each effort, the survey team mapped all submerged, floating and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. In addition to making visual inspections, the survey team collected a number of rake samples at various GPS points. These points were collected to define each treatment area through diver communication to the mapping vessel team. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex 2009 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page). Native plant information may be found in Section 5.6. Although colonies of Eurasian watermilfoil (milfoil) were distributed throughout the littoral area in the northern and central part of North Lake in 2005, no milfoil has been detected since. The 2005 herbicide treatment with 2,4-D appeared to be successful in completely eradicating this State of Washington Class B Weed from North Lake. Noxious weeds found during the 2009 North Lake initial systematic survey included: • Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odroata) • Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) • Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) • Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the 2009 plant survey. 5.1.1 Fragrant Water Lily Fragrant waterlily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins, and can be recognized by the fragrant white, pink to purple, many -petaled flowers that float on the water surface. Their large, round, floating leaves have a distinctive slit on one side. Due to its attractiveness, this nonnative plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has been introduced to many lakes in Washington, but can be invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas (Ecology 2006). The June 17 survey located sparse FWL growth in North Lake, and as with prior years, the colonies were noted in selected areas along the shoreline perimeter. The population densities of FWL were reported to be declining in response to treatments, and nearly eliminated in developed shoreline areas. Based on the survey results, AquaTechnex recommended targeting this species with the aquatic herbicide glyphosate (Rodeo) as necessary for complete eradication. 5.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable with its showy yellow flowers colorfully displayed along the edge of water and in wetlands. The flowers occur in late spring or early summer. The noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed), including flower stalk, will grow up to nearly five feet tall. The rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense stands that exclude native wetland species (WA State Noxious Weed Control Board). The initial survey found YFI populating the shoreline perimeter in selected locations, primarily where permission to treat was not provided by the land owners. Identical to the control plan implemented during the last three seasons, glyphosate (Rodeo) would be utilized for YFI treatments. Glyphosate provides effective long-term control, with applications generally made in mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide into the root system. 5.1.3 Purple Loosestrife Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple -pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This erect, robust, square -stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an invasive, rapidly -spreading European species that is a State of Washington Class C Weed (Ecology, 2006). The noxious emergent plant was reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake. Because an aquatic plant survey only provides a snapshot of the conditions present in the lake at the time of the inspection, it was expected that additional PL seedlings would emerge from the lake sediments along the shorelines later in the growing season. Identical to YFI treatment, the proposed control action for PL would involve herbicide application on private property. Therefore, permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see Section 5.2.2). NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT 5.1.4 Narrow leaf cattail Narrow leaf cattail is a herbaceous, rhizomatous, perennial plant with long, slender, green stalks topped with brown, fluffy, sausage-shaped flowering heads. It spreads both vegetatively and by seed, particularly under drawdown conditions, and is generally found in deeper water than native cattail. Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) is a non-native aquatic weed currently on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board "monitor list". This plant has not been classified yet based on the species stage of invasion, but the Board is monitoring the situation to determine if it warrants addition to the Noxious Weed list. Although the previous year's herbicide treatment nearly eradicated the entire stand of this noxious weed, the 2009 initial survey found a small amount of re -growth in the singular colony populating a small section of shoreline at the northwest corner of the lake. 5.2 Herbicide Treatments The herbicide treatment program was designed to meet the requirements of both the Ecology Grant Agreement and NPDES permit. Within this framework, Year Two Integrated Treatment Plan benchmarks were followed where practical. The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator also must comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. Glyphosate Glyphosate (Rodeo) was used to treat FWL, YFI, PL and narrow leaf cattail on North Lake in 2009. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic applications. The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days, seven days on more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody plants. It is known that extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above -ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. The advantages of glyphosate include: NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT The product is a systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with no impact to plants not treated. Application can be conducted in a spot -treatment or isolated area fashion. There are no water use restrictions. 5.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined in the Ecology Grant Agreement. The plan was designed to achieve the following: • Gradually replace FWL with native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish habitat. • Improve boater access and provide safer recreation opportunities, • Reduce the possibility of excessive amounts of dying vegetation that could contribute to increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms). • Reduce the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a demand on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life. The AquaTechnex 2009 North Lake Year End Report (found on the SWM website) contains maps with locations of FWL colonies. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the Illy pads by a two -person crew using boat -mounted low-pressure spray equipment. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process included reapplication to areas that did not uptake enough herbicide because of weather or plant wash off. The total area treated equaled less than one acre. The first glyphosate application of FWL was conducted on the morning of July 31. A second and final application occurred August 28. 5.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment Following the requirements outlined in the Grant Agreement, eradication of all YFI and PL continued in 2009. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds. Maps showing YSI and PL colony locations and all lake parcels granting access for treatment may be found on the SWM website. YFI and PL colonies were treated on July 31, follow-up spot treatment occurred on August 28. The YFI and PL -treated areas in 2009 totaled less than one acre. During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (Rodeo). The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent ornamental plants or grasses. For PL, spraying individual plant was deemed the most effective application method (versus wicking) given the issues of work efficiency and accessibility. The NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for FWL. 5.2.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment The single stand of this invasive aquatic weed was treated on July 31 with glyphosate. Permission (right of entry) from the affected landowner was obtained because the proposed control action would involve herbicide application (glyphosate) on private property. The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for the other targeted noxious species. 5.3 YFI and PL Manual Control The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake to help control the spread of both YFI and PL. SWM staff issued notices to all lake residents regarding proper hand pulling and digging techniques for YFI. For PL, hand removal methods (digging up the roots or cutting back the stalks) were offered as effective options, including proper disposal of all organic debris (roots, seed heads and stems). 5.4 Water Lily Island Control Water lily islands have decreased considerably since 2005, particularly at the south end of the lake. As a result, lake access has improved tremendously following the volunteer efforts beginning in 2006 that eventually permanently opened and deepened water access for a number of lake residents. The NLSC agreed that floating FWL island removal action would continue to be implemented on an as -needed basis if floating masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake. No corrective action was taken in 2009. The weed rake loan program continued in 2009, providing North Lake residents an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes were used as necessary through the summer to maintain the beneficial uses of the shoreline for fishing, boating and swimming. Weed rakes can only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the "FW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet. Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two different styles of rakes depending on the type of plant targeted: a rake with a sharp cutting blade for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged plants. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT Because milfoil was not detected during the initial survey, weed rakes were loaned out immediately to lake residents to control native aquatic plants. The program was shut down for the season on September 15 pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet requirements. 5.6 Systematic Survey — Native Plants The objective of the systematic surveys is to quantify the vegetation present and to provide a continued baseline of the condition of the lake plant communities. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex 2009 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page). In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section 5.0, the native plant species documented in 2009 included: FLOATING PLANTS Common Name Yellow pond lily Spatterdock SUBMERSED PLANTS Common Name Muskgrass Naiad White stemmed pondweed American elodea Scientific Name Weed Class Nuphar spp. Native Nuphar polysepalum Native Scientific Name Weed Class Chara sp. Native Na/as sp. Native Potamogeton praelongus Native Elodea Canadensis Native Emergent Plants Emergent plant populations were expected to be identical to those documented in 2008. Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species, Typha spp. (Cattail), Eleocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush), that grow in the shallow margins of a lake. The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and mammals. Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese. All of North Lake's emergent vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and help to stabilize shorelines. Floatine Plants Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and provides spawning habitat for fish. Nuphar polysepalum (Spatterdock) is a perennial waterlily-like plant that forms extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. When mature, Spatterdock has large elephant -ear - shaped leaves and yellow flowers. Submersed Plants Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that dominates the lake bottom. Unlike most other perennial aquatic plants, it reproduces from seed each year. The aquatic plant generally grows rapidly in the spring, produces seeds that drop them to the lake sediments. Over time, a NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed population to the point of excluding other native plants. Other submerged plant species in the lake included Potamogeton praelongus (White stemmed pondweed). This native member of the pondweed family occurs in small clumps and was observed throughout the deeper littoral lake zones. Because of its depth, this plants did not appear to be impacting beneficial uses of the lake. The native aquatic plant Elodea acts as an under story or secondary plant in the lake, and can expand to the point of causing major problems. The absence of complaints from lake residents concerning this species indicate that beneficial uses were not impacted. Chara (Muskgrass) is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases, this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem to lake users. Native plant species in North Lake are extremely healthy. Natives are once again becoming dominant and stands are very diverse. Najas communities in the shallows of the north end often reach the surface and reduce the accessibility of this area from the rest of the lake. Elsewhere in the lake it was noted by some residents that the native plants are becoming an issue — both from a safety/comfort aspect and by reducing the ease at which residents are able to access and enjoy the lake. This has been primarily restricted to those living in shallower portions of the lake. Although there are some dense stands of pondweeds appearing in deeper water they are not causing any beneficial use issues at this time. As such, North Lake remains well within the WDFW and Ecology criteria for a minimum of 35% native vegetation littoral zone coverage to support good fish habitat. 5.7 Post Control Visual Assessment During the Second Systematic Survey on September 18, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the glyphosate herbicide treatments and control methods conducted in 2009 on the four targeted species (FWL, PL, YFI and narrow leaf cattail). All treated plants showed clear symptoms of herbicide damage, with peak effectiveness due to the warm dry weather. Remaining stands of YFI and PL were primarily located at properties where permission to enter was not secured. Some stands of PL adjacent to the Weyerhaeuser property remained intact due to low summertime lake water levels which made access to these shoreline plants difficult. Plans will be implemented in 2010 to utilize a shallow pond boat for more efficient treatment in these areas. 5.8 Algae Cyanobacteria are common in freshwater lakes, frequently forming dense populations or water blooms in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development of algae blooms are light, temperature, pH, and nutrient concentrations. 10 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT Because of the potential that the blooms may occur, SWM staff issues annual algae information, and algae alerts when present, to all North Lake residents. The alerts caution residents and users of the presence of toxic -producing algae and recommends safe action to prevent exposure. In addition, the information concerning the Department of Ecology Algae Control Program is provided — a program that focuses on providing local governments with the tools they need to manage algae problems. A total of $250,000 is earmarked each year to target blue-green algae due to the health risks posed to humans, pets, and livestock. No algae blooms were reported in 2009. 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING During the first two years of the Ecology Grant Agreement (2005 and 2006), SWM Water Quality personnel collected herbicide samples from North Lake in the water column before and after treatment (2,4-D and glyphosate in 2005, and glyphosate only in 2006). The sampling effort was required by the Grant Agreement, and was undertaken to determine lake concentrations of herbicides, and to provide an analytical measurement of the contractor's performance. Background samples (before treatment) and post treatment samples were collected at time intervals prescribed in the Grant Agreement. Samples were taken in the middle of the lake (outside the treatment areas), and inside an individual treatment site and analyzed for the targeted herbicides. The sampling results obtained during the first two years of monitoring detected very low concentrations. Additionally, there was limited persistence of the herbicides in the water column after initial application. For these reasons, sampling per the Grant Agreement was waived by Ecology in 2007, 2008 and 2009. 7.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The elements of the Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake are based primarily on the Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). The Ecology Grant Agreement incorporates the information in the IAVMP, forming two primary components for Education and Public Involvement. The two components focus on prevention and detection of noxious aquatic and emergent weeds, and lake stewardship. The North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) oversees the implementation of the Ecology Grant Agreement, which is outlined in the 2009 North Lake Work Plan. 11 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT 7.1 Community Involvement North Lake Community Involvement program for 2009 involved the following: 7.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) The NLSC is charged with setting the aquatic plant management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. The NLSC is comprised of North Lake residents, Weyerhaeuser representatives and City of Federal Way staff. The Committee meets quarterly, or more often as necessary to implement Work Plan goals. The following members comprise the NLSC: Lake Residents Wendy Honey — (Chair) Debra Hansen Chuck Gibson — (Vice Chair) Barry James Julie Cleary James Chastain Weyerhaeuser Representative Jerry Heinz City of Federal Way Dan Smith, SWM Don Robinett, SWM Hollie Shilley, SWM The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities of the NLSC: • Reviews annual plant survey information. • Develops an annual aquatic plant management Work Plan based upon the information revealed in the annual plant surveys. The Work Plan prioritizes aquatic weed problem areas, identifies preferred control methods for each species, and develops the anticipated budget. • Assists the City of Federal Way with oversight of control work to keep contractors accountable. • Participates in preparation of an annual evaluation report that summarizes plant control activities, lake -user's perspectives on the plant community, and recommendations for the next year's control strategy. • Assists with presentation of aquatic plant management efforts to lake residents at an annual community meeting and Plant ID Workshop. • Helps the City of Federal Way to ensure that all lake residents receive proper notification pursuant to the requirements of the Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit. • Participates in other annual community involvement/education strategies and plant control efforts as needed. The NLSC met two times in 2009. The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. The following are brief abstracts from each NLSC meeting: July 14, 2009 12 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT • Review of LMD status • Review of 2009 survey and Work Plan. • Discussion concerning treatment options for native vegetation. • Grant budget status. • AquaTechnex contract. • Right of entry procedures. • Week rake program. • Blue-green algae program. November 18, 2009 • Grant status. • LMD status • Contract amendment (agreement of 2 -year extension). • Discussion concerning public education program. • Overview of the 2009 program and discussion of bathymetry mapping with AquaTechnex staff. 7.1.2 Development of 2009 Work Plan The goals and budget regarding the 2009 Work Plan were based primarily upon two elements: the 2004 IAVMP and the specific requirements prescribed by the Ecology Grant Agreement. The following is a brief outline of the 2009 Work Plan: Task 1: Aquatic Vegetation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water Illy, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris, and narrow leaf cattail), and other problematic aquatic plant issues (i.e. mud island removal) for the year. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 5.0. Task 2: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items included in Task 2 include: community meetings (spring) and Plant ID Workshop (summer); quarterly newsletter (The Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers and press releases; web site development; and development of an annual report. 7.1.3 Plant ID Workshop A joint Steel Lake—North Lake Plant ID Workshop was held on June 20 at Steel Lake Park. This event provided an atmosphere of learning within a social setting. Residents from both lakes were 13 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT presented information describing each aquatic plant management program. They were also able to pose questions to Surface Water Management (SWM) staff and individual NLSC members. North Lake residents were afforded the opportunity to review the 2009 Work Plan and examine maps depicting noxious weed infestation areas and proposed treatment locations. In addition, various public education displays provided hands-on opportunities for individuals to view both native and noxious plants (good and bad) retrieved from their lake. Both SWM staff and lake residents harvested the live plant specimens found in North Lake for the displays. 7.1.4 Boater Education On April 25 (Opening Day of Fishing Season), several Boy Scout volunteers handed out Milfoil Education Brochures to boaters at the North Lake Boat Ramp. The brochure outlines the detrimental effect milfoil has on fresh water lakes, the propagation of the noxious plant, and reminds boaters to properly clean their vessels prior to entering or leaving the boating area. 7.2 Public Education The North Lake Public Education program for 2009 involved the following: 7.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter SWM staff continued issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, and education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 7.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via mail and email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. Lake residents were also sent notices prior to all public meetings. During the course of 2009, SWM staff mailed out formal public notices and followed up with supplemental notices to lake residents. In addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work plan activities were e-mailed to E -Subscribe participants approximately 24 hours prior to the activity on the lake. 7.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs SWM staff developed and/or distributed the following lake -related informational flyers and brochures: • Milfoil Boater Education • Good Plants/Bad Plants • Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal • Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese • Aquatic Weed Rake Program • Be Lake Steward 14 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT 7.2.4 Web Page Development In 2009, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the year. Web site information includes: • Current IAVMP (with figures and maps) • 2009 Work Plan • Chronology and description of important 2009 North Lake activities • North Lake publications such as: The Lake View; informative flyers (milfoil, blue-green algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plants/bad plants); public notices; and NLSC Meeting notes. 7.2.5 Annual Report SWM staff develops and distributes a final year-end report for all lake residents and parties of interest that describes the activities and a budget review of the prior year. 8.0 2009 BUDGET REVIEW The 2009 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the scope of aquatic weed management expected to be accomplished during the year. Table 1 below provides an overview of the final North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2009: Table 1. 2009 North Lake Budget Overview TASK Estimates Actual Expenses Task 1 & 2, Project AdministrationNegetation Management $10,657 $8,625 Task 3, Public Education $3,230 $2,629 YEAR END $13,887 $11,254 8.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administration/ Vegetation Management Table 2 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2. Table 2. 2009 North Lake Budget, TASK 1 & 2, Project Administration/Vegetation Mgmt. 15 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT GOAL 2009 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Annual Permit Fee for 2010 coverage) 338 397 Two diver surveys (Spring & Summer 2,170 2,033 Milfoil herbicide treatment 749 0 Fragrant water lily treatment 350 341 YFI, PL and narrow leaf cattail treatment 450 341 Diver removal of milfoil 590 0 Advance resident notifications & postings 690 709 Native weed manual removal 1,330 0 Water lily island control 0 0 Post control visual inspection 740 755 Contractor attendance at meetings 900 126 Contractor final report 0 0 Grant eligible SWM staff time 2,350 3,918 TOTALS 10,657 8,625 Note: The 2009 Weed Permit Fee ($397.00) was not a grant eligible expense. 8.2 Task 3 Public Education Table 3 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3. Table 3. 2009 North Lake Budget, TASK 3 Public Education GOAL 2009 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Meeting refreshments 50 26 Quarterly newsletter 500 290 Annual evaluation report 150 0 Annual Spring Community Meeting 0 0 Plant ID workshop/cookout 300 0 Public education printing 150 66 Boater outreach program 0 0 City LIVID web page 0 0 Grant -eligible SWM staff wages and benefits 2,350 2,147 TOTALS 3,230 2,629 8.3 Ecology Grant Budget Review Table 4 below summarizes the running balance of the Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund grant for North Lake, set to expire December 31, 2009: 16 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT Table 4. North Lake Grant Running Balance Year Grant Funds Used Running Balance Start N/A $60,158 2005 $18,882 $41,276 2006 $14,849 $26,427 2007 $11,246 $15,181 2008 $5,623 $9,558 2009 $9,532 $18 9.0 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT In mid 2007, SWM staff began preparing the NLSC for the development of a Lake Management District (LMD). With the expectation that grant funding would be exhausted by the end of 2009, it was stressed during a series of committee meetings that the process for LMD formation should begin near the end of 2008 in order to provide a funding source for continuous aquatic plant management. The NLSC benefited by participating in joint -meetings with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, learning that utility formation takes months of public process. During the May 8, 2008 meeting, SWM staff requested that a formal letter from lake residents be issued to the City Manager which expresses their interest in forming a LMD for North Lake. A letter signed by sixteen lake residents was received by Public Works on August 25, 2008. Soon after, SWM staff began assembling information concerning other Washington State LMDs. From this information, several assessment rate structure options were developed that reflected the various zoning types and quantity of parcels surrounding the lake. This information was presented to the NLSC on October 8, 2008 and the committee agreed upon a scope, annual cost, boundary, and duration for the district. On February 24, 2009, a public meeting for the residents of North Lake was held to discuss LMD development. The meeting was well received with no opposition to the proposed plan. A petition to the City Council was signed by sixteen property owners affected by the LMD, including Weyerhaeuser Co. By this action, the petition met the requirement set forth in RCW 36.61.030 (signed by ten landowners or owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed LMD) and enabled the Council to take action regarding the formation of a North Lake LMD. See North Lake LMD Assessment Rates, Table 5. 17 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT On June 2, 2009, City Council held a public hearing on the formation of the North Lake LMD. The public hearing was favorable. A resolution calling for a vote on the formation of the North Lake LMD was approved by Council on June 16, 2009 and the vote was completed on July 10`h 2009. A simple majority of the voters approved the creation of the North Lake LMD (97% of the ballots cast voted yes), and the proposed ordinance creating Lake Management District Number Two for North Lake. The LMD for North Lake will become effective early in 2010. Table 5. North Lake LMD Assessment Rates Assessment Category Rate Revenue ($) Single Family Residential (RS9.6), Lakefront property Developed property (53 units) X $100.00 per unit $5,300 Vacant property (168 ft) X $0.70 per lakefront foot $118 Single Family Residential (RS9.6), Non -lakefront property with deeded lake access Developed property (1 unit) X $75.00 per unit $75 Vacant property (1 unit) X $15.00 per unit $15 Weyerhaeuser (RS9.6) Vacant property (82 ft) X $0.70 per lakefront foot $ 57 Weyerhaeuser (CP -1) Commercial property (3,714 ft) X $0.80 per lakefront foot $2,971 WDFW Public Boat Launch Single annual assessment $4,000 TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT $12,536 City of Federal Way Zoning Designations: Office Zone CP -1 Corporate Park -1 Single Family Residential RS9.6 (1 unit/9,600 square feet) 10.0 2009 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2010 The following discussion summarizes the 2009 North Lake program, and outlines recommendations for 2010: 18 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT 10.1 2009 Aquatic Vegetation Management Summary The NLSC agreed that the aquatic vegetation management actions included in the 2009 Work Plan were fully implemented. Plants approved for control under the Ecology grant (FWL, PL, YFI, and Narrow leaf cattail) — continued to betargeted. North Lake has been free and clear of milfoil since 2005. As a result, chemical herbicides have not been applied. This has resulted in reduced control costs and less ecological impacts. GPS shape files for those properties providing rights of entry were supplied to the contractor prior to treatment activities. The method again proved to very effective in ensuring that all targeted emergent plants were properly sprayed with herbicide. FWL is almost completely eradicated. Herbicide treatments for YFI and PL continued to be successful where applied, but the work has been limited because rights of entry permission have not been submitted by all property owners. Additionally, PL colonies continue to survive along parts of Weyerhaeuser's shoreline due to poor access when lake levels are low. 10.2 2010 Aquatic Vegetation Management Recommendations The following outlines recommendations for 2010: • All Aquatic Plant Management activities will be implemented through North Lake LMD Number Two. • The annual Work Plan will continue to be implemented, including conducting annual surveys, controlling noxious plants when documented, preparing bathymetry mapping, and beginning a water quality monitoring program. • Conduct a thorough evaluation of native plant densities after the initial survey to identify properties with impacted beneficial uses. • Continue to stress open, frequent, and accurate communication with the contractor. • Continue to solicit contractor oversight assistance and follow-up observations from lake residents so that issues concerning poor treatment effectiveness can be addressed in a timely manner. • Conduct a more aggressive outreach to the property owners with purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris who have not granted access to treat. • Properly identify and effectively treat PL on Weyerhaeuser property shoreline. 10.3 2009 Public Education Summary A wide variety of Public Education products were offered and distributed in 2009. In addition to the quarterly newsletter, the LMD distributed Washington Department of Health Toxic Blue Green Algae brochure, milfoil boater education brochures, good plant/bad plant flyers, Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese flyers, and a Be a Lake Steward flyer and press release. The lake steward flyer and press release describe everyday practices lake residents can adopt to help improve aquatic weed control and water quality of the lake. 19 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT Additionally, the Public Education program was used to efficiently and effectively inform lake residents concerning the LMD process throughout 2009 by means of Lake View articles, e - subscribe, public hearings, and committee meetings. 10.4 2010 Public Education Recommendations • Continue aggressive public education effort targeting all lake properties infested with noxious weeds in order to prevent their spread. • Improve property owner right of entry participation. 10.5 2009 Ecology Grant Budget Summary North Lake completed the fifth year of the five-year Ecology AWMF Grant. At the end of 2009, $18 remained in the initial $60,000 grant fund. The final year of the grant was especially successful in funding the LMD formation process. 10.6 2009 Algae Summary SWM staff were well prepared in 2009 to alert lake residents to possible blue-green algae blooms. SWM staff will continued to follow development of the evolving Department of Ecology algae program throughout 2009 to keep informed concerning funding options, sampling protocols, and the development of new public health standards. 20 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2009 FINAL REPORT NORTH LAKE Management District 2010 Final Report Prepared by: City of Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division Author: Dan Smith TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................................1 12 2.1 IAVMP DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM.................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT..................................................................................... 3 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT...................................................................................3 5.0 2010 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................... 4 5.1 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY -Noxious PLANTS................................................................................................... 4 5.1.1 Fragrant Water Lily................................................................................................................................ 4 5.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris....................................................................................................................................... 4 5.1.3 Purple Loosestrife................................................................................................................................... 5 5.2 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS............................................................................................................................. 5 5.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment.............................................................................................................. 6 5.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment.................................................................................. 7 5.3 YFI AND PL MANUAL CONTROL.................................................................................................................. 7 5.4 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL.................................................................................................................... 8 5.5 WEED RAKES............................................................................................................................................... 8 5.6 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY - NATIVE PLANTS..................................................................................................... 8 5.7 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................ 10 5.8 ALGAE........................................................................................................................................................10 8.2 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING.......................................................................................................11 7.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...............................................................................................12 7.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT...................................................................................................................... 12 7.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAA)............................................................................................. 12 7.1.2 Development of 2010 Work Plan......................................................................................................... 14 7.1.3 Plant ID Workshop............................................................................................................................... 14 7.1.4 Boater Education................................................................................................................................. 14 7.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION.................................................................................................................................... 14 7.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter............................................................................................................................ 14 7.2.2 Public Notices...................................................................................................................................... 15 7.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs.............................................................................................................. 15 7.2.4 Web Page Development....................................................................................................................... 15 7.2.5 Annual Report....................................................................................................................................... 15 8.0 2010 BUDGET REVIEW...........................................................................................................................16 8.1 TASKS 1 & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION/ VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ...................................... 16 8.2 TASK 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION....................................................................................................................... 17 8.3 TASK 4 WATER QUALITY MONITORING...................................................................................................... 17 8.4 TASK 5 SWM STAFF TIME REIMBURSEMENT............................................................................................. 17 9.0 2010 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011 .........................................18 9.1 2010 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARY............................................................................ 18 9.2 2011 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 18 9.3 2010 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 19 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 9.4 2011 PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................... 19 9.5 2010 ALGAE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................. 19 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. 2010 water Quality Monitoring Results...............................11 Table 2. 2010 North Lake Budget Overview....................................16 Table 3. 2010 North Lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2 ................................16 Table 4. 2010 North Lake Budget, Task 3 ........................................17 Table 5. 2010 North Lake Budget, Task 4 ........................................17 Table 6. 2010 North Lake Budget, Task 5 ........................................17 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE ( http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=711 ) 2006 DOE Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit AquaTechnex North Lake 2010 Year End Report NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided by the North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) members and the entire lake community who contributed to the successful development of the North Lake Management District and the implementation of the 2010 aquatic plant management program. The Committee includes the following members: • Lake residents: Chuck Gibson (Chair), Wendy Honey (Co -Chair), Terry Thomas, Robin Cook, and Jack Rosenow • Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Jerry Heinz • City of Federal Way: Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Hollie Shilley (ESA & NPDES Coordinator) In addition, Surface Water Management (SWM) staff wishes to thank the City Council and City Manager for their collective support of our aquatic weed management efforts. We also recognize Kathy Hamel, Department of Ecology (Ecology), for her continuing aquatic plant management advice and encouragement. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2010, the aquatic vegetation management actions and public education goals outlined in the North Lake Management District (LMD) 2010 Work Plan were successfully implemented. Noxious aquatic plants —fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris and narrow leaf cattail — were targeted for control at as low a density as was environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that did not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. In addition, an effective public education program was conducted that helped to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake. This program also aided in the early detection of aquatic weed re -infestations by continuing to involve the North Lake community in the aquatic plant management process. North Lake remains well within the WDFW and Ecology criteria for a minimum of 35% native vegetation littoral zone coverage to support good fish habitat. This annual report summarizes the steps taken by the LMD during 2010 to conform to Ordinance No. 09-622 that created Lake Management District Number 2 for North Lake. These efforts are based upon the aquatic weed management program established in the 2004 Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) developed for North Lake. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IAVMP Development An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) is a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed control efforts. In 2004, the North Lake community coordinated with the King County Lake Stewardship group to develop an IAVMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up- to-date IAVMP was required by Ecology to be submitted prior to seeking future grant funding from the State. With assistance from King County, the lake community began developing an IAVMP. During this period, efforts began to prepare an AWMF grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public comment and to finalize the IAVMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way, Surface Water Management staff began participating in the process. The IAVMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the plan on October 8. With an approved IAVMP, application was made to Ecology for an AWMF grant. Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal Way. As a result, an AWMF grant was awarded to the city that included a multi-year effort to NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT fully eradicate the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The action plan included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, control, and public education. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75% of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology. The AWMP grant expired December 31, 2009. 2.2 Lake Management District In 2009, city staff and residents collaborated to form Lake Management District (LMD) Number Two for North Lake. The ten-year LMD (initiated in 2010), built upon the IAVMP, was developed to generate revenue for ongoing management of aquatic vegetation, water quality education and related projects in North Lake. The district was also designed to improve the quality of life in and around North Lake for years to come with the following end result: a healthy water body that benefits lake residents, lake users, and the entire city. 2.3 The Aquatic Weed Problem Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are generally of limited distribution, tend to be invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's waterbodies, such as North Lake, if left unchecked. Because nonnative plants have few natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out -competing and effectively destroying native plant and animal habitats. This can lead to a degradation of recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2005). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un -infested areas of Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the seriousness of the threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide -spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. 2 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 3.0 4.0 The joint efforts undertaken by the North Lake Advisory Committee, lake residents, and SWM staff are described in this year-end report. The document also outlines the work completed to eradicate the following three noxious weed species detected in 2010: Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Fragrant water lily Nymphaea odorata C Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus C Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria B NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT On March 31, 2006, an application for coverage under the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae in North Lake was submitted. The permit combined and replaced portions of the Aquatic Noxious Weed Control General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the Aquatic Nuisance Weed and Algae Control General NPDES Permit that was issued prior to 2006. The permit (#WAG -994094) was issued to the City's aquatic plant management contractor AquaTechnex on June 2, 2006. It governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The five-year permit expires on April 1, 2011. Ecology's new permit is issued under the authority of RCW 90.48. Such issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. Ecology decided to issue a permit that is based solely on state authority to regulate the discharge of waste materials into waters of the state. AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT In 2010, AquaTechnex, Inc. operated under the first year of a two-year Amended Professional Services Agreement (contract) with the City of Federal Way. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology -approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, reports as required, and attending meetings as required. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 5.0 2010 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 5.1 Systematic Survey — Noxious Plants AquaTechnex completed the initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake on June 14 and 15, and followed up with a second survey on September 24. For each effort, the survey team mapped all submerged, floating and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. In addition to making visual inspections, the survey team collected a number of rake samples at various GPS points. These points were collected to define each treatment area through diver communication to the mapping vessel team. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex 2010 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page). Native plant information may be found in Section 5.6. Noxious weeds found during the 2010 North Lake initial systematic survey included: • Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odroata) • Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) • Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the 2010 plant survey. 5. 1.1 Fragrant Water Lily Fragrant waterlily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins, and can be recognized by the fragrant white, pink to purple, many -petaled flowers that float on the water surface. Their large, round, floating leaves have a distinctive slit on one side. Due to its attractiveness, this nonnative plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has been introduced to many lakes in Washington, but can be invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas (Ecology 2006). The June surveys located sparse FWL growth in North Lake, and as with prior years, the colonies were noted in selected areas along the shoreline perimeter. The population densities of FWL were reported to be declining in response to treatments, and nearly eliminated in developed shoreline areas. Based on the survey results, AquaTechnex recommended targeting this species with the aquatic herbicide glyphosate (Rodeo) as necessary for complete eradication. 