No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC PKT 05-04-2009 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee City Hall Hvlebos Room May 4,2009 5:30 p.m. MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 3. COMMmEE BUSINESS Action Council Topic Titlel Description Presenter Page or Info Date Time A. Approval of Minutes: April 6, 2009 LeMaster 2 Action NjA 5 min. B. School Zone Flashing Beacon Perez 4 Action 5/19/09 5 min. Grant Application Consent C. 2009-2010 Neighborhood Traffic Safety Perez 6 Action 5/19/09 5 min. Program Bid Award Consent D. Adoption of a Resolution to form North Appleton 11 Action 5/19/09 5 min. Lake Management District Number Two, Consent Calling for a volte by affected property owners on the formation of the proposed district E. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Clark 300 Action 5/19/09 15 min. Ordinance 4. OTHER 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS: Monday, May 18,2009. 6. ADJOURN Committee Members Unda Kachmar, Chair Jim Ferrell Dini Dudos City Staff Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant Oty Manager/Emergency Manager Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II 253-835-2701 G:ILUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2009IS-()4-(}9 LUTC Agenda.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land UselTransportation Committee April 6, 2009 5:30 PM City Hall City Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Kochmar and Committee Members Ferrell and Duclos Staff Mem bers in Attendance: Assistant City Manager Cary Roe, Public Works Director Marwan Salloum, Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, Street Systems Project Engineer Brian Roberts, Surface Water Manager Will Appleton, Water Quality Coordinator Dan Smith and Administrative Assistant II Darlene LeMaster 1. CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Kochmar called the meeting to order at 5:35 PM. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 3. BUSINESS ITEMS Topic TitlelDescription Forward to Council A. Approval of the March 16,2009 LUTC Minutes N/A Committee approved March 16,2009 LUTC minutes as presented. Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 Resolution ofIntent to Form North Lake Management District Number Two 4/21/2009 Consent B. Will Appleton presented information on this item. Mr. Appleton defmed and stated the purpose of a lake management district (LMD) at Chair Kochmar's request. Committee Member Duclos applauded the North Lake residents for their interest and commitment to forming this lake management district. One public comment was received: Chuck Gibson, 33461 33m Place S, Federal Way - Mr. Gibson is the North Lake Steering Committee Vice-Chair. Mr. Gibson testified that North Lake residents want to form a LMD because they want to keep the lake in the condition that the W A State Dept of Ecology grant has allowed them to. The grant has run out and a LMD will enable the lake residents to continue to manage the lake and make further improvements. Mr. Gibson thanked Don Robinett and Dan Smith from Public Works Surface Water divisionfor support and assistance during this process. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 C. Public Works Surface Water Maintenance Heavy Equipment Trailer Replacement - Authorization to Bid 4/21/2009 Consent Will Appleton presented information on this item. There was no public comment. Committee Member Ferrell asked if a bid was not received within the available budget, would staff return to committee for further authorization to transfer funds. Committee Member Ferrell motioned to forward Option #1, as modified to increase the available cash budget for a heavy equipment trailer from $18,679.00 to $25,000.00 through the transfer of funds from the un allocated SWM account. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2009\04-06-09-Minutes.doc Land Useffransportation Committee Page 2 April 6, 2009 D. 20th Place SW - Emergency Slide Repair 4/21/2009 Consent Brian Roberts presented information on this item. There was no public comment. Mr. Roberts noted that construction of this repair could be completed by the end of summer. Staff is confident that FEMA will respond favorably to the request for funds for this project. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 4. OTHER There was no further discussion or additional topics addressed. 5. FUTURE MEETING The next regular LUTC meeting will be Monday, April 20, 2009 at 5:30 PM in City Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:50 PM. Attest: Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II COMMITTEE APPROVAL: Linda Kochmar, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member I>iniDuclos,Member G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2009\04-06-09-Minutes.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 19,2009 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: School Zone Flashing Beacon Grant Application POLICY QUESTION: Should the City apply for a grant fromthe Washington State Traffic Safety Cornmission to install additional school zone flashing beacons? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation CATEGORY: [gI Consent D City Council Business MEETING DATE: May 4, 2009 D Ordinance D Resolution D [gI Public Hearing Other ~_~_AFFJapO!!!.!J~~_ Ric~_~~!~~2_P .E~?_9!Y- T!~m~J~:Qgi,!l~er DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Cornrnittee dated May 4,2009. Options Considered: 1. Approve staff's submittal of the grant application. 2. Rescind staff's submittal ofthe grant application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecornmends Option 1. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: &wt.. Committee DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Council Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation for Option 1 to the May 19,2009 City Council Consent Agenda. Linda Kochmar, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move to approve staff's submittal of the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission grant application to install school zone flashing beacons at elementary schools. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/0612006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: May 4, 2009 Land Use and Transportation Committee Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager Rick Perez, P .E., City Traffic Engineer r~ School Zone Flashing Beacon Grant Application BACKGROUND: The Washington State Traffic Safety Commission concluded from its own studies that driver compliance with the 20 mile per hour school speed lirnit and collision history were improved when drivers were given clear direction over when the school speed limit was in effect, and the best way to accomplish this was through the use of flashing beacons ("Speed Limit 20 When Flashing") rather than the subjective "Speed Limit 20 When Children Are Present". To help road agencies adopt this change, the Cornrnission created a grant program that provides 50% match up to $7500 for each location that flashing beacons are installed at elernentary schools. The grant would also require that the City provide education materials and targeted enforcernent at the added locations. City staffhas had a sirnilar goal, and currently all but five elernentary schools have school zone flashing beacons installed. The remaining five schools are all located on low volurne residential streets: . Adelaide . Silver Lake . Sherwood Forest . Nautilus . Wildwood Staffhas coordinated with Police and the School District to determine which schools were the highest priority and concluded that the extension of 12th Avenue SW would create the most need at Sherwood Forest. Due to the relatively late release of the call for projects, staffis still evaluating which other locations rnight be viable candidates for this grant program. Each location would cost between $15,000 and $20,000 to install. The adopted budget allocates $20,000 for school safety improvements in the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program, thus limiting the number of installations for which the City could provide the match to two. The deadline for submittal ofthe grant applications is May 15,2009. Therefore, due to the relatively late release of the call for projects, staffwill be subrnitting applications prior to Council approval. cc: Project File Day File COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 19,2009 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 2009-2010 Neighborhood traffic Safety (NTS) Program -Bid Award POLICY QUESTION: Should the City award the 2009-2010 Neighborhood traffic Safety (NTS) Program to Tony Lind Paving LLe., with the lowest responsive, responsible quote? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Comrnittee MEETING DATE: May 4, 2009 CATEGORY: [gJ Consent D Ordinance D City Council Business D Resolution STAF!J!E~9RT !JY: Rick. Perez,_P.E;z...fi!y_Traffic EI..1:.g!l1ee!-E_... D Public Hearing D Other DEPT: Public Works Attachments: 1. Mernorandurn to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated May 4, 2009. Options Considered: 1. Award the 2009-2010 Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program to Tony Lind Paving, LLC, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in an amount not to exceed $60,000. 2. Do not award the 2009-2010 Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecornrnends Option 1 be forwarded to the May 19, 2Q09 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ Committee DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Council Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recornrnendation for Option 1 to the May 19, 2009 City Council Consent Agenda. Linda Kochmar, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Dini Duclos, Mernber PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move to award the 2009-2010 Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program to Tony Lind Paving, LLC, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in an amount not to exceed $60, 000. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: D APPROVED D DENIED D TABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACfION D MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02106/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: May 4, 2009 Land Use and Transportation Comrnittee Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager Rick Perez, P .E., City Traffic Engineer rrJ7 2009-2010 Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program -Bid A ward BACKGROUND: On April 3, 2009, staff sent a request for a unit price quote (RFQ) to all contractors on the small works roster and other contractors who have the capabilities of executing neighborhood traffic calming devices within pre-determined deadlines. Four (4) quotes were received and opened on April 24, 2009. See the attached Exhibit A, Bid Tabulation Summary. Tony Lind Paving LLC, who was a sub-contractor for the 2007-2008 City Wide Pavement Marking Project to install asphalt and concrete components, was the lowest responsive responsible quote. Exact quantities and locations for this small project will be determined throughout the work year. Funding for such discretionary work is included in the 2009/20 I 0 operating budget at $60,000 for two years. Staff recommends acceptance of the quote submitted by Tony Lind Paving, LLC. cc: Project File Day File 00 Q) Ol .. 0- M '0 Eo< ro.l ro.l ::c 00 z: o E::: < ...:l ;J c:l < Eo< ~ - c:l < .:::! ~ = ... Q., Q., < ~ ~ - ~ OJ ...'"0 ~19' ~ '" ..~ ~ ... '" ~ E 'Oil .~ ~tol ao "'0 as r- "'0 as ..., "'0 as '" "'0 as ..,. "'0 as c c .2 ..13 E ::J t.l= o 00 Ie o <.) <") ~ as Ol .S; ~~ 0- 00 <l: M "'0 as >- "C g> c: c -- ~::J~ 0.. "'0 as Q) 00 :E .~ 00 _ Q) 00 .x ::J ..-0 -'.E c ~ " '" '" E " .. ,.. ." o o of o ..0 ..0 .~ ~ ~ .. Z '" .~ E '" 0'''' E= ~ ~ ~ oil ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ i.: 01) Q 01) ~ " c 01) C ea ~E'e.a~5:; z~OOO.! -=~:2::!::=f Q:l Q:l==cc... ::;: ::;: ...... ~;;; .a .;; ~ ~ @ @= ;; ~e:::== ~~~~~ '"If''''' U ""':l o o m <D C") N tt'}- 1.0 1.0 NNO o I'- ~ tt'}- ...- <D m N tt'}- ~ <D m N tt'}- 00 00 00 00 1.0 0 N C") tt'}- tt'}- 00 00 00 go ~ ~tt'}- 000 00000 CO C")C") <DI'- I.OC")C")I.O~ NI'-I'-C")N NNNtt'}-tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- 000 00000 00000 00001'- ~<D<D~C") NNNtt'}-tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- 000 00001.0 OOOI.ON OOOmo OOONN ~1.01.Ott'}-tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- I.OC")COI.ONI.O<D ~C")~...-~~C") I.O~<DI.O~I.ON E'A-E'A-tt'}-tt'}-tt'}-E'A-E'A- o o o ~ tt'}- o o o C") tt'}- 00 C") N C") 1.0 N ~ tt'}- tt'}- o o 1.0 C") tt'}- 00 0 0000 0000 O~COO tt'}-tt'}-E'A- ~ tt'}- I'-CX)I.ONC")CX)I.O N~~-r-""""~~ m<DI.O~I'-<D1.O tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- o o o ~ tt'}- o o o C") tt'}- 00 000 000 O~CO E'A-tt'}-tt'}- 01.0000001.0 om<DI.OI'-Nom <DC")moml.O<DC") tt'}-tt'}-~~;;;;tt'}-tt'}- 001.0 001'- ~(\,)N tt')- tt'}- tt'}- 000 000 o I'- 1.0 ~(\')(\') tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- 001.0 001'- ~(\,)N tt')- tt'}- tt'}- go 00 00 ~~ tt'}-tt'}- o o o (\') tt'}- - <:) <:) N I ..- ........ 0- <:) <:) ..- . ..- <:) ~ - + ..- <:) <:) ..- ........ - <:) <:) N . ..- ........ o <:) <:) ..- . ..- <:) ~ Q) +-' Q) a."tJ"tJ"tJ .!BQ)E222c Z Q) +-' 0 C C "tJ "tJ "tJ a-Q)"",,,,,,, (J)(J)(J) i=a.a.\.J;riL;r c:gc ~ E E ~ .ri .a .0 'm ro 'm 000 ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~()()~888.............a.ri.o o en tIltlltll~~~ ~ a. Q) en <.) 0 0 ro ro ro ~ ~ ~ wE:ooiElElE<.:?YYUUU c ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ (J) (J) (J) 0 0 0 Ir-()I-I-I-a:a:O:~1ij1ij -o-o-oWWW(J) (J)(J)t=t=t= Q)Q)~8(38f)f)f)~~~ Q) Q).- · . 'EE E 0 0 0 a.a.ro ~ ~ ~ (J) (J) (J) a.Q 0 cncna::.~~~a:::a:::a:::OlcoiiJ 000 ~Ol'- aNa N ~ ~ tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- 000 000 ~NO ~ ~ ~ tt'}- tt'}- tt'}- 000001.000001.000 1.001.001.0 <D1.001.00<D00 mOl'-ol.Ol'-l'-OI'-OI'-Om E'A-~E'A-E'A-~E'A-E'A-~E'A-E'A-E'A-E'A-tt'}- o <:) N . ..- ........ 0- <:) <:) - ..- + . ..- ..- <:) <:) <:) ~:s .0 .0 .0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U()U 000 iE iE iE ro ro co t= t= t= - + ..- <:) <:) ..- ........ o <:) N . ..- ........ .0 .0 ~ ... ~ ~ U U o 0 iE iE ro ro ~ ... 1-1- ~ ~ o 0 o 0 iii iii (J) (J) > > o 0 E E (J) (J) a::: a::: - <:) <:) <:) ..- I ..- <:) ~ + ..- o o ..- ........ o o 0+ ..- o o ..- ........ o o N .0 I ~ ..- ~ ........ () "tJ "tJ "0 o 2 2 2 lECCC ro 'm 'm 'm ?= ~ ~ a... ~ o .Q a:l (J) > o E (J) 0:: ..- I ..- o ~ .ri.o.o ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ()U() 'U "tJ "tJ (J) (J) (J) "tJ "tJ "tJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... - .... x x x www U> '" 0 It) It) 0 0 0 Q) ".. ... It) 0 It) 0 0 0 0 N N It) It) It) 0 0 0 0> ... -; <X> It) N I'- 0 0 .- C") 0 0 '" ... E .- .- .- It) 0 lri 0> .- .- ..". .- .- a. C <X> 0> <0 <0 <0 <0 CX) CX) <X> C') C") C") .- <0 (") .~.': <0 It) ..". N It> C") 0 0 I'- C") 0> 0> .- 0 0 .- 0 0 '0 c '" fF) fF) fF) .- fF) fF) C") N .- N - - .- .- .- '""'"" fF) fF) fF) fF) N N .- .- .- fF) fF) fF) N fF) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ QO 'C ~ f-o '"" ~ :::: rJ) z o != ~ - ;;; j:l::l -<: f- ~ - j:l::l -<: .~ "0 c ... Co Co -<: >- ~ - ~ CD u."'C ~~ ~ I- "0 ~ 'Cl "0 ~ on "0 ~ ..",. "0 ~ c: c .2 "'0 E :J ~z o U> I l5 u ..., "0 ~ 0> c: ~~ a. U> <( N "0 = ~-g .~ ~:::i~ 0- "0 ~ Q) U> :g .~ U>- Q) U> -'" :J ",,,, ..JE .::- .; '" u ~ .:: "t:l g ~ .Q .r: "~ ~ ;; .. ZV;~.~ ~Or-~ - ... o<l oll .. gcr;*~~E ~~~';~ ~~.~.~.~~ E E 40l w. G.I Z ~ 50 5" ~ "C"C:2:s~'f = =====- ;:;;:; .... e <:> ..,.., .r: ~~-~ ~~=:: ~ ~.~ i! ..,...,.U""': o o o o .- fF) 00 00<0 .-..". ;;fF) o o o ..- ~ 00 goo o It> <X> It> I'- ~;;~ o 0 000 1t>0N C") I'- .- fF) .- ..- fF) fF) 000 o 0 ~~~oo <X> <X> N N fF) fF) N N N fF) fF) fF) 0000 01t>00 01'-00 It>.-.-It> ~~~~ 0" o N . ..- ........ 0" o o ..... . ..- o ~ "+ ..... o o o o o It> .- fF) 0' ..- ........ o o o It> ~ o o 0> 0> fF) o o <X> N fF) 000 000 000 o It> It> .- I'- N fF) fF) fF) o o o It> C") fF) o o It> C") N fF) o 0 o 0 o 0 <X> I'- .- ..- fF) fF) CD iON , . :s~ o o o It> N ~ o o o N N fF) ..... Cii .c a. rIl <( 00 00 00 Ng NN ~fF) o o <0 <0 ..- fF) 00 00 OOM It> C") N I'- NN fF) fF) o o o <0 .- fF) o 0 o 0 00 o 0 .- <0 NN fF) fF) 00 00 It> 0 I'-g .- fF)~ o o o o o C"i fF) o o o o o I{) ~ o o o o o C") fF) o o o o o ..". fF) o o o o It> C") fF) o o C") C") I'- N fF) 000 000 It> 00 .- C") 0> It> ..". C") N N N fF) fF) fF) o o o o <0 N fF) 000 000 000 000 It> It> It> .- .- .- fF) fF) fF) o o o o o It> fF) 000 000 000 000 01t>0 <0 It) It> ~ fF) fF) o o o o o C") fF) 00 00 o 0 00 It> 0 .."...". fF) ~ 000 000 ~oo It>r::~ ~ fF) ....... fF) o o ..". N fF) o o o o o N fF) o o o o It> C") fF) o o ..". N fF) o o ..". N fF) o o o It> I'- ~ o o o It> N ~ c: '" ";;: OJ Q) '" Q) 0- Q) > o E Q) a: c: '" ";;: OJ Q) '" Q) 0- Q) > o E Q) 0:: Ul '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 Ql ~"" .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '<t '" - r--: .. '" Lri Lri Lri 0 Lri Lri Lri m cD III .. c. E 0> I: (t) 0 0 N 0 0 '<t (t) (t) LO <'> .Q..c <0 <0 <0 ...... <0 <0 10 (t) t'\!. '0 I: '" -q: M M -q: M M - - a;j <'> ~~ ...... ...... ...... '<t fh fh fh fh fh fh fh fh fh ~ 00 "c:l liS E-< ~ ~ rI1 Z o .... E-< -< 5 = -< E-< S = < ~ :a I: .. Q., Q., -< >- ~ - ~ CD ..."0 ~Lf ~ ~ "c:l liS \D "c:l liS 1fl "c:l liS ..,. "c:l liS C l\i,g E ::J lI::.t> o Ul :cC o U f"l "c:l liS '" .s ~~ c. 00 <( N "c:l liS >-"C 2' 5.5'S: .......J1Il D. - "c:l liS Ql Ul :2'~ Ul - Ql Ul .><::J l\l"C ...JE ~ ... .. '" IS .. ~ '0 Q Q ... .. Q ..0 f.~~~ :!! '" E .... '1=.5 "" 0' oll !-o ~~~~8t.: = ~ f : t: OA = CD = u .8 '8 .ea'a ~ !g!.Ja8.- z zouo.~ iiiisa5~ ~~ ll.ll. "" "" .. ........ ... .... CIII @@=: ~~til= - -I~ .. ...... .. l:! l:! .- rl ~"IIS'tJ., 000 000 000 0100 1Ot'\!.0 ...... ...... ...... fh fh fh o o o 10 I'- fh o o o 10 <0 fh o o o 10 10 fh 00000 00000 cicicicici (t) 0 0> I'- I'- 10 '<t ...... '<t_ 0 NNN............ fh fh fh fh fh o o ci ex:> I'- fh 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0>0>0>1'-1'-1'-0 ~~~~~-c-""""" fh fh fh fh fh fh fh 0000000 0000000 0000000 001000100 OIONIOIONO MNNMNNN fh fh fh fh fh fh fh o o o 10 I'- fh o o o o 10 fh o o Lri 10 <0 fh 00 00 ciLri 0>0> 1O'<t fh fh 00 00 00 10 0 <lO I'- fh fh 00 00 00 o 10 lOt'\!. ...... ...... fh fh ~ m ~ T"" ~ ...... Ql Ql Ql as CD CD Q. Q. Q. E E E 000 U U U q O? ~ z ..... ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i=G)Q)Q) '+ D. Q. Q. Q. ~ ~ 0 ~Ql ~Ql ~ a:EEE~e~ Ql U 0 0 0 Ql "C "C "C ~ uc._ uc._ uc._ ~ ~ 0 W W W ~ E E E Q. Q. Q. a a a ~ III l\l III 5 5 5 c. c. c. W ~ ~ ~ U U U ~ ~ ~ ~ € € € ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 8 mQl~ ~Ql ~Ql ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "C "C "C U U U <( <( <( W W W ~ ~ ~ m ~t/l st/l st/l st/l m E E E o 0 Q) Q) Q) C C C C C C ~ ~ ~ o o o o '<t fh o o ai o co a;j '<t ~ o r- ID '<t co a;j ('") ~ o OC! .... o '<t M ('") ~ LO o -<i ('") ('") ci r- ~ Iii (5 I- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 2,2009 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution calling for a vote on the Formation of the North Lake Management District Number Two. POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council adopt a Resolution calling for a vote on the Formation of the North Lake Management District Number Two? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: May 4, 2009 CATEGORY: D Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing I2l City Council Business D Resolution D Other .~!~..~!~!!..~y: W!!!~~~_.~PP'!~~on,l>..:.~:>_~~.[a.:.l?~._!.Y ater M~ag~~.I,l::::~~~~.:..~~~!.~~. W.~r~........___..__.._____..._ Attachments: 1. April 6, 2009 LUTC Memo 2. April 21, 2009 Council Agenda Bill (Item # S.b) 3. Resolution No. 4. May 4, 2009 LUTC Memo Options Considered: 1.Adoption of a Resolution calling for a vote on the Formation of the North Lake Management District Number Two. 2. Do not adopt a resolution to create North Lake Management District Number 2. ,............_.......~._........._._._......__.....__.........................".........................-......................---......................--...................-....-...................---...............-.--......-.....-......--............--...............-..................-......................----.-......................-..............".......-.........- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ Committee . DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ittee Council Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation for Option I to the June 2nd, 2009 City Council Business Agenda. Dini Duclos, Member Linda Kochmar, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "1 move to adopt a Resolution calling for a vote on the Formation of the North Lake Management District Number Two. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading EnactDlentreading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: May 4, 2009 Land Use and Transportation Committee Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager Will Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager r-- Dan Smith, Water Quality Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution to call for a vote by affected property owners on the formation of the North Lake Management District Number Two. FROM: BACKGROUND At its April 6, 2009 meeting, the Land Use/Transportation Committee recommended adopting a resolution of intention to initiate the North Lake Management District formation process and set a public hearing date for the Jlllle 2,2009 regular City Council meeting. The City Council approved the resolution of intention at its April 21, 2009 meeting. The public hearing is required llllder RCW 36.61.050. After the public hearing, the City COllllcil may adopt a resolution submitting the question of creating the lake management district (Under RCW 36.61.060) to the owners of land within the proposed lake management district, including publicly owned land, if the City COllllci1 finds it is in the public interest to create the lake management district and the financing of the lake improvement and maintenance activities is feasible. The question shall be addressed by a public vote of parties within the proposed lake management district. The City COllllcil may make changes in the boundaries of the lake management district or such modification in plans for the proposed lake improvement or maintenance activities as it deems necessary. The City Council may not change the bOlllldaries of the lake management district to include property that was not included previously without first passing an amended resolution of intention and giving new notice to the owners or reputed owners of the property newly included in the proposed lake management district in the manner and form and within the time provided by the original notice. The City COllllcil may not alter the plans for the proposed lake improvement or maintenance activities to result in an increase in the amollllt of money proposed to be raised, and may not increase the amount of money proposed to be raised, without first passing an amended resolution of intention and giving new notice to the property owners in the manner and form and within the time provided for the original notice. cc: Project File Day File RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Federal Way, Washington, to form North Lake Management District number 2, calling for a vote by affected property owners on the formation of the proposed district. WHEREAS, the City completed the attached 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP)and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2008) (together the "Plan") (Exhibit A) which includes the basis for the annual LMD work plan and LMD management goals.; and WHEREAS, the Plan was initiated because of citizen interest in the long term protection of North Lake; and WHEREAS, North Lake contains significant natural resources including wetlands, and supports many beneficial public 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 oflakes; and WHEREAS, the North Lake community has demonstrated support for the NLMD through submittal of a petition calling for the formation ~ of the NLMD (Exhibit B) pursuant to the requirements of chapter 36.61 RCW; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a City resolution, a public heating was conducted on June 2nd, 2009, on the formation of a lake management district after public notice ofthe hearing was provided to all affected property consistent with Chapter 36.61 RCW; and RES # , Page 1 WHEREAS, after considering the testimony received at the public hearing, the City of Federal Way City Council declares that submitting the question of formation of a lake management district to a vote by the affected property owners is within the public's interest; and the proposed financing for a lake management 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 create the lake management district and the financing of the lake improvement and maintenance activities is feasible. Attached and hereby incorporated is the 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2008) (together the "Plan") (Exhibit A). The plan describes (1) the proposed lake improvement and maintenance activities which 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 lake or beach management 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 rate and charge proposed to be imposed on each parcel included in the proposed lake management district. Section 2. Vote of Affected Property Owners. The formation ofthe North Lake Management District Number Two (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 Create a Lake Management District for North Lake is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. The City Clerk of Federal Way shall prepare the RES # , Page 2 appropriate ballot, based upon criteria in Chapter 36.61.080 RCW, calling for a vote on the formation of the District. The ballots shall be submitted to the affected residents no later than June 5th, 2009, and shall be returned to the City of Federal Way by no later than five o'clock p.m. (5:00 p.rn) on June 26th, 2009. 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 creation of the proposed lake management 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 lake management district shall be approved or rejected. If approved by the voters within the proposed district, the implementation ofthe District will be effective January 1, 2010 and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years, said term to expire on December 31, 2020 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 ofthis 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 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. RES # , Page 3 Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective innnediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON this day of ,2009. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, JACK DOVEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.: RES # , Page 4 EXHIBIT A 8 King County North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan October 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan @ 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 Sirns 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 IA VMP 12/21/2004 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The King County Lake Stewardship Program and the Noxious Weed Control Program wish to thank the members ofthe 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 IA VMP. Key staff included Drew Kerr and Monica Walker ofthe 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 ofthe IA VMP. Special thanks to Kathy Hamel ofthe 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 IA VMP 12/21/2004 iii EXE CUTIVE SUMMARy........................ .... ......... ....... .............. ....... ... ......... ........ ..... ..... ........ 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 2 MANAGE MENT GOAL S....... ............ ......... ............ ........ ............ .......... ......... ........ ..... ..... ...... 2 COMMUNITY INV 0 L VEMENT .......................................................................................... 2 Community History................................................................................................................ 2 Community Commitment...................................................................................................... 2 Steering Committee, Outreach, and Education Process......................................................... 2 Public comment...................................................................................................................... 2 Public consensus.................................................................................................................... 2 Continuing Community Education........................................................................................ 2 WATERSHED AND W A TERBODY CHARACTERISTICS ............................................ 2 Waterbody Characteristics..................................................................................................... 2 Water Quality......................................................................................................................... 2 Fish and Wildlife Communities .............................................................................................2 Beneficial and Recreational Uses........................................................................................... 2 Characterization of Aquatic Plants in North Lake ................................................................. 2 Noxious Aquatic Weeds in North Lake ................................................................................. 2 AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL AL TERNA TIVES ............................................................. 2 Aquatic Herbicides................................................................................................................. 2 Manual Methods .................................................................................................................... 2 Diver Dredging....................................................................................................................... 2 Bottom Screens...................................................................................................................... 2 Biological Control.................................................................................................................. 2 Grass Carp... ................... .................................. ......... .............. ............................... ................ 2 W atermilfoil Weevil............................................................................................................... 2 Rotovation, Harvesting, and Cutting...................................................................................... 2 Drawdown .............................................................................................................................. 2 Nutrient Reduction................................................................................................................. 2 No Action Alternative ....... ........ ................ ........................................... ..................... ............. 2 INTEGRATED TREATMENT PLAN .................................................................................. 2 Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) ................................................................... 2 Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata).. ............................. ................ .................................. 2 Purple loosestrife (L ythrum salicaria) ................................................................................... 2 Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) ........................................................................................ 2 PLAN ELEMENTS, COSTS, AND FUNDING ....................................................................2 IMPLEMENT A TION AND EVALUATION ........................................................................2 BIB LI OG RAP BY .. ....... ....... ............................. ........... ........... ...... ............ ..... ....... ....... ..... ....... 2 4/30/2009 iv North Lake IA VMP LIST OF TABLES Table I : Average Values for Select Trophic Parameters at North Lake .................................... 2 Table 2: Wildlife List................................................................................................................. 2 Table 3: 1996 Aquatic Plant Survey .......................................................................................... 2 Table 4: Budget with use of Tric10pyr ....................................................................................... 2 Table 5: Project budget with use of2,4-D ................................................................................. 2 Table 6: Total Matching Funds (triclopyr) ................................................................................2 Table 7: Total Matching Funds (2,4-D) .....................................................................................2 Table 8: In-kind Matching Funds...............................................................................................2 Table 9: Cash Matching Funds .................. ...... ............... ................... ................... ..................... 2 Table 10: KC Staff Salary and Burden Rates............................................................................. 2 Table 11: Federal Way Staff and Benefit Rates......................................................................... 2 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: North Lake Watershed and Tributary 0016................................................................ 