5.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable with its showy yellow flowers colorfully displayed along the edge of water and in wetlands. The flowers occur in late spring or early summer. The noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed), including flower stalk, 4 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT will grow up to nearly five feet tall. The rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense stands that exclude native wetland species (WA State Noxious Weed Control Board). The initial survey found YFI populating the shoreline perimeter in selected locations, primarily where permission to treat was not provided by the land owners. Identical to the control plan implemented during the last three seasons, glyphosate (Rodeo) would be utilized for YFI treatments. Glyphosate provides effective long-term control, with applications generally made in mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide into the root system. 5.1.3 Purple Loosestrife Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple -pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This erect, robust, square -stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an invasive, rapidly -spreading European species that is a State of Washington Class C Weed (Ecology, 2006). The noxious emergent plant was reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake. Because an aquatic plant survey only provides a snapshot of the conditions present in the lake at the time of the inspection, it was expected that additional PL seedlings would emerge from the lake sediments along the shorelines later in the growing season. The proposed control action for PL involved herbicide application of Triclopyr (Renovate3) on private property. Therefore, permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see Section 5.2.2). 5.2 Herbicide Treatments The herbicide treatment program was designed to meet the requirements of both the Ecology Grant Agreement and NPDES permit. Within this framework, Year Two Integrated Treatment Plan benchmarks were followed where practical. The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator also must comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. Glyphosate Glyphosate (Rodeo) was used to treat FWL and YFI colonies on North Lake in 2010. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic applications. The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days, seven days on more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody plants. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT It is known that extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above -ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. The advantages of glyphosate include: The product is a systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with no impact to plants not treated. Application can be conducted in a spot -treatment or isolated area fashion. There are no water use restrictions. Triclopyr A trade name for Triclopyr is Renovate3. The product is registered for use in aquatic or riparian environments, and is applied as a liquid. It is a relatively fast -acting, systemic, selective herbicide used for the control of broad-leaved species such as purple loosestrife. Triclopyr is very useful for purple loosestrife control since native grasses and sedges are unaffected by this herbicide. 5.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined in the Ecology Grant Agreement. The plan was designed to achieve the following: • Gradually replace FWL with native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish habitat. • Improve boater access and provide safer recreation opportunities, • Reduce the possibility of excessive amounts of dying vegetation that could contribute to increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms). • Reduce the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a demand on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life. The AquaTechnex 2010 North Lake Year End Report (found on the SWM website) contains maps with locations of FWL colonies. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the Illy pads by a two -person crew using boat -mounted low-pressure spray equipment. Two separate treatments took place in 2010. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process included reapplication to areas that did not uptake enough herbicide because of weather or plant wash off. The total area treated equaled less than one acre. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 5.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment Continued eradication of all YFI and PL continued in 2010. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds. Maps showing YSI and PL colony locations and all lake parcels granting access for treatment may be found on the SWM website. Two separate treatments were performed on YFI colonies in 2010. During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (Rodeo). The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent ornamental plants or grasses. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for FWL. In June, SWM began coordinating with King County Noxious Weed Control Program personnel in purple loosestrife identification and control. On July 13, KC conducted a PL canoe survey of the entire North Lake shoreline. Colony locations in both GPS listed by address were compared to properties providing right of entry, and were forwarded to AquaTechnex to be used for upcoming herbicide treatments. For PL, spraying individual plant with Triclopyr was deemed the most effective application method (versus wicking) given the issues of work efficiency and accessibility. As with YFI, the noxious PL weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. Again, AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent ornamental plants or grasses. King County provided a follow up PL survey on August 9 after the first treatment, and noted many surviving plants on the Weyerheuser side (undeveloped shoreline). Pursuant to this observation, AquaTechnex returned on August 11 to conduct a more thorough shoreline inspection and selective treatment of all detected PL plants. 5.3 YFI and PL Manual Control The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake to help control the spread of both YFI and PL. SWM staff issued notices to all lake residents regarding proper hand pulling and digging techniques for YFI. For PL, hand removal methods (digging up the roots or cutting back the stalks) were offered as effective options, including proper disposal of all organic debris (roots, seed heads and stems). Additionally, King County Noxious Weed Control Program personnel individually hand dug several PL plants found on properties during their survey when the plant was found to be at or near seed -producing stage in order to prevent spread. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 5.4 Water Lily Island Control Water lily islands have decreased considerably since 2005, particularly at the south end of the lake. As a result, lake access has improved tremendously following the volunteer efforts beginning in 2006 that eventually permanently opened and deepened water access for a number of lake residents. The NLSC agreed that floating FWL island removal action would continue to be implemented on an as -needed basis if floating masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake. No corrective action was taken in 2010. 5.5 Weed Rakes The weed rake loan program continued in 2010, providing North Lake residents an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes were used as necessary through the summer to maintain the beneficial uses of the shoreline for fishing, boating and swimming. Weed rakes can only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet. Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two different styles of rakes depending on the type of plant targeted: a rake with a sharp cutting blade for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged plants. Because milfoil was not detected during the initial survey, weed rakes were loaned out immediately to lake residents to control native aquatic plants. The program was shut down for the season on September 15 pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet requirements. 5.6 Systematic Survey — Native Plants The objective of the systematic surveys is to quantify the vegetation present and to provide a continued baseline of the condition of the lake plant communities. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex 2010 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page). In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section 5.0, the native plant species documented in 2010 included: FLOATING PLANTS Common Name Yellow pond lily Spatterdock Scientific Name Nuphar spp. Nuphar polysepalum Weed Class Native Native NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT SUBMERSED PLANTS Common Name Muskgrass Naiad White stemmed pondweed American elodea Scientific Name Weed Class Chara sp. Native Najas sp. Native Potamogeton praelongus Native Elodea Canadensis Native Emergent Plants Emergent plant populations were expected to be identical to those documented in 2009. Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species, Typha spp. (Cattail), Eleocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush), that grow in the shallow margins of a lake. The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and mammals. Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese. All of North Lake's emergent vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and help to stabilize shorelines. Floating Plants Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and provides spawning habitat for fish. Nuphar polysepalum (Spatterdock) is a perennial waterlily-like plant that forms extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. When mature, Spatterdock has large elephant -ear - shaped leaves and yellow flowers. Submersed Plants Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that dominates the lake bottom. Unlike most other perennial aquatic plants, it reproduces from seed each year. The aquatic plant generally grows rapidly in the spring, produces seeds that drop them to the lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed population to the point of excluding other native plants. Other submerged plant species in the lake included Potamogeton praelongus (White stemmed pondweed). This native member of the pondweed family occurs in small clumps and was observed throughout the deeper littoral lake zones. Because of its depth, this plants did not appear to be impacting beneficial uses of the lake. The native aquatic plant Elodea acts as an under story or secondary plant in the lake, and can expand to the point of causing major problems. The absence of complaints from lake residents concerning this species indicate that beneficial uses were not impacted. Chara (Muskgrass) is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases, this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem to lake users. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT Due to the cool summer weather, the native plant species in North Lake were reported to be less dense than in prior years. As such, North Lake remains well within the WDFW and Ecology criteria for a minimum of 35% native vegetation littoral zone coverage to support good fish habitat. A small colony of a new sedge -like emergent plant was noted on North Lake in 2010. The location is along the undeveloped Weyerhaeuser shoreline near the southern end of the lake. Although the species was not provided by AquaTechnex, it will be targeted for identification in 2011. 5.7 Post Control Visual Assessment During the Second Systematic Survey on September 24, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the herbicide treatments and control methods conducted in 2010 on the three targeted species (FWL, PL, and YFI) . All treated plants showed clear symptoms of herbicide damage, with peak effectiveness due to the warm dry weather. Remaining stands of YFI and PL were primarily located at properties where permission to enter was not secured. Both SWM personnel and Chuck Gibson also performed walks inside and along the Weyerhaeuser property shoreline in early October. A few stands of PL were noted in areas where access from the lakeside would be difficult. Plans will be implemented in 2011 for more efficient inspection and treatment in these areas by the contractor, especially the more remote and hard to access locations. 5.8 Algae Cyanobacteria are common in freshwater lakes, frequently forming dense populations or water blooms in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development of algae blooms are light, temperature, pH, and nutrient concentrations. Because of the potential that the blooms may occur, SWM staff issues annual algae information, and algae alerts when present, to all North Lake residents. The alerts caution residents and users of the presence of toxic -producing algae and recommends safe action to prevent exposure. In addition, the information concerning the Department of Ecology Algae Control Program is provided — a program that focuses on providing local governments with the tools they need to manage algae problems. A total of $250,000 is earmarked each year to target blue-green algae due to the health risks posed to humans, pets, and livestock. SWM responded to three separate reports of algae in 2010, but none included cyanobacteria. All three reports indicate blooms of filamentous green algae, a non-toxic and usually non - problematic freshwater species. 10 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING The North Lake LMD implemented a water quality monitoring program in 2010. The intent was to duplicate previous data produced by the King County Lake Stewardship program (last completed in 2004), and to determine the Trophic State Index. Water quality samples for dissolved nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite, and dissolved phosphate were collected from the surface, one meter depth, and bottom, 7 to 8 meter depth in June, July and August. The concentrations of dissolved nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite, ranged from 0.022 mg/l to non -detect. The surface sample in June was the only sample with detectable dissolved nitrogen. Dissolved phosphate was only detected in the June bottom sample, 0.1 mg/1. All other samples were non -detect. The lack of available phosphate indicates that phytoplankton, e.g., algal blooms, is limited by the lack of available dissolved phosphate. Previous testing by King County was conducted with a method that measures total nitrogen and phosphate which includes quantities bound in particulate material. Therefore the results for 2010 cannot be directly compared to the previous water quality testing. For 2011 an attempt will be made to find a laboratory that will conduct total nitrogen and phosphate testing. Temperature and Secchi disk reading were collected with the nutrient water samples. Results are listed in the table below. Table 1, 2010 Water Quality Monitoring Results Sample Date/Depth N (mg/L) p (mg/L) Secchi (m) Temperature Nitriate+Nitrite (F) June 1, 2010, surface 0.022 ND 2.50 62 June 1, 2010, bottom ND 0.1 54 July 7, 2010, surface ND ND 2.5 72 July 7, 2010, bottom ND ND NS August 24, 2010, surface ND ND 2.75 72 August 24, 2020, bottom ND ND 56 September 25, 2020, surface NS NS 4.00 64 September 25, 2020, bottom NS NS 57 Previous Year's ranges for Total N 0.008 — 0.025 0.37-0.95 N/A N/A and Total P" . Total sample digestion by King County Method that includes biological material. ND=Non Detect NS=No Sample 11 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 7.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The elements of the Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake are based primarily on the Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). The annual Work Plan incorporates the information in the IAVMP, forming two primary components for Education and Public Involvement. The two components focus on prevention and detection of noxious aquatic and emergent weeds, and lake stewardship. The North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) oversees the implementation of the 2010 North Lake Work Plan. 7.1 Community Involvement North Lake Community Involvement program for 2010 involved the following: 7.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAA) The NLAC is charged with setting the aquatic plant management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. Resolution No. 09-560, passed by the City Council, created the Advisory Committee for North Lake LMD Number 2. The purpose of the NLAC is to provide for LMD property owner representation to the City Council. Per Resolution No. 09-560, NLAC representation consists of. Five (5) representing single family and/or vacant properties; one (1) representing Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (public boat launch property); and one (1) representing the Weyerhaeuser Corporation. Per Resolution No. 09-560, an open recruitment process for selection to the NLAC took place during December 2009 and January 2010. Resulting from this process, the following individuals were selected for the NLAC: • Chuck Gibson, lake resident (Chair) • Wendy Honey, lake resident (Co -Chair) • Terry Thomas, lake resident • Robin Cook, lake resident • Jack Rosenow, lake resident • Jerry Heinz, Weyerhaeuser • Kye Iris, WDFW Kye Iris represents WDFW. Because of potential conflicts of interest, WDFW has chosen not to be a voting member of the committee, but have indicated that they are available for comment if particular concerns arise (such as a public access issue). 12 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities of the NLAC: • Reviews annual plant survey information. • Develops an annual aquatic plant management Work Plan based upon the information revealed in the annual plant surveys. The Work Plan prioritizes aquatic weed problem areas, identifies preferred control methods for each species, and develops the anticipated budget. • Assists the City of Federal Way with oversight of control work to keep contractors accountable. • Participates in preparation of an annual evaluation report that summarizes plant control activities, lake -user's perspectives on the plant community, and recommendations for the next year's control strategy. • Assists with presentation of aquatic plant management efforts to lake residents at an annual community meeting and Plant ID Workshop. • Helps the City of Federal Way to ensure that all lake residents receive proper notification pursuant to the requirements of the Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit. • Participates in other annual community involvement/education strategies and plant control efforts as needed. The NLAC met three times in 2010. An attempt was made late in the year to hold a meeting in December, but individual schedules prevented a successful forth annual meeting. The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. The following are brief abstracts from each NLAC meeting: March 29, 2010 • Election of Chair and Co -Chair • Review of LMD formation • Review of 2010 proposed Work Plan, and approval • Discussion concerning bathymetry mapping (not enough funds in 20 10) • Overview of 2010 Public Education program June 24, 2010 • Budget summary • Initial survey results (no milfoil) • Treatment schedule • Right of entry procedures • Public education program review to date September 29, 2010 • Budget summary • AquaTechnex personnel provide review of the 2010 aquatic plant management program • Discussion of the 2010 purple loosestrife control program • Review of water quality data 13 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 7.1.2 Development of 2010 Work Plan The goals and budget regarding the 2010 Work Plan are based upon Resolution Number 09-544 to form North Lake Management District Number 2. The following is a brief outline of the 2010 Work Plan: Task 1 & 2: Aquatic Vegetation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water Illy, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris, and narrow leaf cattail), and other problematic aquatic plant issues (i.e. mud island removal) for the year. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 5.0. Task 3: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items included in Task 2 include: community meetings (spring) and Plant fD Workshop (summer); quarterly newsletter (The Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers and press releases; web site development; and development of an annual report. Task 3: Water Quality Monitoring describes sampling for nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P); and the monitoring of depth and clarity. 7.1.3 Plant ID Workshop The joint Steel Lake—North Lake Plant ID Workshop was not held in 2010 due to the every - other -year format adopted by each lake committee. The next event will be in 2011. 7.1.4 Boater Education On April 24 (Opening Day of Fishing Season), volunteers from the NLAC handed out Milfoil Education Brochures to boaters at the North Lake Boat Ramp. The brochure outlines the detrimental effect milfoil has on fresh water lakes, the propagation of the noxious plant, and reminds boaters to properly clean their vessels prior to entering or leaving the boating area. 7.2 Public Education The North Lake Public Education program for 2010 involved the following: 7.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter SWM staff continued issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, and education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 14 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 7.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via mail and email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. Lake residents were also sent notices prior to all public meetings. During the course of 2010, SWM staff mailed out formal public notices and followed up with supplemental notices to lake residents. In addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work plan activities were e-mailed to E -Subscribe participants approximately 24 hours prior to the activity on the lake. 7.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs SWM staff developed and/or distributed the following lake -related informational flyers and brochures: • Milfoil Boater Education • Good Plants/Bad Plants • Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal • Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese • Aquatic Weed Rake Program • Be Lake Steward 7.2.4 Web Page Development In 2010, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the year. Web site information includes: • Current IAVMP (with figures and maps) • 2010 Work Plan • Chronology and description of important 2010 North Lake activities • North Lake publications such as: The Lake View; informative flyers (milfoil, blue-green algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plants/bad plants); public notices; and NLAC Meeting notes. 7.2.5 Annual Report SWM staff develops and distributes a final year-end report for all lake residents and parties of interest that describes the activities and a budget review of the prior year. 15 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 8.0 2010 BUDGET REVIEW The 2010 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the scope of aquatic weed management expected to be accomplished during the year. Table 1 below provides an overview of the final North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2010: Table 2. 2010 North Lake Budget Overview TASK Estimates Year End Annual Permit Fee for 2011 coverage) (includes taxes) (includes taxes) LMD Annual Assessment $12,536 $11,529 Task 1 & 2, Project () $7,330 (-) $5,713 Administration/Vegetation Management $350 $463 Task 3, Public Education (-) $550 (-) $562 Task 4, Water Quality Monitoring (-) $1,655 (-) $390 Task 5, SWM Staff Time Reimbursement (-) $2,600 (-) $2,584 King County Department of Assessments () $400 0 Collection Fee 0 0 YEAR END BALANCE 0 $2,280 The year end balance includes delinquent accounts ($928), King County public LIVID advertisement per RCW ($89), and interest income. 8.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administration/ Vegetation Management Table 2 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2. Table 3. 2010 North Lake Budget, TASK 1 & 2, Project Administration/Vegetation Mgmt. GOAL 2010 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Annual Permit Fee for 2011 coverage) $397 $414 Two diver surveys (Spring & Summer $2,038 $2,180 Milfoil herbicide treatment $750 0 Fragrant water lily treatment $350 $463 YFI, PL and narrow leaf cattail treatment $350 $928 Diver removal of milfoil $590 0 Advance resident notifications & postings $710 $759 Native weed manual removal $890 0 Water lily island control 0 0 Post control visual inspection $755 $805 Contractor attendance at meetings $500 $164 Contractor final report 0 0 TOTALS $7,330 $5,713 16 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 8.2 Task 3 Public Education Table 3 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3. Table 4. 2010 North Lake Budaet. TASK 3 Public Education GOAL 2010 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Meeting refreshments $50 $25 Quarterly newsletter $400 $375 Annual evaluation report 0 0 Annual Spring Community Me ting 0 0 Plant ID workshop/cookout 0 0 Public education printing $100 $59 Boater outreach program 0 0 City LVID web page 0 0 Postage 0 $103 TOTALS $550 $562 8.3 Task 4 Water Quality Monitoring Table 4 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 4 lame b. Lulu NOrtn LaKe bu GOAL I ASF( 4 water uuallty Monitor) 2010 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Annual North Lake water quality monitoring $1,655 $390 TOTALS $1,655 $390 8.4 Task 5 SWM Staff Time Reimbursement Table 5 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 5. IaDle b. Lulu Nonn LaKe bu GOAL I A0K b SVVm Statt I lme KelmDursement 2010 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) SWM staff wages and benefits 1 $2,600 1 $2,584 TOTALS 1 $2,600 1 $2,584 17 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 9.0 2010 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011 The following discussion summarizes the 2010 North Lake program, and outlines recommendations for 2011: 9.1 2010 Aquatic Vegetation Management Summary The NLAC agreed that the aquatic vegetation management actions included in the 2009 Work Plan were fully implemented. Plants approved for control under the Ecology grant (FWL, PL, and YFI) — continued to be targeted. North Lake has been free and clear of milfoil since 2005. As a result, chemical herbicides have not been applied. This has resulted in reduced control costs and less ecological impacts. GPS shape files for those properties providing rights of entry were supplied to the contractor prior to treatment activities. The method again proved to very effective in ensuring that all targeted emergent plants were properly sprayed with herbicide. FWL is almost completely eradicated. Herbicide treatments for YFI and PL continued to be successful where applied, but some of the work has been limited because rights of entry permission have not been submitted by all property owners. Additionally, PL colonies continue to survive along parts of Weyerhaeuser's shoreline due to poor access when lake levels are low. 9.2 2011 Aquatic Vegetation Management Recommendations The following outlines recommendations for 2011: • All Aquatic Plant Management activities will be implemented through North Lake LMD Number Two. • The annual Work Plan will continue to be implemented, including conducting annual surveys, controlling noxious plants when documented, and water quality monitoring. • Conduct a thorough evaluation of native plant densities after the initial survey to identify properties with impacted beneficial uses. • Determine if sufficient funds are available to conduct bathymetry mapping. • Continue to stress open, frequent, and accurate communication with the contractor. • Continue to solicit contractor oversight assistance and follow-up observations from lake residents so that issues concerning poor treatment effectiveness can be addressed in a timely manner. • Continue to contact property owners with purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris who have not granted access to treat. • Conduct more aggressive identification and treatment of PL on Weyerhaeuser property shoreline, and continue to follow up during periods of peak bloom in order to detect colonies. • Collect appropriate water quality monitoring data to effectively calculate Trophic State Index (TSI). 18 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT 9.3 2010 Public Education Summary A wide variety of Public Education products were offered and distributed in 2010. In addition to the quarterly newsletter, the LMD distributed Washington Department of Health Toxic Blue Green Algae brochure, milfoil boater education brochures, good plant/bad plant flyers, Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese flyers, and a Be a Lake Steward flyer and press release. The lake steward flyer and press release describe everyday practices lake residents can adopt to help improve aquatic weed control and water quality of the lake. Additionally, the Public Education program was used to efficiently and effectively inform lake residents concerning the LMD process throughout 2010 by means of Lake View articles, e - subscribe, public hearings, and committee meetings. 9.4 2011 Public Education Recommendations • Continue aggressive public education effort targeting all lake properties infested with noxious weeds in order to prevent their spread. • Improve property owner right of entry participation. • Conduct semi-annual Plant ID Workshop in the summer. 9.5 2010 Algae Summary SWM staff were well prepared in 2010 to alert lake residents to possible blue-green algae blooms. SWM staff will continued to follow development of the evolving Department of Ecology algae program throughout 2010 to keep informed concerning funding options, sampling protocols, and the development of new public health standards. 19 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2010 FINAL REPORT NORTH LAKE Management District 2011 Final Report Prepared by: City of Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division Author: Dan Smith TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................................1 2.1 IAVMP DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM.................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT..................................................................................... 3 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT...................................................................................3 5.0 2011 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES......................................................................... 4 5.1 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY -Noxious PLANTS................................................................................................... 4 5.1.1 Fragrant Water Lily................................................................................................................................ 4 5.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris....................................................................................................................................... 4 5.1.3 Purple Loosestrife................................................................................................................................... 5 5.1.4 Narrow leaf cattail.................................................................................................................................. 5 5.2 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS............................................................................................................................. 5 5.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment.............................................................................................................. 6 5.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment .................................................................................. 7 5.2.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment.............................................................................................................. 7 5.3 YFI AND PL MANUAL CONTROL.................................................................................................................. 7 5.4 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL.................................................................................................................... 8 5.5 WEED RAKES............................................................................................................................................... 8 5.6 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY - NATIVE PLANTS..................................................................................................... 8 5.7 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................ 10 5.8 ALGAE........................................................................................................................................................10 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING.......................................................................................................11 7.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...............................................................................................13 7.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT...................................................................................................................... 13 7.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAA)............................................................................................. 13 7.1.2 Development of 2011 Work Plan......................................................................................................... 15 7.1.3 Plant ID Workshop............................................................................................................................... 15 7.1.4 Boater Education................................................................................................................................. 15 7.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION.................................................................................................................................... 15 7.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter............................................................................................................................ 15 7.2.2 Public Notices...................................................................................................................................... 16 7.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs.............................................................................................................. 16 7.2.4 Web Page Development....................................................................................................................... 16 7.2.5 Annual Report....................................................................................................................................... 16 8.0 2011 BUDGET REVIEW...........................................................................................................................17 8.1 TASKS 1 & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION/ VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ...................................... 17 8.2 TASK 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION....................................................................................................................... 18 8.3 TASK 4 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM..................................................................................... 18 8.4 TASK 5 SWM STAFF TIME REIMBURSEMENT............................................................................................. 18 9.0 2011 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011 .........................................19 9.1 2011 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARY............................................................................ 19 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT 9.2 2012 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 19 9.3 2011 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 20 9.4 2012 PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................... 20 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. 2011 Nutrient Water Quality Results..................................11 Table 2. 2011 North Lake Budget Overview....................................16 Table 3. 2011 North Lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2 ................................16 Table 4. 2011 North Lake Budget, Task 3 ........................................17 Table 5. 2011 North Lake Budget, Task 4 ........................................17 Table 6. 2011 North Lake Budget, Task 5 ........................................17 Figure 1. North Lake Temperature, 2011 ..........................................11 Figure 2. North Lake DO, 2011........................................................12 MORE NORTH LAKE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE http://www.cityoffederalway.com/index.aspx?nid=185 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided by the North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) members and the entire lake community who contributed to the successful development of the North Lake Management District and the implementation of the 2011 aquatic plant management program. The Committee includes the following members: • Lake residents: Chuck Gibson (Chair), Wendy Honey (Co -Chair), Terry Thomas, Robin Cook, and Jack Rosenow • Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Jerry Heinz • City of Federal Way: Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Hollie Shilley (ESA & NPDES Coordinator) In addition, Surface Water Management (SWM) staff wishes to thank the City Council and City Manager for their collective support of our aquatic weed management efforts. We also recognize Kathy Hamel, Department of Ecology (Ecology), for her continuing aquatic plant management advice and encouragement. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2011, the aquatic vegetation management actions and public education goals outlined in the North Lake Management District (LMD) 2011 Work Plan were successfully implemented. Noxious aquatic plants —fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris and narrow leaf cattail — were targeted for control at as low a density as was environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that did not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. In addition, an effective public education program was conducted that helped to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake. This program also aided in the early detection of aquatic weed re -infestations by continuing to involve the North Lake community in the aquatic plant management process. North Lake remains well within the WDFW and Ecology criteria for a minimum of 35% native vegetation littoral zone coverage to support good fish habitat. This annual report summarizes the steps taken by the LMD during 2011 to conform to Ordinance No. 09-622 that created Lake Management District Number 2 for North Lake. These efforts are based upon the aquatic weed management program established in the 2004 Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) developed for North Lake. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IAVMP Development An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) is a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed control efforts. In 2004, the North Lake community coordinated with the King County Lake Stewardship group to develop an IAVMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up- to-date IAVMP was required by Ecology to be submitted prior to seeking future grant funding from the State. With assistance from King County, the lake community began developing an IAVMP. During this period, efforts began to prepare an AWMF grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public comment and to finalize the IAVMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way, Surface Water Management staff began participating in the process. The IAVMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the plan on October 8. With an approved IAVMP, application was made to Ecology for an AWMF grant. Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal Way. As a result, an AWMF grant was awarded to the city that included a multi-year effort to NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT fully eradicate the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The action plan included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, control, and public education. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75% of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology. The AWMP grant expired December 31, 2009. 2.2 Lake Management District In 2009, city staff and residents collaborated to form Lake Management District (LMD) Number Two for North Lake. The ten-year LMD (initiated in 2010), built upon the IAVMP, was developed to generate revenue for ongoing management of aquatic vegetation, water quality education and related projects in North Lake. The district was also designed to improve the quality of life in and around North Lake for years to come with the following end result: a healthy water body that benefits lake residents, lake users, and the entire city. 2.3 The Aquatic Weed Problem Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are generally of limited distribution, are invasive and pose a serious threat to our State's waterbodies, such as North Lake, if left unchecked. Because nonnative plants have few natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out -competing and effectively destroying native plant and animal habitats. This can lead to a degradation of recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2005). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un -infested areas of Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the seriousness of the threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide -spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. 2 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT 3.0 4.0 The joint efforts undertaken by the North Lake Advisory Committee, lake residents, and SWM staff are described in this year-end report. The document also outlines the work completed to eradicate the following three noxious weed species detected in 2011: Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Fragrant water lily Nymphaea odorata C Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus C Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria B In addition to the weeds listed above, Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) was positively identified as populating a single location near the northwest end of the lake immediately south of the public boat launch. Although the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board has not classified this noxious weed, Narrow leaf cattail is currently on the noxious weed monitor list because it has caused considerable problems in the Midwest, and can hybridize with native cattail to form an even more invasive strain. NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT In 2011, coverage under the state of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae in Steel Lake was authorized. The NPDES permit was issued to the City's aquatic plant management contractor AquaTechnex with an effective date of March 18, 2011. The permit governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The five-year permit expires on March 18, 2016 and is issued under the authority of RCW 90.48. Such issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. Ecology decided to issue a permit that is based solely on state authority to regulate the discharge of waste materials into waters of the state. AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT In 2011, AquaTechnex, Inc. operated the last year of a two-year Amended Professional Services Agreement (contract) with the City of Federal Way. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology -approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, reports as required, and attending meetings as required. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT 5.0 2011 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 5.1 Systematic Survey — Noxious Plants AquaTechnex completed the initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake on June 23 and 24, and followed up with a second survey on September 24. For each effort, the survey team mapped all submerged, floating and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. In addition to making visual inspections, the survey team collected a number of rake samples at various GPS points. These points were collected to define each treatment area through diver communication to the mapping vessel team. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex North Lake: Report of Activities 2011, (located on SWM web page). Native plant information may be found in Section 5.6. Noxious weeds found during the 2011 North Lake initial systematic surveys included: • Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odroata) • Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) • Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the 2011 plant survey. 5. 1.1 Fragrant Water Lily Fragrant waterlily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins, and can be recognized by the fragrant white, pink to purple, many -petaled flowers that float on the water surface. Their large, round, floating leaves have a distinctive slit on one side. Due to its attractiveness, this nonnative plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has been introduced to many lakes in Washington, but can be invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas (Ecology 2006). The June surveys located sparse FWL growth in North Lake, and as with prior years, the colonies were noted in selected areas along the shoreline perimeter. The population densities of FWL were reported to be declining in response to treatments, and nearly eliminated in developed shoreline areas. Based on the survey results, AquaTechnex recommended targeting this species with the aquatic herbicide glyphosate (Rodeo) as necessary for complete eradication. 5.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable with its showy yellow flowers colorfully displayed along the edge of water and in wetlands. The flowers occur in late spring or early summer. The noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed), including flower stalk, 4 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT will grow up to nearly five feet tall. The rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense stands that exclude native wetland species (WA State Noxious Weed Control Board). The initial survey found YFI populating the shoreline perimeter in selected locations, primarily where permission to treat was not provided by the land owners. Identical to the control plan implemented during the last three seasons, glyphosate (Rodeo) would be utilized for YFI treatments. Glyphosate provides effective long-term control, with applications generally made in mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide into the root system. 5.1.3 Purple Loosestrife Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple -pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This erect, robust, square -stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an invasive, rapidly -spreading European species that is a State of Washington Class C Weed (Ecology, 2006). The noxious emergent plant was reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake. Because an aquatic plant survey only provides a snapshot of the conditions present in the lake at the time of the inspection, it was expected that additional PL seedlings would emerge from the lake sediments along the shorelines later in the growing season. The proposed control action for PL involved herbicide application of Triclopyr (Renovate3) on private property. Therefore, permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see Section 5.2.2). 5.1.4 Narrow leaf cattail Narrow leaf cattail is a herbaceous, rhizomatous, perennial plant with long, slender, green stalks topped with brown, fluffy, sausage-shaped flowering heads. It spreads both vegetatively and by seed, particularly under drawdown conditions, and is generally found in deeper water than native cattail. Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) is a non-native aquatic weed currently on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board "monitor list". This plant has not been classified yet based on the species stage of invasion, but the Board is monitoring the situation to determine if it warrants addition to the Noxious Weed list. Although previous year's herbicide treatments eradicated this noxious weed from a single location on the lake's northeast shore, the 2011 survey found a small amount of new growth now populating a small section of shoreline at the northwest corner of the lake. 5.2 Herbicide Treatments The herbicide treatment program was designed to meet the requirements of both the Ecology Grant Agreement and NPDES permit. Within this framework, Year Two Integrated Treatment Plan benchmarks were followed where practical. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator also must comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. Glyphosate Glyphosate (Rodeo) was used to treat FWL and YFI colonies on North Lake in 2011. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic applications. The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days, seven days on more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody plants. It is known that extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above -ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. The advantages of glyphosate include: The product is a systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with no impact to plants not treated. Application can be conducted in a spot -treatment or isolated area fashion. There are no water use restrictions. 5.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined in the Ecology Grant Agreement. The plan was designed to achieve the following: • Gradually replace FWL with native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish habitat. • Improve boater access and provide safer recreation opportunities, • Reduce the possibility of excessive amounts of dying vegetation that could contribute to increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms). • Reduce the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a demand on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life. The AquaTechnex 2011 North Lake Year End Report (found on the SWM website) contains maps with locations of FWL colonies. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the Illy pads by a two -person crew using boat -mounted low-pressure spray equipment. Two separate treatments took place in 2011. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process included reapplication to areas that did not uptake enough herbicide because of weather or plant wash off. The total area treated equaled less than one acre. 5.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment Continued eradication of all YFI and PL continued in 2011. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds. Maps showing YSI and PL colony locations and all lake parcels granting access for treatment may be found on the SWM website. During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (Rodeo). The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent ornamental plants or grasses. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for FWL. SWM continued coordinating with King County Noxious Weed Control Program personnel in purple loosestrife identification and control. KC -conducted PL canoe surveys (GPS coordinates) were provided to AquaTechnex. The contractor used this information to conduct more thorough shoreline inspections and follow-up selective treatment. 5.2.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment The single stand of Narrow leaf cattail south of the public boat launch was treated with glyphosate. The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for the other targeted noxious species. 5.3 YFI and PL Manual Control The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake to help control the spread of both YFI and PL. SWM staff issued notices to all lake residents regarding proper hand pulling and digging techniques for YFI. For PL, hand removal methods (digging up the roots or cutting back the stalks) were offered as effective options, including proper disposal of all organic debris (roots, seed heads and stems). NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT 5.4 Water Lily Island Control Water lily islands have decreased considerably since 2005, particularly at the south end of the lake. As a result, lake access has improved tremendously following the volunteer efforts beginning in 2006 that eventually permanently opened and deepened water access for a number of lake residents. The NLSC agreed that floating FWL island removal action would continue to be implemented on an as -needed basis if floating masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake. No corrective action was taken in 2011. 5.5 Weed Rakes The weed rake loan program continued in 2011, providing North Lake residents an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes were used as necessary through the summer to maintain the beneficial uses of the shoreline for fishing, boating and swimming. Weed rakes can only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet. Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two different styles of rakes depending on the type of plant targeted: a rake with a sharp cutting blade for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged plants. Because milfoil was not detected during the initial survey, weed rakes were loaned out immediately to lake residents to control native aquatic plants. The program was shut down for the season on September 15 pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet requirements. 5.6 Systematic Survey — Native Plants The objective of the systematic surveys is to quantify the vegetation present and to provide a continued baseline of the condition of the lake plant communities. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex North Lake: Report of Activities in 2011, (located on SWM web page). In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section 5.0, the native plant species documented in 2011 (unchanged from 2010) included: 8 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT FLOATING PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Yellow pond lily Nuphar spp. Spatterdock Nuphar polysepalum SUBMERSED PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Muskgrass Chara sp. Naiad Najas sp. White stemmed pondweed Potamogeton praelongus American elodea Elodea Canadensis Emergent Plants Emergent plant populations were expected to be identical to those documented in 2010. Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species, Typha spp. (Cattail), Eleocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush), that grow in the shallow margins of a lake. The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and mammals. Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese. All of North Lake's emergent vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and help to stabilize shorelines. Floating Plants Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and provides spawning habitat for fish. Nuphar polysepalum (Spatterdock) is a perennial waterlily-like plant that forms extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. When mature, Spatterdock has large elephant -ear - shaped leaves and yellow flowers. Submersed Plants Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that dominates the lake bottom. Unlike most other perennial aquatic plants, it reproduces from seed each year. The aquatic plant generally grows rapidly in the spring, produces seeds that drop them to the lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed population to the point of excluding other native plants. Other submerged plant species in the lake included Potamogeton praelongus (White stemmed pondweed). This native member of the pondweed family occurs in small clumps and was NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT observed throughout the deeper littoral lake zones. Because of its depth, this plants did not appear to be impacting beneficial uses of the lake. The native aquatic plant Elodea acts as an under story or secondary plant in the lake, and can expand to the point of causing major problems. The absence of complaints from lake residents concerning this species indicate that beneficial uses were not impacted. Chara (Muskgrass) is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases, this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem to lake users. Due to the cool summer weather, the native plant species in North Lake were reported to be less dense than in prior years. As such, North Lake remains well within the WDFW and Ecology criteria for a minimum of 35% native vegetation littoral zone coverage to support good fish habitat. 5.7 Post Control Visual Assessment During the Second Systematic Survey on September 20, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the herbicide treatments and control methods conducted in 2011 on the four targeted species (F)VL, PL, YFI, and Narrow leaf cattail). Although the treatments were late in the season due to the cool weather, all treated plants showed clear symptoms of herbicide damage. Remaining stands of YFI and PL were primarily located on properties where permission to enter was not secured. 5.8 Algae Cyanobacteria are common in freshwater lakes, frequently forming dense populations or water blooms in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development of algae blooms are light, temperature, pH, and nutrient concentrations. Because of the potential that the blooms may occur, SWM staff issues annual algae information, and algae alerts when present, to all North Lake residents. The alerts caution residents and users of the presence of toxic -producing algae and recommends safe action to prevent exposure. In addition, the information concerning the Department of Ecology Algae Control Program is provided — a program that focuses on providing local governments with the tools they need to manage algae problems. A total of $250,000 is earmarked each year to target blue-green algae due to the health risks posed to humans, pets, and livestock. No reports of blue-green algae blooms on North Lake were received in 2011. 10 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING Temperature and dissolved oxygen, DO, measurements were taken at one -meter interval in the deepest part of North Lake. The sample location is approximately in the center of the northern part of the lake. Measurements were taken using an YSI ProODO meter. Figure 1 below shows the temperature measurements taken in 2011. Temperature at the surface on April 18, 2011 was 11.7 C (53 F) and 8.0 C (46.4 F) at the bottom. Surface temperature increased gradually to 23.7 C (75 F) on July 5, 2011. It then decreased to 10 C (50 F) on November 8, 2011 the last day in 2011 measurements were taken. On January 1, 2012 the surface temperature was 5.1 C (41 F). Bottom, 7M to 9M, temperatures remained relatively constant throughout the year. On April 18, 2011 it was between 8.6 C and 8.0 C (47 F and 46 F). On January 1, 2012 the temperature was 4.8 C (41 F). Figure 1. North Lake Temperature 2011 30.0 25.0 20.0 North Lake Temperature 2011 �0 M tl M m 15.0 O 10.0 -t2 M fir- 3 M 5.0 �-4 M 0.0 1\10 b\0P "I 1\1O 1\1!11\11 1\1 1\11 1\1 010 0�1a 0\~b 0�v 41 1\11* 01 'e 0�,1^i 000 11�'ti 1,j4 1 1 Thermal stratification was noticeable by the end of April, became greatest in July and ended in November when surface temperature became similar to bottom temperature. The water between the surface and three meters tracked closely throughout the year. There was a transition between three meters and six meters. Water between seven meters and the bottom tracked closely. No measurements were collected in December, but by January 1. 2012 the entire water column was close to 5 C (41 F). Five degrees C is close the maximum density temperature for water. Therefore further cooling would decrease the density of the surface water and when the air was cold enough form ice. Dissolved Oxygen, Figure 2 below, concentrations followed the temperature pattern with the top three meters of water have good concentrations throughout the year while the bottom three 11 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT meters dropped as thermal stratification increased through the warmer months. Except for two samplings in September DO concentrations below five meters remained below 4 ppm from the middle of June until the beginning of October. By the last sample on November 8, 2011 DO was relatively constant throughout the water column except for the measurement near the bottom, nine meters. Figure 2, North Lake Dissolved Oxygen 2011 12.0 10.0 8.0 E n 6.0 O O 4.0 2.0 0.0 e e e\1 y\tio e\� e\ti`° e 0 1 \1" 41 e e e 1\1 e\1 \~b e "'\ o\-, o\ti° titi\' 1ti\`� 1 1 Table 1 shows the Total Kjeildahl Nitrogen (TKN), Total Phosphorus (TP) and Nitrite plus Nitrate (N+N) concentrations for surface and bottom water samples collected once a month from June through November. The concentration of Total Phosphorus was greater than the laboratory reporting limit of 0.010 mg/l only once in the surface water and 3 times in the bottom water. These concentrations are in the range that was found in the past. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen concentrations were slightly about the reporting limit, 0.050 in the surface water on all occasions except for the August sample. The bottom concentrations ranged from below the reporting limit to 0.715 mg/1. These concentrations are similar to concentrations found in the past. Nitrate plus nitrite concentrations were not measured in the past. The samples collected in the surface ranged from below the reporting level, 0.010 mg/l to a high of 0.10 mg/l. Seven of the 12 samples collected were below reporting concentrations. The data indicate that the nutrient concentrations in North Lake have not changed from concentrations found in the past when King County was conducting sampling in the lake. 12 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT Table 1. North Lake Nutrient Water Quality Data Date Parameter Surface Concentration (mg/L) Bottom Concentration (mg/L) June 6, 2011 TKN 0.523 0.715 N+N 0.023 0.10 TP ND 0.043 July 6, 2011 TKN 0.569 ND N+N ND 0.087 TP ND ND August 10, 2011 TKN ND ND N+N ND ND TP ND ND September 8, 2011 TKN 0.536 0.549 N+N 0.0383 ND TP ND 0.0314 October 13, 2011 TKN 0.56 0.64 N+N ND ND TP 0.053 0.063 November 8, 2011 TKN .58 0.578 N+N ND ND TP ND ND 7.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake incorporates elements presented in the 1994 Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). Using the IAVMP, the annual Work Plan includes a Public Education element that has two components: a focus on prevention and detection of noxious aquatic and emergent weeds; and lake stewardship. The North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) oversees the implementation of the 2011 North Lake Work Plan. 7.1 Community Involvement North Lake Community Involvement program for 2011 involved the following: 7.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAA) The NLAC is charged with setting the aquatic plant management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. Resolution No. 09-560, passed by the City Council, created the Advisory Committee for North Lake LMD Number 2. The purpose of the NLAC is to provide for LMD property owner representation to the City Council. 13 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT Per Resolution No. 09-560, NLAC representation consists of. Five (5) representing single family and/or vacant properties; one (1) representing Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (public boat launch property); and one (1) representing the Weyerhaeuser Corporation. Per Resolution No. 09-560, an open recruitment process for selection to the NLAC took place. Resulting from this process, the following individuals were selected for the NLAC: Member Representing Chuck Gibson Committee Chair, Lake Resident Wendy Honey Committee Co -Chair, Lake Resident Terry Thomas Lake Resident Robin Cook Lake Resident Jack Rosenow Lake Resident Jerry Heinz Weyerhaeuser Kye Iris Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife* Note: because of potential conflicts of interest, WDFW has chosen not to be a voting member of the committee. However, they have indicated that comment will be provided if concerns arise that they are particularly interested in, such as issues with the public access property. The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities of the NLAC: • Reviews annual plant survey information. • Develops an annual aquatic plant management Work Plan based upon the information revealed in the annual plant surveys. The Work Plan prioritizes aquatic weed problem areas, identifies preferred control methods for each species, and develops the anticipated budget. • Assists the City of Federal Way with oversight of control work to keep contractors accountable. • Participates in preparation of an annual evaluation report that summarizes plant control activities, lake -user's perspectives on the plant community, and recommendations for the next year's control strategy. • Assists with presentation of aquatic plant management efforts to lake residents at an annual community meeting and Plant ID Workshop. • Helps the City of Federal Way to ensure that all lake residents receive proper notification pursuant to the requirements of the Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit. • Participates in other annual community involvement/education strategies and plant control efforts as needed. 14 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT The NLAC met three times in 2011. An attempt was made late in the year to hold a meeting in December, but individual schedules prevented a successful forth annual meeting. The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. The following are brief abstracts from each NLAC meeting: 7.1.2 Development of 2011 Work Plan The goals and budget regarding the 2011 Work Plan are based upon Resolution Number 09-544 to form North Lake Management District Number 2. The following is a brief outline of the 2011 Work Plan: Task 1 & 2: Aquatic Vegetation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water Illy, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris, and narrow leaf cattail), and other problematic aquatic plant issues (i.e. mud island removal) for the year. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 5.0. Task 3: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items included in Task 2 include: community meetings (spring) and Plant fD Workshop (summer); quarterly newsletter (The Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers and press releases; web site development; and development of an annual report. Task 3: Water Quality Monitoring describes sampling for nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P); and the monitoring of depth and clarity. 7.1.3 Plant ID Workshop The joint Steel Lake—North Lake Plant fD Workshop was not held in 2011. 7.1.4 Boater Education On April 24 (Opening Day of Fishing Season), volunteers from the NLAC handed out Milfoil Education Brochures to boaters at the North Lake Boat Ramp. The brochure outlined the detrimental effecst milfoil has on fresh water lakes, the propagation of the noxious plant, and reminds boaters to properly clean their vessels prior to entering or leaving the boating area. 7.2 Public Education The North Lake Public Education program for 2011 involved the following: 7.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter SWM staff continued issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an 15 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, and education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 7.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via mail and email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. Lake residents were also sent notices prior to all public meetings. During the course of 2011, SWM staff mailed out formal public notices and followed up with supplemental notices to lake residents. In addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work plan activities were e-mailed to E -Subscribe participants approximately 24 hours prior to the activity on the lake. 7.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs SWM staff developed and/or distributed the following lake -related informational flyers and brochures: • Milfoil Boater Education • Good Plants/Bad Plants • Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal • Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese • Aquatic Weed Rake Program • Be Lake Steward 7.2.4 Web Page Development In 2011, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the year. Web site information includes: • Current IAVMP (with figures and maps) • 2011 Work Plan • Chronology and description of important 2011 North Lake activities • North Lake publications such as: The Lake View; informative flyers (milfoil, blue-green algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plants/bad plants); public notices; and NLAC Meeting notes. 7.2.5 Annual Report SWM staff develops and distributes a final year-end report for all lake residents and parties of interest that describes the activities and a budget review of the prior year. 16 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT 8.0 2011 BUDGET REVIEW The 2011 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the scope of aquatic weed management expected to be accomplished during the year. Table 1 below provides an overview of the final North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2010: Table 2. 2011 North Lake Budget Overview TASK Estimates Actual Year End Annual Permit Fee for 2012 coverage) (includes taxes) (includes taxes) Balance of 2010 LMD Funds (+) $2,279 $1,955 LMD Annual Assessment (+) $12,536 $11,812 Task 1 & 2, Project Administration/Vegetation (-)$7,853 $5,527 Management $1,300 $590 Task 3, Public Education (-) $715 $339 Task 4, Water Quality Monitoring (-) $1,655 $2,501 Task 5, SWM Staff Time Reimbursement (-) $2,600 $2,056 King County Department of Assessments () $400 $324 Collection Fee $805 $808 YEAR END BALANCE $1,692 $3,020 The year-end balance includes interest income. 8.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administration/ Vegetation Management Table 2 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2. Table 3. 2011 North Lake Budget, TASK 1 & 2, Project Administration/Vegetation Mgmt. GOAL 2011 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Annual Permit Fee for 2012 coverage) $415 $433 Two diver surveys (Spring & Summer $2,180 $2,180 Milfoil herbicide treatment $750 0 Purple loosestrife survey 0 $757 Glyphosate herbicide treatment $1,300 $590 Diver removal of milfoil $590 0 Advance resident notifications & postings $759 $759 Native weed manual removal $890 0 Water lily island control 0 0 Post control visual inspection $805 $808 Contractor attendance at meetings $164 0 Contractor final report 0 0 TOTALS $7,853 $5,527 17 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT 8.2 Task 3 Public Education Table 3 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3. Table 4. 2011 North Lake Budaet. TASK 3 Public Education GOAL 2011 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Meeting refreshments $40 $9 Quarterly newsletter $400 $274 Annual evaluation report 0 0 Annual Spring Community Me ting 0 0 Public education printing $75 0 Boater outreach program 0 0 City LVID web page 0 0 Postage $100 $55 TOTALS $615 $338 8.3 Task 4 Water Quality Monitoring Program Table 4 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 4. Table 5. 2011 North Lake Budaet. TASK 4 Water Qualitv Monitorina Program GOAL 2011 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Develop and implement water quality monitoring program $1,305 (equipment $220 (analytical) $250 (analytical) $171 (analytical) $191 (analytical) $171 (analytical) $191 (analytical) TOTALS $1,655 $2,501 8.4 Task 5 SWM Staff Time Reimbursement Table 5 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 5. Table 6. 2011 North Lake Budget, TASK 5 SWM Staff Time Reimbursement GOAL 2011 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) SWM staff wages and benefits TOTALS $2,600 $2,056 18 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT 9.0 2011 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011 The following discussion summarizes the 2011 North Lake program, and outlines recommendations for 2012: 9.1 2011 Aquatic Vegetation Management Summary The NLAC agreed that the aquatic vegetation management actions included in the 2011 Work Plan were fully implemented. Plants approved for control under the Ecology grant (FWL, PL, and YFI) — continued to be targeted. North Lake has been free and clear of milfoil since 2005. As a result, chemical herbicides have not been applied. This has resulted in reduced control costs and less ecological impacts. GPS shape files for those properties providing rights of entry were supplied to the contractor prior to treatment activities. The method again proved to very effective in ensuring that all targeted emergent plants were properly sprayed with herbicide. FWL is almost completely eradicated. Herbicide treatments for YFI and PL continued to be successful where applied, but some of the work has been limited because rights of entry permission have not been submitted by all property owners. Additionally, PL colonies continue to survive along parts of Weyerhaeuser's shoreline due to poor access when lake levels are low. 9.2 2012 Aquatic Vegetation Management Recommendations The following outlines recommendations for 2012: • All Aquatic Plant Management activities will be implemented through North Lake LMD Number Two. • The annual Work Plan will continue to be implemented, including conducting annual surveys, controlling noxious plants when documented, and water quality monitoring. • Conduct a thorough evaluation of native plant densities after the initial survey to identify properties with impacted beneficial uses. • Determine if sufficient funds are available to conduct bathymetry mapping. • Continue to stress open, frequent, and accurate communication with the contractor. • Continue to solicit contractor oversight assistance and follow-up observations from lake residents so that issues concerning poor treatment effectiveness can be addressed in a timely manner. • Continue to contact property owners with purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris who have not granted access to treat. • Conduct more aggressive identification and treatment of PL on Weyerhaeuser property shoreline, and continue to follow up during periods of peak bloom in order to detect colonies. • Collect appropriate water quality monitoring data to effectively calculate Trophic State Index (TSI). 19 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT 9.3 2011 Public Education Summary A wide variety of Public Education products were offered and distributed in 2011. In addition to the quarterly newsletter, the LMD distributed Washington Department of Health Toxic Blue Green Algae brochure, milfoil boater education brochures, good plant/bad plant flyers, Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese flyers, and a Be a Lake Steward flyer and press release. The lake steward flyer and press release describe everyday practices lake residents can adopt to help improve aquatic weed control and water quality of the lake. Additionally, the Public Education program was used to efficiently and effectively inform lake residents concerning the LMD process throughout 2011 by means of Lake View articles, e - subscribe, public hearings, and committee meetings. 9.4 2012 Public Education Recommendations • Continue aggressive public education effort targeting all lake properties infested with noxious weeds in order to prevent their spread. • Improve property owner right of entry participation. • Conduct semi-annual Plant ID Workshop in the summer. 20 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2011 FINAL REPORT NORTH LAKE Management District 2012 Final Report Prepared by: City of Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division Author: Dan Smith 1.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.0 4.0 5.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................................1 IAVMPDEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................................... I LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.................................................................................................................... 2 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM.................................................................................................................... 2 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT..................................................................................... 3 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT...................................................................................3 2012 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.........................................................................3 5.1 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY -Noxious PLANTS................................................................................................... 3 5.1.1 Fragrant Water Lily................................................................................................................................ 4 5.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris....................................................................................................................................... 4 5.1.3 Purple Loosestrife................................................................................................................................... 4 5.2 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS............................................................................................................................. 2 5.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment.............................................................................................................. 3 5.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment.................................................................................. 3 5.3 YFI AND PL MANUAL CONTROL.................................................................................................................. 3 5.4 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL.................................................................................................................... 4 5.5 WEED RAKES............................................................................................................................................... 4 5.6 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY - NATIVE PLANTS..................................................................................................... 4 5.7 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................................... 6 5.8 ALGAE..........................................................................................................................................................6 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING......................................................................................................... 6 7.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.................................................................................................9 7.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT........................................................................................................................ 9 7.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee(NLAC)............................................................................................... 9 7.1.2 Development of 2012 Work Plan......................................................................................................... 11 7.1.3 Plant ID Workshop............................................................................................................................... 11 7.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION.................................................................................................................................... 12 7.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter............................................................................................................................ 12 7.2.2 Public Notices...................................................................................................................................... 12 7.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs.............................................................................................................. 12 7.2.4 Web Page Development....................................................................................................................... 12 7.2.5 Annual Report....................................................................................................................................... 13 8.0 2012 BUDGET REVIEW...........................................................................................................................13 8.1 TASKS 1 & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION/ VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ...................................... 14 8.2 TASK 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION....................................................................................................................... 14 8.3 TASK 4 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM..................................................................................... 15 8.4 TASK 5 SWM STAFF TIME REIMBURSEMENT............................................................................................. 15 9.0 2012 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2013 .........................................15 9.1 2012 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARY............................................................................ 15 9.2 2013 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 16 9.3 2012 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 16 9.4 2013 PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................... 16 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT BLANK PAGE NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. 2012 North Lake Budget Overview....................................13 Table 2. 2012 North Lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2 ................................14 Table 3. 2012 North Lake Budget, Task 3 ........................................14 Table 4. 2012 North Lake Budget, Task 4 ........................................15 Table 5. 2012 North Lake Budget, Task 5 ........................................15 Figure 1. North Lake Temperature, 2012 ..........................................7 Figure 2. North Lake DO, 2012 ........................................................8 Figure 3. North Lake T & P, Surface, 2012 .........................................8 Figure 4. North Lake T & P, Bottom, 2012 .........................................9 MORE NORTH LAKE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE http://www.cityoffederalway.com/index.aspx?nid=185 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided by the North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) members and the entire lake community who contributed to the successful development of the North Lake Management District and the implementation of the 2012 aquatic plant management program. The Committee includes the following members: • Lake residents: Chuck Gibson (Chair), Wendy Honey, Terry Thomas, Robin Cook, and Mary McClellan-Aronen • Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Samantha Turner • City of Federal Way: Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Hollie Shilley (ESA & NPDES Coordinator) • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Derek Hacker In addition, Surface Water Management (SWM) staff wishes to thank the City Council and City Manager for their collective support of our aquatic weed management efforts. We also recognize Kathy Hamel, Department of Ecology (Ecology), for her continuing aquatic plant management advice and encouragement. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2012, the aquatic vegetation management actions and public education goals outlined in the North Lake Management District (LMD) 2012 Work Plan were successfully implemented. Noxious aquatic plants—fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris and narrow leaf cattail—were targeted for control at as low a density as was environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that did not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. In addition, an effective public education program has been implemented to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake; a program that also aided in the early detection of aquatic weed re -infestations. This annual report summarizes the steps taken by the LMD during 2012 in conforming to Ordinance No. 09-622 that created Lake Management District Number 2 for North Lake. These efforts are based upon the aquatic weed management program established in the 2004 Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) developed for North Lake. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IAVMP Development An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) is a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed control efforts. In 2004, the North Lake community coordinated with the King County Lake Stewardship group to develop an IAVMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up- to-date IAVMP was required by Ecology to be submitted prior to seeking future grant funding from the State. With assistance from King County, the lake community began developing an IAVMP. During this period, efforts began to produce a Washington State Department of Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund (AWMF) grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public comment and to finalize the IAVMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way, Surface Water Management staff began participating in the process. The IAVMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the plan on October 8. With an approved IAVMP, application was made to Ecology for an AWMF grant. Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal Way. As a result, an AWMF grant was awarded to the City. It included a multi-year effort to fully eradicate the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The action plan included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, 1 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT control, and public education. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75% of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology. The AWMP grant expired December 31, 2009. 2.2 Lake Management District In 2009, city staff and residents collaborated to form Lake Management District (LMD) Number Two for North Lake. The ten-year LMD (initiated in 20 10) was built upon the IAVMP and it was developed to generate revenue for ongoing management of aquatic vegetation, water quality education and related projects in North Lake. The district was also designed to improve the quality of life in and around North Lake for years to come with the following end result: a healthy water body that benefits lake residents, lake users, and the entire city. 2.3 The Aquatic Weed Problem Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are generally of limited distribution, are invasive and pose a serious threat to our State's waterbodies, such as North Lake, if left unchecked. Because nonnative plants have few natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out -competing and effectively destroying native plant and animal habitats. This can lead to a degradation of recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2005). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un -infested areas of Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the seriousness of the threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide -spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. The joint efforts undertaken by the North Lake Advisory Committee, lake residents, and SWM staff are described in this year-end report. The document also outlines the work completed to eradicate the following three noxious weed species detected in 2011: 2 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Fragrant water lily Nymphaea odorata C Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus C Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria B 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT In 2012, coverage under the state of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae in Steel Lake continued. The five-year NPDES permit was issued to the City's aquatic plant management contractor AquaTechnex with an effective date of March 18, 2011. The permit governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The permit expires on March 18, 2016 and is issued under the authority of RCW 90.48. Such issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. Ecology decided to issue a permit that is based solely on state authority to regulate the discharge of waste materials into waters of the state. 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT In 2012, AquaTechnex, Inc. operated under the first year of a four-year Professional Services Agreement (contract) with the City of Federal Way. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology -approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, mapping, reports as required, and attending meetings as required. 5.0 2012 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 5.1 Systematic Survey — Noxious Plants AquaTechnex completed the initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake on June 15 and 18. For each effort, the survey team mapped all submerged, floating and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. In addition to making visual inspections, the survey team collected a number of rake samples at various GPS points. These points were collected to define each treatment area through diver communication to the mapping vessel team. The GPS information obtained in the field was later 3 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex North Lake: Report of Activities in 2012, (located on SWM web page). Native plant information may be found in Section 5.6. Noxious weeds found during the 2012 North Lake initial systematic surveys included: • Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odroata) • Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) • Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the 2012 plant survey. 5. 1.1 Fragrant Water Lily Fragrant waterlily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins, recognized by the fragrant white, pink to purple, many -petaled flowers that float on the water surface. Their large, round, floating leaves have a distinctive slit on one side. Due to its attractiveness, this nonnative plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has been introduced to many lakes in Washington, but can be invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas (Ecology 2006). The June surveys located sparse FWL growth in North Lake, and as with prior years, the colonies were noted in selected areas along the shoreline perimeter. The population densities of FWL were reported to be declining in response to treatments, and nearly eliminated in developed shoreline areas. Based on the survey results, AquaTechnex recommended targeting this species with the aquatic herbicide glyphosate (Rodeo) as necessary for complete eradication. 5.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable with its showy yellow flowers colorfully displayed along the edge of water and in wetlands. The flowers occur in late spring or early summer. The noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed), including flower stalk, will grow up to nearly five feet tall. The rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense stands that exclude native wetland species (WA State Noxious Weed Control Board). The initial survey found YFI populating the shoreline perimeter in selected locations, primarily where permission to treat was not provided by the land owners. Identical to the control plan implemented during the last three seasons, glyphosate (Rodeo) would be utilized for YFI treatments. Glyphosate provides effective long-term control, with applications generally made in mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide into the root system. 5.1.3 Purple Loosestrife Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple -pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This erect, robust, square -stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense 4 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an invasive, rapidly -spreading European species that is a State of Washington Class C Weed (Ecology, 2006). The noxious emergent plant was reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake. Because an aquatic plant survey only provides a snapshot of the conditions present in the lake at the time of the inspection, it was expected that additional PL seedlings would emerge from the lake sediments along the shorelines later in the growing season. The proposed control action for PL involved herbicide application of Triclopyr (Renovate3) on private property. Therefore, permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see Section 5.2.2). 5.2 Herbicide Treatments The herbicide treatment program was designed to meet the requirements of both the Ecology Grant Agreement and NPDES permit. Within this framework, Year Two Integrated Treatment Plan benchmarks were followed where practical. The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator also must comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. Glyphosate Glyphosate (Rodeo) was used to treat FWL and YFI colonies on North Lake in 2012. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic applications. The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days, seven days on more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody plants. It is known that extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above -ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. The advantages of glyphosate include: The product is a systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with no impact to plants not treated. Application can be conducted in a spot -treatment or isolated area fashion. There are no water use restrictions. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT 5.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined in the Ecology Grant Agreement. The plan was designed to achieve the following: • Gradually replace FWL with native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish habitat. • Improve boater access and provide safer recreation opportunities, • Reduce the possibility of excessive amounts of dying vegetation that could contribute to increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms). • Reduce the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a demand on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life. The AquaTechnex 2012 North Lake Year End Report (found on the SWM website) contains maps with locations of FWL colonies. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the Illy pads by a two -person crew using boat -mounted low-pressure spray equipment. Two separate treatments took place in 2012. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process included reapplication to areas that did not uptake enough herbicide because of weather or plant wash off. The total area treated equaled less than one acre. 5.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment Continued eradication of all YFI and PL continued in 2012. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds. Maps showing YSI and PL colony locations and all lake parcels granting access for treatment may be found on the SWM website. During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (Rodeo). The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent ornamental plants or grasses. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for FWL. SWM continued coordinating with King County Noxious Weed Control Program personnel in purple loosestrife identification and control. KC -conducted PL canoe surveys (GPS coordinates) were provided to AquaTechnex. The contractor used this information to conduct more thorough shoreline inspections and follow-up selective treatment. 5.3 YFI and PL Manual Control The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake to help control the NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT spread of both YFI and PL. SWM staff issued notices to all lake residents regarding proper hand pulling and digging techniques for YFI. For PL, hand removal methods (digging up the roots or cutting back the stalks) were offered as effective options, including proper disposal of all organic debris (roots, seed heads and stems). 5.4 Water Lily Island Control The NLSC agreed that floating FWL island removal action would continue to be implemented on an as -needed basis if floating masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake. No corrective action was taken in 2012. q I ZM:T? The weed rake loan program continued in 2012, providing North Lake residents an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes were used as necessary through the summer to maintain the beneficial uses of the shoreline for fishing, boating and swimming. Weed rakes can only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet. Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two different styles of rakes depending on the type of plant targeted: a rake with a sharp cutting blade for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged plants. Because milfoil was not detected during the initial survey, weed rakes were loaned out immediately to lake residents to control native aquatic plants. The program was shut down for the season on September 15 pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet requirements. 5.6 Systematic Survey — Native Plants The objective of the systematic surveys is to quantify the vegetation present and to provide a continued baseline of the condition of the lake plant communities. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex North Lake: Report of Activities in 2012, (located on SWM web page). In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section 5.0, the native plant species documented in 2012 included: NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT FLOATING PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Yellow pond lily Nuphar spp. Spatterdock Nuphar polysepalum SUBMERSED PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Muskgrass Chara sp. Naiad Najas sp. White stemmed pondweed Potamogeton praelongus American elodea Elodea Canadensis Large leaf pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius Emergent Plants Emergent plant populations were expected to be identical to those documented in 2011. Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species, Typha spp. (Cattail), Eleocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush), that grow in the shallow margins of a lake. The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and mammals. Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese. All of North Lake's emergent vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and help to stabilize shorelines. Floatine Plants Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and provides spawning habitat for fish. Nuphar polysepalum (Spatterdock) is a perennial waterlily-like plant that forms extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. When mature, Spatterdock has large elephant -ear - shaped leaves and yellow flowers. Submersed Plants Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that dominates the lake bottom. Unlike most other perennial aquatic plants, it reproduces from seed each year. The aquatic plant generally grows rapidly in the spring, produces seeds that drop them to the lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed population to the point of excluding other native plants. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT Other submerged plant species in the lake included Potamogeton praelongus (White stemmed pondweed). This native member of the pondweed family occurs in small clumps and was observed throughout the deeper littoral lake zones. Because of its depth, this plants did not appear to be impacting beneficial uses of the lake. The native aquatic plant Elodea acts as an under story or secondary plant in the lake, and can expand to the point of causing major problems. The absence of complaints from lake residents concerning this species indicate that beneficial uses were not impacted. Chara (Muskgrass) is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases, this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem to lake users. 5.7 Post Control Visual Assessment During the Second Systematic Survey on September 20, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the herbicide treatments and control methods conducted in 2012 on the four targeted species (FWL, PL, and YFI). All treated plants showed clear symptoms of herbicide damage. Any remaining stands of YFI and PL were primarily located on properties where permission to enter was not secured. 5.8 Algae Cyanobacteria are common in freshwater lakes, frequently forming dense populations or water blooms in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development of algae blooms are light, temperature, pH, and nutrient concentrations. Because of the potential that the blooms may occur, SWM staff issues annual algae information, and algae alerts when present, to all North Lake residents. The alerts caution residents and users of the presence of toxic -producing algae and recommends safe action to prevent exposure. In addition, the information concerning the Department of Ecology Algae Control Program is provided — a program that focuses on providing local governments with the tools they need to manage algae problems. A total of $250,000 is earmarked each year to target blue-green algae due to the health risks posed to humans, pets, and livestock. No reports of blue-green algae blooms on North Lake were received in 2012. 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING Temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) measurements were made from January through November 2012 in the center of the northern part of the lake. Measurements were taken using a YSI Model ProODO instrument at the surface and one meter intervals to the bottom. Temperatures ranged from a low of 5 C (41 F) in January to 25 C (77 F) in August. The water column temperature was relatively uniform until mid-April when significant difference, thermal 6 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT stratification, began to occur between the surface and water below 3 meters. The stratification remained until November. The maximum difference was in August with a surface temperature of 25 C (77 F) and a bottom temperature of 8 C (46 F). Figure 1, North Lake Temperature 2012 30.0 25.0 20.0 V d m 15.0 m 0 10.0 5.0 0.0 N North Lake Temperature 2012 Date -0 M -IM 2M -3M -4M -5 M �6 M �7 M 8M 9M Dissolved Oxygen concentrations ranged from 11 ppm in the surface in March to less than 1 ppm below 5 M in June. DO concentrations below 5 M of less than 4 ppm existed from mid- May through early September. The water from 6 meters to the bottom had less than one ppm of dissolved oxygen from early May through early November. 7 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT Figure 2, North Lake Dissolved Oxygen 2012 12.0 10.0 8.0 E a n 6.0 O O 4.0 2.0 0.0 North Lake DO 2012 3\3�1 e y\`~ e 1\1� "\' e Date -OM -IM -2m - 3 M -4M -SM 6M /M 8M 9M Nitrogen and Phosphorus concentrations were measured at surface and bottom from May through November. Total Nitrogen concentrations at the surface ranged from 0.032 mg/l to 1.42 mg/l. Bottom total nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.14 mg/l to 0.74 mg/1. Total phosphorus concentrations at the surface were below detection limits, 0.050/mg/1, on every collection except for November when it was 0.053 mg/1. Bottom total phosphorus concentrations were below detection limits in all samples. Figure 3, North Lake Total N and Total P, Surface, 2012 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 C 0.80 0.60 D.40 0.20 0.00 North Lake Total N and Total P Surface 2012 'yV'Cr 'yam ,� 1�P y� -1V yea tINSur fP Sur 8 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT Figure 4, North Lake Total N and Total P, Bottom, 2012 1.20 1.00 0.80 c E 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 North Lake TN and TP Bottom 2012 O --4--TN Bottom fTP Bottom The nutrient data indicates that the lake phytoplankton productivity is limited by the lack of available phosphorus. 7.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake incorporates elements presented in the 2004 Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). Using the IAVMP, the annual Work Plan includes a Public Education element that has two components: a focus on prevention and detection of noxious aquatic and emergent weeds; and lake stewardship. The North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) oversees the implementation of the 2012 North Lake Work Plan. 7.1 Community Involvement North Lake Community Involvement program for 2012 involved the following: 7.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAQ The NLAC is charged with setting the aquatic plant management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. Resolution No. 09-560, passed by the City Council, created the Advisory Committee for North Lake LMD Number 2. The purpose of the NLAC is to provide for LMD property owner representation to the City Council. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT Per Resolution No. 09-560, NLAC representation consists of. Five (5) representing single family and/or vacant properties; one (1) representing Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (public boat launch property); and one (1) representing the Weyerhaeuser Corporation. Per Resolution No. 09-560, an open recruitment for selection to the NLAC took place. This process resulted in the selection of NLAC members. The 2012 NLAC members were: Member Representing Chuck Gibson Committee Chair, Lake Resident Terry Thomas Lake Resident Robin Cook Lake Resident Mary McClellan-Aronen Lake Resident Samantha Turner Weyerhaeuser Derek Hacker Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife* Note: because of potential conflicts of interest, WDFW has chosen not to be a voting member of the committee. However, they have indicated that comment will be provided if concerns arise that they are particularly interested in, such as issues with the public access property. The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities of the NLAC: • Reviews annual plant survey information. • Develops an annual aquatic plant management Work Plan based upon the information revealed in the annual plant surveys. The Work Plan prioritizes aquatic weed problem areas, identifies preferred control methods for each species, and develops the anticipated budget. • Assists the City of Federal Way with oversight of control work to keep contractors accountable. • Participates in preparation of an annual evaluation report that summarizes plant control activities, lake -user's perspectives on the plant community, and recommendations for the next year's control strategy. • Helps the City of Federal Way to ensure that all lake residents receive proper notification pursuant to the requirements of the Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit. • Participates in other annual community involvement/education strategies and plant control efforts as needed. The NLAC met three times in 2012: February 3 • Reviewed final 2011 Work Plan scope and expenses • Reviewed RFP for aquatic plant management 10 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT • Discussed and approved 2012 Work Plan May 23 • Reviewed budget • Approved four year contract for AquaTechnex (aquatic plant management) • Reviewed status of 2012 Work Plan • Discussed water quality sampling results September 25 • Reviewed budget • Reviewed aquatic plant survey results • Discussed additional water quality results The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. 7.1.2 Development of 2012 Work Plan The goals and budget regarding the 2012 Work Plan are based upon Resolution Number 09-544 to form North Lake Management District Number 2. The following is a brief outline of the 2012 Work Plan: Task 1 & 2: Aquatic Vegetation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water Illy, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris, and narrow leaf cattail), and other problematic aquatic plant issues (i.e. mud island removal) for the year. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 5.0. Task 3: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items in Task 2 include: community meetings (spring) and Plant ID Workshop (summer); quarterly newsletter (The Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers and press releases; web site development; and development of an annual report. Task 3: Water Quality Monitoring describes the water quality sampling plan. 7.1.3 Plant ID Workshop The joint Steel Lake—North Lake Plant fD Workshop was not held in 2012. 11 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT 7.2 Public Education The North Lake Public Education program for 2012 involved the following: 7.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter SWM staff continued issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, and education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 7.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via mail and email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. Lake residents were also sent notices prior to all public meetings. During the course of 2012, SWM staff mailed out formal public notices and followed up with supplemental notices to lake residents. In addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work plan activities were e-mailed to subscribers approximately 24 hours prior to the activity on the lake. 7.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs SWM staff continued to develop and issue the following lake -related informational flyers and brochures as needed: • Milfoil Boater Education • Good Plants/Bad Plants • Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal • Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese • Aquatic Weed Rake Program • Be Lake Steward 7.2.4 Web Page Development In 2012, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the year. Web site information includes: • Current IAVMP (with figures and maps) • 2012 Work Plan • Chronology and description of important 2012 North Lake activities • North Lake publications such as: The Lake View; informative flyers (milfoil, blue-green algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plants/bad plants); public notices; and NLAC Meeting notes. 12 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT 7.2.5 Annual Report SWM staff develops and distributes a final year-end report for all lake residents and parties of interest that describes the activities and a budget review of the prior year. 8.0 2012 BUDGET REVIEW The 2012 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the scope of aquatic weed management expected to be accomplished during the year. Table 1 below provides an overview of the final North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2012: Table 1. 2012 North Lake Budget Overview TASK Estimates Actual Year End (includes taxes) (includes taxes) Balance of 2011 LMD Funds $3,020 $3,439 LMD Annual Assessment $13,000 $14,648 Task 1 & 2, Project Administration/Vegetation (-) $9,038 (-) $6,420 Management Task 3, Public Education (-) $491 (-) $295 Task 4, Water Quality Monitoring (-) $1,200 (-) $934 Task 5, SWM Staff Time Reimbursement (-) $2,600 (-) $2,509 King County Department of Assessments () $324 (-) $324 C Collection Fee YEAR END BALANCE $2,367 $7,607 The year-end balance includes interest income. 13 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT 8.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administration/ Vegetation Management Table 2 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2. Table 2. 2012 North Lake Budget, TASK 1 & 2, Project Administration/Vegetation Mgmt. GOAL 2012 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Annual Permit Fee (for 2012 coverage) $430.00 $453.00 RFP advertisements $177.00 $176.86 Two diver surveys (Spring & Summer) $3,395.00 $2,176.31 Milfoil herbicide treatment 0 0 Glyphosate herbicide treatment + mobilization $2,173.00 $1,806.75 Diver removal of milfoil 0 0 Advance resident notifications & postings $876.00 $492.75 Native weed manual removal $383.00 0 Water lily island control 0 0 Post control visual inspection 0 0 Discharge Management Plan $821.00 $821.25 Contractor attendance at meetings $290.00 0 Contractor final report $493.00 $492.75 TOTALS $9,038.00 $6,419.67 8.2 Task 3 Public Education Table 3 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3. Table 3. 2012 North Lake Budget, TASK 3 Public Education GOAL 2011 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Meeting refreshments $25.00 $20.17 Quarterly newsletter $366.00 $274.35 Annual evaluation report 0 0 Annual Spring Community Meeting 0 0 Public education printing 0 0 Boater outreach program 0 0 City LMD web page 0 0 Postage $100.00 N/A TOTALS $491.00 $294.52 14 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT 8.3 Task 4 Water Quality Monitoring Program Table 4 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 4. Table 4. 2012 North Lake Budget. TASK 4 Water Qualitv Monitoring Proaram GOAL 2012 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) Implement annual water quality monitoring $1,200 Five (5) separate water quality monitoring events with lab program expense TOTALS $1,200.00 $933.60 8.4 Task 5 SWM Staff Time Reimbursement Table 5 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 5. Table 5. 2012 North Lake Budget, TASK 5 SWM Staff Time Reimbursement GOAL 2012 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) SWM staff wages and benefits TOTALS $2,600.00 $2,509.00 9.0 2012 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2013 The following discussion summarizes the 2012 North Lake program, and outlines recommendations for 2013: 9.1 2012 Aquatic Vegetation Management Summary • The NLAC agreed that the aquatic vegetation management actions included in the 2012 Work Plan were fully implemented. Plants approved for control under the Ecology grant (FWL, PL, and YFI) — continued to be targeted. • North Lake has been free and clear of milfoil since 2005. As a result, chemical herbicides have not been applied. This has resulted in reduced control costs and less ecological impacts. • FWL is almost completely eradicated. Herbicide treatments for YFI and PL continued to be successful where applied, but some of the work has been limited because rights of entry permission have not been submitted by all property owners. Additionally, PL colonies 15 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT continue to survive along parts of Weyerhaeuser's shoreline due to poor access when lake levels are low. 9.2 2013 Aquatic Vegetation Management Recommendations The following outlines recommendations for 2013: • All Aquatic Plant Management activities will be implemented through North Lake LMD Number Two. • The annual Work Plan will continue to be implemented, including conducting annual surveys, controlling noxious plants when documented, and water quality monitoring. • Conduct a thorough evaluation of native plant densities after the initial survey to identify properties with impacted beneficial uses. • Continue to determine if sufficient funds are available to conduct bathymetry mapping. • Continue to stress open, frequent, and accurate communication with the contractor. • Continue to solicit contractor oversight assistance and follow-up observations from lake residents so that issues concerning poor treatment effectiveness can be addressed in a timely manner. • Continue to contact property owners with purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris who have not granted access to treat. • Conduct more aggressive identification and treatment of PL on Weyerhaeuser property shoreline, and continue to follow up during periods of peak bloom in order to detect colonies. • Collect appropriate water quality monitoring data to effectively calculate Trophic State Index (TSI). 9.3 2012 Public Education Summary A wide variety of Public Education products were offered in 2012. In addition to the quarterly newsletter, the LMD has provided Washington Department of Health Toxic Blue Green Algae brochure, milfoil boater education brochures, good plant/bad plant flyers, Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese flyers, and a Be a Lake Steward flyer on the SWM website. Additionally, the Public Education program was used to efficiently and effectively inform lake residents concerning the LMD process throughout 2012 by means of Lake View articles, e - subscribe, public hearings, and committee meetings. 9.4 2013 Public Education Recommendations • Continue aggressive public education effort targeting all lake properties infested with noxious weeds in order to prevent their spread. • Improve property owner right of entry participation. 16 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2012 FINAL REPORT NORTH LAKE Management District 2013 Final Report Prepared by: City of Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................2 2.0 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 IAVMP DEVELOPMENT AND ECOLOGY GRANT FUNDING............................................................................ 2 2.2 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM.................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT..................................................................................... 3 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT...................................................................................4 5.0 BATHYMETRY MAPPING................................................................................................................................ 4 6.0 2013 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES......................................................................... 6 6.1 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY —Noxious PLANTS................................................................................................... 6 6.1.1 Fragrant Water Lily................................................................................................................................ 6 6.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris....................................................................................................................................... 6 6.1.3 Purple Loosestrife................................................................................................................................... 7 6.2 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS............................................................................................................................. 7 6.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment.............................................................................................................. 8 6.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment .................................................................................. 8 6.3 YFI AND PL MANUAL CONTROL.................................................................................................................. 9 6.4 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL.................................................................................................................... 9 6.5 WEED RAKES............................................................................................................................................... 9 6.6 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY — NATIVE PLANTS................................................................................................... 10 6.7 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................ 11 6.8 BENEFICIAL USES....................................................................................................................................... 11 6.9 BLUE-GREEN ALGAE.................................................................................................................................. 11 6.10 FILAMENTOUS ALGAE................................................................................................................................ 12 7.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING.......................................................................................................12 8.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/PUBLIC EDUCATION...............................................................................15 8.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................................................... 15 8.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee(NLAC)............................................................................................. 15 8.1.2 Development of 2013 Work Plan......................................................................................................... 16 8.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION.................................................................................................................................... 17 8.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter............................................................................................................................ 17 8.2.2 Public Notices...................................................................................................................................... 17 8.2.3 Educational Materials.......................................................................................................................... 17 8.2.4 Web Page............................................................................................................................................. 17 8.2.5 Annual Report....................................................................................................................................... 18 9.0 2013 BUDGET REVIEW...........................................................................................................................18 9.1 2013 WORK PLAN TASKS 1 & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION/ VEGETATION MANAGEMENT .... 18 9.2 2013 WORK PLAN TASK 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION.......................................................................................... 19 9.3 2013 WORK PLAN TASK 4 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM....................................................... 20 9.4 2013 WORK PLAN TASK 5 SWM STAFF TIME REIMBURSEMENT............................................................... 20 10.0 2013 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2013 ......................................... 20 10.1 2013 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARY............................................................................ 20 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2013 FINAL REPORT 10.2 2014 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 21 10.3 2013 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 21 10.4 2014 PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX A, AQUATECHNEX FINAL 2013 REPORT.................................................................................... A NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2013 FINAL REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. 2013 North Lake Water Quality Data..................................12 Table 2. 2013 North Lake Budget Overview.....................................17 Table 3. 2013 North Lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2 .................................18 Table 4. 2013 North Lake Budget, Task 3 ........................................18 Table 5. 2013 North Lake Budget, Task 4 ........................................19 Table 6. 2013 North Lake Budget, Task 5 ........................................19 Figure 1. North Lake Bathymetry Contour Map, 2013 ...........................5 Figure 2. North Lake Bathymetry Relief Map, 2013 ..............................5 Figure 3. North Lake Temperature, 2013 ..........................................13 Figure 4. North Lake DO, 2013 .......................................................13 Author and Contact Information Dan Smith Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator City of Federal Way, Washington Public Works Department Division of Surface Water Management 33325 8`h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063 (253) 835-2756 daniel.smith@cityoffederalway.com For more information contact: Public Works, phone (253) 835-2700. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2013 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided by the North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) members and the entire lake community who contributed to the successful development of the North Lake Management District and the implementation of the 2013 aquatic plant management program. The Committee includes the following members: • Lake residents: Chuck Gibson (Chair), Terry Thomas, Robin Cook, Mary McClellan- Aronen, and Brian Cleary • Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Samantha Turner • City of Federal Way: Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Hollie Shilley (ESA & NPDES Coordinator) • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Derek Hacker NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2013 FINAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) and Surface Water Management (SWM) successfully implemented the following goals as outlined in the annual LMD Work Plan: • Identified noxious aquatic plants (fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris) were targeted for control at as low a density as was environmentally and economically feasible and at levels that did not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. An effective public education program was undertaken that continued to help prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants, and non-native animal species into the lake. • A comprehensive water quality monitoring program was implemented through the year to provide important data concerning the health of North Lake. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IAVMP Development and Ecology Grant Funding Prior to annexation into the City of Federal Way in 2005, North Lake was within the jurisdictional boundary of unincorporated King County. Leading up to annexation, the lake community had been implementing an informal aquatic plant management program for a number of years. But starting in 2004, a more formal effort was undertaken when North Lake began coordinating with King County in the development of an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP)--a comprehensive document that establishes all future goals and strategies for freshwater lake noxious weed management. Anticipating that North Lake would soon become part of the city, SWM staff began collaborating with King County to finalize of the North Lake IAVMP (a document required by the Washington Department of Ecology for future grant funding). Consequently, North Lake was soon awarded a four-year Washington State Department of Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund (AWMF) grant in 2005 with SWM designated as the administrator. The action plan outlined in the grant included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, control, and public education designed to fully eradicate the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75% of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology. The AWMP grant expired December 31, 2009. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2013 FINAL REPORT 2.2 Lake Management District While the AWMF grant program was being implemented, city staff and residents began meeting with the intent to form a Lake Management District for North Lake as a means to provide long- term funding throughout the duration of the ten-year district (2010-2019). Per RCW 36.61, annual assessments collected from LMD property owners for a ten year period will fund the following: ongoing aquatic vegetation management, water quality monitoring, public education, and related lake improvement programs. 2.3 The Aquatic Weed Problem Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to the State of Washington. They are generally of limited distribution, are invasive, and pose a serious threat to our state's waterbodies (including North Lake) if left unchecked. Because noxious plants have few natural controls, they spread rapidly, out -compete and effectively destroy native plant and animal habitats. This can lead to a degradation of recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2005). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (Weed Board) classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur; and, (3) prevent their movement to un - infested areas of Washington. The following three major noxious weed classifications are listed according to the seriousness of the threats posed to the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide -spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a county option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT In 2013, coverage for North Lake continued under the state of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae. Permit issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. Effective March 18, 2011, the five-year NPDES permit (issued under the NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3 2013 FINAL REPORT authority of RCW 90.48) has been implemented by the City's aquatic plant management contractor AquaTechnex, LLC. The permit governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The permit expires on March 18, 2016. 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT In 2013, AquaTechnex operated under the second year of a four-year Professional Services Agreement with the City of Federal Way. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology -approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, mapping, reports, and attending meetings as required. 5.0 BATHYMETRY MAPPING Bathymetry is an underwater study of a lake's topography. As a lake ages, it undergoes numerous changes which alters its appearance below the surface. Bathymetry mapping provides a means to physically delineate lake -bottom relief (or terrain). Mapping assists in the understanding of lake sedimentation and siltation, and also provides information concerning underwater locations where aquatic plant growth (both native and non-native) is occurring. Unfortunately, bathymetry maps available for North Lake were outdated and more than 30 years old. Accordingly, the LMD authorized an effort to produce state-of-the-art bathymetry mapping and 3D modeling. Updated mapping was performed on March 12, 2013 by AquaTechnex when the lake was at full pool. To complete the bathymetry mapping effort, AquaTechnex utilized a vessel equipped with a system linked to a Trimble GPS data logger with sub -foot accuracy, and a hydro -acoustic depth sounding system with 0.2 foot accuracy. The system collected GPS points and depth readings every two seconds as the boat travelled around the lake. A pre -designed mapping protocol was followed with transects made across the lake at approximately twenty -foot intervals. The project generated a total of 11,163 sampling points. The collected data was shipped to Mapping Networks geographers for processing. ArcGIS software and other technologies were used to develop accurate bathymetry maps and 3D models of the lake bottom. Additionally, important lake information including the exact area (54.1 acres), maximum depth (38.3 feet), and mean depth (11 feet) were calculated. From the collected data, electronic bathymetry map graphics were generated and laminated map copies depicting lake -bottom relief and contour lines were distributed to all individual LMD property owners. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 4 2013 FINAL REPORT Figure 1, 2013 North Lake Bathymetry Contour Map na��iecenni`°� North Lake MuppingNelwork Federal Way, WA Figure 2, 2013 North Lake Bathymetry Relief Map ��dneK North Lake M`appngllehvork Federal Way, WA NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2013 FINAL REPORT 6.0 2013 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 6.1 Systematic Survey — Noxious Plants AquaTechnex completed the annual initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake on June 10, 2013. The survey consisted of transects being recorded at approximately 400-500 foot intervals around the shoreline, with rake -toss samples taken in a line perpendicular to the shoreline to determine the presence and abundance of the lake's aquatic plant species. During the effort, the survey team mapped all submerged, floating, and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex Report: North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2013, (Appendix A). Native plant information is provided below in Section 6.6. Noxious weeds found during the 2013 North Lake initial systematic survey included: • Fragrant water lily, (Nymphaea odroata), Class C • Yellow flag iris, (Iris pseudacorus), Class C • Purple loosestrife, (Lythrum salicaria), Class B The following is a discussion regarding noxious weeds documented during the 2013 plant survey. 6. 1.1 Fragrant Water Lily Fragrant waterlily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins. It is recognized by its fragrant (white, pink to purple in color) flowers that float on the water surface; and by its large, round, floating leaves that have distinctive slits on one side. Due to its attractiveness, this nonnative plant has been introduced to many lakes in Washington. Unfortunately, FWL is a noxious plant that can become invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas such as North Lake (Ecology 2006). Therefore it is listed as a State of Washington Class C Weed. The June survey documented sparse FWL growth in North Lake, and as with prior years, the colonies were observed to be sporadically located along the shoreline perimeter. The population densities of FWL continue to decline in response to annual LMD-funded treatments. Based on the survey results, AquaTechnex recommended continued targeting of this species with the aquatic herbicide glyphosate (Rodeo) as necessary until it is completely eradicated. 6.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable along the edge of water and in wetlands. Its yellow -colored flowers bloom in late spring or early summer. This noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has a flower stalk that grows up to nearly five feet tall. Additionally, the rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense stands that exclude more desirable native wetland species. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2013 FINAL REPORT The initial June survey found sparse populations of YFI along the shoreline perimeter (primarily where permission to treat was not provided by land owners). Identical to the control plan implemented during the last three seasons, glyphosate (Rodeo) treatments are utilized annually until complete eradication is achieved. 6.1.3 Purple Loosestrife Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple -pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This erect, robust, square -stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an invasive, rapidly -spreading European species that is a State of Washington Class C weed (Ecology, 2006). It has been necessary to perform multiple surveys through the summer to map PL locations because the plant's seedlings tend to emerge from the lake sediments along the shorelines during the entire growing season. In 2013, this noxious emergent plant was reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake in densities that have been dramatically diminishing year-to-year. The proposed control action for PL involved several scheduled herbicide applications of triclopyr (Renovate3) on private property via permission (right of entry) from landowners. 6.2 Herbicide Treatments The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities in lakes, and the applicator must also comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. Glyphosate Glyphosate (Rodeo) was used to treat FWL and YFI colonies on North Lake in 2013. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic applications. With applications generally made in mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide down into the root system, glyphosate provides effective long-term control. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days; seven days or more on most perennial weeds; and thirty days or more on most woody plants. However, extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects of glyphosate treatment includes gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant, which then advances to complete browning of above -ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. The advantages of glyphosate include: • The product is a systemic herbicide which is effective in the removal of targeted plants with no impact to plants not treated. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 7 2013 FINAL REPORT • Application can be conducted in a spot -treatment or isolated area fashion. • There are no water use restrictions. Triclopyr Triclopyr (Renovate 3) is a liquid aquatic herbicide labeled for control of submersed, emergent and floating plants in and around aquatic sites such as lakes. The active ingredient (triclopyr) rapidly enters through the targeted plant leaves and stems and interferes with the plant's metabolism. The aquatic herbicide impacts most dicot (broadleaf) plants, and has little to no impact on most monocots (grassy type species). It is highly effective in selectively targeting purple loosestrife and carries no restrictions on recreational use such as swimming and fishing in the treatment area. 6.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication. The control plan was designed to achieve the following: • Allow for the gradual replacement of FWL with native vegetation to improve fish habitat. • Improve boater access and provide safer recreational opportunities. • Reduce the possibility of excessive amounts of dying vegetation (which contributes to an increase in nutrient loading that may result in more frequent algae blooms). • Limit the production of dead vegetation which reduces the likelihood for higher oxygen demand in the water column. The AquaTechnex Report: North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2013, (Appendix A) contains maps locating FWL colonies. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the lily pads by a two -person crew using boat -mounted low-pressure spray equipment. Three separate treatments took place in 2013: July 19, August 18 and September 13. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process included reapplication as necessary to areas that did not initially uptake enough herbicide because of weather or plant wash off. The total area treated equaled less than one acre. 6.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment Continued eradication of all YFI and PL continued in 2013. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of these emergent plant species. During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (Rodeo) for YFI and triclopyr (Renovate 3) for PL. The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by licensed applicators using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex personnel were careful not to impact adjacent ornamental plants or grasses during treatment activity. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2013 FINAL REPORT In accordance with state law, the King County Noxious Weed Control Board requires property owners to control purple loosestrife on private and public lands throughout the county (control means to prevent all seed production and to prevent the dispersal of all propagative parts capable of forming new plants). In 2013, both SWM and AquaTechnex continued coordinating with King County in the identification and control of PL on North Lake. Survey information is shared annually between each agency; this effort leads to a markedly improved identification program that allows for more effective treatment and control, Therefore, a larger percentage of PL colonies can be eraticated. 6.3 YFI and PL Manual Control The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake themselves to help control the spread of both YFI and PL. SWM provides information regarding proper manual control methods (digging up the roots or cutting back the stalks), and the proper disposal of all organic debris (roots, seed heads, and stems) for both YFI and PL. 6.4 Water Lily Island Control Floating mud islands, resulting from past herbicide treatment of fragrant water lily colonies, are characterized by suspended masses of organic deposits (plant roots, peat and mud) that range in size from a few inches to a few feet thick. Gasses can build up from decomposing fibrous material and may lift the plant roots and parts of the lake bottom to the surface to form mud islands that can migrate from property -to -property. The NLAC agreed that floating mud island removal action would continue to be implemented on an as -needed basis if floating masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake. Although floating mud islands have been problematic in the past, none formed in 2013. In 2013, the weed rake loan program continued to provide North Lake residents an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes were used as necessary through the summer to maintain beneficial uses (fishing, boating and swimming) along private shorelines. Weed rakes can only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the "FW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet (publication 4APF-1-98). Depending on the type of plant targeted, North Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two different styles of rakes: a rake with a sharp cutting blade for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged plants. SWM staff take care each growing season to ensure proper use of weed rakes. For instance, if mifoil is present, the action of the rake may fragment the noxious plant and allow it to uncontrollably spread throughout the lake. Because neither milfoil nor any other submersed noxious aquatic plants were detected during the initial 2013 survey, weed rakes were able to be NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9 2013 FINAL REPORT loaned out immediately to lake residents to control native aquatic plants when needed. The weed rake program was shut down for the season on September 15 pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet requirements. 6.6 Systematic Survey — Native Plants The objective of the systematic survey is to quantify the presence and location of all aquatic plant vegetation (native and non-native) on North Lake. Detailed survey information and mapping may be found in the AquaTechnex Report: North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2013, (Appendix A). In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section 6.1, the following information details the native plant species populating North Lake during 2013: FLOATING PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Yellow pond lily Nuphar spp. Spatterdock Nuphar polysepalum SUBMERSED PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Muskgrass Chara sp. Naiad Najas sp. White stemmed pondweed Potamogeton praelongus American elodea Elodea Canadensis Large leaf pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius Bladderwort Utricularia Emergent Plants Emergent plant populations were identical to those documented the previous year. Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species that grow in the shallow margins of the lake: Typha spp. (Cattail) and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush). The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and mammals. Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese and provide habitat for amphibians and fish. Additionally, all of North Lake's emergent vegetation helps to stabilize shorelines and reduce erosion. Floatine Plants Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 10 2013 FINAL REPORT provides spawning habitat for fish. Nuphar polysepalum (Spatterdock) is a perennial waterlily- like plant. When mature, Spatterdock has large elephant -ear -shaped leaves and yellow flowers. Submersed Plants Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that dominates the lake bottom. Unlike most other perennial aquatic plants, it reproduces from seed each year. This aquatic plant generally grows rapidly in the spring and produces seeds that drop into the lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed population to the point of excluding other native plants. Other submerged plant species observed in North Lake included: • Potamogeton praelongus (White stemmed pondweed). This native member of the pondweed family occurs in small clumps and was observed throughout the deeper littoral lake zones. • Elodea, a native plant that acts as an under story or secondary plant in the lake. • Chara (Muskgrass), a macro algae that is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases, this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem to lake users. 6.7 Post Control Visual Assessment During the Second Systematic Survey on October 3, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the herbicide treatments and control methods conducted in 2013 on the four targeted species (FWL, PL, and YFI). All targeted plants showed clear symptoms of herbicide damage. Surviving stands of YFI and PL were primarily located on properties where permission to enter was not secured. 6.8 Beneficial Uses Impairment of beneficial use is defined as a change in the integrity of North Lake sufficient to cause any use impairment to recreational activities (boating, fishing and swimming). Based upon the results of each systematic survey, AquaTechnex biologists reported that aquatic plant species (emergent, floating, or submersed) were never at high enough densities during 2013 that adversely impacted the beneficial uses of North Lake. 6.9 Blue -Green Algae Blue -Green algae (cyanobacteria) are common in freshwater lakes, and they frequently form dense populations (blooms) in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development of algae blooms are: light, temperature, pH, and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous). Large blue-green blooms can pose a human health concern. Although most are non-toxic, some blue-green algae produce nerve or liver toxins. Toxicity is difficult to predict because a single species of algae can produce both toxic and non-toxic strains. Additionally, a bloom that tests NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 11 2013 FINAL REPORT non-toxic one day can turn toxic the next day. People may become ill after coming into contact with lake waters that are impacted with toxic blue-green algae. Humans may experience stomach pains, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin rashes; and nerve and liver damage have been observed following long-term exposure (such as drinking impacted water). Although pets and wildlife have died after exposure to toxic blue-green algae in Washington lakes, there have been no confirmed human deaths reported worldwide (Ecology, 2013). In 2011, SWM was awarded a Freshwater Algae Control Program Grant from the Department of Ecology for the management of algal blooms occurring in City of Federal Way freshwater lakes (including North Lake). The four-year project improves and enhances the Lake Management District's algal bloom management efforts by providing: (1) a response to reports (early detection investigations and water quality sampling/analysis), (2) public notification, and, (3) data reporting. SWM staff issues information and alerts to all residents when blue-green algae is present. The alerts caution residents and users to the presence of toxic -producing algae, and recommends safe action for the prevention of exposure. When necessary, SWM staff collects samples and has them identified through the Department of Ecology Algae Control Program. In 2013, SWM staff responded to a citizen complaint concerning a possible algae bloom at the south end of North Lake. A water sample was collected on March 28 and submitted for analysis through the Ecology Algae Control Program. Although blue-green algae was detected in the sample, the lab results indicated that toxin levels were below minimum detection limits. Therefore, SWM advised the lake community through timely notifications that a public health threat was not present. 