2 Figure 2: North Lake Land Use.................................................................... .....20 Figure 3: North Lake Aquatic Plant Map........................................................... ..22 North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 ofthe 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 (IA VMP) 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 IA VMP 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. 4/30/2009 North Lake IA VMP North Lake is located east of the city of Federal Way and Interstate 5, south of 320th 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. Ifleft 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 ofthese 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 2 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 mono cultures 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 4/30/2009 3 North Lake IA VMP MANAG.EMENJ 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. 4/30/2009 4 North Lake IA VMP 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 Historv 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 Levell 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 water lilies in North Lake, lake front 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 4/30/2009 5 North Lake IA VMP 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 oftoday'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. 1. 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 6 2. Lake Management District (LMD): Forming an LMD would levy a "tax" on all lake front 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. Steerina Committee, Outreach, and Education Process Community participation has been an integral part of the development of the North Lake IA VMP, 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 IA VMP. 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 of2003. 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 7 April and May 2004: Project planning begins, Steering Committee meets, begins IA VMP 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 IA VMP 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 IA VMP. May 5, 2004 Beth Cullen from King County and North Lake Steering Committee members met to discuss the development of the IA VMP. The primary goal was to approve the project, address any concerns, and outline necessary tasks for the grant application process. A second IA VMP 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 IA VMP 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 1 ih 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 14th, 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 8 Public comment At the initial lakeside resident meeting, presenters encouraged attendees to ask questions and offer comments. The first lakeside residents meeting on AprilSth, 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 ™ 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. Continuina 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 9 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 IA VMP 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 10 North Lake has a public boat launch on the northeast end of the lake, We understand that the Washington Department ofFish 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 11 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 (V,S. Department of Agriculture, 1973), The primary soil types are the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC) and Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 % slopes (AgB). Th~ 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 mi2, 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 12 c::3 Watershad Boundary 5 North Lake '"^- Major Roads ""- North Lake Outlet N + Figure 1: North Lake Watershed and Tributary 0016 Tributary 0016 drains North Lake from its southern tip, and joins Tributary 0006, which drains Lake Killamey, 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, Waterbodv Characteristics North Lake is a 55-acre lake with a mean depth of 14 feet and a maximum depth of34 feet, with an estimated lake volume of770 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 Qualitv 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 categorizep 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 2001) 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 J..lg/L (May-October average) . Chlorophyll a ranged from 2.2 - 4.2 J..lg/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 . ISI annual average 38 - 46 4/30/2009 14 North Lake IA VMP Table 1: Average Values for Select Trophic Parameters at North Lake Year No. of Secchi Chi a* TP* TSI* TSI* TSI* TSI* Samples (meter) (J1g/L) (J1g/L) Secchi Chla TP Average 1985 8 4,1 2.2 9 40 38 36 38 1986 8 3,9 3.9 15 40 44 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 11 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 2.4 13 45 39 41 42 1999 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2000 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- *Chl 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 offish, birds, and animals by providing nesting, forage, and cover. According to Chad Jackson at the Washington State Department ofFish 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 ofFish 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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, 200la), 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. 4/30/2009 16 North Lake IA VMP 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 0 Common 0 Common Loon SS Goldeneye KINGFISHER GREBES 0 Barrow's 0 Belted Goldeneye Kingfisher 0 Pied-billed Grebe 0 Bufflehead SWALLOWS 0 Homed Grebe 0 Hooded 0 Western Grebe SC Merganser 0 Purple Martin SC CORMORANT 0 Common 0 Tree Swallow 0 Double-crested Merganser Cormorant 0 Red-breasted 0 Violet-green Swallow WADERS Merganser 0 Northern 0 Great Blue Heron 0 Ruddy Duck Rough-winged KCS RAPTORS 0 Cliff Swallow 0 Green Heron 0 Osprey KCS 0 Barn Swallow WATERFOWL 0 Bald Eagle ST, WRENS 0 Trumpeter Swan FT 0 Marsh Wren 0 Greater White- RAILS fronted Goose 0 Virginia Rail WARBLERS 0 Snow Goose 0 Sora 0 Common Yellowthroat 0 Canada Goose 0 American Coot BLACKBIRDS 0 Wood Duck SHOREBIRDS 0 Red-winged 0 Green-winged Teal 0 Killdeer Blackbird 0 Mallard 0 Spotted 0 Northern Pintail Sandpiper NOTES 0 Blue-winged Teal 0 Common Snipe SC = state candidate 0 Cinnamon Teal 0 Long-billed SS = state sensitive Dowitcher* 0 Northern Shoveler GULLS ST = state threatened 0 Eurasian Wigeon 0 Mew Gull FT = federally 0 American Wigeon threatened 0 Ring-billed 0 Canvasback Gull KCS = King County Comprehensive Plan 0 Redhead 0 Glaucous- Shall be Protected 0 Ring-necked Duck winged Gull * Reported SWIFTS 0 Greater Scaup Lesser Scaup 0 Black Swift 0 0 Vaux's Swift SC North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 ofFish & 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, N + Property Owners LJ State of Washington W Weyerhaeuser G Residential Figure 2: North Lake Land Use North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 4/30/2009 19 North Lake IA VMP North Aquatic Plants Map Elm Floating ~ Emergent !!IIilI! Submergent - ' No plants or sparse [ZJ No plants-deep * Loosestrife .......... Shoreline - Section boundary Lalce Area: 57.4 acres Mean Depth: 14 feet Maximum Depth: 34 feet -+- o 100 200 400 feet I ' I September 1996 Aquatic Plant Mappingftr Thirty-six King County Lakes Page 71 Figure 3: Aquatic Plant Map North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 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. sa/icaria 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 21 ~ C CD a> N 1.0 f'.. N N N 1.0 1.0 f'.. a> f'.. f'.. 1.0 f'.. "<t <0 0 0 N 8-~ N N ('I) N ~ ~ N N N N N ~ N ('I) ('I) ~ N e u.. "C c ::I "0 o ~ u.."<t:';::; ~ . ffi O~:2 ;:; c:: U :J CD U) f'.. a> I <0 a> a. ~~ 0) c 0) ::I ~ E iu E .0 0 E 0 Q) o Q) o ~ c:: :J o () Cl c:: ~ "0 Q) f'..<O!E cONe Q) ...t~:2 c:: :J "0....."0 ClQ)c::Q) c:: ~ Q) ~ :';::;Q)C>Q) lU E iu E .2.oE.o u..:Jw:J en en f'..f'.. f'.. f'..cOcO f'..<O cOll'ill'i <OcOll'i"<t . . .f'.. . . . . ('I)"<t"<t ."<tI.O"<t('l)<O . . .('1) . . . . N('I)('I) ('I)"<t('l)N ~NN MN . . ~ ~ ..............."0"0"0 c:: c:: c:: Q) Q) ~ Q) Q) Q) ~ ~ ..... e>e>e>Q)Q)Q) ~~~~~~ www~~~ CD (J) Q) E "0 (J) .r. "0 'C c:: ClS"Q) (J) (J) Q) Cl~ Z:.ElU:J~lU~ cenc,O:::>-:J o.....~Q).....u..O" EQ)(J)~Q)~..... ro :J 'a.. ro 0 2 8s:~ens:~~ o >-> ~ 'C ..... l3g ~ 'E o ..... ....I Q) ~~iu :J "0 0.. ffi en . ~ f'.. .<0 f'.. f'.. <0. 1.0 cO ...t 1.0. ...t f'... Il'i M "<t. M ('I). M . ('I) . ~ ~ . N N N. . . ~ ~ ~ "0"0...................."0 ClClQ)Q) c::c:: c::c:: Q) c::c::~~Q)Q)Q)Q) ~ :';::;:';::;Q)Q)ClClClClQ) ~~~~~~~~~ i:i:u.:J:Jwwww:J en en (J) .r. a. E >- Z .!.. 2~ ~~ >- "0 -g >-= Q) Q) 5-:~~ iu2"Oc:: lU c:: 0 ros:~o.. ~..,+-(ij ~ffim~ .2 c,"Q) 5 "Q) lU e>.o >-Li:lU,Q ....10::: 0'1 o o ~ o ~ -- ""'" s Q) t: :J.r.lU_ 0 g (J) Q)"n; ~ ,- 2 ~:t:: Q) () "S 'a.. lU "0 .r. OJ en () -g ~ CD lU ~ iii Q) ~ lU ....I ~ c:: :J o U Cl c:: S2 <0 ('I) ..... J2 .ci (J) (J) - 0 a. a. (J) (J) .... .- 0 .0 Q) a..o "0 - (J) Cl~OJ()WW-....I....I~zzzzo..o..o..enen~~ c:: 'a.. a. lU ~ t> t = 00 ... = ~ ~ Cj ,. ... ~ = =- < I,C =" =" ~ ..... c:: lU 0:: o :.;::; lU :J Jl E o .t= 'C (J)~ ,! Q) UE &0 U) (J) lU 1: 'c "0 .!! ~ ~ ~ ~ lU OJ E ..... .e Q) 0::: .. !'f') ~ ::= ~ Eo- (J) " 'w a.C:: ci(J)Q) (J) ,~ -g ~ m ffi lU n 0 .r. 0 lU () Q) Q) UJ-g UJ (J) (J) :J :J (J) ,~ lU a. ~ S ~ "~ 2 ..... 'C ~ (J) lU ~ = ~ .::. o ~ "~ E == ci 2 .g ~'a.. ~ ~mm.2~(J).20lUQ)lU "Oa.(J)-<+=~""'lUC::5~ 16 .~ E ~a. ~ -.....Q) ~ ~ .9 ..... - (J)Cl- '" a. Q)Q);i .- -' 0 "-'- .r. _ Cl c:: a. ~ E ._ lU Z :J a. o'oJ' 0 Q) ,~ -g >. ~ Z Z E E E (5 -....I....I~ Z'~~o.. o 0 0..0.. "w lU ci ~ = (J) ~g (J) 0..... :J"O~ a.lUlU .!:: Q) .r. OlUa. en ..... >. 'a.. ~ en ~ ...( ...... ~ ~ ~ ...... 9- (J) lU 'C lU "S o 'C :5 Noxious Aauatic 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 1-5 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 seasons, 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 ifleft 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 (F ACW+), 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 mono specific stands that can persist until senescence in the fall, Mats of these floating leaves prevent wind mixing and extensive areas oflow 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, 2001a). 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 (DBL), 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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: http://www.ecy . wa.gov/r>rograms/w%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, Aauatic Herbicides Description of Method http://www.ecy . wa. gov/orograms/w%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 (EP A) 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 26 NPDES permit from the Washington Department of Ecology before applying herbicides to Washington water bodies. Although there are a number of EP A 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 A vast!@), 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 of2,4-D approved for aquatic use. The granular formulation contains the low-volatile butoxy-ethyl-ester (BEE) formulation of2,4-D (Trade names include: AquaKleen@ and Navigate@). The liquid formulation contains the dimethyl amine 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 oftriclopyr. 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 ooderwater 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 (IA VMP) 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 LDso (acute lethal dose to 50% ofa test population), NOEL (No Observable Effect Level, which is the highest test dosage causing no adverse responses), and RID (EPA Reference Dose determined by applying at least a 100-fold uncertainty factor to the NOEL), The EP A defines the RID 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 RID 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 LDso 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., Ilg/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. 4/30/2009 30 North Lake IA VMP Animal health Sensitive and environmentally relevant species such as the various salmon species have demonstrated LCsos that range between 96 and 182 ppm acid equivalent (a,e.). These toxicity values place triclopyr TEA in the US EP A's ecotoxicological categories of slightly toxic (LC50 = > 1 0 to 100 ppm) to practically non-toxic (LCso = > 1 OOppm), 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 LCsos, 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 LCso 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 (RID), the amount oftriclopyr 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 oflake 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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). 2,4-0 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 Qeneral mammalian health The oral LDso for 2,4-D (acid) is 764 mg/kg and the dermal LDso is >2000 mglkg, This chemical has a low acute toxicity (from an LD50 standpoint, is less toxic than caffeine and slightly more toxic than aspirin). The RID 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 offish (Washington State Department of Ecology, 200lb). Based on the low dermal absorption of the chemical, the dose of2,4-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, 200lb). 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 32 toxicity or poisoning following overexposure to these herbicide products when used according to label instructions (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001 b), 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 of2,4-D, 2,4-D DMA has a low acute toxicity to fish (LCso 2::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 of2,4-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 of2,4-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 of2,4-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 (LCso = 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 0,0 1 (RQ = 0,1 ppm/O.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 (LCso = 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 0,0 1 (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. 4/30/2009 33 North Lake IA VMP 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 LDso 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 LDso of 7940 mg/kg, a very high threshold, The RID 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 LDso'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 (Fe1sot, 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 D,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. aI., 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 LDso was >5000 and 5900 mg/kg in male and female rats, respectively, and the dermal LDso for a 24- hour exposure was >5000 mg/kg in rabbits, These values are in the same range as glyphosate alone, EP A's toxicity category III, which puts LI-700 in a category of lower risk to mammals. North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 34 Suitability for North Lake Aquatic herbicides can provide an effective method for control and eventual eradication of noxious weeds. The use ofa formulation oftriclopyr 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 mil foil 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 4/30/2009 35 North Lake IA VMP 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 distri"ution 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 mono specific 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, Iflarger 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 4/30/2009 36 North Lake IA VMP 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 ofFish & Wildlife 4/30/2009 37 North Lake IA VMP 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 rakeis 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 ofthe 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 4/30/2009 38 North Lake IA VMP 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 arnount of root mass associated with the iris in this area that would take a significant effort to remove by excavation, Diver Dredaina 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 oftearn, 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 V,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$I,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, 4/30/2009 40 North Lake IA VMP 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 lake shore 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. Bioloaical 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 mono cultures 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. 4/30/2009 43 North Lake IA VMP 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 fA VMP 4/30/2009 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 http://www.ecy . wa.gov/orograms/w%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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 45 The Washington Department ofFish 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. AI. Found that only 18 percent of98 Washington lakes stocked with grass carp at a median level of24 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 leafpondweed) = 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 waterli1ies 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 680 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. 4/30/2009 47 North Lake IA VMP 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 overthe 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 ofFish 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 48 Suitability for North Lake Grass carp are not suitable for aquatic plant control in North Lake. The infestation of mil foil 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. htto:/ /www,ecy,wa,gov/programs/wq/plants/management/weeviI.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 watermilfoiI. 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. AI. 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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. AI. 1997; Tamayo et. AI., 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 50 Permits The milfoil weevil is native to Washington and is present in a number oflakes 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. Harvestina. and Cuttina 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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. o rawd own 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 mil foil 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 (MvrioDhvllum sDicatuml Year 1 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 I, 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 (Le, two to three weeks after the second herbicide treatment). A bottom barrier will be installed at the boat launch in the winter of Year I 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 of2,4-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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 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 ofthe 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 tric10pyr (Renovate3@) or 2,4-D (DMA *4IVM@, 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 of25% 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. Ifherbicide 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 Tric10pyr 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. 4/30/2009 55 North Lake IA VMP 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, Fraarant waterlilv (NvmDhaea odorataJ Year 1 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 ofwaterlily 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 56 Purple loosestrife (Lvthrum 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 flaa iris (lr;s IlseudacorusJ 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, 4/30/2009 57 North Lake IA VMP Table 3 outlines the tasks and estimated costs of implementation on an annual basis. Implementation of the North Lake IA VMP 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 Totals Grand Total 2,000.00 13,900.00 2,925.00 7,900.00 23,040.00 2,540.00 5,000.00 1,750.00 8,500.00 $67,555.00 $5,923.63 $6,731.40 $80,210.03 North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 58 Table 5: Project budget with use of 2,4-D Task Lily Treatment Herbicide (2, D) Emergent Weed Treatment Diver Surve Diver Dredgel hand pull Boat launch bottom barrier Printing Costs Totals Grand Total 2,000.00 13,659.00 2,925.00 7,900.00 23,040.00 2,540.00 5,000.00 1,750.00 8,500.00 $67,314.00 $5,791.63 $6,581.40 $79,687.03 North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 59 Sources of F There are several Grants The Washington This IA VMP wa relatively low-Ie potential for infe offer funding. Ot Resources Stew Dedicated non The King Count projects. While t project in the firs Community-B There is a propo estimated at $50, improve lake an five years of the lake. If funds raised b forming a Lake from all watersh the lake. Money the lake and wat to pursue a LMD Matching Fun Table 6 shows th match and cash Table 6: Total PI'\ 75% of to Required North Lake IA VMP undina likely sources of funding available for project implementation: State Department of Ecology has an Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (A WMF), s developed to be consistent with all A WMF guidelines and requirements, Given the vel infestation, outstanding ecological value of North Lake and its watershed, and the station of neighboring lakes, it is hoped that Ecology and other grant programs will her possible funding sources include King County's WaterWorks and the Natural ardship Network. -grant funds from King County y Noxious Weed Program has limited funds available to contribute to weed control his can not be considered an ongoing source of funding, $1000 is promised to the t year of implementation. ased Funding sal before the North Lake Improvement Club to begin collecting annual contributions with the additional revenue to be dedicated to projects and programs designed to d watershed conditions. This could generate several thousand dollars over the first project. Noxious aquatic weed management currently tops the list of threats to the y requesting contributions prove insufficient, community members have discussed Management District (LMD), If implemented, a LMD would collect an annual fee ed property owners, Fees would be weighted based on property size and proximity to collected through a LMD must be dedicated to addressing specific problems facing ershed. This IA VMP will provide some guidance should watershed residents choose ds e matching requirements outlined by Ecology's A WMF and the estimated in-kind match provided by King County and the North Lake Community, Total Matching Funds (triclopyr) o'ect cost = $80,210.03 Budgeted Match % ofTotal tal project match $60,157.52 $20,052.51 Budgeted in-kind match Budgeted cash match $ Ecology $ after match $13,825.00 6,450.40 $59,934.63 17.2% 8.0% 74.7% 4/30/2009 60 Table 7: Total Matching Funds (2,4-D) Total Project cost = $ 79,687,03 Budgeted %ofTotal 75% of total project $59,765.27 Required match $19,921.76 $ 13,825.00 17.3% $ 6,450.40 8.1% Ecology $ after match $59,411.63 74.6% Table 8: In-kind Matching Funds Item Cost Units Unitsf 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 indude boat surveys, diver training, bottom barrier maintenance, steering committee meetings,ID workshops, educational flyer development. Educational Materials $ 500.00 per year 1 5 Community member $ 2,500.00 Development and time spent developing Presentation materials and presenting materials to youth groups and other organizations Boat rental $ 40.00 per day 6 5 $ 1,200.00 Total est. in-kind match $13,825.00 Table 9: Cash Matching Funds Item Cost Units Unitsf year Years Notes Total Community self-tax $ 500.00 per year 1 5 Based on $ 2,500.00 im plementation 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 Prooram 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 4/30/2009 61 North Lake IA VMP Table 10: KC Staff Salary and Burden Rates Position Environmental Scientist Water Quality Planner Aquatic Weed Specialist Hourly Rate $ 27.16 $ 25.29 $ 18.70 Table 11: Federal Way Staff and Benefit Rates Position Smith Russel Donald Hourly Rate $ 35.00 $ 22.70 $ 30.27 Hourly Burdened Rate $43.40 $28,83 $ 38,14 Hourly Burdened Rate $46,01 $42,84 $31,68 North Lake fA VMP 62 4/30/2009 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 IA VMP 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 IA VMP, 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 IA VMP 4/30/2009 63 BIBUOGRAeI:IV 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, W A. Carlson, RE. 1977. A trophic state indexfor lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 22:361- 368, Cleary, Julie. July 2004. E-mail correspondence, Resident of North Lake, King County, W A. Creed, RP" 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 Surf act ants on the Toxicity of Glyph os ate, 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: http://ace.orst.edu/cgi- bin/mfs/O 1 /pips/ glvphosa.htm 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: http://dill.metrokc.gov/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, W A. Honey, Wendy, June 2004, Personal communication, Resident of North Lake community. King County, W A. Information Ventures, Inc, 1995. Pesticide Fact Sheet: Glyphosate. Prepared for U,S, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available online at: http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pestcide/glyphos.html Jackson, Chad, October 2002. Personal Communication, Area Fish Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, W A. King County, 1991, Draft Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan. Surface Water Management Division, King County, 1996. Aquatic Plant Mappingfor 36 King County Lakes. Surface Water Management Division, North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 64 King County, 2001. 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): 1725,1989.10-100 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.O. and A.L. Azous, 200la. Amphibian Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use in: Wetlands and Urbanization: Implicationfor the Future, Azous, A.L. and R.R. Homer (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, W A, Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001a, An Aquatic Plant Identification Manualfor Washington's Freshwater Plants. 195pp. Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001b, Herbicide Risk Assessmentfor the Aquatic Plant Management Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Appendix C - Volume 3: 2,4-D). Available online at: http://www.ecv.wa.gov/pubs/0010043.pdf Washington State Department of Ecology, 2002, Aquatic Plant Management website. Retrieved July 25,2002. Available online at: http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/managementlindex,html Washington State Department of Ecology, 2004. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Permitted use of Tric1opyr. 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/milfoi1.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 I: Aquatic Herbicides and Application Equipment. Technical Report A-88-9, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, TAS. North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 65 APPENDIX A Appendix A documents the public involvement process during the development of the North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Managernent 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 IA VMP - Appendix A A-I 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 htto://dnr.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 (NLlC Secretary) about possibility. . HP A needed to pull out Lilies, Milfoil by hand. HP A free from King County North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A A-2 4/01/04 North Lake Steering Committee Attendees: Debra Hanson, Wendy Honey, Julie Cleary (90 minute meeting) Meeting for April 5th with North Lake Community . How will we know if we have been successful with this meeting? o Vote of support and address concems . 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 7-10year 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) A-3 North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A 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: Where: Time: Speaker: April 5 North Lake Improvement Club 7:15pm 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 A-4 North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A 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 ofthe 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.cullen@metrokc.gov North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A A-5 Discussion Items: Next Steps: Community Feedback: Grant Process: Task Delegation: Dan Smith, City of Federal Way: North Lake Steering Committee Wednesday May 5, 2004 North Lake lA VMP - 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 ofthe 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 lilieslPurple Loosestrife/Milfoil Educational grant may be available. Could we utilize the Boy Scouts for volunteers? 2nd 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 IA VMP Grant available $60,000-$75,000 Due by October DOE grant contact: Kathy Hammil Neighboring Lakes Geneva, Killamey, 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 IA VMP . 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 HP A Hydraulic Permit Approval is needed for hand pulling of weeds North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A A-7 Monetary matches with Weyerhaeuser for match and budget timing. Weyerhaeuser may continue funding lake management Next meetings: Steering Committee May 24th Steering Committee June-14th with Beth Cullen Watershed meeting June 28th North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A A-8 5/24/04 Steering Committee Meeting Attendees: Wendy Honey, Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Tom Jovanovich, Chuck Gibson (6:30pm-8:00pm 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 IA VMP - 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 lil1y eradication efforts currently taking place, and introduce IA VMP - 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 IA VMP, Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan: IA VMP PowerPoint presentation: Beth Cullen Open floor for discussion and questions. Close meeting / Collect Letter of Support from each household attending North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A 10 A- 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 IA VMP - 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 ofthem 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 ofthe 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 ofthe lake during the water lily eradication efforts June 16t\ June li\ and June 24th. Whitworth Pest Solutions: update on 6/17 spmy of Fragrant Water Lilies: Belinda Bowman Our next step: Introduce IA VMP, Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan: The grant application the Steering Committee is currently dmfting. 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 IA VMP - Appendix A II A- matches oftime 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 IA VMP 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 IA VMP - Appendix A 12 A- 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 mil foil o 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 IA VMP 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. Ifwe 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 IA VMP and working on application. o Get account established through NLlC treasurer, Simone . Next meeting after the first of September. North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A 13 A- 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 IA VMP . 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 IA VMP o Letter of support and signatures o Meeting agendas and notes o Correspondence from the Dept. ofPisheries (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 IA VMP - Appendix A 14 A- 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 IA VMP - Appendix B B-1 North Lake Noxious Weed Project Letter of Community Support June 28, 2004 By signing this letter, we, the members ofthe 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 Recommended Treatment Strate2Y 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 IA VMP - Appendix B B-2 1:: o 0.. 0.. ;::l r:/J. ~ o ~ Q) ~ Q) ~ ,0 .- ~ ~ o U Q) ~ ~ 'E o z o .-- '+- o .- <U OJ CO a.. ~CJ:] ;f~ .!fl l~- rb ~ f'() t\'J J ~ ~ ~~ ll\ f ~~ .'1 ~ G:)~ ~ : f~.J ~v, ~ .... f'.MN) .. ~~~"nM ~ ...' ('(\ V) c1 ~ \,\ ~~~~ ~ -.} '-.}~ ~:.n~ tlO ~~ ..... . C"\ t-~...... -......:::# N ~;;;~n~r<) ~ /;) ~ Ii $; ~ 5~ t~ (YJ :ci \]\ ~ ~ o ~l ~ V? v-. ~ ~ ~~ 'rI\ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v.S "f1 ~~ "<t o o N 00 N <U c :J J N ..,f o .-- .- .- N .- (Y) .- Il'i cD r-- a;j 0> (Y) '<f ~ ~ ~ .<f ,~ ;: & ~ ~ ~ Q: if" 0 ~ ..J (f) Q ~ ~ IV:> <Jo I'{) (V) 0 ~ 'Y) 1:: (1) !'(\ 0 '- 0 0.. & N \:) 0.. ~ 0 ;::l <:J r:/J. rO ~ r{\ ~ ~ tJ\ t{) 0 ~ Q) ~ ~ <L> 1 ~ ,0 ~ .- {) ~ Vl <to.. ~ l/ .3 'J \2 \;J ~ 0 u P _\1\ Q) ~ ~ ~ () ~ '-J 0 ~ 'f 0 N '€ 00 N 0 <U ,....: a;j c:i ..,f Il'i ,....: 0> c Z <0 0) .-- N (Y) <0 00 0 :J . .-- .- .- .- N N N N N N N N N N (Y) J o .-- '+- o N <U OJ co a.. 01 Vi J (j . if' ,~ . V) ~ - ~ ~ ~ *60 'V ~ f() rI\ ~ .!,.. ~ " C'^ l N) fV" t 0 ~ '- ~ cf'- ~../) 0.. ~ ~ ;;-- g. ~ {'(\ ~ ()D -I :::r ~ ..> r:/J. !Y) () ~ f'/" t+-I r'\ 0 lYJ M ~ Q) ~ Q) -6 ~ ,0 '::> .- 0 = 4- ~ 0 U Q) ~ "<t ro 0 ~ 0 N € ~ CO N <U 0 (") r--: -.i c Z .-- N "<t ID <0 CIO .- N (Y) ID :J (Y) (Y) (") (Y) (Y) (Y) (Y) (Y) "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t J o .- '+- o (Y) <U OJ CO 0.. --j-. ~ ~ '^ ~ ~t: c)"- ~~ o .-- '+- o "<t <U OJ ro a.. \ '" ~ " ~ '-' \ "" ~ ~ "- ,0 - ~ '-1 ..J "'\ ~ CY) . ~ ~ <0 ~ I) ~ ~ 1'''') '1j ~\ L-:> . '" ~ - '\)\ "- "fA ..... 1:: ~ <Y7 ~ 0 ~ 0.. '-S> Q\ ~ ~ t ""'- N ~ .-J '- U) N '" ~ ~ ~ .- 0 -" N'\ ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ ,0 ~ .- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..u s:-- ~ --.... 0 t.ij ~ ~ U. ~ ~ Q) \J ~ "<t .' \ { 0 ~ .~ ~ 0 N 'E 00 N <U 0 N cD ......: ci c Z co r-- ex> 0> 0 .