6.10 Filamentous Algae Filamentous algae (Spirogyra) are an abundant non-toxic variety of algae commonly found in freshwater lakes that are typically identified by their bright, almost neon -green color. Inflation by gasses may cause them to billow underwater. Additionally, they may quickly reproduce and will cling to surfaces in characteristic hair-like mats. The WA Department of Ecology states that filamentous green algae can sometimes create problems when it grows in "cotton candy -like" clouds in the water; but generally, most filamentous algae are not problematic and are a good food source for zooplankton. If filamentous algae is found growing to such an extent where it may be impacting the beneficial uses of the lake, SWM advises lake residents that the harmless algae may simply be raked out of the water, dried out on the grass or a beach, and disposed of with lawn waste. 7.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING In 2013, measurements of temperature and dissolved oxygen were collected by a lake volunteer on eighteen (18) separate dates (from February through November). Using a YSI Model ProODO instrument, measurement -taking began at the surface level and continued downward at one meter intervals to the bottom. The temperature followed the normal and expected pattern of increasing surface temperatures of about 6 degrees C in February to 27 degrees C in July and back to 10 degrees C in November. The temperature at the bottom ranged from 6 degrees C in February to NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 12 2013 FINAL REPORT 10 degrees in November. Stratification began to strengthen in June and remained until mid- September (See Figure 2). Dissolved oxygen concentrations at the surface ranged from a high of 10 ppm in March to a low of 7.5 ppm in July. Low dissolved oxygen began to occur at the bottom in March. By July, low dissolved oxygen was measured from 4 meters depth to the bottom. In November the dissolved oxygen levels became uniform throughout the water column (See Figure 2). Physical water samples were also collected for nutrient, chlorophyll, UV 254 and phytoplankton on three separate dates: September 16, October 14 and October 28. These samples were analyzed by the King County Environmental Laboratory. Prior to 2005, volunteer lake monitors working under the guidance of King County Water and Land Resources Division, collected water quality data from North Lake (physical, chemical, and biological). This program was suspended in 2005 due to annexation of North Lake by the City of Federal Way. Fortunately, beginning in 2014, all North Lake water quality data will undergo quality control and will again be entered into the King County Small Lakes Stewardship database so that water quality trends may continue to be tracked over the long term. These data may be used to assess North Lake, and may help to guide future lake protection and stewardship activities. Tabulated 2013 results are shown below: Table 1, 2013 North Lake Water Quality Data NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 13 2013 FINAL REPORT Dates Location September 16, 2013 October 13, 2013 October 28, 2013 Surface, Total Nitrogen 0.476 0.576 0.465 (mg/L) Bottom Total Nitrogen 0.705 0.989 0.441 (mg/L) Surface, Total 0.0099 0.0158 0.147 Phosphorus (mg/L) Bottom Total Phosphorus 0.0356 0.0525 0.0107 (mg/L) Surface, Chlorophyll -a 2.89 4.51 5.1 (ug/L) Surface Pheophytin-a <MDL 2.62 <MDL (ug/L) UV Absorbance (1/cm) 0.153 0.162 0.175 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 13 2013 FINAL REPORT Figure 3, North Lake Temperature Data 2013 30.f I .—.2;0 V a> 20.0 a� W 15.0 L cu aD 10.0 CL E II.T 5.0 0.0 North Lake Temperature 2013 Figure 4, North Lake Dissolved Oxygen Data 2013 North Lake Dissolved Oxygen 2013 --*—O M f1 M f2 M +— 3 M +4 M t5 M —6m 7 M 8M 9 M 14 0 M 1 M 2M 3M 4M 5M 6M 7M 8M 9M NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2013 FINAL REPORT 8.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/PUBLIC EDUCATION Public involvement and public education for North Lake incorporates elements and concepts presented in the 2004 Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). Using the IAVMP, the annual Work Plan strives to improve lake health through the promotion of lake stewardship and through the implementation of educational programs designed to help lake residents and lake users detect and prevent the spread of noxious aquatic plant species. 8.1 Public Involvement The North Lake Public Involvement program for 2013 included the following: 8.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAQ The NLAC is charged with setting lake management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. Resolution No. 09-560, passed by the City Council, created the Advisory Committee for North Lake LMD Number 2. The purpose of the NLAC is to provide for LMD property owner representation to the City Council. Per Resolution No. 09-560, NLAC representation consists of. • Five (5) representing single family and/or vacant properties; one (1) representing Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (public boat launch property); and one (1) representing the Weyerhaeuser Corporation. Currently, the resolution calls for a maximum term for property owners of two years (with a maximum of two terms allowed). The 2013 NLAC members were: Member Representing Term Expiration Chuck Gibson Committee Chair, Lake Resident March 15, 2014, Second Term Terry Thomas Lake Resident March 15, 2014, Second Term Robin Cook Lake Resident March 15, 2014, Second Term Mary McClellan-Aronen Lake Resident March 15, 2014, First Term Brian Cleary Lake Resident March 15, 2014, First Term Samantha Turner Weyerhaeuser N/A Derek Hacker Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife" N/A Note: Because of potential conflicts of interest, WDFW has chosen not to be a voting member of the committee. However, they have indicated that comment will be provided if concerns arise which particularly interest them (i.e., issues with the public access property). NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 15 2013 FINAL REPORT The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities and duties of the NLAC: Assists in the development of an annual lake management Work Plan and budget. Participates in evaluation of aquatic plant control activities and helps to recommend annual control strategies. Participates in other community involvement/education strategies efforts as needed. The NLAC met three times in 2013: February 7 • Reviewed final 2012 Work Plan scope and expenses • Discussed and approved 2013 Work Plan • Reviewed bathymetry mapping results • Reviewed water quality data June 3 • Reviewed budget • Reviewed status of 2013 Work Plan • Discussed water quality sampling results November 22 • Reviewed budget • Reviewed aquatic plant survey results • Discussed additional water quality results The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. 8.1.2 Development of 2013 Work Plan The goals and budget regarding the 2013 Work Plan are based upon Resolution Number 09-544 to form North Lake Management District Number 2. The following is a brief outline of the 2013 Work Plan approved by the NLAC: Task I & 2: Aquatic Vegetation Control and Treatment: Identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted noxious aquatic plant species. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the stated goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 6.0. Task 3: Public Education: Describes all public involvement and public education elements designed to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of noxious aquatic weeds and the presence of non-native species in North Lake. Items in Task 2 may include: community meetings (spring) and Plant ID Workshop (summer); quarterly newsletter (The Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers and press releases; web site development; and development of an annual report. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 16 2013 FINAL REPORT Task 3: Water Ouality Monitoring: Describes the water quality sampling plan designed to measure and track the health of North Lake. 8.2 Public Education The North Lake public education program for 2013 involved a combination of the following: quarterly newsletter, public notices, and educational materials. 8.2.1 Newsletter SWM staff issued the publication The Lake View to all North Lake once in 2013 via US Postal Service and through the city's email subscribe list. The newsletter (created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee), includes updates to lake residents concerning recent LMD activities, and education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 8.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. All NLAC meetings were advertised on the city's Calendar of Events web page. 8.2.3 Educational Materials SWM staff continued to develop and issue the following lake -related informational flyers and brochures as needed: • Milfoil Boater Education • Good Plants/Bad Plants • Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal • Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese • Aquatic Weed Rake Program • Be Lake Steward • Permanent signage at the public boat launch. 8.2.4 Web Page In 2013, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the year. Web site information includes: • AquaTechnex Report: North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2013 • Right of Entry form • Advisory Committee Application • The Lakeview NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 17 2013 FINAL REPORT 8.2.5 Annual Report SWM staff develops and distributes a North Lake LMD final year-end report that describes all significant LMD program information and activities. 9.0 2013 BUDGET REVIEW The 2013 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the LMD scope of work expected to be accomplished during the year. Table 2 below provides an overview of the final North Lake LMD budget costs for 2013: Table 2. 2013 North Lake Budget Overview TASK Work Plan Estimates (includes taxes) Actual Year End (includes taxes) Balance of 2012 LMD Funds $7,607 $7,607 LMD Annual Assessment $14,500 $13,029 Task 1 & 2, Project Administration/Vegetation Management $11,310 $8,841 Task 3, Public Education $791 $411 Task 4, Water Quality Monitoring $1,200 $879 Task 5, SWM Staff Time Reimbursement $2,600 $2,317 YEAR END BALANCE $5,822 $8,189 The year-end balance includes interest income. 9.1 2013 Work Plan Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administration/ Vegetation Management Table 3 below illustrates the budgeted elements for 2013 Work Plan Task 1 and 2. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 18 2013 FINAL REPORT Table 3. 2013 North Lake Work Plan TASK 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administration/Vegetation Management GOAL 2013 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Annual Permit Fee (for 2013-14 coverage) $450.00 $475.00 Two diver surveys (Spring & Summer) $3,000.00 $1,806.75 Milfoil herbicide treatment 0 0 Glyphosate herbicide treatment + mobilization $1,900.00 $821.25 Diver removal of milfoil 0 0 Advance resident notifications & postings $500.00 $325.50 Native weed control $300.00 0 Water lily island control 0 0 Bathymetry mapping $4,380.00 $4380.00 Contractor attendance at meetings $290.00 $372.30 Contractor final report $490.00 $657.00 TOTALS $11,310.00 $8,840.80 9.2 2013 Work Plan Task 3 Public Education Table 4 below illustrates the budgeted elements for the 2013 Work Plan Task 3. Table 4. 2013 North Lake Work Plan, TASK 3 Budget, Public Education GOAL 2013 Work Plan Estimated Expenses Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Meeting refreshments $25.00 $12.44 Quarterly newsletter, development & printing $366.00 $91.45 Annual evaluation report 0 0 Spring Community Meeting 0 0 Bathymetry map printing $300.00 $306.60 Boater outreach program 0 0 City LMD web page 0 0 Postage $100.00 0 TOTALS $791.00 $410.49 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 19 2013 FINAL REPORT 9.3 2013 Work Plan Task 4 Water Quality Monitoring Program Table 5 below illustrates the budgeted elements for the 2013 Work Plan Task 4. Tahle S. 2013 North Lake Work Plan_ TASK 4 Budget_ Water Quality Monitorina Proaram GOAL 2013 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) Implement annual water $1,200.00 $879.00 quality monitoring program $2,600.00 $2,316.50 TOTALS $1,200.00 $879.00 9.4 2013 Work Plan Task 5 SWM Staff Time Reimbursement Table 6 below illustrates the budgeted elements for the 2013 Work Plan Task 5. Table 6. 2013 North Lake Work Plan. TASK 5 Budaet. SWM Staff Time Reimbursement GOAL 2013 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) SWM staff wages and benefits $2,600.00 $2,316.50 TOTALS $2,600.00 $2,316.50 10.0 2013 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2013 The following discussion summarizes the 2013 North Lake program, and outlines recommendations for 2014: 10.1 2013 Aquatic Vegetation Management Summary • The NLAC agreed that the aquatic vegetation management actions included in the 2013 Work Plan were fully implemented. Plants approved for control include FWL, PL, and YFI. These noxious plants continued to be targeted and are now found to be diminishing within the lake system. • North Lake has been free and clear of milfoil since 2005. As a result of the successful LMD program, chemical herbicide applications have not been necessary to control this extremely noxious plant. This success has resulted in reduced year-to-year milfoil control costs and less ecological impacts to the lake. • FWL is almost completely eradicated and the beneficial uses of the lake have improved. • Herbicide treatments for YFI and PL was successful, although some work has been limited because rights of entry permission have not been submitted by all property owners. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 20 2013 FINAL REPORT • Ongoing coordination with King County continued for PL identification and control. • AquaTechnex continues to pinpoint and target sparse PL colonies that survive along the difficult to access Weyerhaeuser shoreline. • The 2013 bathymetry mapping effort provided updated information concerning the lake - bottom terrain of North Lake. This information will assist in the understanding of lake sedimentation and siltation, and may also be used in identifying the location of noxious weed habitat and potential infestation areas. • The water quality monitoring program became more comprehensive and incorporated improved laboratory methodology (King County) in 2013. 10.2 2014 Aquatic Vegetation Management Recommendations The following outlines recommendations for 2014: • All aquatic plant management activities will be implemented through North Lake LMD Number Two: annual surveys, control of noxious plants when documented, water quality monitoring, and a public education program. • A thorough evaluation of native plant densities will be performed after the initial survey to identify properties with impacted beneficial uses. • Open, frequent, and accurate communication with the contractor will be carried out. • Lake residents will be encouraged to provide oversight of contractor activity when necessary to ensure treatment effectiveness. • Property owners with purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris colonies who have not granted access to treat will be contacted so that they may provide up-to-date rights of entry as necessary. • Purple loosestrife survey and control coordination with King County will continue. • Aggressive identification and treatment of PL on Weyerhaeuser property shoreline will be carried out, with follow up during periods of peak bloom in order to detect stray colonies. • Water quality monitoring data will be collected so that the calculation of the Trophic State Index (TSI) can be accomplished. • Water quality monitoring data will be imported into the King County Small Lakes Stewardship database and posted on the public website. • The need to collect the annual CPI assessment increase, and the need to suspend annual assessment collection altogether for a few years, will be evaluated by the NLAC (Note: these actions require City Council approval). 10.3 2013 Public Education Summary A wide variety of public education products were offered in 2013. In addition to the quarterly newsletter, the LMD has provided Washington Department of Health Toxic Blue Green Algae brochure, milfoil boater education brochures, good plant/bad plant flyers, "Four Reasons Not to NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 21 2013 FINAL REPORT Feed the Ducks or Geese" flyers, and a "Be a Lake Steward" flyer on the SWM website. Additionally, the Public Education program was used to efficiently and effectively inform lake residents concerning the LMD process throughout 2013 by means of Lake View articles, e - subscribe, and NLAC meetings. 10.4 2014 Public Education Recommendations • Continue aggressive public education effort targeting all lake properties infested with noxious weeds in order to prevent their spread. • Improve property owner right of entry participation. • Amend Resolution No. 09-560 to remove NLAC membership limit of two consecutive terms • Effectively recruit for full NLAC membership. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 22 2013 FINAL REPORT APPENDIX A AquaTechnex Report: North Lake Summary of Activities in 2013 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2013 FINAL REPORT NORTH LAKE: SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES IN 2013 Prepared by AquaTechnex, LLC. North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2013 North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2013 PREPARED BY AQUATECHNEX, LLC. Introduction The residents of North Lake have been active for several years in their mission to protect the natural resource available just outside their door. The residents have formed into a Lake Management District and the management of the lake is facilitated by the City of Federal Way. The main objective being to protect the water quality of North Lake and to monitor and control invasive weed growth in and around the lake. Treatment activity at North Lake over the years has had a significant impact on the noxious aquatic plant community which was very dominant in several areas around the lake at one point. At the beginning, the entire littoral edge of the lake was overrun by Eurasian Milfoil, a submerged aquatic weed that poses a serious threat to the beneficial uses of an infested body of water. There were also extensive areas dominated by Fragrant Water Lily and a number of emergent species growing along the shoreline of the lake. Over the past several years the activities undertaken by the City have reduced the impact of these noxious weeds significantly. The current management strategy for North Lake is to monitor and identify any new introductions of noxious weeds and to continue the eradication efforts of the remaining infestations. AquaTechnex has been contracted to provide survey and aquatic plant management services at North Lake for the several years. Our survey and control efforts in 2013 focused on the continued monitoring of Yellow Flag Iris, Fragrant Water Lily, and Purple Loosestrife populations around the lake as well as for any new introductions. This report summarizes the operations at North Lake. Page 1 North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2013 2013 Survev Summar The first survey of North Lake occurred on June l Ot". The lake was surveyed by boat, and the entire lake was surveyed with an initial pass to search for any Eurasian Milfoil and to note other noxious weeds such as Yellow Flag Iris and Fragrant Water Lily and native emergent plants. A systematic survey was then conducted around the lake. Transects were followed at approximately 400-500 foot intervals around the shoreline. Rake -toss samples were taken in a line perpendicular to the shoreline at specific intervals (5, 10, 15 and 20 foot depth contours). During the diver -tow survey a SCUBA equipped diver was towed through the 10-15 foot contour of the lake to locate any plants which may be growing just out of site of the initial visual and systematic surveys. The plant community in North Lake has stayed relatively constant over the last 5-10 years we have been involved with the lake. Overall plant growth has not been excessive when compared year to year. The native plant continues to be dominated by Najas sp. This plant does not typically reach the surface but in areas where water depths are low (especially towards the end of the summer) it can become an impediment. This situation may exist more in the south end of the lake and the extreme north end. To a lesser extent Elodea, Whitestem Pondweed, and Largeleaf Pondweed play an important role. These plants are usually occupying the deeper areas and offer a diverse habitat for the fishery in the lake. In speaking with several fishermen on the lake there is a very healthy population of Largemouth Bass. Noxious weeds such as Yellow Flag Iris and Fragrant Water Lily were also mapped, however Purple Loosestrife was not growing to a point where a complete survey would note all plants around the lake and a focused survey was completed a couple of weeks later. A survey for PL was also completed by King County. The data from both surveys was combined to direct treatment activities. The fall survey took place on October 3rd. The purpose of this survey was to have a look at the plant community in the fall and note the effects of the season's treatments. The YFI, FWL, and purple loosestrife were all examined during this survey. With the exception of the extreme north end there does not appear to be any FWL growing in the main body North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2013 of the lake. There may be some growing within the dense cattail stands and this will be investigated closer in 2014 while surveying the cattails themselves (see below). No milfoil was located in North Lake in 2013. Noxious Weed Control Efforts Fragrant Water Lily (Nymphaea odorata) and Yellow Flag Iris (Iris pseudacorus) North Lake has had a very aggressive program focusing on Fragrant Water Lily (FWL) and Yellow -Flag Iris (YFI). Treatments took place on July 19th, August 16th, and September 1 3th. During the fall survey there were no FWL plants located in the main body of the lake. This season was basically spent cleaning up the isolated patches. The only "hold- out" zone is the north end where treatment conditions are generally less than ideal. Continued applications will remove the remaining plants next season. Yellow -flag Iris still maintains a hold around the lake. The last two seasons have had very aggressive treatments of the shorelines. Waders and backpacks have been used while walking the entire shoreline. The majority of zones have been reduced to very small patches. Invasive Cattail For the past several years treatments have taken place to control an invasive species of cattail. It appears that both of the known stands have been completely eliminated. There was a recent decision by the WA State Noxious Weed Board to add all known hybrid crosses of our native cattail (Typha Iatifoiia) with any non-native species. Careful attention must be paid to the existing stands of cattail around the lake to confirm they are not the known invasive or a hybrid cross of the two. Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum saiicaria) Purple Loosestrife (PL) is a State listed Class -A noxious weed and its control is required by law. North Lake has a well-established community of this plant. Though it can be found sporadically around the lake, the largest stands are in the undeveloped shoreline areas (west and north). Due to the aggressive nature of this plant a great deal of time and energy is focused on mapping and control. King County does its own surveys in Page 3 North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2013 several locations for Class -A noxious weeds, and one of those survey spots is North Lake. King County Staff performs a survey of the PL each summer and they share the results of that survey with our staff. The data from our survey is combined with their survey and that information is used to direct treatment efforts. Flagging is also used in the field to make plants more visible for treatment. Purple Loosestrife was treated during all three treatment dates. The aquatic herbicide Triclopyr (Renovate 3) was applied to the plants - thoroughly coating the leaves. Maps are included at the end of this report noting the areas treated for PL. There continues to be a good amount of PL growing in the extreme north end of the lake. Access to this area is particularly difficult. Rains this year in September kept water levels up higher than normal which hindered efforts to wade/walk through the muddy shoreline to treat some locations. Damage to plants was very obvious during follow up treatments and the end of the year survey. Other Notables North Lake went ahead with bathymetry mapping this spring. A very high quality map was created showing the depths all around the lake. The maps produced were turned over to the City of Federal Way and the North Lake LIVID. Unlike several of lakes in the King County metro area, North Lake has not been experiencing any issues with large Blue-green Algae blooms. During the October survey small colonies of algae were floating around the lake but it was not possible to identify at that time. The growth was not anywhere near a point were concern is needed but we now know there is a possibility. New introductions of noxious weeds are not uncommon and it is important for shoreline residents to remain vigilant in keeping an eye on their lake. Recently our company started working on a lake in Kent where within the last 3 years there has been an introduction of Curly leaf Pondweed. This is a Class -C noxious weed which can be very difficult and expensive to control. With a public access point on North Lake there is Page 4 North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2013 always a chance for new plants to be introduced and if anything out of the ordinary or "new" looking appears it should be reported to the City right away. Please feel free to contact Adam Kleven at 360-508-1276 or Adam@aquatechnex.com with any questions. Thank you for your time and consideration. " lb Legend - Bladderwart Largeleaf MChara � P Whitestem MNajas oC6, OOK OCe3L°?, %( r r• .r ! /�. x" y t W 5Im uVA r ♦ :. ,�. a `a ► w ��'�� AT AWL Legend Purple_L • Yellow Flag Iris Cattail Bullrush� " sedge oM, o�% I I Technex •o W,0®Paulit~no • • +Awi. OPRO x" c� �ra""•~'R - r:� . � Vim" � k ip- N •.:R a 1. y T@` t r. ' Oh ... • ••k, 5 r J - . AT AWL l�AwV��1• Legend Purple_L _ M • Yellow Flag Iris " • Water Lily :&0,MMMo� AquaTechnex - • NE x OPRO " �ra""�~'R . w"h. • � +'..yam-+� R Ir j Tom^ ATc" l�OW V��R 9M Legend T W PL_Treat2 z " PL—Treat :M, o��,��, Track 1 0 NORTHJUNE2013.s12 6/10/2013 1:11 PM u'+ a o 1 m v. ArI e W36th St--' } i 9 2013 Mic, 0010 AV G Track (Z a� NORT W UNE2013,s12 6/10/2013 1:11 PM 4 EW46h 0,s *�•� - @20131T 2010 HA -age - NORTH LAKE Management District 2014 Final Report Prepared by: City of Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................................1 2.1 IAVMP DEVELOPMENT AND ECOLOGY GRANT FUNDING............................................................................ 1 2.2 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM.................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT..................................................................................... 2 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT...................................................................................3 5.0 2014 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.........................................................................3 5.1 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY —Noxious PLANTS................................................................................................... 3 5.1.1 Fragrant Water Lily................................................................................................................................ 3 5.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris....................................................................................................................................... 4 5.1.3 Purple Loosestrife................................................................................................................................... 4 5.2 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS............................................................................................................................. 4 5.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment.............................................................................................................. 5 5.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment.................................................................................. 6 5.3 YFI AND PL MANUAL CONTROL.................................................................................................................. 6 5.4 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL.................................................................................................................... 6 5.5 WEED RAKES............................................................................................................................................... 7 5.6 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY — NATIVE PLANTS..................................................................................................... 7 5.7 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................................... 9 5.8 NATIVE GROWTH AND IMPACTS TO BENEFICIAL USES................................................................................. 9 5.9 BLUE-GREEN ALGAE.................................................................................................................................... 9 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING.......................................................................................................10 7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/PUBLIC EDUCATION...............................................................................12 7.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................................................... 12 7.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee(NLAC)............................................................................................. 12 7.1.2 Development of 2014 Work Plan......................................................................................................... 14 7.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION.................................................................................................................................... 15 7.2.1 Newsletter.............................................................................................................................................15 7.2.2 Public Notices...................................................................................................................................... 15 7.2.3 Educational Materials.......................................................................................................................... 15 7.2.4 Web Page............................................................................................................................................. 15 7.2.5 Annual Report....................................................................................................................................... 16 8.0 2014 BUDGET REVIEW...........................................................................................................................16 APPENDIX A, AQUATECHNEX REPORT: NORTH LAKE SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES IN 2014 .........19 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2014 FINAL REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. 2014 North Lake Water Quality Data...................................12 Table 2. 2014 North Lake LIVID Assessment Rates ............................17 Table 3. 2014 North Lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2 .................................17 Table 4. 2014 North Lake Budget, Task 3 ........................................17 Table 5. 2014 North Lake Budget, Task 4 ........................................17 Table 6. 2014 North Lake Budget, Task 5 ........................................18 Table 7. 2014 North Lake LIVID Budget Totals...................................18 Figure 1. North Lake Temperature, 2014 ..........................................11 Figure 2. North Lake DO, 2014 .......................................................11 Author and Contact Information Dan Smith Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator City of Federal Way, Washington Public Works Department Division of Surface Water Management 33325 8`h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063 (253) 835-2756 daniel.smith@cityoffederalway.com For more information contact: Public Works, phone (253) 835-2700. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2014 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided by the North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) members and the entire lake community who contributed to the successful development of the North Lake Management District and the implementation of the 2013 aquatic plant management program. The Committee includes the following members: • Lake residents: Chuck Gibson (Chair), Terry Thomas, Robin Cook, Mary McClellan- Aronen, and Brian Cleary • Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Samantha Turner • City of Federal Way: Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Hollie Shilley (ESA & NPDES Coordinator) • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Derek Hacker NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2014 FINAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) and Surface Water Management (SWM) successfully implemented the following goals as outlined in the annual LMD Work Plan: • Identified noxious aquatic plants (fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris) were targeted for control at as low a density as was environmentally and economically feasible and at levels that did not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. • An effective public education program was undertaken that continued to help prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants, and non-native animal species into the lake. • A comprehensive water quality monitoring program was implemented through the year to provide important data concerning the health of North Lake. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IAVMP Development and Ecology Grant Funding Prior to annexation into the City of Federal Way in 2005, North Lake was within the jurisdictional boundary of unincorporated King County. Leading up to annexation, the lake community had been implementing an informal aquatic plant management program for a number of years. But starting in 2004, a more formal effort was undertaken when North Lake began coordinating with King County in the development of an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP)--a comprehensive document that established all future goals and strategies for freshwater lake noxious weed management. Anticipating that North Lake would soon be annexed into the city, SWM staff began collaborating with King County to finalize of the North Lake IAVMP (a document required by the Washington Department of Ecology for future grant funding). Consequently, North Lake was awarded a four-year Washington State Department of Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund (AWMF) grant in 2005 with SWM designated as the administrator. The action plan outlined in the grant included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, control, and public education designed to begin eradication of the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water Illy, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75% of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology. The AWMP grant expired December 31, 2009. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 1 2014 FINAL REPORT 2.2 Lake Management District While the AWMF grant program was being implemented, city staff and residents began meeting with the intent to form a Lake Management District for North Lake as a means to provide long- term funding mechanism. In 2010, a ten-year LMD was formed. Per RCW 36.61, annual assessments collected from LMD property owners funds the following programs: ongoing aquatic vegetation management, water quality monitoring, public education, and related lake improvement programs. 2.3 The Aquatic Weed Problem Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to the State of Washington. They are generally of limited distribution, are invasive, and pose a serious threat to our state's waterbodies (including North Lake) if left unchecked. Because noxious plants have few natural controls, they spread rapidly, out -compete and effectively destroy native plant and animal habitats. This can lead to a degradation of recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2005). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (Weed Board) classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur; and, (3) prevent their movement to un - infested areas of Washington. The following three major noxious weed classifications are listed according to the seriousness of the threats posed to the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide -spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a county option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT In 2014, coverage for North Lake continued under the state of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae. Permit issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. Effective March 18, 2011, the five-year NPDES permit (issued under the NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2 2014 FINAL REPORT authority of RCW 90.48) has been implemented by the City's aquatic plant management contractor AquaTechnex, LLC. The permit governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The permit expires on March 18, 2016. 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT In 2014, AquaTechnex operated under the third year of a four-year Professional Services Agreement with the City of Federal Way. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology -approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, mapping, reports, and attending meetings as required. 5.0 2014 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 5.1 Systematic Survey — Noxious Plants AquaTechnex completed the annual initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake on June 10, 2014. The survey consisted of transects being recorded at approximately 400-500 foot intervals around the shoreline, with rake -toss samples taken in a line perpendicular to the shoreline to determine the presence and abundance of the lake's aquatic plant species. During the effort, the survey team mapped all submerged, floating, and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex Report: North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2014, (Appendix A). Native plant information is provided below in Section 5.6. Noxious weeds found during the 2014 North Lake initial systematic survey included: • Fragrant water lily, (Nymphaea odroata), Class C • Yellow flag iris, (Iris pseudacorus), Class C • Purple loosestrife, (Lythrum salicaria), Class B The following is a discussion regarding noxious weeds documented during the 2014 plant survey. 5. 1.1 Fragrant Water Lily Fragrant waterlily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins. It is recognized by its fragrant (white, pink to purple in color) flowers that float on the water surface; and by its large, round, floating leaves that have distinctive slits on one side. Due to its NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3 2014 FINAL REPORT attractiveness, this nonnative plant has been introduced to many lakes in Washington. Unfortunately, FWL is a noxious plant that can become invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas such as North Lake (Ecology 2014). Therefore it is listed as a State of Washington Class C Weed. The June survey documented sparse FWL growth in North Lake, and as with prior years, the colonies were observed to be sporadically located along the shoreline perimeter. The population densities of FWL continue to decline in response to annual LMD-funded treatments. Based on the survey results, AquaTechnex recommended continued targeting of this species with the aquatic herbicide glyphosate (Rodeo) as necessary until it is completely eradicated. 5.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable along the edge of water and in wetlands. Its yellow -colored flowers bloom in late spring or early summer. This noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has a flower stalk that grows up to nearly five feet tall. Additionally, the rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense stands that exclude more desirable native wetland species. The initial June survey found sparse populations of YFI along the shoreline perimeter (primarily where permission to treat was not provided by land owners). Identical to the control plan implemented during the last three seasons, glyphosate (Rodeo) treatments are utilized annually until complete eradication is achieved. 5.1.3 Purple Loosestrife Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple -pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This robust, square -stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an invasive, rapidly -spreading European species that is a State of Washington Class C weed (Ecology, 2014). Because the plant's seedlings tend to emerge from the lake sediments along the shorelines during the entire growing season, it has been necessary to perform multiple surveys through the summer to map PL locations. In 2014, this noxious emergent plant was reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake in densities that have been dramatically diminishing year-to-year. The proposed control action for PL involved several scheduled herbicide applications of triclopyr (Renovate3) on private property via permission (right of entry) from landowners. 5.2 Herbicide Treatments The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities in lakes, and the applicator must also comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 4 2014 FINAL REPORT Glyphosate Glyphosate (Rodeo) was used to treat FWL and YFI colonies on North Lake in 2014. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic applications. With applications generally made in mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide down into the root system, glyphosate provides effective long-term control. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days; seven days or more on most perennial weeds; and thirty days or more on most woody plants. However, extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects of glyphosate treatment includes gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant, which then advances to complete browning of above -ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. The advantages of glyphosate include: The product is a systemic herbicide which is effective in the removal of targeted plants with no impact to plants not treated. Application can be conducted in a spot -treatment or isolated area fashion. There are no water use restrictions. Triclopyr Triclopyr (Renovate 3) is a liquid aquatic herbicide labeled for control of submersed, emergent and floating plants in and around aquatic sites such as lakes. The active ingredient (triclopyr) rapidly enters through the targeted plant leaves and stems and interferes with the plant's metabolism. The aquatic herbicide impacts most dicot (broadleaf) plants, and has little to no impact on most monocots (grassy type species). It is highly effective in selectively targeting purple loosestrife and carries no restrictions on recreational use such as swimming and fishing in the treatment area. 5.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication. The control plan was designed to achieve the following: • Allow for the gradual replacement of FWL with native vegetation to improve fish habitat. • Improve boater access and provide safer recreational opportunities. • Reduce the possibility of excessive amounts of dying vegetation (which contributes to an increase in nutrient loading that may result in more frequent algae blooms). • Limit the production of dead vegetation which reduces the likelihood for higher oxygen demand in the water column. The AquaTechnex Report: North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2014, (Appendix A) contains maps locating FWL colonies. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the lily pads by a two -person crew using boat -mounted low-pressure spray equipment. Two separate NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2014 FINAL REPORT treatments took place in 2014. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process included reapplication as necessary to areas that did not initially uptake enough herbicide because of weather or plant wash off. The total area treated equaled less than one acre. 5.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment Continued eradication of all YFI and PL continued in 2014. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of these emergent plant species. In 2014, 75% of North Lake residents have granted access for emergent treatment. During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (Rodeo) for YFI and triclopyr (Renovate 3) for PL. The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by licensed applicators using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex personnel were careful not to impact adjacent ornamental plants or grasses during treatment activity. In accordance with state law, the King County Noxious Weed Control Board requires property owners to control purple loosestrife on private and public lands throughout the county (control means to prevent all seed production and to prevent the dispersal of all propagative parts capable of forming new plants). In 2014, both SWM and AquaTechnex continued coordinating with King County in the identification and control of PL on North Lake. Survey information is shared annually between each agency; this effort leads to a markedly improved identification program that allows for more effective treatment and control, Therefore, a larger percentage of PL colonies can be eradicated. 5.3 YFI and PL Manual Control The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake themselves to help control the spread of both YFI and PL. SWM provides information regarding proper manual control methods (digging up the roots or cutting back the stalks), and the proper disposal of all organic debris (roots, seed heads, and stems) for both YFI and PL. 5.4 Water Lily Island Control Floating mud islands, resulting from past herbicide treatment of fragrant water lily colonies, are characterized by suspended masses of organic deposits (plant roots, peat and mud) that range in size from a few inches to a few feet thick. Gasses can build up from decomposing fibrous material and may lift the plant roots and parts of the lake bottom to the surface to form mud islands that can migrate from property -to -property. The NLAC agreed that floating mud island removal action would continue to be implemented on an as -needed basis if floating masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake. Although floating mud islands have been problematic in the past, none formed in 2014. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 6 2014 FINAL REPORT 5.5 Weed Rakes In 2014, the weed rake loan program continued to provide North Lake residents an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes were used as necessary through the summer to maintain beneficial uses (fishing, boating and swimming) along private shorelines. Weed rakes can only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet (publication 4APF-1-98). Depending on the type of plant targeted, North Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two different styles of rakes: a rake with a sharp cutting blade for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged plants. SWM staff take care each growing season to ensure proper use of weed rakes. For instance, if mifoil is present, the action of the rake may fragment the noxious plant and allow it to uncontrollably spread throughout the lake. Because neither milfoil nor any other submersed noxious aquatic plants were detected during the initial 2014 survey, weed rakes were able to be loaned out immediately to lake residents to control native aquatic plants when needed. The weed rake program was shut down for the season on September 15 pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet requirements. 