- (Y) "<t l.O ex> (j) :J "<t "<t "<t "<t to l.O 10 10 10 l.O 10 10 l.O l.O <0 -, 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 oftriclopyr (Renovate 3) is also included as possible treatment for Eurasian watermilfoil. North Lake IA VMP - Appendix C C-l Specimen label Herbicide Aquatic Sites: For control of emersed, submersed and floating aquatic plants in aquatic sites such as ponds, lakes, reservoirs, non-irrigation canals and ditches which have little or no continuous outflow, marshes and wetlands, including broad leaf and woody vegetation on banks and shores within or adjacent to these and other aquatic sites. Active Ingredient: triclopyr: 3,5,6-trichloro- 2-pyridinyloxyacetic acid, triethylamine salt............................. .............. ....44.4% Inert Ingredients..... ....................................... .... ......... ........55.6% Total.................... .................................... .......... ............ ....100.0% Acid equivalent: triclopyr. 31.8% - 31b/gal Keep Out of Reach of Children DANGER PELIGRO Si usted no entiende Ia etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se la explique a usted en detalfe. (If you do not understand the label, find someone to explain it to you in detail.) Precautionary Statements Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals Corrosive. Causes irreversible eye damage' Hannful if swallowed or absorbed through skin. Prolonged or frequently repeated skin contact may cause allergic reaction in some individuals Do not get in eyes or on skin or clothing. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Applicators and other handlers must wear: . long-sleeved shirt and long pants . Shoes plus socks' Protective eyewear . Chemical resistant gloves (~ 14 mils) such as butyl rubber, natural rubber, neoprene rubber or nitrile rubber Discard clothing and other absorbent materials that have been drenched or heavily contaminated with this product's concentrate. Do not reuse them. Follow manufacturer's insbuctions for cleaning/maintaining PPE. If no such insbuctions for washables, use detergent and hot water. Keep and wash PPE separately from other laundry. FIRST AID In the eyes . Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15 - 20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. . Calf poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. If on skin or . Take off contaminated clothing. clothing . Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15 - 20 minutes. . Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. If swallowed . Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. . Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. . Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by a poison control center or doctor. . Do not give anything by mouth to a unconscious person. Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison control center or doctor, or going for treatment Note to Applicator: Allergic skin reaction is not expected from exposure to spray mixtures of Renovate 3 herbicide when used as directed. Note to Physician: Probable mucosal damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. Refer to inside of label booklet for additional precautionary infonnation including Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), User Safety Recommendations and Directions fOr Use including Storage and Disposal. Notice: Read the entire label. Use only according to label directions. Before using this product, read Warranty Disclaimer, Inherent Risks of Use, and Limitation of Remedies at end of label booklet. If terms are unacceptable, return at once unopened. In case of. emergency endangering health or the environment involving this product, call1NFOTRAC at 1-800-535-5053. If you wish to obtain additional product infoonation, visit our web site at www.sepro.com. Agricultural Chemical: Do not ship or store with food, feeds, drugs or clothing. EPA Reg. No. 62719-37-67690 FPl 012203 EPA Est. No. 464-MI-1 SPC - 381116 *Trademark of Dow AgroSciences llC manufactured for: SePRO Corporation Cannel, IN 46032, U.SA Q) -C .0 .- -e Q) :c M CD .... = o I: .I Engineering Controls When handlers use closed systems, enclosed cabs, or aircraft in a manner that meets the requirements listed in the WPS (40 CFR 170.240(d)(4-6), the handler PPE requirements may be reduced or modified as specified in the WPS. USER SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS Users should: . Wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco or using the toilet. . Remove clothing immediately if pesticide gets inside. Then wash thoroughly and put on dean clothing. . Remove PPE immediately after handling this product. Wash the outside of gloves before removing. As soon as possible, wash thoroughly and change into clean clothing. Environmental Hazards Under certain conditions, treatment of aquatic weeds can result in oxygen depletion or loss due to decomposition of dead plants, which may contribute to fish suffocation. This loss can cause fish suffocation. Therefore, to minimize this hazard, do not treat more than one-third to one-hatf of the water area in a single operation and wait at least 10 to 14 days between treatments. Begin treat- ment along the shore and proceed outwards in bands to allow fish to move into untreated areas. Consult with the State agency for fish and game before applying to public water to determine if a permit is needed. Physical or Chemical Hazards Combustible. Do not use or store the product near heat or open flame. Directions for Use , It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Read all Directions for Use carefully before applying. Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during application. For any requirements specific to your state or tribe, consult the agency responsible for pesticide regulation AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS Use this product only in accoo:lance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural WOIkers on farms. forests, m.I'Series, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also rontains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE), and restricted-entry inleival. The requirements in this box only apply to uses of this product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard. Do not enter or allow WOIker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry interval (REI) of 48 hours. PPE required for early entry to treated areas that is permitted under the Worker Protection Standard and thai involves contact with anything that has been treated, such as plants, soH, or water, is: . CoveraUs . Shoes plus socks . Protective eyewear . ChemicaHesistant gloves ( ~ 14 mils) such as butyl rubber, natural rubber, neoprene rubber or nitrile rubber 2 NON-AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS The requirements in this box apply to uses of this product that are NOT within the scope of the Worker Protection Standard for AgriaJltural Pesticides (40 CFR Part 170). The WPS applies when this product is used to produce agricultural plants on fanns, forests. nurseries, or greenhouses. Entry Restrictions for Non-WPS Uses: For applications to non- cropland areas, do not allow entry into areas until sprays have dried, unless applicator and other handler PPE is worn. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage and disposal. Open dumping is prohibited. Pesticide Storage: Store above 28' F or agitate before use. Pesticide Disposal: Wastes resulting from the use of this product may be disposed of on site or at an approved waste disposal facility. Container Disposal for RefiUabIe Containers: Seal aft openings which have been opened during use. Return the empty container to a collection site designated by SePRO Corporation. If the container has been damaged and cannot be retumed according to the recommended procedures, contact SePRO Corporation at 1-800419-7779 to obtain proper handling instructions. Container Disposal (Metal): Do not reuse container. Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for recycling or reconditioning. or puncture and dispose of in a sanitaly tandfill, or by other procedures approved by state and local authorities. Container Disposal (Plastic): Do not reuse container. Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for recycling or reconditioning, or puncture and dispose of in a sanitaly tandfill, or by incineration, or, if allowed by state and local authorities. by burning. If bumed, slay out of smoke. General: Consult federal. slate, or local disposal authorities for approved alternative procedures. General Information . For Aquatic and Wetland Sites Renovatet 3 herbicide is recommended for control of emersed, submersed and floating aquatic plants in aquatic sites such as ponds, lakes, reservoirs, non-inigation canals, and ditches which have little or no continuous outflow, marshes and wetlands, including broadleaf and woody vegetation on banks and shores within or adjacent to these and other aquatic sites. Obtain Required Pennits: Consult with appropriate state or local water authorities before applying this product to public waters. State or local public agencies may require permits. General Use Precautions and Restrictions In Arizona: The state of Arizona has not approved Renovate* 3 for use on plants grown for commercial production, specifically forests grown for commercial timber production, or on designated grazing areas. When applying this product in tank mix combination, follow all applicable use directions, precautions and limitations on each manufacturer's label. Chemigation: Do not apply this product thrOugh any type of irrigation system. Irrigation: Do not use treated water for irrigation for 120 days following application. As an altemative to waiting 120 days, treat- ed water may be used for irrigation once the triclopyr level in the intake water is detennined to be non-detectable by laboratory analysis (immunoassay). There is no restriction on use of water from the treatment area to irrigate established grasses. Do not apply Renovate 3 directly to, or otherwise pennit it to come into direct contact with grapes, tobacco, vegetable crops, flowers, or other desirable broadleaf plants, and do not pennit spray mists containing it to drift into them. . Do not apply to salt water bays or estuaries. . Do not apply directly to un-impounded rivers or streams. . Do not apply on ditches or canals used to transport irrigation water: It is pennissible to treat non-irrigation ditch banks. . Do not apply where runoff water may flow onto agricultural land as injury to crops may result . When making applications to control unwanted plants on banks or shorelines of moving water sites, minimize overspray to open water. . The use of a mistblower is not recommended. Grazing and Haying Restrictions Except for lactating dairy animals, there are no grazing restrictions following application of this product. . Grazing Lactating Dairy Animals: Do nOt allow lactating dairy animals to graze treated areas until the next growing season following application of this product. . Do not harvest hay for 14 days after application. . Grazed areas of non-cropland and forestry sites may be spot treated if they comprise no more than 10% of the total grazable area. Slaughter Restrictions: During the season of application, with- draw livestock from grazing treated grass at least 3 days before slaughter. Avoiding Injurious Spray Drift Applications should be made only when there is litUe or no hazard from spray drift. Very small quantities of spray, which may not be visible, may seriously injure susceptible plants. Do not spray when wind is blowing toward susceptible crops or omamental plants near enough to be injured. It is suggested that a continu- ous smoke column at or near the spray site or a smoke generator on the spray equipment be used to detect air movement, lapse conditions, or temperature inversions (stable air). If the smoke layers or indicates a potential of hazardous spray drift, do not spray. Aerial Application: For aerial application near susceptible crops, apply through a Microfoilt or Thru-Valve boomt, or use a drift control additive labeled for aquatic use. Other drift reducing systems or thickened sprays prepared by using high viscosity inverting systems may be used if they are made as drift-free as mixtures containing thickening agents labeled for use in aquatics or applications made with the Microfoil or Thru-Valve boom. Keep spray pressures low enough to provide coarse spray droplets. Spray boom should be no longer than 3/4 of the rotor length. Do not use a thickening agent with the Microfoil or Thru-Valve booms, or other systems that cannot accommodate thick sprays. Spray only when the wind velocity is low (follow state regulations). Avoid application during air inversions. If a spray thickening agent is used, follow all use recommendations and precautions on the product label. tReference within lhis label to a particular piece of equipment produced by or available from other parties is provided without consideration for use by lhe reader at its discretion and subjecllo the reader's independent circumstances, evaluation, and expertise. Such reference by SePRO Corporation is not intended as an endorsement of such equipment, shall not constitute a warranty (express or implied) of such equipment, and is not intended to imply lhat oliler equipment is not available and equally suitable. Ally discussion of methods of use of such equipment does not imply lhatthe reader should use lhe equipment other lhan is advised in directions available from the equipment's manufacturer. The reader is responsible for exercising its own judgment and expertise, or consulting with sources other lhan SePRO Corporation. in selecting and determining how to use its equipment. Spray Drift Management Avoiding spray drift at the application site is the responsibility of the applicator. The interaction of many equipment and weather related factors detennine the potential for spray drift. The applica- tor and the grower are responsible for considering all these factors when making decisions. The following drift management requirements must be followed to avoid olf-target drift movement from aerial applications: 1. The distance of the outer most operating nozzles on the boom must not exceed 3/4 the length of the rotor. 2. Nozzles must always point backward parallel with the air stream and never be pointed downwards more than 45 degrees. Where states have more stringent regulations, they should be observed. The applicator should be familiar with and take into account the information covered in the following Aerial Drift Reduction Advisory. [This infonnation is advisory in nature and does not supersede mandatory label requirements.] Aerial Drift Reduction Advisory Infonnation on Droplet Size: The most effective way to reduce drift potential is to apply large droplets. The best drift manage- ment strategy is to apply the largest droplets that provide sufficient coverage and control. Applying larger droplets reduces drift potential, but will not prevent drift if applications are made improperly, or under unfavorable environmental conditions (see Wind, Temperature and Humidity, and Temperature Inversions). Controlling Droplet Size: . Volume - Use high flow rate nozzles to apply the highest practical spray volume. Nozzles with higher rated flows produce larger droplets. . Pressure - Do not exceed the nozzle manufacturer's recommended pressures. For many nozzle types lower pressure produces larger droplets. When higher flow rates are needed, use higher flow rate nozzles instead of increasing pressure. . Number of Nozzles - Use the minimum number of nozzles that provide unifonn coverage. . Nozzle Orientation - Orienting nozzles so that the spray is released parallel to the airstream produces larger droplets than other orientations and is the recommended practice. Significant deflection from horizontal will reduce droplet size and increase drift potential. . Nozzle Type - Use a nozzle type that is designed for the intended application. Wrth most nozzle types, narrower spray angles produce larger droplets. Consider using low-drift nozzles. Solid stream nozzles oriented straight back produce the largest droplets and the lowest drift. 3 Boom length: For some use pattems, reducing the effective boom length to less than 3/4 of the wingspan or rotor length may further reduce drift without reducing swath width. Application Height: Applications should not be made at a height greater than 10 feet above the top of the largest plants unless a greater height is required for aircraft safety. Making applications at the lowest height that is safe reduces exposure of droplets to evaporation and wind. Swath Adjusbnent When applications are made with a cross- wind, the swath will be displaced downwind. Therefore, on the up and downwind edges of the field, the applicator must compensate for this displacement by adjusting the path of the aircraft upwind. Swath adjustment distance should increase, with increasing drift potential (higher wind, smaller drops, etc.). Wind: Drift potential is lowest between wind speeds of 2-10 mph. However, many factors, induding droplet size and equipment type detennine drift potential at any given speed. Application should be avoided below 2 mph due to variable wind direction and high inversion potential. Note: local terrain can influence wind patterns. Every applicator should be familiar with local wind patterns and how they affect spray drift Temperature and Humidity: When making applications in low relative humidity, set up equipment to produce larger droplets to compensate for evaporation. Droplet evaporation is most severe when conditions are both hot and dry. Temperature Inversions: Applications should not occur during a local, low level temperature inversion because drift potential is high. Temperature inversions restrict vertical air mixing, which causes small suspended droplets to remain in a concentrated doud. This cloud can move in unpredictable directions due to the light variable winds common during inversions. Temperature inversions are characterized by increasing temperatures with altitude and are common on nights with limited cloud cover and light to no wind. They begin to form as the sun sets and often continue into the morning. Their presence can be indicated by ground fog; however, if fog is not present, inversions can also be identified by the movement of the smoke from a ground source or an aircraft smoke generator. Smoke that layers and moves laterally in a concentrated cloud (under low wind conditions) indicates an inversion, while smoke that moves upward and rapidly dissipates indicates good vertical air mixing. Sensitive Areas: The pesticide should only be applied when the potential for drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g., residential areas, known habitat for threatened or endangered species, non-target crops) is minimal (e.g., when wind is blowing away from the sensitive areas). Ground Equipment: To aid in reducing spray drift, Renovate 3 should be used in thickened (high viscosity) spray mixtures using a labeled drift control additive, high viscosity invert system, or equivalent as directed by the manufacturer. With ground equip- ment, spray drift can be reduced by keeping the spray boom as low as possible; by applying 20 gallons or more of spray per acre; by keeping the operating spray pressures at the lower end of the manufacturer's recommended pressures for the specific nozzle type used (low pressure nozzles are available from spray equip- ment manufacturers); and by spraying when wind velocity is low (follow state regulations). In hand-gun applications, select the minimum spray pressure that will provide adequate plant 4 coverage (without fanning a mist). Do not apply with nozzles that produce a fine-droplet spray. High Volume leaf-Stem Treatment: To minimize spray drift, do not use pressure exceeding 50 psi at the spray nozzle and keep sprays no higher than brush tops. A labeled thickening agent may be used to reduce drift. Plants Controlled by Renovate 3 Woody Plant Species alder arrowwood ash aspen bear dover (beannat) beech birch blackberry blackgum Brazilian pepper cascara ceanothus cherry Chinese Tallow chinquapin choke cherry cottonwood crataegus (hawthorn) locust Maleleuca (seedlings) Annual and Perennial BroadleafWeeds burdock ligodium Canada thistle plantain curly dock smartweed elephant ear tansy ragwort Aquatic Weeds alligatorweed American lotus American frogbit Aquatic sodaapple Eurasian watennilfoil milfoil species nuphar (spatterdock) parrotfeather* pickerelweed pennywort maples mulberry oaks poison ivy poison oak poplar salt-bush (Baccharis spp.) sweetgum waxmyrtle willpw tropical sodaapple vetch wild lettuce purple loosestrife waterhyacinth waterlily waterprimose .. *Retreatment may be needed to achieve desired level of control. '+-,f:, Application Methods . Floating and Emerged Weeds For control of waterhyacinth, alligatorweed (see specifiC directions below), and other susceptible emerged and floating herbaceous weeds and woody plants, apply 1 1/2 to 6 Ib ae triclopyr (2 to 8 quarts of Renovate 3) per acre as a foliar application using sur- face or aerial equipment Use higher rates in the rate range when plants are mature, when the weed mass is dense, or for difficult ot control species. Repeat as necessary to control regrowth and plants missed in the previous operation, but do not exceed a total of 6 Ib ae tridopyr (8 quarts of Renovate 3) per acre per annual growing season. Use of a non-ionic surfactant in the spray mixture is recommend- ed to improve control. Follow all directions and use precautions on the aquatic surfactant label. Apply when plants are actively growing. Surface Application Use a spray boom, handgun or other similar suitable equipment mounted on a boat or vehide. Thorough wetting of foliage is essential for maximum effectiveness. Use 20 to 200 gallons per acre of spray mixture. Special precautions such as the use of low spray pressure, large droplet producing nozzles or addition of a labeled thickening agent may minimize spray drift in areas near sensitive crops. Aerial Application Apply with a helicopter using a Microfoil or Thru-Valve boom. or a drift control additive in the spray solution. Apply in a minimum of 10 gallons of total spray mix per acre. Do not apply when weather conditions favor drift to sensitive areas. See label section on aerial application directions and precautions. Waterhyacinth (Eichhomia crassipes) Apply Renovate 3 at 1 1/2 to 6 Ib ae tridpyr (2 to 8 quarts of Renovate 3) per acre to control watemyacinth. Apply when plants are actively growing. Use the higher rate in the rate range when the weed mass is dense. It is important to thoroughly wet all foliage with the spray mixture. Use of a non-ionic surfactant in the spray mixture is recommended. A repeat treatment may be needed to control regrowth or plants missed in the previous treatment A1ligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) Apply Renovate 3 at 2 to 6 Ib ae triclopyr (3 to 8 quarts of Renovate 3) per acre to control alligatorweed. It is important to thoroughly wet all foliage with the spray mixture. For best results. it is recommended that an approved non-ionic aquatic surfactant be added to the spray mixture. A1ligatorweed growing outside the margins of a body of water can be controlled with this treatment However, alligatorweed growing in water will only be partially controlled. Top growth above the water will be controlled, but the plant will likely regrow from tissue below the water surface. Precautions for Potable Water Intakes - lakes, Reservoirs, Ponds: For applications of Renovate 3 to control floating and emerged weeds in lakes, reservoirs or ponds that contain a functioning potable water intake for human consumption, see chart below to determine the minimum setback distances of the application from the functioning potable water intakes. ~ . Recreational Use of Water in Treatment Area: There are no restrictions on use of water in the treatment area for recreational purposes, induding swimming and fishing. . Livestock Use of Water from Treatment Area: There are no restrictions on livestock consumption of water from the treatment area. Submerged Weeds For control of Eurasian watennilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and other susceptible submerged weeds in ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and in non-irrigation canals or ditches that have little or no continuous outflow, apply Renovate 3 as either a surface or subsurface application. Rates should be selected according to the rate chart below to provide a triclopyr concentration of 0.75 to 2.5 ppm ae in treated water. Higher rates in the rate range are recommended in areas of greater water exchange. These areas may require a repeat application. However, total application of Renovate 3 must not exceed an application rate of 2.5 ppm tri- dopyr for the treatment area per annual growing season. Apply in spring or early summer when Eurasian waterrnilfoil or other submersed weeds are actively growing. Areas near susceptible crops or other desirable broadleaf plants may be treated by subsurface injection applied by boat to avoid spray drift Subsurface Application Apply desired amount of Renovate 3 per acre directly into the water through boat-mounted distribution systems. Surface Application Apply the desired amount of Renovate 3 as either a concentrate or a spray mixture in water. However, use a minimum spray vol- ume of 5 gallons per acre. Do not apply when weather conditions favor drift to sensitive areas. <4 0 200 400 500 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.8 2.3 >4-8 0 200 700 900 2 1.4 1.8 3.3 3.6 4.6 3 2.1 2.9 4.1 5.4 6.8 > 8 - 16 0 200 700 1000 4 2.7 3.6 5.4 7.2 9.1 5 3.4 4.5 6.8 9.0 11.3 > 16 0 200 900 1300 6 4.1 5.4 8.1 10.9 13.6 7 4.8 6.3 9.5 12.7 15.8 Note: Existing potable water intakes which are no longer in use, such as those 8 5.5 7.2 10.9 14.5 18.1 replaced by potable water wens or connections to a municipal water system, are not considered to be functioning potable water intakes. These setback restrictions do not 16.3 20.4 apply to terresbial applications made adjacent to potable water intakes. 9 6.1 8.1 12.2 To apply Renovate 3 around and within the distances noted above from a functioning 10 6.8 9.0 13.6 18.1 22.6 potable water intake, the intake must be turned off unlilthe lriclopyr level in the intake water is determined to be 0.4 parts per milflOl1 (ppm) or less by laboratory analysis or 15 10.2 13.6 20.4 27.2 33.9 immunoassay. 20 13.6 18.1 27.2 36.2 45.3 5 Precautions for Potable Water Intakes - Lakes, Reservoirs, Ponds: For applications of Renovate 3 to control submerged weeds in lakes, reservoirs or ponds that contain a functioning potable water intake for human consumption, see the chart below to detennine the minimum setback distances of the application from the functioning potable water intakes. Concentration of Triclopyr Acid in Water (ppm ae) i~i,.easetba(fk~i~nce (ft)frocll f)Qtable water intak:e m"rreated O;1;5pPm 1.ClPPm 1.5Ppm 2.0 ppm 2.5 ppm (acres) < 4 300 400 600 800 1000 > 4 -8 420 560 840 1120 1400 > 8 - 16 600 800 1200 1600 2000 > 16 - 32 780 1040 1560 2080 2600 32 acres. Setback (ft) Setback (ft) Setback (ft) Setback (ft) Setback (ft) calculate a = (800. In =(800* In = (800. In = (800. In = (800. In setback using (acres) - (acres) - (acres) - (acres) - (acres) - the formula tor 160)/3.33 160)/2.50 160)/1.67 160)/1.25 160) the appropriate rate Example Calculation 1: to apply 2.5 ppm Renovate 3to 50 acres: Setback in feel = (800 x In (50 acres) -160 = (800 x 3.912) -160 = 2970 feel Example Calculation 2: to apply 0.75 ppm Renovate 3 to 50 acres: Setback in feel = (800 x In (50 acres) -160 3.33 = (800 x 3.912)-160 3.33 = 892 feet Note: Existing potable water intakes which are no longer in use, such as those replaced by potable water wells or connections to a municipal water system. are not considered to be functioning potable water intakes. These setback restrictions do not apply to terrestrial applications made adjacent to potable water intakes. To apply Renovate 3 around and within the distances noted above from a functioning potable water intake, the intake must be turned off until the Iridopyr level in the intake water is detennined to be 0.4 parts per mUfion (ppm) or less by laboratory analysis or immunoassay. . Recreational Use of Water in Treatment Area: There are no restrictions on use of water in the treatment area for recreational purposes, induding swimming and fishing. . Uvestock Use of Water from Treatment Area: There are no restrictions on livestock consumption of water from the treatment area. Wetland Sites Wetlands include flood plains, deltas, marshes, swamps, bogs, and transitional areas between upland and lowland sites. Wetlands may occur within forests, wildlife habitat restoration and management areas and similar sites as well as areas adjacent to or surrounding domestic water supply reservoirs, lakes and ponds. 6 For control of woody plants and broadleaf weeds in these sites, follow use directions and application methods on this label for terrestrial sites associated with wetland areas. Use Precautions Minimize overspray to open water when treating target vegetation in and around non-flowing, quiescent or transient water. When making applications to control unwanted plants on banks or shorelines of flowing water, minimize overspray to open water. Note: Consult local public water control authorities before appling this product in and around public water. Pennits may be required to treat such areas. Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Purple loosestrife can be controlled with foliar applications of Renovate 3. For broadcast applications, a minimum of 4 1/2 to 6 Ib ae triclopyr (6 to 8 quarts of Renovate 3) per acre is recommended. Apply Renovate 3 when purple loosestrife is at the bud to mid-flowering stage of growth. Follow-up applications for control of regrowth should be made the following year in order to achieve increased control of this weed species. For all applications, a non-ionic surfactant labeled for aquatics should be added to the spray mixture. Follow all directions and use precautions on the label of the surfactant Thorough wetting of the foliage and sterns is necessary to achieve satisfactory control. A minimum spray volume of 50 gallons per acre is recommended for ground broadcast applications. If using a backpack sprayer, a spray mixture containing 1 % to 1.5% Renovate 3 or 5 to 7.6 II oz of Renovate 3 per 4 gallons of water should be used. All purple loosestrife plants should be thoroughly wetted. Aerial application by helicopter may be needed when treating restoration sites that are inaccessible, remote, difficult to traverse, isolated, or otherwise unsuited to ground aplication, or in drcumstances where invasive exotic weeds dominate native plant populations over extensive areas and efforts to restore native plant diversity are being conducted. By air, apply in a minimum spray volume of 30 gallons per acre using Thru-Valve or Microfoil boom only. . Recreational Use of Water in Treatment Area: There are no restrictions on use of water in the treatment area for recreational purposes, induding swimming and fishing. . Livestock Use of Water from Treatment Area: There are no restrictions on livestock consumption of water from the treatment area. Terrestrial Sites Associated with Wetland Areas . Apply no more than 2 Ib ae triclopyr (213 gallon of Renovate 3) per acre per growing season on range and pasture sites, induding rights-of-way, fence rows or any area where grazing or harvesting is allowed. . On forestry sites, Renovate 3 may be used at rates up to 6 Ib ae of triclopyr (2 gallons of Renovate 3) per acre per year. Use Renovate 3 at rates of 3/4 to 61b ae tridopyr (1/4 to 2 gallons of Renovate 3) per acre to control broadleaf weeds and woody plants. In all cases use the amount specified in enough water to give uniform and complete coverage of the plants to be controlled. Use only water suitable for spraying. Use of a labeled non- ionic surfactant is recommended for all foliar applications. When using surfactants, follow the use directions and precautions listed on the surfactant manufacturer's label. Use the higher recommend- ed concentrations of surfactant in the spray mixture when applying lower spray volumes per acre. The recommended order of addition to the spray tank is water, spray thickening agent (if used), additional herbicide (if used), and Renovate 3. A labeled aquatic surfactant should be added to the spray tank last or as recommended on the product label. If combined with emulsifiable concentrate herbicides, moderate continuous adequate agitation is required. Before using any recommended tank mixtures, read the directions and all use precautions on both labels. For best results, applications should be made when woody plants and weeds are actively growing. When hard to control species such as ash, blackgum, choke cherry, maples, or oaks are prevalent and during applications made in late summer when the plants are mature and during drought conditions, use the higher rates of Renovate 3. When using Renovate 3 in combination with a 2,4-0 herbicide approved for aquatic use, such as OMA 4 NM, generally the higher rates should be used for satisfactory brush control. Use the higher dosage rates when brush approaches an average of 15 feet in height or when the brush covers more than 60% of the area to be treated. If lower rates are used on hard to control species, resprouting may occur the year following treatment. High Volume Foliage Treatment For control of woody plants, use Renovate 3 at the rate of 3 to 6 Ib ae tridopyr (1 to 2 gallons of Renovate 3) per 100 gallons of spray solution, or Renovate 3 at 3/4 to 31b ae tridopyr (1 to 4 quarts of Renovate 3) may be tank mixed with 1/4 to 1/2 gallons of 2,4-0 3.8 Ib amine, like OMA 4 IVM, diluted to make 100 gallons of spray solution. Apply at a volume of 100 to 400 gallons of total spray per acre depending on size and density of woody plants. Coverage should be thorough to wet all leaves, stems, and root collars. (See General Use Precautions and Restrictions.) Do not exceed the maximum allowable use rate of 6 Ib ae of tridopyr (2 gallons of Renovate 3) per acre per growing season. LowVolume Foliage Treatment To control susceptible