5.6 Systematic Survey — Native Plants The objective of the systematic survey is to quantify the presence and location of all aquatic plant vegetation (native and non-native) on North Lake. Detailed survey information and mapping may be found in the AquaTechnex Report: North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2014, (Appendix A). In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section 5.1, the following information details the native plant species populating North Lake during 2014: FLOATING PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Yellow pond lily Nuphar spp. Spatterdock Nuphar polysepalum NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2014 FINAL REPORT SUBMERSED PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Muskgrass Chara sp. Naiad Najas sp. White stemmed pondweed Potamogeton praelongus American elodea Elodea Canadensis Large leaf pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius Bladderwort Utricularia Emergent Plants Emergent plant populations were identical to those documented the previous year. Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species that grow in the shallow margins of the lake: Typha spp. (Cattail) and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush). The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and mammals. Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese and provide habitat for amphibians and fish. Additionally, all of North Lake's emergent vegetation helps to stabilize shorelines and reduce erosion. Floatine Plants Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and provides spawning habitat for fish. Nuphar polysepalum (Spatterdock) is a perennial waterlily- like plant. When mature, Spatterdock has large elephant -ear -shaped leaves and yellow flowers. Submersed Plants Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that dominates the lake bottom. Unlike most other perennial aquatic plants, it reproduces from seed each year. This aquatic plant generally grows rapidly in the spring and produces seeds that drop into the lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed population to the point of excluding other native plants. Other submerged plant species observed in North Lake included: Potamogeton praelongus (White stemmed pondweed). This native member of the pondweed family occurs in small clumps and was observed throughout the deeper littoral lake zones. Elodea, a native plant that acts as an under story or secondary plant in the lake. Chara (Muskgrass), a macro algae that is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases, this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem to lake users. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2014 FINAL REPORT 5.7 Post Control Visual Assessment During the Second Systematic Survey on October 21, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the herbicide treatments and control methods conducted in 2014 on the four targeted noxious species (FWL, PL, and YFI). All targeted plants showed clear symptoms of herbicide damage. Surviving stands of YFI and PL were primarily located on properties where permission to enter was not secured. 5.8 Native Growth and Impacts to Beneficial Uses The native plant community in North Lake has a level of diversity common for the lakes in this area. Additionally, the community exhibits a relative dominance of one species over all others: Najas flexilis. This plant is native to Washington but has the ability to grow to nuisance levels in an urban lake environment like North Lake. In recent summers, a small number of residents have complained about excessive Najas growth—an observation that is most probably linked to recently warmer spring and summers. The resulting extended growing season causes plant growth to peak towards the beginning of August, and increasing plant densities observed well into September. When aquatic plant growth is excessive, it may impair beneficial uses for lake residents—for example, impairment to recreational activities (boating, fishing and swimming). In 2014, AquaTechnex biologists reported that the density of the submerged aquatic plant Najas was high enough in one distinct area to potentially adversely impact the beneficial uses of North Lake (the eastern shore cove area). Consequently the contractor proposed that this location be treated with the contact herbicide Diquat dibromide. On August 19, the North Lake Advisory Committee approved herbicide treatments in select nuisance areas identified by AquaTechnex. Follow up inspections performed during the Second Aquatic Plant Survey on October 21 indicated that the nuisance herbicide treatments were successful in restoring lake access. Additionally, affected lakeside residents reported complete satisfaction with the control work. 5.9 Blue -Green Algae Blue -Green algae (cyanobacteria) are common in freshwater lakes, and they frequently form dense populations (blooms) in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development of algae blooms are: light, temperature, pH, and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous). Large blue-green blooms can pose a human health concern. Although most are non-toxic, some blue-green algae produce nerve or liver toxins. Toxicity is difficult to predict because a single species of algae can produce both toxic and non-toxic strains. Additionally, a bloom that tests non-toxic one day can turn toxic the next day. People may become ill after coming into contact with lake waters that are impacted with toxic blue-green algae. Humans may experience stomach pains, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin rashes; and nerve and liver damage have been observed following long-term exposure (such as drinking impacted water). Although pets and wildlife NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9 2014 FINAL REPORT have died after exposure to toxic blue-green algae in Washington lakes, there have been no confirmed human deaths reported worldwide (Ecology, 2014). There were no reports of blue-green algae blooms in North Lake in 2014. 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING The King County Lake Stewardship Program Volunteer Monitoring Program for North Lake began in the 1980s and continued for several decades until budget cuts ended the program in 2005. Although the most recent data generated by this program (nine years prior to the date of this report) indicated that North Lake had been relatively low in primary productivity (borderline oligotrophic to mesotrophic) with very good water quality, a significant data gap exists between then and now. The long-term objectives of the current North Lake Management District Water Quality Monitoring Program include: (1) continuation of the gathering of baseline data with the intent of assessing long-term trends; (2) defining seasonal and water column variability; (3) identifying potential problems, proposing possible management solutions when feasible, or pinpointing additional studies to be made; and (4) educating lake residents, lake users, and policy makers regarding lake water quality. Monitoring this year began in early summer, with samples collected from the surface and one meter above the bottom from the deepest part of the lake to define changes found in the vertical profiles of the parameters. These data will not be useful to assess water quality trends and the ecology of North Lake until several years -worth have been collected. Data are currently being posted on the King County Small Lakes Data website: http://green2.kin.qcounty..qov/smaIlLakes/W QData.aspx In 2014, measurements of temperature and dissolved oxygen on North Lake were collected by a lake volunteer on fourteen (14) separate dates (from March through October). Using a YSI Model ProODO instrument, measurement -taking began at the surface level and continued downward at one meter intervals to the bottom. The temperature followed the normal and expected pattern of increasing surface temperatures of about 10 degrees C in March to 24 degrees C in August and back to 16 degrees C in October. The temperature at the bottom ranged from 6 degrees C in March to 10 degrees in October. Stratification began to strengthen in June and remained until mid- September (See Figure 1). Dissolved oxygen concentrations at the surface ranged from 9.2 ppm in March to a low of 7.2 ppm in June. Low dissolved oxygen began to occur at the bottom in April. By late June, low dissolved oxygen was measured from 4 meters depth to the bottom. Low dissolved oxygen persisted below 5 meters into October (See Figure 2). Physical water samples were also collected for nutrient, chlorophyll, UV 254 and phytoplankton on 12 separate dates: May 5 through October 20. These samples were analyzed by the King County Environmental Laboratory. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 10 2014 FINAL REPORT Figure 1, North Lake Temperature 2014 30.0 25.0 20.0 v a 1S.0 a D 10.0 5.0 an a� North Lake Temperature 2014 Figure 2. North Lake Dissolved Oxygen 2014 12.0 10.0 8.0 E 6.0 CL 4.0 North Lake DO 2014 2.0 0.0 11 t0 M t1M f2M 3 M --4�--4 M �5 M t6 M -7M 8M t9M -$--0 M f1 M -dp-2M -0*-3 M --*-4 M -40-5 M t6 M —7 M —8M -0-9M NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2014 FINAL REPORT Table 1. Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Chlorophyll -a and UV absorbance data for North Lake 2014 Date Surface Total Nitrogen Bottom Total Nitrogen Se Total phosphorus Bottom Total phosphorus Surface Chloraphyll-a UV Absorbance 5/5/14 0.457 0.799 0.0139 0.0401 3.67 ND 5/19/14 0.555 0.923 0.0175 0.0621 27.4 ND 6/2/14 0.462 0.675 0.0089 0.0302 8.13 0.216 6/16/14 0.510 0.756 0.147 0.295 10.2 0.209 6/30/14 0.517 0.748 0.0197 0.0264 2.34 0.201 7/21/14 0.424 1.4 0.0116 0.0833 1.3 0.192 8/11/14 0.365 1.17 0.0095 0.112 1.2 0.177 8/25/14 0.422 0.986 0.0079 0.0178 1.5 0.171 9/8/14 0.41 1.87 0.0068 0.193 1.43 0.162 9/22/14 0.399 1.18 ND 0.113 2 0.158 10/6/14 0.384 1.01 0.0078 0.0731 2.33 0.153 10/20/14 0.414 2.4 0.0052 0.257 2.33 0.152 7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/PUBLIC EDUCATION Public involvement and public education for North Lake incorporates elements and concepts presented in the 2004 Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). Using the IAVMP, the annual Work Plan strives to improve lake health through the promotion of lake stewardship and through the implementation of educational programs designed to help lake residents and lake users detect and prevent the spread of noxious aquatic plant species. 7.1 Public Involvement The North Lake Public Involvement program for 2014 included the following: 7.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAQ The NLAC is charged with setting lake management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. Resolution No. 09-560, passed by the City Council, created the Advisory Committee for North Lake LMD Number 2. The purpose of the NLAC is to provide for LMD property owner representation to the City Council. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 12 2014 FINAL REPORT Per Resolution No. 09-560, NLAC representation consists of. Five (5) representing single family and/or vacant properties; one (1) representing Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (public boat launch property); and one (1) representing the Weyerhaeuser Corporation. Currently, the resolution calls for a maximum term for property owners of two years (with a maximum of two terms allowed). The 2014 NLAC members were: Member Representing Term Expiration Chuck Gibson Committee Chair, Lake Resident March 15, 2016, Second Term Terry Thomas Lake Resident March 15, 2016, Second Term Robin Cook Lake Resident March 15, 2016, Second Term Mary McClellan-Aronen Lake Resident March 15, 2014, First Term Brian Cleary Lake Resident March 15, 2016, First Term Samantha Turner Weyerhaeuser N/A Derek Hacker Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife" N/A Note: Because of potential conflicts of interest, WDFW has chosen not to be a voting member of the committee. However, they have indicated that comment will be provided if concerns arise which particularly interest them (i.e., issues with the public access property). The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities and duties of the NLAC: Assists in the development of an annual lake management Work Plan and budget. Participates in evaluation of aquatic plant control activities and helps to recommend annual control strategies. Participates in other community involvement/education strategies efforts as needed. The NLAC met formally five times in 2014: January 15 • Met with City Attorney to review committee duties and procedures • Reviewed final 2013 Work Plan scope and expenses • Discussed suspending annual CPI rate increase • Reviewed and approved 2014 Work Plan • Discussed NLAC term limits and recruitment • Public education NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 13 2014 FINAL REPORT March 12 • Reviewed and approved additional items concerning 2014 Work Plan • More discussion about CPI • Discussed NLAC application process April 15 • No quorum July 29 • Reviewed annual plant survey results • Brief update of budget • Vote to suspend CPI increase next year (with Council approval) Public education. August 19 • Discussion concerning excessive submerged native plant growth around Larry Flesher's property • Committee approves limited herbicide treatment in nuisance plant growth area October 15 • CPI update • Reviewed success of native plant treatments • NLAC agrees on a long-term plan to monitor native treatment The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. 7.1.2 Development of 2014 Work Plan The goals and budget regarding the 2014 Work Plan are based upon Resolution Number 09-544 to form North Lake Management District Number 2. The following is a brief outline of the 2014 Work Plan approved by the NLAC: Task 1 & 2: Aquatic Vegetation Control and Treatment: Identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted noxious aquatic plant species. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the stated goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 6.0. Task 3: Public Education: Describes all public involvement and public education elements designed to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of noxious aquatic weeds and the presence of non-native species in North Lake. Items in Task 2 may include: community meetings (spring) and Plant ID Workshop (summer); quarterly newsletter (The Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers and press releases; web site development; and development of an annual report. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 14 2014 FINAL REPORT Task 3: Water Ouality Monitoring: Describes the water quality sampling plan designed to measure and track the health of North Lake. 7.2 Public Education The North Lake public education program for 2014 involved a combination of the following: quarterly newsletter, public notices, and educational materials. 7.2.1 Newsletter SWM staff issued the publication The Lake View quarterly to all North Lake residents 2014 via US Postal Service and through the city's email subscribe list. The newsletter (created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee), includes updates to lake residents concerning recent LMD activities, and education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 7.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. All NLAC meetings were advertised on the city's Calendar of Events web page. 7.2.3 Educational Materials SWM staff continued to develop and issue the following lake -related informational flyers and brochures as needed: • Milfoil Boater Education • Good Plants/Bad Plants • Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal • Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese • Aquatic Weed Rake Program • Be Lake Steward • Permanent signage at the public boat launch. 7.2.4 Web Page In 2014, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the year. Web site information includes: • AquaTechnex Report: North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2014 • Right of Entry form • Advisory Committee Application • The Lakeview NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 15 2014 FINAL REPORT 7.2.5 Annual Report SWM staff develops and distributes a North Lake LMD final year-end report that describes all significant LMD program information and activities. 8.0 2014 BUDGET REVIEW Table 2 lists individual property types and their North Lake LMD assessment rates for 2014. Table 2. 2014 LMD Property Assessment Rates Parcel Type Number Assessment Fee per Parcel Type Projected Total 2014 *Assessments Single Family 53 $107.27 $5,685.31 Vacant 9 Various $316.84 Lake access properties 2 $80.45 $160.90 Weyerhaeuser properties 17 Various $3,086.89 State Parcel (WDFW Boat Launch) 1 $4,290.90 $4,290.90 TOTAL ASSESSMENTS $13,540.84 *Projected total assumes 100% collection. The information provided below consists of task -by -task work plan goals/scope of work and their associated expenditures for 2014. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 16 2014 FINAL REPORT Table 3. Task 1 & 2, Aquatic Vegetation Control/Treatment Table 4. Task 3, Public Education Estimated Total Actual 2014 Work Plan Goals/Scope Expenses Expenses man hours at $50/hour. Estimate twelve (12) rounds of lab sample analysis per (includes taxes) (includes taxes) 2014 Weed Permit Annual Fee (for 2015 coverage) $475 Two systematic aquatic plant surveys performed per contract Scope of Work. $1,645 Includes post control inspection. $375 $3,737 Milfoil herbicide treatment. Estimated 4 acres treatment at $800/acre. 0 Milfoil diver hand pulling. Estimated 3 hours at $150/hr. 0 $303 Glyphosate treatment of yellow flag iris (YFI). Estimated 1.0 hours at $125/hr. and $825 mobilization costs Advance resident notification per permit requirements. $330 Native pondweed chemical control by contractor (biologist to determine if beneficial 0 uses are impacted). Requires SLAC approval. Estimate 1 acre treatment (Diquat) Final Report per Scope of Work $950 Contractor to attend SLAC meetings. Estimated one per year. $375 TASK 1 -Totals $4,600 $7,696 Table 4. Task 3, Public Education Table 5. Task 4, Water Quality Monitoring 2014 Work Plan Goals/Scope Estimated Actual 2014 Work Plan Goals/Scope Expenses Expenses man hours at $50/hour. Estimate twelve (12) rounds of lab sample analysis per (includes taxes) (includes taxes) Refreshments and supplies for quarterly Advisory Committee meetings $25 A quarterly newsletter will be distributed to all LMD residents. This publication will include: Advisory Committee Meeting minutes, plant management activities, $375 $3,737 aquatic plant educational materials, and informative water quality -related topics. TASK 2 — Totals $400 $303 Table 5. Task 4, Water Quality Monitoring 2014 Work Plan Goals/Scope Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) Actual Expenses (includes taxes) Estimate twelve (12) annual on -lake monitoring events and travel time: 28 SWM man hours at $50/hour. Estimate twelve (12) rounds of lab sample analysis per $3,600 year. Estimate twelve (12) man hours of data management per year at $50/hour. Purchase of one YSI ODO probe ($1,200) and one lake water grab sampler ($500). Task 5 Totals (Estimated $5,600 annually after 2014 start-up) $3,600 $3,737 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 17 2014 FINAL REPORT Table 6. Task 5, SWM -implemented 2014 LIVID Efforts Table 7. Table 3.2014 North LIVID Budget Totals Estimated Actual 2014 Work Plan Goals/Scope Expenses Expenses 2014 Assessment Collection (includes interest) (includes taxes) (includes taxes) SWM staff LMD efforts during 2014 $3,000 $20,492 Task 8 Totals $3,000 $3,434 Table 7. Table 3.2014 North LIVID Budget Totals TASK 1 &2. Aquatic Vegetation Control/Treatment Estimates (includes taxes) Actual (includes taxes) 2013 LMD Balance Carried Forward $8,189 $8,189 2014 Assessment Collection (includes interest) $13,000 $12,303 TOTAL 2014 REVENUE $21,189 $20,492 TASK 1 &2. Aquatic Vegetation Control/Treatment $4,600 $7,696 TASK 3. Public Education $400 $303 TASK 4. Water Quality Monitoring $3,600 $3,737 TASK 5. SWM -implemented LMD Efforts $3,000 $3,434 TOTAL 2014 EXPENSES Includes A) Use Tax, etc. $11,600 $15,170 FINAL 2014 LIVID FUND BALANCE $9,589 $5,322 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 18 2014 FINAL REPORT APPENDIX A AquaTechnex Report: North Lake Summary of Activities in 2014 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 19 2014 FINAL REPORT NORTH LAKE - SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES IN 2014 Prepared by AquaTechnex, LLC. North Lake - Summary of Activities in 2014 North Lake - Summary of Activities in 2014 2014 - SURVEY AND CONTROL SUMMARY Introduction The residents of North Lake formed into a Lake Management District in an effort to proactively and collectively manage and care for the lake and its aquatic plant community in an effort to increase or maintain the beneficial uses of the lake. The management is aided by the City of Federal Way to help manage collected funds and maintain the direction chosen by the LMD. The main objective being to protect the water quality of North Lake and to monitor and control invasive weed growth in and around the lake. North Lake has a history of being impacted by noxious weeds. Fragrant Water Lily, Yellow Flag Iris, Purple Loosestrife, and Eurasian Milfoil have all been present in the past or are currently still persisting as a member of the plant community. Eurasian milfoil was infesting the lake at one point, but a whole - lake application of Sonar herbicide eliminated the plant from the lake. The lake is surveyed twice annually and no additional milfoil has been located. AquaTechnex has been contracted to provide survey and aquatic plant management services at North Lake for the several years. Our survey and control efforts in 2013 focused on the continued monitoring of noxious weed populations and control activities to reduce their presence. The first application to control excessive native plant growth in North Lake took place in 2013. This report summarizes the operations at North Lake. 2014 Survey Summary Page 1 North Lake - Summary of Activities in 2014 ----------_ -------- The first survey of North Lake occurred on June 10th. There are several aspects of the survey completed and typically they are completed one at a time with a few trips around the lake. This allows the biologists and technicians to focus on each task separately and also increase their familiarity with the lake. The lake was surveyed by boat, and the entire lake was surveyed with the first pass of the lake taking the crew around the lake in the shallow, 6 feet deep or less area of the lake. This area is easily checked from the surface for milfoil and any other submerged noxious weed species which may have been introduced to the lake. Once this initial pass is completed the plant community is sampled with a series of rake -tosses to collect samples of the plants at given depth ranges throughout the lake. Transects running perpendicular from the shore were traveled and at the 5,10,15, and 20 foot depth contour a rake -toss sample was made. The species collected on the rake as well as the relative density of the species at that point were recorded. Following the transect and plant community data collection, a diver equipped with SCUBA was towed around the lake to inspect additional areas. The diver is towed through approximately the 10-14 foot depth contour. This is due to the fact milfoil is rarely seen beyond that depth and because the visual survey cannot easily see clearly any plants growing beyond 10 feet deep. Because Purple Loosestrife is growing along the shoreline at North Lake, and because it is classified as a Class A Noxious weed in Washington, King County performs additional surveys to locate and assess control. King County biologists survey the lake and flag locations in an effort to help the control efforts. The GIS data collected by the County during the survey is typically passed on to our staff and utilized in treatment efforts. The fall survey took place on October 21st. The purpose of this survey was to have a look at the plant community in the fall and note the effects of the season's treatments. The protocol for the survey is the same in the fall as it was in the spring survey with the exception of the diver which was not used in the fall. This season, an additional scan of the plant biovolume was made to assess the effectiveness of the treatment to reduce nuisance plant growth. Page 2 North Lake - Summary of Activities in 2014 2014 Control Efforts and Discussion Fragrant Water Lil)(Nymphaea odorata) and Yellow Flab Iris (Iris pseudacorusl The treatment of water lily and iris have been very aggressive at North Lake. Fragrant water lily has been all but eliminated except in the extreme north end of the lake. Nuphar (native) is still present and is starting to expand and reclaim areas once occupied by the invasive FWL. Areas of shoreline owned by residents have very little of the Yellow Flag Iris remaining at all. Most plants are growing in areas along the west shoreline and though treatments do take place there is very dense vegetation growing along the shoreline and in many areas is overgrowing the shore and blocking the entire shoreline. Efforts to eliminate fragrant water lily could accomplish this goal in the next couple seasons if control efforts continue. Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Purple Loosestrife is a Class A noxious weed in Washington State and this designation means that its control is mandatory. Part of the county's task for surveying the lake is to monitor where control is and isn't occurring and to notify the resident about control options or in some cases make applications themselves. There were two treatments at North Lake for Purple Loosestrife and results seen at the time of the second application and the fall survey showed high levels of damage to the plants from the treatments. Larger known patches of loosestrife were treated especially hard this season. Two known large zones - one in the north end and the other in the south - have been treated Page 3 North Lake - Su_mma.ry of Activities in 2014 repeatedly and the areas are showing very good signs of control. Having grown to the plant densities they were at before treatments began means there is a good chance that viable seeds remain in the area and very close inspections will have to continue to monitor and eliminate new plants. Nuisance Weed Control In 2014, the residents living in the northeast corner of the north end "bay" of North Lake were commenting on the excessive growth of native plants in the near -shore zone. These plants were growing in a particularly shallow are and the growth was so dense that access to the lake with a canoe or paddleboat was not possible and recreation was severely impacted. For these reasons, an application was made to control this growth. A little over an acre was treated and the area treated is noted on the two BioBase scans included here. There was no scan from the 2014 spring survey so the June 2013 scan was used. NORTHJUNE2013s12 olio/�oii .ted uy volume[�.i) 6af5.9 volume {acn ft) L.99 oeuin {.+s W sws Deuih (mea N) 1.96 "I width (mJ �1d.a57 The two more important numbers on these images are the Veg Avg BV (Average biovolume of the vegetation) and Veg PAC (Percent of the bottom that has plants growing). The numbers pertain to the only the area included in the polygon. Both showed a reduction - in the case of biovolume it was cut in at least half from 24% to 12%. The percentage of the bottom with plants (Veg PAC) did not decrease by a lot but that number includes a 1 foot tall plant in 9 feet of water - which regrowth following treatment may account for this. Though this data is Page 4 North Lake - Summary of Activities in 2014 good and useful, I feel the following two images without the polygon give a better picture of what probably occurred in the area and what was observed by the residents as well as personally during the fall survey. As a reminder, biovolume is the amount of the water column (in percent) that is occupied by plants. Sometimes this is described as "how tall the plants are" and is generally a fair description. In the images here, the colors denote the percentages with red indicating a higher percentage of the water column filled with plants and blue/ green indicating very little or no plants at all. With that in mind, you can see how the areas in red from a June survey were scanned again October and were now only showing blue or green. Assuming that the growth of native plants were actually greater (worse) in later in the season than they would have been in June than the amount of clearing (areas now blue) was quite dramatic. Several residents made an effort to speak with us during the survey in October to mention how pleased they were with the results. Native Plant Community The overall plant community did not change significantly in North Lake in the opinion of the Surveyor. Najas continues to dominate the majority of the littoral area of the lake (area approximately 10 feet deep or less). Other pondweeds such as Whitestem and Largeleaf are also well represented, and Bladderwart continues to maintain a foothold in the extreme north and south ends of the lake. Some residents have expressed concern that the native lily species Nuphar is North Lake - Summary of Activities in 2014 ------------------------------------------------------ expanding rapidly in the lake. A map has been included which overlays the extent of Nuphar in 2013 with 2014. The pink edges would be showing this possible expansion. Though the nuphar has been increasing with the removal of the Fragrant Water Lily it does not appear to be growing at a rate to be concerned about. If control is desired in the future it can be completed easily with herbicides that will reduce the areas to more suitable areas. With the treatment of nuisance growth having occurred on North Lake for the first time, it will be important to track the native plant community closely to watch for shifts caused by any applications. Herbicides can affect different species differently and could influence the dominance of one species if care is not taken. For example, whitestem pondweed is seen as tolerant of some contact herbicides and if used for several years back to back in the same area can result in whitestem dominating the area and other species disappearing or becoming less abundant. Noteworthy Observations The LMD formed at North Lake renewed recently and when completed it meant that "Right of Entry" permissions had to be granted by the residents before their property could be accessed and treated for any noxious weeds. Several homes around the lake - for one reason or another - had not returned these forms to the City for the 2014 season and several areas with documented noxious weeds did not receive treatments. We have put together a map noting properties with permission forms returned granting access and those where no permission has been granted. This map also has all the locations with Purple Loosestrife present. Monitoring for new introductions of noxious weeds into North Lake is an important aspect of the surveys conducted each year. So far, no survey has turned up any NEW species but the risk is high with a plant like Curly leaf Pondweed already established in nearby lakes. This particular species is newly introduced to one nearby lake which means despite efforts to educate boaters, fishermen, paddlers and others noxious weeds are still being transported around. This plant has the reproductive potential to easily and rapidly colonize Page 6 North Lake if introduced. It has a very high rate of seed production and like milfoil, easily reaches the water's surface and forms mats of vegetation. This vegetation often breaks off and washes up on the shoreline. Any plant which is spotted in the lake and looks new should be North Lake - Summary of Activities in 2014 O Paul 8%ww,,-0- i _ ?y `t, reported to the City or AquaTechnex directly for additional scrutiny. New introductions can be dealt with easier and with lower costs the sooner they are identified and efforts to control or eradicate them can begin. Please feel free to contact Adam Kleven by phone at 360-508-1276 or email at Adam@aquatechnex.com with any questions. Thank you for your time and consideration. M, Feet a 0 180360 720 1,080 1,440 AAMMo UM -4 r send° Loosestrife 49 21 ,. Irk" IVA F ,a Loosestrife and Access Grantees Ao 40 4f t 4 NORTH LAKE Management District 2015 Final Report Prepared by: City of Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................................1 2.1 IAVMP DEVELOPMENT AND ECOLOGY GRANT FUNDING............................................................................ 1 2.2 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ... ................................................................................................................. 1 2.3 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 NPDFS AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT..................................................................................... 2 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT................................................................................... 3 5.0 2015 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES......................................................................... 3 5.1 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY — NOXIOUS PLANTS................................................................................................... 3 C 1 1 ✓.J.i L'........,..... T.TJ.. i.... T :1.. q rrusrunL rruacr veey................................................................................................................................... 5.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris..............................................................................................................•........................ 4 5.1.3 Purple Loosestrife.............................................................................................................................•..... 4 5.2 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS............................................................................................................................. 4 5.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment.............................................................................................................. 5 5.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment.................................................................................. 6 5.3 YFI AND PL MANUAL CONTROL.................................................................................................................. 6 J.`4 `�v'A 1 ER LILY ISLAND CONTROL........................................................................................................ 5.5 WEED RAKES............................................................................................................................................... 6 5.6 SYSTEMATIC SURVEY—NATIVE PLANTS.....................................................................................................7 5.7 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................................... 8 5.8 NATIVE GROWTH AND IMPACTS TO BENEFICIAL USES................................................................................. 8 5.9 BLUE-GREEN AI.GAF.................................................................................................................................... 8 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING........................................................................................................ 9 7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/PUBLIC EDUCATION............................................................................... 10 7.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT— ............................................................................................................................. 10 7.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee(NLAC)............................................................................................ 10 7.1.2 Development of 2015 Work Plan.... . ....... _ ................................................................. _ . . ..................... 12 7.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION................................................................................................................................... 12 7.2.1 Newsletter........................................................................................................................................... 12 7.2.2 Public Notices...................................................................................................................................... 12 7.2.3 Educational Materials......................................................................................................................... 12 7.2.4 Web Page............................................................................................................................................. 13 7.2.5 Annual Report....................................................................................................................................... 13 8.0 2015 BUDGET REVIEW........................................................................................................................... 13 APPENDIX A, AQUATECHNEX REPORT: NORTH LAKE SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES IN 2015ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2015 FINAL REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. 2015 North Lake Water Quality Data..................................12. Table 2. 2015 North Lake LIVID Assessment Rates. .......................... .17 Table 3. 2015 North Lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2 .................................17 Table 4. 2015 North Lake Budget, Task 3 ........................................17 Table 5. 2015 North Lake Budget, Task 4 ........................................17 Table 6. 2015 North Lake Budget, Task 5 ........................................18 Table 7. 2015 North Lake LMD Budget Totals...................................18 Figure 1. North Lake Temperature, 2015 ..........................................11 Figure 2. North Lake DO, 2015 ............................................. ......11 Author and Contact Information Hollie Shilley Water Quality Specialist City of Federal Way, Washington Public Works Department Division of Surface Water Management 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063 (253) 835-2752 Hollie.shilley@cityoffederalway.com For more information contact: Public Works, phone (253) 835-2700. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2015 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided by the North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) members and the entire lake community who contributed to the successful development of the North Lake Management District and the continued implementation of the aquatic plant management program. The Advisory Committee includes the following members: Lake Residents: Chuck Gibson (Chair), Terry Thomas, Robin Cook, Mary McClellan- Aronen, and Brian Cleary • Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Samantha 'Turner • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Derek Hacker NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2015 FINAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) and the Surface Water Management Division (SWM) successfully implemented the following goals as described in the 2015 work plan: Identified and controlled noxious aquatic plants (purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris, and fragrant water lily). • A public education program was undertaken that continued to help prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants, and non-native animal species into the lake. • A comprehensive water quality monitoring program was implemented through the year to provide important data concerning the health of North Lake. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IAVMP Development and Ecology Grant Funding Prior to annexation into the City of Federal Way in 2005, North Lake was within the jurisdictional boundary of unincorporated King County. Leading up to annexation, the lake community had been implementing an informal aquatic plant management program for a number of years. But starting in 2004, a more formal effort was undertaken when North Lake began coordinating with King County in the development of an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP)—a comprehensive document that established all future goals and strategies for freshwater lake noxious weed management. Anticipating that North Lake would soon be annexed into the city, SWM staff began collaborating with King County to finalize of the North Lake IAVMP (a document required by the Washington Department of Ecology for future grant funding). Consequently, North Lake was awarded a four-year Washington State Department of Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund (AWMF) grant in 2005 with SWM designated as the administrator. The action plan outlined in the grant included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, control, and public education designed to begin eradication of the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75% of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology. The AWMF grant expired December 31, 2009. 2.2 Lake Management District While the AWMF grant program was being implemented, city staff and residents began meeting with the intent to form a Lake Management District for North Lake as a means to provide a long- term funding mechanism. In 2010, a ten-year LMD was formed. Per RCW 36.61, annual NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2015 FINAL REPORT assessments collected from LMD property owners funds the following programs: ongoing aquatic vegetation management, water quality monitoring, public education, and related lake improvement programs. 2.3 The Aquatic Weed Problem Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to the State of Washington. They are invasive and pose a serious threat to our state's waterbodies, including North Lake. Because noxious plants have few natural controls, spread rapidly, and out -compete native plant and animal habitats. The presence of noxious freshwater weeds can lead to a loss of recreational opportunities and may even lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2005). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur; and, (3) prevent their movement to un -infested areas of Washington. The following three major noxious weed classifications are listed according to the seriousness of the threats posed to the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest pIn- uiity. Eradication is iegi.iireu Uy law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide -spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a county option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT In 2015, coverage for North Lake continued under the state of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae. Permit issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. Effective March 18, 2011, the five-year NPDES permit (issued under the authority of RCW 90.48) has been implemented by the City's aquatic plant management contractor AquaTechnex, LLC. The permit governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The permit expires on March 18, 2016. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2 2015 FINAL REPORT 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT In 2015, AquaTechnex operated under the fourth year of a four-year Professional Services Agreement with the City of Federal Way. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology -approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, mapping, reports, and attending meetings as required. In November the Advisory Committee approved an amended two year contract extension with AquaTechnex. 5.0 2015 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 5.1 Systematic Survey - Noxious Plants AquaTechnex completed the annual initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake on June 11, 2015. The survey consisted of transects being recorded at approximately 400-500 foot intervals around the shoreline, with rake -toss samples taken in a line perpendicular to the shoreline to determine the presence and abundance of the lake's aquatic plant species. During the effort, the survey team mapped all submerged, floating, and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex Report: North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2015. Native plant information is provided below in Section 5.6. Noxious weeds found during the 2015 North Lake initial systematic survey included: • Fragrant water lily, (Nymphaea odroata), Class C • Yellow flag iris, (Iris pseudacorus), Class C • Purple loosestrife, (Lythrum salicaria), Class A The following is a discussion regarding noxious weeds documented during the 2015 plant survey. 5. 1.1 Fragrant Water Lily Fragrant water lily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins. It is recognized by its fragrant (white, pink to purple in color) flowers that float on the water surface; and by its large, round, floating leaves that have distinctive slits on one side. Due to its attractiveness, this nonnative plant has been introduced to many lakes in Washington. Unfortunately, FWL is a noxious plant that can become invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas such as North Lake (Ecology 2014). Therefore it is listed as a State of Washington Class C Weed. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2015 FINAL REPORT The June survey documented very small patches of FWL growth in North Lake, which have significantly decreased over the years. Based on the survey results, the plant has been nearly eradicated. 5.1.2 Yellow Flag Iris When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable along the edge of water and in wetlands. Its yellow -colored flowers bloom in late spring or early summer. This noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has a flower stalk that grows up to nearly five feet tall. Additionally, the rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense stands that exclude more desirable native wetland species. The June survey found sparse populations of YFI along the east shoreline where treatment has been very successful over the years. The undeveloped western shoreline is more difficult to access which hampers control efforts. Annual glyphosate treatment will continue with the goal of eradication of YFI. 5.1.3 Purple Loosestrife Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple -pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This robust, square -stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an invasive, rapidly -spreading European species that is a State of Washington Class A weed (Ecology, 2014). Because the plant's seedlings tend to emerge from the lake sediments along the shorelines during the entire growing season, it has been necessary to perform multiple surveys through the summer to map PL locations. In 2015, this noxious emergent plant continues to be widely scattered along the western shorelines of the lake. Densities on the east side have decreased more dramatically over the years. The control action for PL involved several scheduled herbicide applications of triclopyr (Renovate3) on private property via permission (right of entry) from landowners. 5.2 Herbicide Treatments The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities in lakes, and the applicator must also comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. Glyphosate Glyphosate (Rodeo) was used to treat FWL and YFI colonies on North Lake in 2015. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic applications. With applications generally made in mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide down into the root system, glyphosate provides effective long-term control. Visible NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2015 FINAL REPORT effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days; seven days or more on most perennial weeds; and thirty days or more on most woody plants. However, extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects of glyphosate treatment includes gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant, which then advances to complete browning of above -ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. The advantages of glyphosate include: The product is a systemic herbicide which is effective in the removal of targeted plants with no impact to plants not treated. Application can be conducted in a spot -treatment or isolated area fashion. There are no water use restrictions. Triclop Triclopyr (Renovate 3) is a liquid aquatic herbicide labeled for control of submersed, emergent and floating plants in and around aquatic sites such as lakes. The active ingredient (triclopyr) rapidly enters through the targeted plant leaves and stems and interferes with the plant's metabolism. The aquatic herbicide impacts most dicot (broadleaf) plants, and has little to no impact on most monocots (grassy type species). It is highly effective in selectively targeting purple loosestrife and carries no restrictions on recreational use such as swimming and fishing in the treatment area. 5.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication. The control plan was designed to achieve the following: • Allow for the gradual replacement of FWL with native vegetation to improve fish habitat. • Improve boater access and provide safer recreational opportunities. • Reduce the possibility of excessive amounts of dying vegetation (which contributes to an increase in nutrient loading that may result in more frequent algae blooms). ■ Limit the production of dead vegetation which reduces the likelihood for higher oxygen demand in the water column. The AquaTechnex Report: North Lake: Summary of Activities in 2015 contains maps locating FWL colonies. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the lily pads by a two - person crew using boat -mounted low-pressure spray equipment. Two separate treatments took place in 2015. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process included reapplication as necessary to areas that did not initially uptake enough herbicide because of weather or plant wash off. The total area treated equaled less than one acre. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2015 FINAL REPORT 5.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment Continued eradication of all YFI and PL continued in 2015. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of these emergent plant species. In 2015, 82% of North Lake residents have granted access for emergent treatment. During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (Rodeo) for YFI and triclopyr (Renovate 3) for PL. The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake -side off of a motorboat and from the land -side by licensed applicators using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex personnel were careful not to impact adjacent ornamental plants or grasses during treatment activity. In accordance with state law, the King County Noxious Weed Control Board requires property owners to control purple loosestrife on private and public lands throughout the county (control means to prevent all seed production and to prevent the dispersal of all propagative parts capable of forming new plants). In 2015, both SWM and AquaTechnex continued coordinating with King County in the identification and control of PL on North Lake. Survey information is shared annually between each agency; this effort leads to a markedly improved identification program that allows for more effective treatment and control, therefore, a larger percentage of PL colonies can be eradicated. 5.3 YFI and PL Manual Control The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake themselves to help control the spread of both YFI and PL. SWM provides information regarding proper manual control methods (digging up the roots or cutting back the stalks), and the proper disposal of all organic debris (roots, seed heads, and stems) for both YFI and PL. 5.4 Water Lily Island Control Floating mud islands, resulting from past herbicide treatment of fragrant water lily colonies, are characterized by suspended masses of organic deposits (plant roots, peat and mud) that range in size from a few inches to a few feet thick. Gasses can build up from decomposing fibrous material and may lift the plant roots and parts of the lake bottom to the surface to form mud islands that can migrate from property -to -property. The NLAC agreed that floating mud island removal action would continue to be implemented on an as -needed basis if floating masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake. Although floating mud islands have been problematic in the past, none formed in 2015. 5.5 Weed Rakes In 2015, the weed rake loan program continued to provide North Lake residents an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes were used as necessary through the summer to maintain beneficial uses (fishing, boating and swimming) along private shorelines. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 6 2015 FINAL REPORT Weed rakes can only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet (publication #APF -1-98). Depending on the type of plant targeted, North Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two different styles of rakes: a rake with a sharp cutting blade for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged plants. SWM staff take care each growing season to ensure proper use of weed rakes. For instance, if mifoil is present, the action of the rake may fragment the noxious plant and allow it to uncontrollably spread throughout the lake. Because neither milfoil nor any other submersed noxious aquatic plants were detected during the initial 2015 survey, weed rakes were able to be loaned out immediately to lake residents to control native aquatic plants when needed. The weed rake program was shut down for the season on September 15 pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet requirements. 5.6 Systematic Survey — Native Plants The objective of the systematic survey is to quantify the presence and location of all aquatic plant vegetation (native and non-native) on North Lake. Detailed survey information and mapping may be found in the AquaTechnex Report: North Lake: Management Review- 2015. In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section 5.1, the following information details the most prevalent native plant species currently populating North Lake: Emergent Plants Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species that grow in the shallow margins of the lake: Typha spp. (Cattail) and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush). The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and mammals. Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese and provide habitat for amphibians and fish. Additionally, all of North Lake's emergent vegetation helps to stabilize shorelines and reduce erosion. Floating Plants Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and provides spawning habitat for fish. With the clearing of the noxious white water lily, the native Nuphar population has been able to expand. Submersed Plants Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that dominates the lake bottom. Unlike most other perennial aquatic plants, it reproduces from seed each year. This aquatic plant generally grows rapidly in the spring and produces seeds that drop into the lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed population to the point of excluding other native plants. However, the recent expansion of yellow pond lily is providing shade and beginning to balance out the dominance of Najas that the lake has experienced the last few years. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 7 2015 FINAL REPORT Other submerged plant species observed in North Lake included: • Potamogeton praelongus (White stemmed pondweed). This native member of the pondweed family occurs in small clumps and was observed throughout the deeper littoral lake zones. + Elodea, a native plant that acts as an under story or secondary plant in the lake. • Chara (Muskgrass), a macro algae that is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases, this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem to lake users. 5.7 Post Control Visual Assessment During the Second Systematic Survey on September 24, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the herbicide treatments and control methods conducted in 2015 on the three targeted noxious species (FWL, PL, and YFI). All targeted plants showed clear symptoms of herbicide damage. Surviving stands of YFI and PL were primarily located in areas that were difficult to access. 5.8 Native Growth and Impacts to Beneficial Uses The native plant community in North Lake has a level of diversity common for the lakes in this area. Additionally, the community exhibits a relative dominance of one species over all others: Najas flexilis. This plant is native to Washington but has the ability to grow to nuisance levels in an urban lake environment like North Lake. In recent summers, a small number of residents have complained about excessive Najas growth—an observation that is most probably linked to recently warmer spring and summers. The resulting extended growing season causes plant growth to peak towards the beginning of August, and increasing plant densities observed well into September. When aquatic plant growth is excessive, it may impair beneficial uses for lake residents—for example, impairment to recreational activities (boating, fishing and swimming). In August, AquaTechnex biologists reported that the density of the submerged aquatic plant Najas was high enough in three distinct areas to potentially adversely impact the beneficial uses of North Lake (one '/2 acre location on the north end of the lake, a 1 acre area around the east hook, and a 2 acre stretch along the southeast shore). Consequently the contractor proposed that this location be treated with the contact herbicide Diquat dibromide. On August 17, the North Lake Advisory Committee approved herbicide treatments in select nuisance areas identified by AquaTechnex. 5.9 Blue -Green Algae Blue -Green algae (cyanobacteria) are common in freshwater lakes, and they frequently form dense populations (blooms) in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development of algae blooms are: light, temperature, pH, and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous). NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 8 2015 FINAL REPORT Blue-green blooms can pose a human health concern. Although most are non-toxic, some blue- green algae produce nerve or liver toxins. Toxicity is difficult to predict because a single species of algae can produce both toxic and non-toxic strains. Additionally, a bloom that tests non-toxic one day can turn toxic the next day. People may become ill after coming into contact with lake waters that are impacted with toxic blue-green algae. Humans may experience stomach pains, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin rashes; and nerve and liver damage have been observed following long-term exposure (such as drinking impacted water). Although pets and wildlife have died after exposure to toxic blue-green algae in Washington lakes, there have been no confirmed human deaths reported worldwide (Ecology, 2014). There was a report of blue-green algae bloom in North Lake in August. Tests confirmed that toxin levels were below levels of concern established by the Washington State Health Department. 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING The King County Lake Stewardship Program Volunteer Monitoring Program for North Lake began in the 1980s and continued for several decades until budget cuts ended the program in 2005. Although the most recent data generated by this program (nine years prior to the date of this report) indicated that North Lake had been relatively low in primary productivity (borderline oligotrophic to mesotrophic) with very good water quality, a significant data gap exists between then and now. The long-term objectives of the current North Lake Management District Water Quality Monitoring Program include: (1) continuation of the gathering of baseline data with the intent of assessing long-term trends; (2) defining seasonal and water column variability; (3) identifying potential problems, proposing possible management solutions when feasible, or pinpointing additional studies to be made; and (4) educating lake residents, lake users, and policy makers regarding lake water quality. Monitoring this year began in early summer, with samples collected from the surface and one meter above the bottom from the deepest part of the lake to define changes found in the vertical profiles of the parameters. These data will not be useful to assess water quality trends and the ecology of North Lake until several years -worth have been collected. Data are currently being posted on the King County Small Lakes Data website: http:f/green2.kingcounty._gov/SmaIlLakes/W©Data.aspx NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9 2015 FINAL REPORT 7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/PUBLIC EDUCATION Public involvement and public education for North Lake incorporates elements and concepts presented in the 2004 Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). Using the IAVMP, the annual Work Plan strives to improve lake health through the promotion of lake stewardship and through the implementation of educational programs designed to help lake residents and lake users detect and prevent the spread of noxious aquatic plant species. 7.1 Public Involvement The North Lake Public Involvement program for 2015 included the following: 7.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) The NLAC is charged with setting lake management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. Resolution No. 09-560, passed by the City Council, created the Advisory Committee for North Lake LMD Number 2. Tlie purpose of the TNLAC -1S- to sto provide for LMD property owner representation to the City Council. Per Resolution No. 09-560, NLAC representation consists of: • Five (5) representing single family and/or vacant properties; one (1) representing Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (public boat launch property); and one (1) representing the Weyerhaeuser Corporation. Currently, the term for property owners is two years. The 2015 NLAC members were: Member Representing Term Expiration March 15, 2016, Second Term March 15, 2016, Second Term March 15, 2016, Second Term Chuck Gibson Committee Chair, Lake Resident Terry Thomas Lake Resident Robin Cook Lake Resident Mary McClellan-Aronen Lake Resident March 15, 2016, First Term Brian Cleary Lake Resident March 15, 2016, First Term Samantha Turner Weyerhaeuser N/A Derek Hacker Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife N/A 10 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2015 FINAL REPORT The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities and duties of the NLAC: • Assists in the development of an annual lake management Work Plan and budget. • Participates in evaluation of aquatic plant control activities and helps to recommend annual control strategies. • Participates in other community involvement/education strategies efforts as needed. The NLAC met formally four times in 2015: February 9 • WDFW presentation • Habitat discussion • 2014 Nuisance plant treatment • 2014 Budget approval • 2015 Work plan approval • 2015 Water quality monitoring program May 5 • Nuisance plant control information • Water quality monitoring • Right of entry permission • Opening day of boating season is Draft Lakeview August 17 • Plant survey results • Nuisance native treatment • Algae blooms • AquaTechnex contract November 10 • Dan's departure • Annual report • 2016 Work plan • Extension of AquaTechnex's contract • Advisory Committee recruitment The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 11 2015 FINAL REPORT 7.1.2 Development of 2015 Work Plan The goals and budget regarding the 2015 Work Plan are based upon Resolution Number 09-544 to form North Lake Management District Number 2. The following is a brief outline of the 2015 Work Plan approved by the NLAC: Task 1 & 2: Aquatic Vegetation Control and'Freatment: Identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted noxious aquatic plant species. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the stated goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 6.0. Task 3: Public Education: Describes public involvement and public education elements designed to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of noxious aquatic weeds and the presence of non-native species in North Lake. Items in Task 2 may include: community meetings and Plant ID Workshop, quarterly newsletter (The Lakeview), boater outreach program, printing and distribution of educational flyers and press releases, web site development, and development of an annual report. Tack 4: Water Qnalily Monitoring: Describes the water quality sampling plan designed to measure and track the health of North Lake. 7.2 Public Education The North Lake public education program for 2015 involved a combination of the following: quarterly newsletter, public notices, and educational materials. 7.2.1 Newsletter SWM staff issued the publication, The Lakeview, quarterly to all North Lake residents in 2015 via US Postal Service and through the city's email subscribe list. The newsletter (created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee), includes updates to lake residents concerning recent LMD activities, and education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 7.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. All NLAC meetings were advertised on the city's Calendar of Events web page. 7.2.3 Educational Materials SWM staff continued to develop and issue the following lake -related informational flyers and brochures as needed: • Milfoil Boater Education • Good Plants/Bad Plants • Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal • Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 12 2015 FINAL REPORT • Aquatic Weed Rake Program • Be Lake Steward • Permanent signage at the public boat launch 7.2.4 Web Page In 2015, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. The content of the information was kept up-to-date through the year. Web site information includes: • AquaTechnex Report: North Lake: Management Review -2015 • Right of Entry form • Advisory Committee Application • The Lakeview 7.2.5 Annual Report SWM staff develops and distributes a North Lake LMD final year-end report that describes all significant LMD program information and activities. 8.0 2015 BUDGET REVIEW The information provided below consists of task -by -task work plan goals/scope of work and their associated expenditures for 2015. TASK 1 & 2 Aquatic Vegetation Control/Treatment Date Object Code Reference# Vendor Description Cost 1/1/15 2/16/15 411 N/A AquaTechnex Permit fee $496.00 411 5441 AquaTechnex Attendance NLAC Meeting $265.00 6/25/15 411 5822 AquaTechnex Initial Survey $821.25 7/27/15 411 5984 AquaTechnex Treatment Notifications $383.25 7/27/15 411 5984 AquaTechnex Mobilization Fee $328.50 7/27/15 411 5984 AquaTechnex Shoreline Posting $82.13 7/27/15 411 5984 AquaTechnex Treatment of PL (4hrs) $657.00 8/24/15 411 6120 AquaTechnex Attendance NLAC Meeting $290.18 8/24/15 411 6120 AquaTechnex Mobilization Fee $328.50 8/24/15 411 6120 AquaTechnex Shoreline Posting $164.25 8/24/15 411 6120 AquaTechnex Treatment Native Nuisance Vegetation $1,149.75 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 13 2015 FINAL REPORT 8/24/15 411 6120 AquaTechnex I Treatment of PL (2hrs) 10/12/15 411 6236 AquaTechnex Post Survey AquaTechnex Report Generation 11/2/15 411 6276 11/24/15 411 6320 AquaTechnex I Report Generation $328.50 $574.88 $492.75 $821.25 $7,183.19 TASK 3. Public Education Date Object Code Reference# Vendor Description Cost 02/09/15 492 N/A Petty cash NLAC meeting $5.99 05/05/15 492 N/A Petty cash NLAC meeting $7.49 08/03/15 492 N/A N/A Pettv cash Petty cash NLAC meetinq $5.49 08/17/15 492 NLAC meeting $5.00 03/25/15 492 57602 Print solutions Newsletter $170.23 05/20/15 492 58745 Print solutions Newsletter $170.23 09/04/15 492 60912 Print solutions Newsletter $168.98 11/06/15 492 62283 Print solutions Newsletter $170.23 TASK 4. Water Quality Monitoring Date Object Reference# Code Vendor 06/11/15 08/10/15 410 410 61607 64242a King County lab King County lab 10/08/15 410 67280 King County lab 10/22/015 410 68207a King County lab 12/03/15 410 70229a King County lab 12/03/15 410 70115a King County lab $703.64 Description Cost Sample Analysis Sample Analysis $300.00 $1,417.50 Sample Analysis $1,417.50 Sample Analysis $367.50 Sample Analysis Sample Analysis $367.50 $367.50 $4,237.50 TASK 5. SWM -implemented LMD Efforts Date Object Reference# Vendor Description Cost Code Annual 110 N/A SWM Staff Annual efforts, 2015 $3,781.6: 14 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2015 FINAL REPORT 2015 NORTH LAKE LMD BUDGET TOTALS 2014 LIVID Balance Carried Forward $5,322.00 2015 LIVID Assessments Collected (includes interest) $13,550.73 TOTAL 2015 REVENUE 1 $18,872.73 TOTAL 2015 EXPENSES 1 $15,905.96 Estimated Final 2015LMD Fund Balance 1 $2,967 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 15 2015 FINAL REPORT NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 16 2015 FINAL REPORT NORTH LAKE Management District 2016 Final Report Prepared by: City of Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2016 FINAL REPORT TABLES Table 1. 2016 North Lake Water Quality Data Table 2. 2016 North Lake LMD Assessment Rates Author and Contact Information Mindi English Water Quality Program Coordinator City of Federal Way, Washington Public Works Department Division of Surface Water Management 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063 (253) 835-2756 Mindi. english@cityoffe deralway. com For more information contact: Public Works, phone (253) 835-2700. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2016 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided by the North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) members and the entire lake community who contributed to the successful development of the North Lake Management District and the continued implementation of the aquatic plant management program. The Advisory Committee includes the following members: • Lake Residents: Terry Thomas (Chair), Mary McClellan-Aronen, and Brian Cleary • IRG Corporation: Tom Messmer • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: David Heimer NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2016 FINAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) and the Surface Water Management Division (SWM) successfully implemented the following goals as described in the 2016 work plan: • Identified and controlled noxious aquatic plants (purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris). • A public education program was undertaken that continued to help prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants, and non-native animal species into the lake. • A comprehensive water quality monitoring program was implemented through the year to provide important data concerning the health of North Lake. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IAVMP Development and Ecology Grant Funding Prior to annexation into the City of Federal Way in 2005, North Lake was within the jurisdictional boundary of unincorporated King County. Leading up to annexation, the lake community had been implementing an informal aquatic plant management program for a number of years. But starting in 2004, a more formal effort was undertaken when North Lake began coordinating with King County in the development of an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP)—a comprehensive document that established all future goals and strategies for freshwater lake noxious weed management. Anticipating that North Lake would soon be annexed into the city, SWM staff began collaborating with King County to finalize of the North Lake IAVMP (a document required by the Washington Department of Ecology for future grant funding). Consequently, North Lake was awarded a four-year Washington State Department of Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund (AWMF) grant in 2005 with SWM designated as the administrator. The action plan outlined in the grant included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, control, and public education designed to begin eradication of the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water Illy, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75% of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology. The AWMF grant expired December 31, 2009. 2.2 Lake Management District While the AWMF grant program was being implemented, city staff and residents began meeting with the intent to form a Lake Management District for North Lake as a means to provide a long- term funding mechanism. In 2010, a ten-year LMD was formed. Per RCW 36.61, annual assessments collected from LMD property owners funds the following programs: ongoing NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2016 FINAL REPORT aquatic vegetation management, water quality monitoring, public education, and related lake improvement programs. 2.3 The Aquatic Weed Issue Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to the State of Washington. They are invasive and pose a serious threat to our state's waterbodies, including North Lake. Because noxious plants have few natural controls, spread rapidly, and out -compete native plant and animal habitats. The presence of noxious freshwater weeds can lead to a loss of recreational opportunities and may even lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2005). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur; and, (3) prevent their movement to un -infested areas of Washington. The following three major noxious weed classifications are listed according to the seriousness of the threats posed to the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide -spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a county option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT In 2016, coverage for North Lake continued under the state of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit) (Permit Number WAG994094) for the management of aquatic plants and algae. Permit issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. Effective April 1, 2016, the five-year NPDES permit (issued under the authority of RCW 90.48) has been implemented by the City's aquatic plant management contractor AquaTechnex, LLC. The permit governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The permit expires on March 31, 2021. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2016 FINAL REPORT 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT In 2016, AquaTechnex operated under the first year of a four-year Professional Services Agreement with the City of Federal Way. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology -approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, mapping, reports, and attending meetings as required. 5.0 2016 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 5.1 Systematic Survey — Noxious Plants AquaTechnex completed the annual initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake on June 15 and 16, 2016. The survey consisted of transects being recorded at approximately 400-500 foot intervals around the shoreline, with rake -toss samples taken in a line perpendicular to the shoreline to determine the presence and abundance of the lake's aquatic plant species. During the effort, the survey team mapped all submerged, floating, and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex Report: North Lake Letter Report June 2016 Survey. Native plant information is provided below in Section 5.6. Noxious weeds found during the 2016 North Lake initial systematic survey included: • Yellow flag iris, (Iris pseudacorus), Class C • Purple loosestrife, (Lythrum salicaria), Class B The following is a discussion regarding noxious weeds documented during the 2016 plant survey. 5. 1.1 Yellow Flag Iris When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable along the edge of water and in wetlands. Its yellow -colored flowers bloom in late spring or early summer. This noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has a flower stalk that grows up to nearly five feet tall. Additionally, the rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense stands that exclude more desirable native wetland species. 5.1.2 Purple Loosestrife Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple -pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This robust, square -stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense stands in NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2016 FINAL REPORT shallow water and wet soil. PL is an invasive, rapidly -spreading European species that is a State of Washington Class A weed (Ecology, 2014). Purple Loosestrife continues to grow along the water's edge. Through it can be found around much of the lake the highest plant densities can be found along the west shoreline where it is largely undeveloped. An additional survey effort was made in conjunction with King County to locate all the Loosestrife plants. 5.2 Herbicide Treatments The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities in lakes, and the applicator must also comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. Currently waiting for additional information from Aquatechnex on status of treatment for 2016 5.3 YFI and PL Manual Control The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake themselves to help control the spread of both YFI and PL. SWM provides information regarding proper manual control methods (digging up the roots or cutting back the stalks), and the proper disposal of all organic debris (roots, seed heads, and stems) for both YFI and PL. 5.4 Water Lily Island Control Floating mud islands, resulting from past herbicide treatment of fragrant water lily colonies, are characterized by suspended masses of organic deposits (plant roots, peat and mud) that range in size from a few inches to a few feet thick. Gasses can build up from decomposing fibrous material and may lift the plant roots and parts of the lake bottom to the surface to form mud islands that can migrate from property -to -property. The NLAC agreed that floating mud island removal action would continue to be implemented on an as -needed basis if floating masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake. Although floating mud islands have been problematic in the past, none formed in 2016. 5.5 Weed Rakes In 2016, the weed rake loan program continued to provide North Lake residents an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes were used as necessary through the summer to maintain beneficial uses (fishing, boating and swimming) along private shorelines. Weed rakes can only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the "FW Aquatic NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 4 2016 FINAL REPORT Plants and Fish pamphlet (publication 4APF-1-98). Depending on the type of plant targeted, North Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two different styles of rakes: a rake with a sharp cutting blade for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged plants. SWM staff take care each growing season to ensure proper use of weed rakes. For instance, if milfoil is present, the action of the rake may fragment the noxious plant and allow it to uncontrollably spread throughout the lake. Because neither milfoil nor any other submersed noxious aquatic plants were detected during the initial 2015 survey, weed rakes were able to be loaned out immediately to lake residents to control native aquatic plants when needed. The weed rake program was shut down for the season on September 15 pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet requirements. 5.6 Systematic Survey — Native Plants The objective of the systematic survey is to quantify the presence and location of all aquatic plant vegetation (native and non-native) on North Lake. Due to staffing issues, detailed survey information will be available at a later date from Aquatechnex. 5.8 Native Growth and Impacts to Beneficial Uses The native plant community in North Lake has a level of diversity common for the lakes in this area. Additionally, the community exhibits a relative dominance of one species over all others: Najas flexilis. This plant is native to Washington but has the ability to grow to nuisance levels in an urban lake environment like North Lake. In recent summers, a small number of residents have complained about excessive Najas growth—an observation that is most probably linked to recently warmer spring and summers. The resulting extended growing season causes plant growth to peak towards the beginning of August, and increasing plant densities observed well into September. When aquatic plant growth is excessive, it may impair beneficial uses for lake residents—for example, impairment to recreational activities (boating, fishing and swimming). 5.9 Blue -Green Algae Blue -Green algae (cyanobacteria) are common in freshwater lakes, and they frequently form dense populations (blooms) in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development of algae blooms are: light, temperature, pH, and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous). Blue-green blooms can pose a human health concern. Although most are non-toxic, some blue- green algae produce nerve or liver toxins. Toxicity is difficult to predict because a single species of algae can produce both toxic and non-toxic strains. Additionally, a bloom that tests non-toxic one day can turn toxic the next day. People may become ill after coming into contact with lake waters that are impacted with toxic blue-green algae. Humans may experience stomach pains, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin rashes; and nerve and liver damage have been observed following long-term exposure (such as drinking impacted water). Although pets and wildlife have died after exposure to toxic blue-green algae in Washington lakes, there have been no confirmed human deaths reported worldwide (Ecology, 2014). NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 5 2016 FINAL REPORT There were no reports of blue-green algae blooms in North Lake during 2016. 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING The King County Lake Stewardship Program Volunteer Monitoring Program for North Lake began in the 1980s and continued for several decades until budget cuts ended the program in 2005. Although the most recent data generated by this program (nine years prior to the date of this report) indicated that North Lake had been relatively low in primary productivity (borderline oligotrophic to mesotrophic) with very good water quality, a significant data gap exists between then and now. The long-term objectives of the current North Lake Management District Water Quality Monitoring Program include: (1) continuation of the gathering of baseline data with the intent of assessing long-term trends; (2) defining seasonal and water column variability; (3) identifying potential problems, proposing possible management solutions when feasible, or pinpointing additional studies to be made; and (4) educating lake residents, lake users, and policy makers regarding lake water quality. Monitoring this year began in early summer, with samples collected from the surface and one meter above the bottom from the deepest part of the lake to define changes found in the vertical profiles of the parameters. These data will not be useful to assess water quality trends and the ecology of North Lake until several years -worth have been collected. Data are currently being posted on the King County Small Lakes Data website: http://green2.kingcounty.gov/SmalILakes/WQData.aspx 7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/PUBLIC EDUCATION Public involvement and public education for North Lake incorporates elements and concepts presented in the 2004 Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). Using the IAVMP, the annual Work Plan strives to improve lake health through the promotion of lake stewardship and through the implementation of educational programs designed to help lake residents and lake users detect and prevent the spread of noxious aquatic plant species. 7.1 Public Involvement The North Lake Public Involvement program for 2016 included the following: 7.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) The NLAC is charged with setting lake management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. Resolution No. 09-560, passed by the City Council, NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 6 2016 FINAL REPORT created the Advisory Committee for North Lake LMD Number 2. The purpose of the NLAC is to provide for LMD property owner representation to the City Council. Per Resolution No. 09-560, NLAC representation consists of. Five (5) representing single family and/or vacant properties; one (1) representing Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (public boat launch property); and one (1) representing IRG, who purchased the former Weyerhauser property. Currently, the term for property owners is two years. The 2016 NLAC members were: Member Representing Term Expiration Terry Thomas Committee Chair, Lake Resident March 15, 2016, Second Term Mary McClellan-Aronen Lake Resident March 15, 2016, First Term Brian Cleary Lake Resident March 15, 2016, First Term Vacant Lake Resident N/A Vacant Lake Resident N/A Tom Messmer IRG N/A David Heimer Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife N/A The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities and duties of the NLAC: Assists in the development of an annual lake management Work Plan and budget. Participates in evaluation of aquatic plant control activities and helps to recommend annual control strategies. Participates in other community involvement/education strategies efforts as needed. The NLAC met formally five times in 2016: March 29 • Introduction of Mindi English, new Water Quality Program Coordinator • Committee orientation and training • 2015 Budget approval • 2016 Work plan approval June 15 • UW Presentation regarding arsenic in local lakes NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2016 FINAL REPORT Chair Chuck Gibson leaving committee and looking for a replacement Surveys completed June 9th and 10th Darren Nash will be taking over water quality monitoring program from Chuck Gibson August 19 Special Meeting Purpose of the meeting was to discuss resident concerns with water quality in North Lake if the proposed Orca Bay fish processing plant was approved. August 22 • Summarize special meeting from Aug. 19 • Aquatechnex treated North Lake on Aug. 18, 2017. An area of fragrant white water lilies is growing and needs to be treated. • Residents are encouraged to check out weed rakes. No specific areas of native growth were targeted for treatment. • Committee has two (2) open positions • Darren Nash is conducting water quality monitoring • Presentation from UW on their crawfish study January 11, 2017 (due to schedules, the 4th quarter meeting was held during Jan. 2017) • City Council Interviews for 2 vacant positons on committee scheduled for January 17, 2017 • The following plant species were observed in North Lake during surveys: Najas, Naiad, Bladderwort, Large Leaf Pondweed and Chara. Purple loosestrife is still growing along the west shoreline. Reviewed draft budget and workplan. Final will be presented at March meeting. Staff presented a grant opportunity from Dept. of Ecology that is available to LMDs. Committee can discuss at future meetings as applications are due in October. Mindi presented graphs of water quality trends from 2015 and 2016 The minutes for each meeting will be added to the SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. 7.1.2 Development of 2016 Work Plan The goals and budget regarding the 2016 Work Plan are based upon Resolution Number 09-544 to form North Lake Management District Number 2. The following is a brief outline of the 2016 Work Plan approved by the NLAC: Task 1 & 2: Aquatic Vegetation Control and Treatment: Identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted noxious aquatic plant species. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the stated goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 6.0. Task 3: Public Education: Describes public involvement and public education elements designed to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of noxious aquatic weeds and the presence of non-native species in North Lake. Items in Task 2 may include: community meetings and Plant ID Workshop, quarterly newsletter (The Lakeview), boater outreach program, NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2016 FINAL REPORT printing and distribution of educational flyers and press releases, web site development, and development of an annual report. Task 4: Water Quality Monitoring: Describes the water quality sampling plan designed to measure and track the health of North Lake. 7.2 Public Education The North Lake public education program for 2016 involved a combination of the following: quarterly newsletter, public notices, and educational materials. 7.2.1 Newsletter SWM staff issued the publication, The Lakeview, quarterly to all North Lake residents in 2016 via US Postal Service and through the city's email subscribe list. The newsletter (created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee), includes updates to lake residents concerning recent LMD activities, and education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 7.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. All NLAC meetings were advertised on the city's Calendar of Events web page. 7.2.3 Educational Materials SWM staff continued to develop and issue the following lake -related informational flyers and brochures as needed: • Milfoil Boater Education • Good Plants/Bad Plants • Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal • Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese • Aquatic Weed Rake Program • Be Lake Steward • Permanent signage at the public boat launch 7.2.4 Web Page In 2016, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. Web site information will be updated to include: • Right of Entry form • Advisory Committee Application • The Lakeview • Meeting minutes NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9 2016 FINAL REPORT • 2016 Annual Report 7.2.5 Annual Report SWM staff develops and distributes a North Lake LMD final year-end report that describes all significant LMD program information and activities. 8.0 2016 BUDGET REVIEW The information provided below consists of task -by -task work plan goals/scope of work and their associated expenditures for 2016. TASK 1 & 2 Aquatic Vegetation Control/Treatment Date Object Code Reference# Date Object Code Reference# Vendor Description Cost 3/30/16 411 6146 AquaTechnex 492 $535.00 10/27/16 411 7275 AquaTechnex Aquatic Plant Mgmt $550.00 12/28/16 411 7423 AquaTechnex Aquatic Plant Mgmt $3,271.31 Print Solutions, Inc. Newsletter $170.23 $4,356.31 TASK 3. Public Education Date Object Code Reference# Vendor Description Cost 4/7/16 492 N/A Petty cash NLAC meeting $3.98 4/14/16 492 N/A Print Solutions, Inc. Newsletter $170.38 7/14/16 492 N/A Print Solutions, Inc. Newsletter $169.29 11/14/16 492 N/A Print Solutions, Inc. Newsletter $170.23 $513.88 TASK 4. Water Quality Monitoring Date Object Reference# Vendor Description Cost Code 12/29/16 410 70115a King County lab Sample Analysis $1,812.57 $1,812.57 10 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2016 FINAL REPORT TASK 5. SWM -implemented LMD Efforts Object Date Reference# Vendor Description Cost Code Annual 110 N/A SWM Staff Annual efforts, 2016 $636.99 2016 NORTH LAKE LMD BUDGET TOTALS 2015 LMD Balance Carried Forward $2,122.85 2016 LMD Assessments Collected (includes interest) $12,696.81 TOTAL 2016 REVENUE 1 $14,819.66 TOTAL 2016 EXPENSES 1 $ 7,319.75 Estimated Final 2016LMD Fund Balance 1 $7,499.91 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 11 2016 FINAL REPORT 7/14/2017 12017 - Survev and Control North Lake Management Review - 2017 North Lake Management Review - 2017 2017 - SURVEY AND CONTROL SUMMARY Introduction The residents of North Lake formed into a Lake Management District in an effort to proactively and collectively manage and care for the lake and its aquatic plant community in an effort to increase or maintain the beneficial uses of the lake. The management is aided by the City of Federal Way to help manage collected funds and maintain the direction chosen by the LMD. The main objective being to protect the water quality of North Lake and to monitor and control invasive weed growth in and around the lake. North Lake has a history of being impacted by noxious weeds. Fragrant Water Lily, Yellow Flag Iris, Purple Loosestrife, and Eurasian Milfoil have all been present in the past or are currently still persisting as a member of the plant community. Eurasianmilfoil was infesting the lake at one point, but a whole - lake application of Sonar herbicide eliminated the plant from the lake. The lake is surveyed twice annually and no additional milfoil has been located. AquaTechnex has been contracted to provide survey and aquatic plant management services at North Lake for several years. Our survey and control efforts in 2017 focused on the continued monitoring of noxious weed populations and control activities to reduce their presence. Additional focus is spent on assessing the native plant community and making any recommendations regarding native species control. The first application to control excessive native plant growth in North Lake took place in 2014. This report summarizes the operations at North Lake during 2017. North Lake Management Review - 2017 2017 Survev Summ The first survey of North Lake occurred on June 13th. There are several aspects of the survey completed and typically they are completed one at a time with a few trips around the lake. This allows the biologists and technicians to focus on each task separately and also increase their familiarity with the lake. The lake was surveyed by boat, and the entire lake was surveyed with the first pass of the lake taking the crew around the lake in the shallow, 6 feet deep or less area of the lake. This area is easily checked from the surface for milfoil and any other submerged noxious weed species which may have been introduced to the lake. Once this initial pass is completed the plant community is sampled with a series of rake -tosses to collect samples of the plants at given depth ranges throughout the lake. Transects running perpendicular from the shore were traveled and at the 5,10,15, and 20 foot depth contour a rake -toss sample was made. The species collected on the rake as well as the relative density of the species at that point were recorded. Native Plant Community The submerged plant community in North Lake appears to be in a stable pattern. Overall the species composition has not changed and no new introductions of plant species have occurred. With the clearing of the water lily in the lake the native plant Nuphar has been able to expand its range and has formed excellent areas of cover for fish species. One additional benefit of the expansion of this plant may be to balance out the dominance of Naiad in the lake by shading out its growth under the dense Nuphar pads and allowing other species the opportunity to become established. Page 2 North Lake Management Review - 2017 2017 Control Efforts and Discussion Fragrant Water Lily ftmphaea odorata) and Yellow Flab Iris (Iris pseudacorus) The treatment of water lily and iris have been very aggressive at North Lake. Fragrant water lily has been all but eliminated. Nuphar (native) is still present and is starting to expand and reclaim areas once occupied by the invasive FWL. Areas of shoreline owned by residents have very little of the Yellow Flag Iris remaining at all. Most plants are growing in areas along the west shoreline and though treatments do take place, there is very dense vegetation growing along the shoreline. Yellow Flag Iris will require treatment again this year. Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Purple Loosestrife is a Class A noxious weed in Washington State and this designation means that its control is mandatory. Part of the county's task for surveying the lake is to monitor where control is and isn't occurring and to notify the resident about control options or in some cases make applications themselves. Treatment for loosestrife continued in 2016. All known loosestrife plants were treated and locations noted on a map included at the end of last year's report. Those same locations will be visited again this year as well as any additional locations that may be found. Please feel free to contact Travis Fuller by phone at 206-462-0608 or email at Travis@aquatechnex.com with any questions. Thank you for your time and consideration. Maps Map 1. Shows the locations of the rake -toss samples at North Lake. Map 2. Map showing the locations of the floating leaf plant species. Page 3 I- - - - - - o Naiad ® Large Leaf Pondweed * White Stem Pondweed * Chara * Nuphar NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2018 Annual Report May 21, 2019 Prepared by: Leah Myhre Kevin Du Water Quality Coordinator Water Quality Specialist Public Works Department Public Works Department City of Federal Way City of Federal Way Author and Contact Information Leah Myhre Water Quality Program Coordinator Surface Water Management Public Works Department City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063 (253) 835-2752 I itv;ofletienlIwlv.cwn For more information contact: Public Works at (253) 835-2700 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2018 FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided• by the North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) members and the entire lake community who contributed to the successful development of the North Lake Management District and the continued implementation of the aquatic plant management program. The Advisory Committee includes the following members: Lake Residents: Terry Thomas (Chair), Lois Kutscha, Mary McClellan-Aronen, Darron Nash, and Larry Zimnisky IRG Corporation: Tom Messmer (position filled after fall 2018 by Dana Ostenson) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: David Heimer NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2018 FINAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) and the Surface Water Management Division (SWM) successfully implemented the following goals as described in the 2018 work plan (Appendix D): • Identified noxious aquatic plants (purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris). • A public education program was undertaken that continued to help prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants, and non-native animal species into the lake. A CO!llprehPllciVe water quality monitoring progratrn was irnnple!neilied throughout rile summer months to provide important data concerning the health of North Lake. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IAVMP Development and Ecology Grant Funding Prior to annexation into the City of Federal Way in 2005, North Lake was within the jurisdictional boundary of unincorporated King County. Leading up to annexation, the lake community had been implementing an informal aquatic plant management program for a number of years. But starting in 2004, a more formal effort was undertaken when North Lake began coordinating with King County in the development of an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP)—a comprehensive docunent that established all future goals and strategies for freshwater lake noxious weed management. Anticipating that North Lake would soon be annexed into the city, SWM staff began collaborating with King County to finalize the North Lake IAVMP (a document required by the Washington Department of Ecology for future grant funding). Consequently, North Lake was awarded a four-year Washington State Department of Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund (AWMF) grant in 2005 with SWM designated as the administrator. The action plan outlined in the grant included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment, control, and public education designed to begin eradication of the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75% of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology. The AWMF grant expired December 31, 2009. 2.2 Lake Management District While the AWMF grant program was being implemented, city staff and residents began meeting with the intent to form a Lake Management District for North Lake as a means to provide a long- term funding mechanism. In 2010, a ten-year LMD was formed. Per RCW 36.61, annual assessments collected from LMD property owners fund the following programs: ongoing aquatic NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2018 FINAL REPORT vegetation management, water quality monitoring, public education, and related lake improvement programs. 2.3 The Aquatic Weed Issue Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to the State of Washington. They are generally of limited distribution, invasive, and pose a serious threat to our state's waterbodies (including Steel Lake) if left unchecked. Because noxious plants have few natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out -compete and effectively destroy native plant and animal habitats. This can lead to a degradation of water quality and recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2014). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on each species' stage of invasion. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur; and, (3) prevent their movement to un -infested areas of Washington. The following three major noxious weed classifications are listed according to the seriousness of the threats posed to the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet widespread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT In 2018, coverage for North Lake continued under the state of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit) (Permit Number WAG994094) for the management of aquatic plants and algae. Permit issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. Effective since April 1, 2016, the five-year NPDES permit (issued under the authority of RCW 90.48) has been implemented by the City's aquatic plant management contractor AquaTechnex, LLC. The permit governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The permit expires on March 31, 2021. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2 2018 FINAL REPORT 4.0 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT CONTRACT In the spring of 2018, a new AquaTechnex Professional Services Agreement with the City of Federal Way was finalized, expiring December 31, 2022. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology -approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, mapping, reports, and attending meetings as required. 5.0 2018 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 5.1 Systematic Survey — Noxious Plants AquaTechnex completed the annual initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake on A ....,,.,� 17 '�l114 !l„k. ., , nrn„rra� haranca the t11_j__1 I—- not --- hid Th. cn YVP.I august �,, 20 8. Only one survey occurred because ht_- r-�.r--- „_... .._._ --- id _ consisted of transects being recorded at approximately 400-500 foot intervals around the shoreline, with rake -toss samples taken in a line perpendicular to the shoreline to determine the presence and abundance of the lake's aquatic plant species. During the effort, the survey team mapped all submerged, floating, and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex Report: North Lake Management Review - 2018, (Appendix A). Noxious weeds found during the 2018 North Lake systematic survey included: • Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata) Class C • Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), Class C • Purple looscstrife (Lythrum salicaria), Class B The following is a discussion regarding noxious weeds documented during the 2018 survey, as reported by AquaTechnex: 5. 1.1 Yellow Flag Iris When flowering, yellow flag iris is unmistakable along the edge of water and in wetlands. Its yellow -colored flowers bloom in late spring or early summer. This noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has a flower stalk that grows up to nearly five feet tall. Additionally, the rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense stands that exclude more desirable native wetland species. Most of the yellow flag iris was found among the undeveloped western shoreline of the lake, and treatment is recommended in 2019. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3 2018 FINAL REPORT 5.1.2 Purple Loosestrife Purple loosestrife has vivid purple -pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This robust, square -stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense stands in shallow water and wet soil. Purple Loosestrife is an invasive, rapidly -spreading European species that is a State of Washington Class B weed (Ecology, 2014). Purple Loosestrife continues to grow along the water's edge. Through it can be found around much of the lake, the highest plant densities can be found along the west shoreline where it is largely undeveloped. An additional survey effort was made in conjunction with King County to locate all the Loosestrife plants, as controlling this noxious weed is state -mandated. 5.2 Herbicide Treatments The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine -list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities in lakes, and the applicator must also comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. No chemical treatment was performed by AquaTechnex in 2018. However, the Purple Loosestrife was treated by King County employees because the plant is a Class B noxious weed which means its control is mandatory. 5.3 Systematic Survey — Native Plants The objective of the systematic survey is to quantify the presence and location of all aquatic plant vegetation (native and non-native) on North Lake. According to AquaTechnex's annual report, "The submerged plant community in North Lake appears to be in a stable pattern. Overall the species composition has not changed and no new introductions of plant species have occurred. Naiad continues to be a dominant species in the plant community. In 2018, some patches of this species were found to be reaching the water surface. This was particularly prevalent in shallow areas around docks near the shoreline and in the southern area of the lake where depths stay shallow all the way across. At these levels, Naiad could be considered a nuisance species for North Lake homeowners." 5.4 Native Growth and Impacts to Beneficial Uses The native plant community in North Lake has a level of diversity common for the lakes in this area. Additionally, the community exhibits a relative dominance of one species over all others: Najas flexilis. This plant is native to Washington but has the ability to grow to nuisance levels in an urban lake environment like North Lake. In recent summers, a small number of residents have complained about excessive Najas growth—an observation that is most probably linked to recently warmer spring and summers. The resulting extended growing season causes plant growth to peak towards the beginning of August, and increasing plant densities observed well into September. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2018 FINAL REPORT When aquatic plant growth is excessive, it may impair beneficial uses for lake residents—for example, impairment to recreational activities (boating, fishing and swimming). 5.5 Blue -Green Algae Blue -Green algae (cyanobacteria) are common in freshwater lakes, and they frequently form dense populations (blooms) in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the, development of algae blooms are: light, temperature, pH, and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous). Blue-green blooms can pose a human health concern. Although most are non-toxic, some blue- green algae produce nerve or liver toxins. Toxicity is difficult to predict because a single species of algae can produce both toxic and non-toxic strains. Additionally, a bloom that tests non-toxic one day can turn toxic the next day. People may become ill after coming into contact with lake waters that are impacted with toxic blue-green algae. Humans may experience stomach pains, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin rashes; and nerve and liver damage have been observed following long-term exposure (such as drinking impacted water). Although pets and wildlife have died after exposure to toxic blue-green algae in Washington lakes, there have been no confirmed human deaths reported worldwide (Ecology, 2014). There was one report of blue-green algae on North Lake in August 2018, but an analysis by the King County Lab determined that it was non-toxic. 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING The King County Lake Stewardship Volunteer Monitoring Program for North Lake began in the 1980s and continued for several decades until budget cuts ended the program in 2005. Although the most recent data generated by this program (nine years prior to the date of this report) indicated that North Lake had been relatively low in primary productivity (borderline oligotrophic to mesotrophic) with very good water quality, a significant data gap exists between then and now. The long-term objectives of the current North Lake Management District Water Quality Monitoring Program include: (1) continuation of the gathering of baseline data with the intent of assessing long-term trends; (2) defining seasonal and water column variability; (3) identifying potential problems, proposing possible management solutions when feasible, or pinpointing additional studies to be made; and, (4) educating lake residents, lake users, and policy makers regarding lake water quality. Monitoring in 2018 began in early May, with samples collected from the surface and near -bottom depths from the deepest part of the lake to define changes found in the vertical profiles of the parameters. A total of six monitoring events took place over the summer months (May – October). North Lake data collected during 2018 can be found in Appendix B. Historical data can be found on the King County Lakes website: httl7://gr _e112.I in u�<oElnty.�t��f15317aI1i, ii es!11'Ql��t i..i5l�r. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 5 2018 FINAL REPORT 7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC EDUCATION Public involvement and public education for North Lake incorporates elements and concepts presented in the 2004 Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). Using the IAVMP, the annual Work Plan strives to improve lake health through the promotion of lake stewardship and through the implementation of educational programs designed to help lake residents and lake users detect and prevent the spread of noxious aquatic plant species. During the last quarterly meeting for 2018 the LMD committee took interest in the Lake Observations by Citizen Scientist & Satellites program funded by NASA with support from UNC, UW, and TTU. Lake level data submitted by citizen scientists is combined with lake surface area data from NASA satellites to determine how lake volumes evolve and respond to weather events overtime. The LMD committee plans to install the gauge in late spring/early summer 2019. 7.1 Public Involvement The North Lake Public Involvement program for 2018 included the following: 7.1.1 North Lake Advisory Committee (NLAC) The NLAC is charged with setting lake management priorities and providing input on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. Resolution No. 09-560, passed by the City Council in 2009, created the Advisory Committee for North Lake LMD Number 2. The purpose of the NLAC is to provide lakefront property owner representation for the LMD. Per Resolution No. 09-560, NLAC representation consists of. • Five (5) individuals representing single family and/or vacant properties; one (1) representing Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (public boat launch property); and one (1) representing IRG, who purchased the former Weyerhaeuser property. Currently, the term for property owners is two years. The 2018 NLAC members were: Member Representing Terry Thomas Committee Chair, Lake Resident Mary McClellan-Aronen Lake Resident Larry Zimnisky Lake Resident Lois Kutscha Lake Resident Darron Nash ------------------- Lake Resident Tom Messmer/Dana Ostenson IRG David Heimer Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 6 2018 FINAL REPORT The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities and duties of the NLAC; • Assists in the development of an annual lake management Work Plan and budget; • Participates in evaluation of aquatic plant control activities and helps to recommend annual control strategies; and, • Participates in other community involvement/education strategies efforts as needed. The NLAC met three times in 2018. Full detailed meeting notes, agendas, and members who attended the meetings can be found in Appendix C. The following are brief topic abstracts from each NLAC meeting: April 4, 2018 • Confirmed committee member's reappointment. • Discussed Aquatic Plant Treatment contract renewal. • North Lake LMD Renewal timeline. • Reviewed 2018 Work pian approvai. • Committee agreed to e -newsletter via email versus paper. Jure 28, 2018 • Members observed suspicious activity including fires on IRG's property. • Finalized picnic date at Steel Lake Park. Implemented procedure to report algae blooms. • Reviewed the Lake View newsletter. • Attended presentation by Dr. Gawel of UW Tacoma on Asarco arsenic study in North Lake. November 19, 2018 • Staffing updates: Mindi English left for a new position at the Department of Ecology, Leah Myhre became the new WQ Coordinator, and Kevin Du came onboard as the temporary water quality sampling and analysis assistant. • City of Federal Way Public Education & Outreach Coordinator presented on the Lake Observations by Citizen Scientist &Satellites program funded by NASA. Committee was interested in participating in the program. • Grant from AquaTechnex reviewed the 2018 Summary of Activities regarding aquatic plant management. • Discussed more strategic approach to geese management. • Review of work plan and current financials. • Review of North LMD renewal timeline. 7.1.2 Development of 2018 Work Plan The goals and budget regarding the 2018 Work Plan are based upon Resolution Number 09-544 that formed North Lake Management District Number 2. The following is a brief outline of the 2018 Work Plan approved by the NLAC: NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2018 FINAL REPORT Task 1 & 2: Aquatic Vegetation Control and Treatment: Identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted noxious aquatic plant species. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to accomplish the stated goals. Task 3: Public Education: Describes public involvement and public education elements designed to help inform lake residents and users about the impacts of noxious aquatic weeds and the presence of non-native species in North Lake. Items in Task 2 may include: community meetings and Plant ID Workshop, quarterly newsletter (The Lake View), boater outreach program, printing and distribution of educational flyers and press releases, web site development, and development of an annual report. Task 4: Water Quality Monitoring Describes the water quality sampling plan designed to measure and track the health of North Lake. Task 5: 5WNI-Implemented 2018 LMD Efforts: Involves time invested by SWM personnel. A complete detailed Work Plan/Budget for 2018 can be found in Appendix D. 7.2 Public Education The North Lake public education program for 2018 involved a combination of the following: quarterly newsletter, public notices, and educational materials. 7.2.1 Newsletter SWM staff issued the publication, The Lake View, to all North Lake residents in August 2018 via the email list compiled by NLAC members. The newsletter (created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee), includes updates to lake residents concerning recent LMD activities, and educational information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. The August newsletter focused on natural yard care, eco -friendly best practices for dock cleaning, and algae bloom awareness. 7.2.2 LMD Public Meeting/BBQ A community public meeting was held at Steel Lake Park on September 6, 2018 to provide LMD residents an opportunity to ask questions regarding the annual program. Approximately 30 lake residents attended the celebration. 7.2.3 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. All NLAC meetings were advertised on the city's Calendar of Events web page. 7.2.4 Annual Report SWM staff develops and distributes a North Lake Management District final year-end report that describes all significant LMD program information and activities. NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2018 FINAL REPORT 8.0 2018 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT YEAR END FINANCIALS Work Plan Goals/Scope 2018 Estimated (includes taxes) 2018 Expenditures (includes taxes) TASK 1. Aquatic Vegetation Control/Treatment TASK 2. Public Education $12,000 $1,035 $3,3b8.00 $367.68 TASK 3. Hazardous Algae Bloom Management $500 $ - TASK 4. Water Quality Monitoring $2,850 $2,676.00 TASK 5. Canada Geese Management $2,500 $ - TASK B_ SWM -implemented LMD Efforts $2,500 $2,079.90 TOTAL 2018 EXPENSES $24,365 $8,491.58 2017 Carryover Balance $7,422.59 2018 Assessment Revenue $12,713.11 2018 Expenditures $8,491.58 2018 Carryover Balance $11,644.12 Total 2018 Budget: $20,135.70 NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2018 FINAL REPORT Appendix A NORTH LAKE MANAGEMENT REVIE41 - 2018 Prepared by AquaTechnex, LLC. North Lake Management Review - 2018 North Lake Management Review - 2018 207.8 - SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Introduction North Lake has a history of being impacted by noxious weeds. Fragrant Water car Lily, Yellow Flag Iris, Purple Loosestrife, and Eurasian Watermilfoil have all tenor, r -rnon i+ in +1 -in nac+ nr aro i-nrran+w "garcictincr ac a mAmi-ior of +�a n]an+ community. Eurasian Watermilfoil was infesting the lake at one point, but a whole -lake application of Fluridone herbicide eliminated the plant from the lake. The lake is typically surveyed twice annually, and no additional milfoil has been located since. In 2018, only one survey was performed, as the City of Federal Way put the project out to bid and the contract with AquaTechnex was not finalized until mid -summer. AquaTechnex has been contracted to provide survey and aquatic plant management services at North Lake for several years. Our efforts in 2018 focused on the continued monitoring of noxious weed populations and control recommendations. Additional focus was spent on assessing the native plant community and making any recommendations regarding nuisance native species control. 2018 Survey Summary North Lake was surveyed on August 17th, 2018 by AquaTechnex. This survey followed the standard protocol that has been used in the past. The entire lake was surveyed by boat, with the first pass of the lake taking the crew around the lake in the shallow, 6 feet deep or less area of the lake. This area is easily checked from the surface for milfoil and any other submerged noxious weed Page 1 North Lake Management Review - 2018 species which may have been introduced to the lake. Once this initial pass was completed, the plant community was sampled with a series of rake -tosses to identify plants at given depth ranges throughout the lake. Transects running perpendicular from the shore were traveled and at the 5, 10, and 15 foot depth contours a rake -toss sample was taken. The species collected on the rake as well as the relative density of the species at that point were recorded. Dominant species at each point were compiled in a map to show species composition of the lake. These results are shown in Map 1. at the end of this report. In addition to the data points taken, AquaTechnex also used sonar to scan for plant biomass density in the lake. This data was processed into a heat map which provides a visual representation of how much of the water column is taken up by plant biomass at any given point on the lake. This data is shown at the end of this report in Map 3. Native Plants The submerged plant community in North Lake appears to be in a stable pattern. Overall the species composition has not changed and no new introductions of plant species have occurred. Naiad continues to be a dominant species in the plant community. In 2018, some patches of this species were found to be reaching the water surface. This was particularly prevalent in shallow areas around docks near the shoreline and in the Southern area of the lake where depths stay shallow all the way across. At these levels, Naiad could be considered a nuisance species for North Lake homeowners. Fragrant Water Lily (Nymphaea odorata), Yellow Flag Iris (Iris pseudacorus), and Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) The treatment of water lily has been very aggressive in the past at North Lake. Previously, Fragrant water lily had been all but eliminated. However, 2018 saw an increase in the number of lily pads present on the lake. These locations can be seen in Map 2. The board decided against late season treatment in 2018 but it is highly recommended that we address this noxious species with chemical treatment in 2019. Typically it is best to spray this plant in August or September because the herbicides will be most effective at this time. Page 2 North lake Management Review - 201 R Areas of shoreline owned by residents have very little of the Yellow Flag Iris remaining at all. Most the plants remaining of this species are growing in areas along the west shoreline. No spraying for Yellow Flag Iris was done in 2018 but it is recommended in 2019. Purple Loosestrife is a Class B noxious weed in Washington State and this designation means that its control is mandatory. This plant was found to be present at several properties on North Lake in 2018. AquaTechnex did not treat these plants in 2018, however, King County employees did. AquaTechnex will continue to monitor this plant in 2019 and can perform foliar herbicide applications to control any remaining plants. 2019 Recommendations: For 2019, AquaTechnex recommends the continued surveying of North Lake for Eurasian Watermilfoil and any other submerged invasive plants. Continued monitoring of shoreline emergent invasive plants including Yellow Flag Iris and Purple Loosestrife is also advised. AquaTechnex recommends treatment of these species in 2019 as well as treatment of the invasive Fragrant Water Lily present on North Lake. This plant was present at greater levels in 2018 than other recent years and spraying in 2019 would help get his problem under control before it becomes any more pervasive in the lake. In addition to invasive plants, it is recommended that AquaTechnex continues to monitor the native plant community. In 2018, Naiad remained a dominant plant species which grew to nuisance levels in some areas. Though native plant communities are important to the overall health of the lake, spot treatment of dense plant patches could help improve the beneficial uses of the lake. Selecting areas for treatment would be at the discretion of North Lake homeowners and the City of Federal Way. Please feel free to contact Grant Bennett by phone at 360-508-1276 or email at Grant@aquatechnex.com with any questions. Thank you for your time and consideration. Page 3 North Lake Management Review - 2018 Map 1. Dominant submerged plant species at 5, 10, and 15ft depth contours North Lake Submerged Species 8-17-2018 North Lake Management Review - 2018 Map 3. Color represents percentage of water column taken up by plant biovolume in the lake with blue being 0% and red being 100%. Vegetation Biovolume Heat Map Appendix B CITY OF FEDERAL WAY North Lake Data Analysis 2018 Lake Management District 11/19/2018 North Lake Temperature 2018 25 a, 15 *5/9 Deep sample ba c taken at 8m ar `o L 10 _ Temp at 1m a, Celsius a Temp at 9m 5 0 5/9/2018 5 6/5/2018 7/5/2018 8/7/2018 Sample Date 9/11/2018 10/9/2018 North Lake Visability 2018 4.5 4 3.5 - - � 3 = -- i CL 0 2.5 s 2 1.5 1 [ow 0 5/9/2018 6/5/2018 7/5/2018 8/7/2018 9/11/2018 10/9/2018 Sample Date Celsius Secchi Depth (m) 2.5 E 1.5 z 0.5 0 5/9/2018 North Lake Nitrogen Concentration 2018 *5/9 Deep sample taken at 8m 6/5/2018 7/5/2018 8/7/2018 9/11/2018 10/9/2018 Sample Date [N] at 1m (mg/L) [N] at 9m (mg/L) 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 eo 0.25 E o, 0.2 0.15 _ 0.1 0.05 f~ 0 5/9/2018 10 9 8 7 E 6 S R 5 LL u 4 LL 3 2 1 0 5/9/2018 North Lake Phosphorous Concentration 2018 [P] at 1m (mg/L) __ [P] at 9m (mg/L) 6/5/2018 7/5/2018 8/7/2018 9/11/2018 10/9/2018 Sample Date North Lake Fecal Coliform 2018 6/5/2018 7/5/2018 8/7/2018 Sample Date 9/11/2018 10/9/2018 Fecal Coliform (CFU/100mi) 45 40 35 30 a, N d 25 0 d z 20 15 10 5 North Lake Geese Sightings 2018 —a Geese Sightings 0 5/9/2018 6/5/2018 7/5/2018 8/7/2018 9/11/2018 10/9/2018 Sample Date North lake Trophic State Index 2018 100 TSI w/ Chlorophyll (Carlson, 90 1977) TSI w/ Secchi Depth (Carlson, 80 1977) TSI w/ Phosphorous, 1m 70 (Carlson, 1977) c 0 ' •TSI w/ Phosphorous, 9m 60 (Carlson, 1977) vi 50 r *[P] on 5/9/2018 deep sample at dim not 9m 40 -. ' 30 — –, 5/9/2018 6/5/2018 7/5/2018 8/7/2018 9/11/2018 10/9/2018 Sample Date *Used to characterize the health of lakes, using phosphorus, chlorophyll a, or secchi disk. (Chlorophyll is best indicator in summer, phosphorous for other seasons,) TSI Table (Carlson, 1977) Oligotrophy: Clearwater, oxygen Water may be suitable for an unfiltered Salmonid fisheries <30 throughoutthe vear in the hypolimnion. watersupply. dominate. Hypolimnia of shallower lakes may Salmonid fisheries in 30-40 become anoxic. deep lakes only. Hypolimnetic anoxia Mesotrophy: Water moderately clear; Iron, manganese, taste, and odor results in loss of increasing probability of hypolimnetic problems worsen. Raw waterturbidity salmonids. Walleye 40-50 anoxia during summer. requires filtration. may predominate Warm-waterfisheries Eutrophy: Anoxic hypolimnia, only. Bass may 50-60 macrophyte problems possible. dominate. Nuisance macrophytes, algal scum and transparency may Blue-green algae dominate, algal scums Episodes of severe taste and odor discourage swimming 60-70 and macrophvte problems. problem. and boating. Hypereutrophy: (light limited productivity). Dense algae and 70-80 macrophytes. Rough fish dominate; summerfish kills >80 Algal scums, few macrophytes. possible. Appendix C North Lake Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda April 4, 2018 4:00 — 6:00 P.M. Hylebos Room — 2nd Floor City Hall Tentative Committee Attendance: Terry Thomas, Laurence Zimnisky, Lois Kutscha, David Heimer Staff Attendance: Mindi English, Leah Myhre 1. Call Meeting to Order/Introductions 4:00 2. Aquatechnex Contract Expiration — current steps 4:00 — 4:10 3. LMD Renewal 4:10 — 4:15 4. 2018 Workplan/Budget 4:15 — 4:45 5. Misc. Discussion 4:45 - 6. Adjourn NLT 6:00 NORTH LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SIGN IN SHEET Date: April 4, 2018 Please sign your name, address, phone number, and e-mail address, if applicable. NAME (SIGNATURE) NAME (PRINTED) ADDRESS PHONE/E-MAIL ADDRESS �Fl �53-83s-a�s(o i - Mi r ,5U EYI9115 L, C� ' vJ t cede lnl m��+dwe�ctlrsl-a U i A �Vn re Feduza Vja_� 35 - 252 j 253-73Z-36(.9 w o✓ WDF he i n,¢�r'•��, 1. z. n(253-� 3 4-V_� - . .21m9 f L_Rue_a_ z L Mr { s►s-, 3 3l, z -S 33'=J P �. sa 29 --1 qk -sem 8 ta) d�d� �ew'�@U,tiva� .cmc,► 6. ILAS14 7. 8. f I 9. Sviat . cev,,, North Lake Advisory Committee Meeting Notes April 4, 2018 4:00 — 6:00 P.M. Hylebos Room — 2nd Floor City Hall Committee Attendance: Terry Thomas, Laurence Zimnisky, Lois Kutscha, Mary McClellan-Aronen, David Heimer Staff Attendance: Mindi English, Leah Myhre 1. Terry called the meeting to order at 4:04. Attendees did introductions. 2. Mindi informed committee members that all members who applied for re- appointment had been confirmed following interviews with City Council on April 3, 2018. There is still one vacancy on the committee and members will talk with interested residents. 3. Discussion regarding Aquatic Plant Treatment contract renewal. Contract with AquaTechnex expires in May 2018. Mindi has drafted a request for proposal and it is currently routing through management. Goal is to have a contract in place by May 2018. 4. LMD Renewal — the North Lake LMD expires on Dec. 31, 2019. We will need to start the renewal process this summer to ensure enough time to have LMD renewed prior to Dec. 31, 2019. A question was raised regarding votes and if each landowner gets one vote, or if voting rights are based on property size and/or water frontage. 5. Review workplan and budget. a. Terry discussed what the different line items are. Mindi will update columns on page 2 to make sure that balances match. Following these edits, Mindi will forward the workplan to committee members for approval via email. b. The following questions came up during discussion of the work plan: i. How long is landowner permission form good for? The last forms went out in 2015, and allow permission for treatment through September 2018. ii. Who holds the NPDES permit? AquaTechnex holds the permit for both Steel and North Lakes, while the City of Federal Way is the sponsor. c. David Heimer with WDFW asked if the LMD had ever had an aquatic weeds grant from DOE. Mary found info during the meeting that confirmed the LMD did receive a grant from DOE for aquatic weeds in 2005. 6. Newsletter and picnic— committee has agreed to quit printing and mailing the newsletter. Instead, it will be posted on the website and also sent out via email. The idea of a picnic was brought up. Mindi is checking with Steel Lake LMD to see if they would be willing to combine efforts for a LMD picnic on September 6, 2018. 7. Following a question from City Council during interviews on April 3, Terry found the list and confirmed that there are 83 properties on North Lake. 8. Email List — Lois has compiled an email list and forwarded it to Mindi. This will be used to email meeting notes, newsletters, and other LMD information to property owners. 9. Lois asked who is in charge of opening and closing the gate to the DFW fishing dock on North Lake. David will check with his staff, and Mindi will check with City Parks Department to find out who is in charge of this. I O.Lois also brought up that the fishing dock is in need of serious repairs and was wondering what would be involved in getting it fixed/replaced. David will research this and get information to the group. I I .Next meeting will be in late May. 12.Meeting adjourned 5:20 p.m. North Lake Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda June 28, 2018 2:00 — 4:00 P.M. Hylebos Room — 2nd Floor City Hall Tentative Committee Attendance: Terry Thomas, Laurence Zimnisky, Lois Kutscha, David Heimer Guest Attendance: Professor James Gawel Staff Attendance: Mindi English, Leah Myhre 1. Call Meeting to Order/Introductions 2:00 2. Aquatechnex Status 2:05 — 2:10 3. LMD Renewal 2:10 — 2:15 4. Email List 2:15 — 2:25 5. Repairs at WDFW Dock 2:25- 2:30 6. LMD Picnic 2:30 — 2:35 7. Mailing for 2018 2:35 — 2:45 8. Misc. Items 2:45 — 2:55 9. Presentation by Professor Gawel 3:00 Adj ourn NORTH LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SIGN IN SHEET Date: June 28, 2018 Please sign your name, address, phone number, and e-mail address, if applicable. NAME (SIGNATURE) NAME (PRINTED) ADDRESS PHONE/E-MAIL ADDRESS 2. Ss 3. 4- 5_ Lc -r-- C- 4r 5, —732-366c1 16. 7. E n� C_ 8. Ix '_ _I6 9. 1 r"'J North Lake Advisory Committee Meeting Notes June 28, 2018 2:00 — 4:00 P.M. Hylebos Room — 2nd Floor City Hall Committee Attendance: Terry Thomas, Laurence Zimnisky, Lois Kutscha, Mary McClellan-Aronen, David Heimer Guest Attendance: Darron Nash, Mike Trout Staff Attendance: Mindi English, Leah Myhre 1. Terry called the meeting to order at 2:00. 2. Lois will take the lead on coordinating the email list for North Lake property owners. 3. Lois notes that the WDFW public fishing dock has some soggy boards and needs to be repaired. This is a safety issue. David contacted the access contact with DFW. 4. A question came up regarding fires and suspicious activity noted on IRG property. Residents have noticed campfires in the past in woody areas of IRG property. If fires are observed, residents should call the fire department. For suspicious activity on IRG property, Mike Trout gave out the phone number for IRG's security guard (206)573-4163. 5. Picnic will be held Thursday, September 6, 2018 at Steel Lake Park. An email will be sent to residents in August asking them to RSVP to Mindi. An announcement will also be in the Lake News. Topics for presentations include tubs with examples of native plants, information from DFW on fish species in the lakes and environmental care of the lake. This will be a joint picnic with Steel Lake residents. 6. A question was brought up regarding if there are test strips for algae sampling. Mindi will look into this and get back to the committee at our next meeting. 7. A procedure was put in place to handle calls regarding suspicious algae blooms. The committee discussed options, and the following procedure was proposed and passed: a. Notice to All: If a possible algae bloom appears; resident(s) may contact City of Federal Way Surface Water Management attim Leah Myhre at (253)835-2752 and report. b. Action will be: i. If sighting report is on a Friday, any action will be postponed until Monday due to lite cycle of the sample. ii. Mon — Thurs, sample would be taken, either by resident or CFW SWM staff. 1. SWM staff will visit the lake to determine if a sample needs to be collected. IF sample is collected by a resident, SWM staff will deliver sample to King County Environmental Lab for analysis. 2. Only action that can be taken if sample proves to be harmful to either human health or animals is posting notice on the shore indicating that cyanobacteria has been detected and warning people to stay out of the water due to potential health effects. 3. If a sample is submitted to the laboratory, CFW will notify LMD committee. 8. Reviewed draft Lake News and it will be sent out via email in late July. Mindi will send Lois a copy to distribute via the email list. 9. Meeting adjourned at 3:52 pm and members attended a presentation by Professor James Gawel on the Asarco arsenic study being conducted by UW Tacoma. North Lake Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda November 19, 2018 3:30-5:30pm Hylebos Room — 2nd Floor City Hall Tentative Committee Attendance: Terry Thomas (Chair), Laurence Zimnisky, Lois Kutscha, Mary McClellan Aronen, Darron Nash, David Heimer Staff Attendance: Theresa Thurlow, Leah Myhre, Kevin Du, Katherine Straus Guest: Grant Bennett from AquaTechnex 1) 3:30 — 3:32 Call Meeting to Order 2) 3:32 — 3:35 Staffing Updates 3) 3:35 — 3:45 Lake Level Monitoring with NASA 4) 3:45 — 4:15 AquaTechnex — Annual Report, Invasive Plant Treatment, Next Steps 5) 4:15 — 4:30 North Lake Water Quality Graphs & Trends 6) 4:30 — 4:35 Geese Management 7) 4:35 — 4:50 Review Draft 2019 Work Plan 8) 4:50 — 5:00 Review LMD By-laws & Renewal Timeline 9) 5:00 — 5:15 Boat Launch Signage & Dock Repair 10) 5:15 — 5:20 Delinquent Properties 11) 5:20 — 5:25 Email List 12) 5:25 — 5:30 Other Items North Lake Advisory Committee Meeting Meeting Notes November 19, 2018 3:30-5:30pm Hylebos Room — 2nd Floor City Hall Committee Attendance: Terry Thomas (Chair), Laurence Zimnisky, Lois Kutscha, Darron Nash, David Heimer Staff Attendance: Theresa Thurlow, Leah Myhre, Kevin Du, Katherine Straus Guest: Grant Bennett from AquaTechnex 1) Terry called the meeting to order at 3:35pm. Attendees did introductions. 2) Theresa covered recent staffing updates, including the retirement of Marwan Salloum as the Public Works Director, appointment of EJ Walsh as the new Public Works Director, the hiring of Leah as the new Water Quality Coordinator following a formal hiring process, and the inclusion of Kevin in the Surface Water Management (SWM) team as a temporary Water Quality Sampling & Analysis Assistant. Leah's previous position (Water Quality Specialist) is now open for applications. 3) Katherine Straus, Public Education & Outreach Coordinator for SWM, presented on the Lake Observations by Citizen Scientists & Satellites (LOCSS) program. This program is NASA funded and is supported by a partnership between UNC, UW, and TTU. Lake level data submitted by citizen scientists is combined with lake surface area data from satellites to determine how lake volumes evolve and respond to weather events over time. The program is currently monitoring 23 lakes in the US, and is hoping to monitor more than 200 lakes nationally and globally by 2021. Participation in the program is completely free, and maintenance of the lake level gauge is included. Installation of gauges will occur in late spring/early summer 2019. Committee members demonstrated a high level of interest in this program, and Terry made a motion that North Lake participate in the LOCSS program. The motion was seconded by Darron, and approved by the Committee. Darron is interested in having a gauge near his property, and inquired if North Lake could have multiple gauges. Katherine has emailed the program coordinator to express North Lake's interest. Leah will email the Committee with information on the possibility of multiple gauges when that information is known. 4) Grant Bennett from AquaTechnex reviewed the 2018 Summary of Activities for North Lake. Due to contract renewal negotiations, they were unable to survey the lake until August 17, 2018, and conducted only one survey instead of two as is customary. Grant noted a large amount of Fragrant Water Lily along the shorelines of the lake—especially in the southern areas of the lake, and recommends treatment in 2019 to prevent further spreading. Committee members also voiced concern over the purple loosestrife in llragonfly love at the northeast end of the lake. Grant recommended treatment in July/August, and Leah will remind him prior to his initial survey of the lake that this is a key area of interest for managing vegetation. David mentioned that Map 1 in the report shows only dominant species collected by the rake surveys at those points, and does not include information on the secondary and tertiary plant species (and the percentages present) found when conducting the survey. Grant said he can add that information into his 2019 survey reports. The Committee would also like to see historical spray records, and what percentage of the lake has been treated since there are limits. Grant will also provide a cost estimate for treatment based on the volume of submerged plants he discovers during his initial survey in 2019. The Committee would like to schedule the AquaTechnex surveys as quickly as possible in the new year, with a spring survey in late May/early June, and a fall survey in early September. If a high volume of aquatic vegetation is found, the Committee can choose to apply for an exemption to treat prior to the July 16th treatment season, but this would not likely be granted for just nuisance growth. Leah will coordinate with Grant following the February 2019 meeting to schedule these surveys. 5) Kevin presented his analysis of the 2018 North Lake sampling data to the Committee. His graphs showcased trends for the 2018 sampling season, and included analyses on temperature, visibility, nutrients, fecal coliform, geese and Trophic State Index (TSI). Kevin suggested that the 9m temperature reading on August 7th was a data error, and Darron confirmed that the correct reading was 8.1 T. Furthermore, Kevin concluded that based on Steel Lake's TSI, it is a mesotrophic lake that possesses a moderate risk for algae blooms and has moderate water quality. Darron was particularly interested in how the TSI of the lake predicts fish health and viability in the lake, and is also concerned about the potential for herbicide application to affect fish. David mentioned that he has been in contact with the WDFW Warm Water Fish Program, and will invite a representative to the next meeting so the Committee can hear his perspective on optimizing lake health for fish before making any treatment decisions in the summer. 6) The Committee is interested in discussing a more strategic approach towards geese management. Historically, Weyerhaeuser would addle the eggs, but current IRG efforts are unknown. Leah will email Tom Messmer for more information on this, and will let the Committee know what actions are being taken, if any. The Committee noted that they have recently seen an increase in the number of geese on the lake, and Leah will collect some cost estimates for implementing similar population control strategies as Steel Lake. 7) Review of 2018 Work Plan and current LMD financials. Staff noted that the City's finance department has undergone a high turnover rate in the past few months, and thus there are invoices that have yet to be processed. The Work Plan provided the most up to date records of the revenues and expenditures of the North Lake LMD, and currently shows a carryover into 2019 in excess of $10,000. This figure will shift as more staff time and invoices are processed through the finance department, and Leah will present the 2019 Work Plan with estimated budget figures and 2018 actuals at the February Advisory Committee meeting. Theresa also noted that staff time will be increasing next year due to projected time spent on the LMD renewal process. 8) Review of the 2019 LMD By-laws and Renewal Timeline. There will be increased communication and likely additional meetings throughout 2019 to ensure that the LMD renewal process for North Lake is efficient and on time. The first task for the Committee will be a review of the LMD By-laws and Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) to determine if there are any desired changes to the current responsibilities and procedures of the LMD. Leah will include attachments to these documents with the meeting minutes so Committee members can review in preparation for the coming year. Due to the increase in staff time for the renewal process, Committee members inquired into the hourly rate of employees when billing to the LMD. Theresa later informed Leah that the Water Quality Coordinator bills at $51.64/hour, the Water Quality Specialist bills at $42.83/hour, and the Public Education & Outreach Coordinator bills at an average of the two, roughly $47/hour. 9) The Committee discussed the derelict and increasingly unsafe condition of the dock at the WDFW boat launch area. David mentioned that grants could be a potential funding source, and are commonly used to replace docks in disrepair. David encouraged sending a letter to the WDFW Director, Kelly Susewind, emphasizing the need for dock repair and highlighting the constant use that the area experiences. The Committee agreed that they would like Leah to draft this letter and submit for Committee review before sending it to WDFW. 10) The Committee reviewed the list of delinquent properties that have not yet paid their annual assessments. King County sent the list to Leah on November i 6, 2018, and the unpaid assessments total just over $2,000. Some property owners have been delinquent for multiple years, and King County handles the enforcement of delinquent payments. Unfortunately, King County is unable to include the LMD assessment with the regular tax bills, and thus the LMD would like to include a reminder in the spring newsletter to pay once bills have been issued by King County in 2019. Leah will follow up with unpaid 2018 assessments with a reminder letter to each delinquent property owner accompanied by a copy of the bill in hopes of collecting unpaid assessments. 11) Lois asked if the Committee would like to continue with updating the email list and using it as a means to send out information to lake residents digitally. The general consensus was in support of the email list, and Leah reported that the current list includes a vast majority of property owners around the lake. Committee members inquired as to the ownership of the list, and Leah will follow up with the City's legal team to determine who is allowed to possess and have access to the list of contacts. 12) There were no additional items to discuss. Meeting adjourned at 5:30pm. Appendix D Initial 2018 North Lake Management District Work Plan Prepared by North Lake LIVID Advisory Committee Federal Way, WA TASK 1 &2 Aquatic Vegetation Control/Treatment TASK 3 Public Education Work Plan Goals/Scope Estimated 2017 Actual BALANCE Estimated ork Plan Goals/Scope Expenses Expenses (12/31/2017) Expenses Work Plan Goals/Scope (includes taxes) (includes taxes) Expenses Two systematic aquatic plant $3,950 $3,037.00 $913 $3,950 surveys taxes) $46.41 $(21.41) $50 $875 $290 $875 Permit Coverage $585.00 Diver Hand Removal $490 0 $490 $490 Manual Removal $123 0 $123 $130 Noxious Aquatic Herbicide $2,375 $985.50 $1,389.50 $2,375 Treatments $2,375 0 $2,375 $2,375 Native Aquatic Herbicide Treatments $568 0 Final Year End Report $568 $568 Notification $657 $580 $350.00 0 $307 $657 Meetings $580 $580 TASK 1 & 2 - Totals $11,993 $4,957.50 $7,035.50 $12,000 TASK 3 Public Education Work Plan Goals/Scope 2017 2017 Actual Balance 2018 Estimated Expenses (12/31/2017) Estimated Work Plan Goals/Scope Expenses (includes Expenses (includes taxes) Water Quality Monitoring program taxes) $46.41 $(21.41) $50 Refreshments for quarterly Advisory Committee meetings $25 $429.43 Quarterly newsletter $685 $255.57 $685 TASK 3 — Totals $710 $301.98 $408.02 $735 TASK 4 Water Quality Monitoring 2018 Workplan Prepared 4/10/18 Page 1 2017 2017 Actual Balance 2018 Estimated Estimated Expenses (12/31/2017) Expenses Work Plan Goals/Scope Expenses (includes taxes) ( includes taxes) Water Quality Monitoring program $2,850 $3,072.50 $(222.50) $2,850 2018 Workplan Prepared 4/10/18 Page 1 Aimendix 1) TASK 4 - Totals , $2,850 1 $3,072.50 1 $(222.50) 1 $2,850 1 TASK 5 SWM Staff Time Reimbursement Work Plan Goals/Scope Estimated 1 2017 Actual Expenses Balance Estimated l Task Expenses (includes taxes) (12/31/2017) Expenses (includes taxes) Income (12/31/2017) SWM Staff time $2,500 $2,137.63 $362.37 $2,500 [TASK 5 — Totals $2,500 $2,137.63 $362.37 $2,500 LMD Task Budclet Totals 2018 Workplan Prepared 4/10/18 Page 2 2017 2018 Estimated Task Estimated 2017 Actual Balance Income Income Income (12/31/2017) REVENUE 2017 Assessment Collection $13,000 $17,241.50 N/A $13,000 Balance from Unused LMD $7,499 $3,056.91 $9,828.80 $9,828.80 Funds EXPENSES 2017 2017 Actual 2018 Work Plan Task Estimated Expenses Balance Goals/Scope Expenses (includes taxes) (12/3112017) (includes taxes) TASK 1 & 2 Aquatic $11,993 $4,957.50 $7035.50 $12,000 Vegetation Control/Treatment TASK 3 Public Education $710 $301.98 $408.02 $735 TASK 4 Water Quality $2,850 $3,072.50 $(222.50) $2,850 Monitoring TASK 5 SWM Staff Time $2,500 $2,137.63 $362.37 $2,500 2017 YEAR END BALANCE $10,469.61 $ $18,085 2018 Workplan Prepared 4/10/18 Page 2 Appendix E 2nd Quarter 2018 THE LAKE VIEW ME Why Go Natural? Going natural can help you ave Mone on watering, fertilizers, and chemicals. Keep family and pets healthy by limiting their contact with chemicals. Protect water quality by limiting the amount of chemicals and nutrients that run off of your property into our nearby lakes. 3 Build Healthy Soil Compost, mulch, and other natural fl, amendments help build healthy soil. Healthy soil retains more water and bL 0111111W reduces run-off into local waterways. It also makes plants healthier so they are more resistant to pests, lessening the need for chemicals. K=im Pratice Smart Watering Too much or too 1 little water can both be harmful to your plants, making them more likely to suffer from pests and disease. Instead, water infrequently but deeply, create healthy soil that water can soak into, and maintain your irrigation system. 4 Use Less t Sprays Use natural pest and weed control practices first. Try using pest traps, fabric row covers, and natural repellents to fight insects and weeds before picking up the chemical sprays. CITY OF Federal Way Centered on Opportunity 2 Plant Right for Your Site Every plant has k different needs, and j, different parts of your yard maybe better suited for some plants over others. When you put the right plant in the right place all your plants will thrive and your yard will be easier to care for. 5 Practice Natural Lawn Care Lawns are where we often use the most pesticides, water, and fertilizers. Proper mowing, using "slow release" or "organic" fertilizers, aerating your soil, and smart watering will help you create a lush, green lawn, naturally. ,rIAi�i rl� Q O � North and Steel Lake Residents- please mark your calendars for an educational opportunity and fun social gathering. North and Steel Lake Residents are invited to the Lake Management District cookout and potluck! Thursday, September 6th 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM Steel Lake Park Shelter #1 The Lake Management Districts will provide hot dogs, hamburgers and beverages. 10 9 Residents with the last name beginning ,." with the letters: A through K should bring salads, fruit, or vegetable dishes; L through Z should bring breads, chips or pasta dishes. Please RSVP to Mindi English at mindi.english@cityoffederalway.com