woody plants, apply up to 151b ae tridopyr (5 gallons of Renovate 3) in 10 to 100 gallons of finished spray. The spray concentration of Renovate 3 and total spray volume per acre may be adjusted according to the size and density of target woody plants and kind of spray equipment used. With low volume sprays, use sufficient spray volume to obtain uniform coverage of target plants induding the surfaces of all foliage, stems, and root collars (see General Use Precautions and Restrictions). For best results, a labeled aquatic surfactant should be added to all spray mixtures. Match equipment and delivery rate of spray nozzles to height and density of woody plants. When treating tall, dense brush, a truck mounted spray gun with spray tips that deliver up to 2 gallons per minute at 40 to 60 psi may be required. Backpack or other types of specialized spray equipment with spray tips that deliver less than 1 gallon of spray per minute may be appropriate for short, low to moderate density brush. Cut Sutface Treatments (Woody Plants) To control unwanted trees and other listed woody plants, apply Renovate 3, either undiluted or diluted in a 1 to 1 ratio with water as directed below. With Tree Injector Method Applications should be made by injecting 1/2 milliliter of undiluted Renovate 3 or 1 milliliter of the diluted solution through the bark at intervals of 3 to 4 inches between centers of the injector wound. The injections should completely surround the tree at any convenient height. Note: No Worker Protection Standard worker entry restrictions or worker notification requirements apply when this product is injected directly into plants. With Hack and Squirt Method Make cuts with a hatchet or similar equipment at intervals of 3 to 4 inches between centers at a convenient height around the tree trunk. Spray 112 mHliliter of undiluted Renovate 3 or 1 milliliter of the diluted solution into each cut. With Frill or Girdle Method Make a single girdle through the bark completely around the tree at a convenient height. Wet the rot surface with undiluted or diluted solution. Both of the above methods may be used successfully at any season except during periods of heavy sap flow of certain species-for example, maples. Stump Treatment Spray or paint the cut surfaces of freshly cut stumps and stubs with undiluted Renovate 3. The cambium area next to the bark is the most vital area to wet. 7 Terms and Conditions of Use If toons of the following Warranty Disdaimer, Inherent Risks of Use. and Limitation of Remedies are not acceptable, retum unopened package at once to the seller for a full refund of purchase price paid. Otherwise, use by the buyer or any other user constitutes acceptance of the tenns under Warranty Disclaimer, Inherent Risks of Use and Limitations of Remedies. Warranty Disclaimer SePRO Corporation warrants that the product confol111s to the chemical description on the label and is reasonably fit for the purposes stated on the label when used in strict accordance with the directions, subject to the inherent risks set forth below. SEPRO CORPORATION MAKES NO OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR ANY OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. Inherent Risks of Use It is impossible to eliminate all risks associated with use of this product. Plant injury, lack of perfonnance, or other unintended consequences may result because of such factors as use of the product contrary to label instructions (induding conditions noted on the label such as unfavorable temperatures, soil conditions, etc.), abnonnal conditions (such as excessive rainfall, drought, tomadoes, hurricanes), presence of other materials, the manner or application, or other factors, all of which are beyond the control of SePRO Corporation as the seller. All such risks shall be assumed by buyer. limitation of Remedies The exdusive remedy for losses or damages resulting from this product (induding daims based on contract, negligence, strict liability, or other legal theories) shall be limited to, at SePRO Corporation's election, one of the following: 1. Refund of pun~'ase price paid by buyer or user for product bought, or 2. Replacement of amount of product used. SePRO Corporation shall not be liable for losses or damages resulting from handling or use of this product unless SePRO Corporation is promptly notified of such losses or damages in writing. In no case shall SePRO Corporation be liable for consequential or incidental damages or losses. The toons of the Warranty Disdaimer above and this Limitation of Remedies can not be varied by any written or verbal statements or agreements. No employee or sales agent of SePRO Corporation or the seller is authorized to vary or exceed the tenns of the Warranty Disclaimer or Limitations of Remedies in any manner. FonnNo.~1(031 co Copyright 2003 SePRO Capaation. tRenovate is a registered hldemar1t of Oow AgroSciences LtC manufadured for SePRO Corpa'ation. ~ecimen Label eruDow AgroSciences -- bM~ 41VM Herbicide *Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC Contains Dimethylamine Salt of 2,4-Dt For selective control of many broadleaf weeds in, forests, non-cropland, non-crop turf, and aquatic areas. Also for control of trees by injection. Active Ingredient: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, dimethytamine salt t................................................... 46.3% Inert Ingredients ......................................................................... 53.7% Total Ingredients ........................................................................ 100.0% 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid tt - 38.4% - 3.8lb/gal tt Isomer Specific by AOAC Method No. 978.05 (15th Edition) t Salts are the least volatile forms of 2,4-0 and do not release enough vapors from treated areas to reduce yield of adjacent susceptible crops. EPA Reg. No. 62719-3 Keep Out of Reach of Children DANGER PELIGRO Si usted no entiende Ia etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se la explique a usted en detalle. (If you do not understand the label, find someone to explain it to you in detail.) Precautionary Statements Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals Corrosive. Causes Irreversible Eye Damage. Harmful If Swallowed, Inhaled or Absorbed Through The Skin. Do not get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing. Avoid breathing vapor or spray mist. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Applicators and other handlers must wear: Long-sleeved shirt and long pants Waterproof gloves Shoes plus socks Protective eyewear Note: For containers of over 1 gallon, but less than 5 gallons: Mixer and loaders who do not use a mechanical system (such as probe and pump or spigot) to transfer the contents of this container must wear coveralls or chemical-resistant apron in addition to other required PPE. Discard clothing and other absorbent materials that have been drenched or heavily contaminated with this product's concentrate. Do not reuse them. Follow manufacturer's instructions for cleaning/maintaining PPE. If no such instructions for washables, use detergent and hot water. Keep and wash PPE separately from other laundry. After each day of use, clothing or PPE must not be reused until it has been cleaned. Engineering Controls Statements For containers of 5 gallons or more: A mechanical system (such as probe and pump or spigot) must be used for transferring the contents of this container. If the contents of a non-refillable pesticide container are emptied, the probe must be rinsed before removal. If the mechanical system is used in a manner that meets the requirements listed in the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides (40 CFR 170.240 (d) (4)], the handler PPE requirements may be reduced or modified as specified in the WPS. When handlers use enclosed cabs or aircraft in a manner that meets the requirements listed in the Worker Protections Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides [40 CFR 170.240 (d) (4-6)], the handler PPE requirements may be reduced or modified as specified in the WPS. User Safety Recommendations Users should: . Wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco, or using the toilet. . Remove clothing immediately if pesticide gets inside. Then wash thoroughly and put on clean clothing. . Remove PPE immediately after handling this product. Wash the outside of gloves before removing. As soon as possible, wash thorou hand chan e into clean cIothin . First Aid If in eyes: Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15- 20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. If on skin or clothing: Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes. Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. If swallowed: Call a poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice. Have person sip a glass of water if able to swanow. Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by the poison control center or doctor. Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. If inhaled: Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably by mouth-to- mouth, if possible. Call a poison control center or doctor for further treatment advice. Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison control center or doctor, or going for treatment. Note to Physician: Probable mucosal damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage. Environmental Hazards This product is toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Drift or runoff may adversely affect aquatic invertebrates and non-target plants. For terrestrial uses, do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present, or to intertidal area below the mean high water mark Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters. Mixing and Loading: Most cases of groundwater contamination involving phenoxy herbicides such as 2,4-0 have been associated with mixing/loading and disposal sites. Caution should be exercised when handling 2,4-0 pesticides at such sites to prevent contamination of groundwater supplies. Use of closed systems for mixing and transferring this pesticide win reduce the probability of spills. Placement of the mixinglloading equipment on an impervious pad to contain spills will help prevent groundwater contamination. Notice: Read the entire label. Use only according to label directions. Before buying or using this product, read "Warranty Disclaimer" and "Umitation of Remedies" elsewhere on this label. In case of emergency endangering health or the environment involving this product, call 1-800-992-5994. If you wish to obtain additional product information, visit our web site at www.dowagro.com. Agricultural Chemical: Do not ship or store with food, feeds, drugs or clothing. Directions for Use It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Read all Directions for Use carefully before applying. Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during application. For any requirements specific to your state or tribe, consult the agency responsible for pesticide regulation. Agricultural Use Requirements Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE), and restricted'~mtry interval. The requirements in this box only apply to uses of this product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard. Do not enter or anow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry interval (REI) of 48 hours. PPE required for early entry to treated areas that is permitted under the Worker Protection Standard and that involves contact with anything that has been treated, such as plants, soil, or water, is: . Coveralls . Waterproof gloves . Shoes plus socks . Protective eyewear Non-Agricultural Use Requirements The requirements in this box apply to uses of this product that are NOT within the scope of the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (40 CFR Part 170). The WPS applies when this product is used to produce agricultural plants on farms. forests, nurseries, or greenhouses. Entry Restrictions for Non-WPS Uses: When this product is applied to non-cropland areas, non-crop turf, by tree injection method only in forest sites, and when applied in aquatic areas, do not allow people (other than applicator) or pets on treatment area during application. Do not enter into treated areas until sprays have dried. Storage and Disposal Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal. Storage: Keep container tightly closed when not in use. If exposed to subfreezing temperatures, the product should be warmed to at least 4O"F and mixed thoroughly before using. Pesticide Disposal: Pesticide wastes are toxic. Improper disposal of excess pesticide, spray mixture, or rinsate is a violation of Federal law and may contaminate groundwater. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste Representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. Container Disposal (Metal>>: Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for recycling or reconditioning, or puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or by other procedures approved by state and local authorities. Container Disposal (Plastic containers 5-gals or less): Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or by incineration, or, if allowed by local authorities, by burning. If burned stay out of smoke. General: Consult federal, state, or local disposal authorities for approved alternative procedures. General Information DMA * 4 IVM herbicide is intended for selective control of many broadleaf weeds in forests, non-cropland, non-crop turf areas, and aquatic areas. Apply DMA 4 IVM as a water or oil-water spray during warm weather when target weeds or woody plants are actively growing. Application under drought conditions will often give poor results. Use low spray pressure to minimize drift. Generally, the lower dosages recommended on this label will be satisfactory for young, succulent growth of susceptible weed species. For less susceptible species and under conditions where control is more difficult, use higher recommended rates. Deep-rooted perennial weeds such as Canada thistle and field bindweed and many woody plants usually require repeated applications for satisfactory control. Consult your State Agricultural Experiment stations or Extension Service Weed Specialists for recommendations from this label that best fit local conditions. General Use Precautions and Restrictions Be sure that use of DMA 4 IVM confonns to all application regulations. Chemigation: Do not apply this product through any type of irrigation system. Excessive amounts of 2,4-0 in the soil may temporarily inhibit seed germination and plant growth. 2 Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01 Avoiding Injury to Non-target Plants Spray drift produced during application is the responsibility of the applicator and care should be taken to minimize off-target movement of spray during application. A drift control agent suitable for agricultural use may be used with this product to aid in reducing spray drift If used, follow all use recommendations and precautions on the product label. Do not appty where drift may be a problem due to proximity to susceptible crops or other desirable broadleaf plants. Do not apply DMA 4 IVM directly to, or otherwise pennit contact with cotton, flowers, fruit trees, grapes, ornamentals, vegetables, or other desirable plants which are susceptible to 2,4-0 herbicides. Do not pennit spray mist containing 2,4-0 to contact susceptible plants since even very small quantities of the spray, which may not be visible. can cause severe injury during both active growth or donnant periods. Do not use in greenhouses. Avoid Movement of Treated Soil: Avoid conditions under which soil from treated areas may be moved or blown to areas containing susceptible plants. Wind-blown dust containing 2,4-0 may produce visible symptoms when deposited on susceptible plants, however, serious plant injury is unlikely. To minimize potential movement of 2,4-0 on wind-blown dust, avoid treatment of powdery dry or light sandy soils until soil is settled by rainfall or irrigation or irrigate soon after application. Do not store or handle other agricultural chemicals with the same containers used for OMA 4 IVM. Do not apply other agricultural 'chemicals or pesticides with equipment used to apply DMA 4 IVM unless equipment has been thoroughly cleaned to remove all traces of 2,4-0. Spray Drift Management (Aerial Application) Avoiding spray drift at the application site is the responsibility of the applicator. The interaction of many equipment-and-weather-related factors detennine the potential for spray drift. The applicator and the grower are responsible for considering all these factors when making decisions. The following drift management requirements must be followed to avoid off-target drift movement from aerial applications to agricultural field crops. These requirements do not apply to forestry applications, public health uses or to applications using dry formulations. 1. The distance of the outer most nozzles on the boom must not exceed 3/4 the length of the wingspan or rotor. 2. Nozzles must always point backward parallel with the air stream and never be pointed downwards more than 45 degrees. In certain states, additional regulations may be applicable to aerial application of this product. . The applicator should be familiar with and take into account the infonnation covered in the following Aerial Drift Reduction Advisory Infonnation section. Aerial Spray Drift Advisory Infonnation Importance of Droplet Size: The most effective way to reduce drift potential is to apply large droplets. The best drift management strategy is to apply the largest droplets that provide sufficient coverage and control. Applying larger droplets reduces drift potential, but will not prevent drift if applications are made improperly, or under unfavorable environmental conditions (see Wind, Temperature and Humidity, and Temperature Inversion section of this label). Controlling Droplet Size: Volume-Use high flow rate nozzles to apply the highest practical spray volume. Nozzles with higher rated flows product larger droplets. Pressure-Use the lower spray pressures recommended for the nozzle. Higher pressure reduces droplet size and does not improve canopy penetration. When higher flow rates are needed, use higher flow rate nozzles instead of increasing pressure. Number of nozzles-Use the minimum number of nozzles that provide unifonn coverage. Nozzle Orientation..Qrienting nozzles so that the spray is released backwards, parallel to the airstream will produce larger droplets than other orientations. Significant deflection from the horizontal will reduce droplet size and increase drift potential. Nozzle Type-Use a nozzle type that is designed for the intended application. With most nozzle types, narrower spray angles produce larger droplets. Consider using Iow-<lrift nozzles. Solid stream nozzles oriented straight back produce larger droplets than other nozzle types. Boom Length-For some use pattems, reducing the effective boom length to less than 314 of the wingspan or rotor length may further reduce drift without reducing swath width. Application-Applications should not be made at a height greater than 10 feet above the top of the largest plants unless a greater height is required for aircraft safety. Making applications at the lowest height that is safe reduces exposure of droplets to evaporation and wind. Swath Adjustment: When applications are made with a cross-wind, the swath will be displaced downwind. Therefore, on the up and downwind edges of the field, the applicator must compensate for this displacement by adjusting the path of the aircraft upwind. Swath adjustment distance should increase, with increasing drift potential (higher wind, smaller drops, etc.). Wind: Drift potential is lowest between wind speeds of 2-10 mph. However, many factors, including droplet size and equipment type detennine drift potential at any given speed. Application should be avoided below 2 mph due to variable wind direction and high inversion potential. Note: local terrain can influence wind patterns. Every applicator should be familiar with local wind patterns and how they affect drift. Temperature and Humidity: When making applications in low relative humidity, set up equipment to produce larger droplets to compensate for evaporation. Droplet evaporation is most severe when conditions are both hot and dry. Temperature Inversions: Applications should not occur during a low level temperature inversion, because drift potential is high. Temperature inversions restrict vertical air mixing, which causes small suspended droplets to remain in a concentrated cloud. This cloud can move in unpredictable directions due to the light variable winds common during inversions. Temperature inversions are characterized by increasing temperatures with altitude and are common on nights with limited cloud cover and light to no wind. They begin to fonn as the sun sets and often continue into the morning. Their presence can be indicated by ground fog; however, if fog is not present, inversions can also be identified by the movement of smoke from a ground source or an aircraft smoke generator. Smoke that layers and moves laterally in a connected cloud (under low wind conditions) indicates an inversion, while smoke that moves upwards and rapidly dissipates indicates good vertical air mixing. 3 Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01 Sensitive Areas: The pesticide should only be applied when the potential for drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g., residential areas. bodies of water, known habitat for threatened or endangered species, non-target crops) is minimal (e.g., when wind is blowing away from the sensitive areas). Mixing Mix DMA 4 IVM only with water, unless otherwise directed on this label. Add about half the water to the mixing tank, then add the DMA 4 IVM with agitation, and finally the rest of the water with continuing agitation. Note: Adding oil, wetting agent, or other surfactant to the spray mixture may increase effectiveness on weeds, but also may reduce selectivity to crops resulting in crop damage. Tank Mixing: When tank mixing, read and follow the label of each tank mix product used for precautionary statements, directions for use, weeds controlled, and geographic and other restrictions. Use in accordance with the most restrictive of label limitations and precautions. No label dosages should be exceeded. Do not tank mix this product with any product containing a label prohibition against tank mixing with 2,4-D. Tank Mix Compatibility Testing: Ajar test is recommended prior to tank mixing to ensure compatibility of this product and other pesticides. Use a clear glass quart jar with lid and mix the tank mix ingredients in their relative proportions. Invert the jar containing the mixture several times and observe the mixture for approximately 1/2 hour. If the mixture balls- up, forms flakes, sludges, jels, oily films or layers, or other precipitates, it is not compatible and the tank mix combination should not be used. Sprayer Clean-Out To avoid injury to desirable plants, equipment used to apply this product should be thoroughly cleaned before re-use or applying other chemicals. 1. Rinse and flush application equipment thoroughly after use at least three times with water. Dispose of an rinse water by application to treatment area or apply to non-cropland area away from water supplies. 2. During the second rinse, add 1 qt of household ammonia for every 25 gallons of water. Circulate the solution through the entire system so that all internal surfaces are contacted (15-20 min). let the solution stand for several hours, preferably ovemight. 3. Flush the solution out of the spray tank through the boom. 4. Rinse the system twice with clean water, recirculating and draining each time. 5. Remove nozzles and screens and clean separately. 6. If equipment is to be used to apply another pesticide or agricultural chemical to a 2,4-0 susceptible crop, additional steps may be required to remove all traces of 2,4-0, including cleaning of disassembled parts and replacement of hoses or other fittings that may contain absorbed 2,4-0. Application Apply with calibrated air or ground equipment using sufficient spray volume to provide adequate coverage of target weeds or as otherwise directed in specific use directions. For broadcast application, use a spray volume of 3 or more gallons per acre by air and 10 or more gallons per acre for ground equipment. Where states have regulations which specify minimum spray volumes. they should be observed. In general, spray volume should be increased as crop canopy, height and weed density increase in order to obtain adequate spray coverage. Do not apply less than 3 gallons total spray volume per acre. Rate Ranges and Application Timing Generally, the lower dosages given will be satisfactory for young, succulent growth of sensitive weed species. For less sensitive species and under conditions where control is more difficult, the higher dosages will be needed. Appty OMA 4 IVM during warm weather when weeds are young and actively growing. Spot Treatments To prevent misapplication, spot treatments should be applied with a calibrated boom or with hand sprayers using a fixed spray volume per 1,000 sq ft as indicated below. Hand-Held Sprayers: Hand-held sprayers may be used for spot applications of DMA 4 IVM. Care should be taken to apply the spray uniformly and at a rate equivalent to a broadcast application. Application rates in the table are based on the application rate for an area of 1,000 sq ft. Mix the amount of DMA 4 IVM (f1 oz or ml) corresponding to the desired broadcast rate in 1 to 3 gallons of spray. To calculate the amount of OMA 4 IVM required for larger areas, multiply the table value (fl oz or ml) by the thousands of sq ft to be treated. An area of 1000 sq ft is approximately 10.5 X 10.5 yards (strides) in size. 8 3 f10z (88 ml) t Conversion factors: 1ft oz = 29.6 (30) ml 4 Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01 Weeds Controlled Annual or Biennial Weeds Beggarticks t Bittercress, smallflowered bitterweed broomweed, common t burdock, common buttercup, smallflowered t carpetweed cinquefoil. common cinquefoil, rough cocklebur, common coffeeweed copperleaf, Virginia croton, Texas croton, woolly f1ixweed galinsoga geranium, Carolina hemp, wild horseweed (marestail) jewelweed jimsonweed knotweed t kochia Iambsquarters, common lettuce, prickly t lettuce, wild lupines mallow, little t mallow, Venice t marshelder momingglory, annual momingglory, ivy momingglory, woolly mousetail mustards (except blue mustard) parsnip, wild Pennycress, field Pepperweed t pigweeds (Amaranthus spp.) t poorjoe primrose, common purslane, common pusley, Florida radish, wild ragweed, common ragweed, giant rape, wild rocket, yellow salsify, common t salsify, western t shepherdspurse sicklepod smartweed(annualspedes)t sneezeweed, bitter sowthistle, annual sowthistle, spiny spanishneedles sunflower sweetclover tansymustard thistle, bull thistle, musk t thistle, Russian (tumbleweed) t velvetleaf vetches Perennial Weeds Alfalfa t artichoke, Jerusalem t aster, many-flower t Austrian fieldcress t bindweed (hedge, field and European) t blue lettuce blueweed, Texas broomweed bullnettle t carrot. wild t catnip chicory clover, red t coffeeweed cress, hoary t dandelion f docks t dogbanes t goldenrod eveningprimrose, cutleaf garlic, wild t hawkweed, orange t healal ironweed, western ivy, ground t Jerusalem-artichoke loco, bigbend nettles (including stinging) t onion, wild t pennywort plantains ragwort, tansy t sowthistle, perennial thistle, Canada t vervains t waterplantain wormwood t These weeds are only partially controUed and may required repeat applications and/or use of higher recommended rates of this product even under ideal conditions of application. Specific Use Directions Forestry, and Non-cropland, Uses Agricultural Use Requirements for Forest Use (Except Tree Injection Use): For use in forests, follow PPE and Reentry instructions in the "Agricultural Use Requirements" section under the "Directions for Use" heading of this label. Agricultural Use Requirements for Forestry (Tree Injection Only) and Non-cropland Areas: When this product is applied to non-cropland areas, non-crop tun, and by tree injection in forest sites, follow reentry requirements given in the "Non-Agricultural Use Requirements" section under the "Directions for Use" heaoll1<l of this label. 5 Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01 Forestry Uses Forest site preparation, forest roadsides, brush control, established conifer release (including Christmas trees and reforestation areas) Treatment Site Method of DMA 4 IVM Specific Use Directions Application Annual Weeds 2 to 4 ptJacre Apply when weeds are small and growing actively before the bud stage. Apply when biennial and perennial species are in the seedling to rosette stage and before flower stalks appear. For difficult to Biennial and perennial 4 to 8 pUacre control perennial broadleaf weeds and woody species, use up to 1 gallon DMA 4 IVM and 1 to 4 qt. broadleaf weeds and Garton" 3A herbicide per acre. susceptible woody For conifer release, make appHcation in early spring before budbreak of conifers when weeds are small Dlants and activelv orowino. Spot Treatment to See Note: To control broadleaf weeds in small areas with a hand sprayer, use an application rate equivalent control broadleaf Instructions to the recommended broadcast rate and spray to thoroughly wet all foliage. See rate conversion table weeds for 'Spot and instructions for .Spot Treatment" and use of hand-held sprayers under "Application". Treatment" Conifer Release: 1 1/2 to To control competing hardwood species such as alder, aspen, birch, hazel, and willow, apply from mid to Species such as white 3 qUacre late summer when growth of conifer trees has hardened off and woody plants are still actively growing. pine, ponderosa pine, Apply with ground or air equipment, using sufficient spray volume to ensure complete coverage. jack pine, red pine, black Because this treatment may cause occasional conifer injury, do not apply if such injury cannot be spruce, white spruce, tolerated. red spruce, and balsam fir Directed Spray: Conifer 4 qU100 gal Apply when brush or weeds are actively growing by directing the spray so as to avoid contact with conifer plantations including foliage and injurious amounts of spray. Apply in oil, oil-water, or water carrier in a spray volume of 10 Dine to 100 gallons oer acre. Basal Spray 8 qU100 gal Thoroughly wet the base and root collar of all stems until the spray begins to accumulate around the root (May also be collar at the ground line. Wetting stems with the mixture may also aid in control. used in or noncropland) Surface of Cut Stumps 2.611 oz/gal Apply as soon as possible after cutting trees. Thoroughly soak the entire stump with the 2,4-0 mixture (May also be used in of water including cut surface, bark and exposed roots. noncroDlandl Frill and Girdle Cut frills (overlapping V-shaped notches cut downward through the bark in a continuous ring around the (May also be used in base of the tree) using an axe or other suitable tool. Treat freshly cut frills with as much of the 2,4-0 noncrooland) mixture as thev will hold. Tree Injection (1 to 2 ml per To control unwanted hardwood trees such as elm, hickory, oak, and sweetgum in forests and other non- Application injection site) crop areas, apply by injecting at a rate of 1 ml of undiluted DMA 4 IVM per inch of trunk diameter at (May also be used breast height (DSH) as measured approximately 4 1/2 ft above the ground. Make injections as dose noncropland) to the root collar as possible and the injection bit must penetrate the inner bark. Applications may be made throughout the year, but for best results apply between May 15 and October 15. Maples should not be treated during the spring sap flow. For hard to control species such as ash, maple, and dogwood use 2 mI of undiluted DMA 4 IVM per injection site or double the number of 1 ml injections. Note: No Worker Protection Standard worker entry restrictions or worker notification reauirements applv when this product is directlv iniected into aaricultural plants. Precautions and Restrictions: Do not allow sprays to contact conifer shoot growth (current year's new growth) or injury may occur. . Do not apply to nursery seed beds. . For conifer release, do not use on plantations where pine or larch are among the desired species. . For broadcast applications, do not apply more than 8.42 ptJacre of DMA 4 IVM (4.0 Ib of acid equivalent) per 12 month period. 6 Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01 Non-cropland Areas Such as fencerows, hedgerows, roadsides, drainage ditches, rights-of way, utility power lines, railroads, airports, and other non-crop areas Treatment Site Method of A Iication Annual broadleaf weeds Biennial and perennial broadleaf weeds and susceptible woody plants 4 t08 Spot Treatment to control broadleaf weeds See Instructions for .Spot Treatment. Tree Injection Application Southern wild rose Broadcast application upt04 Spot treatment 1 gall100 gal of spray S ecific Use Directions Apply when annual weeds are small and growing actively before the bud stage. Biennial and perennial weeds should be rosette to bud stage. but not flowering at the time of application. For difficult to control perennial broadleaf weeds and woody species, tank mix up to 1 gallon DMA 4 IVM plus 1 to 4 qt. Garton" 3A herbicide per acre. For ground application: (High volume) apply a total of 100 to 400 gal per acre; (low volume) apply a total of 10 to 100 gal per acre. For hellco ter: I a total of 5 to 30 al r acre s ra volume. Note: To control broadleafweeds in small areas with a hand sprayer, use an application rate equivalent to the broadcast rate recommended for this treatment site and spray to thoroughly wet all foliage. See rate conversion table and instructions for.S ot Treatment" and use of hand-held ers under. lication.. See instructions for tree injection application in .Forestry Uses. section. Broadcast: Apply in a spray volume of 5 or more gallons per acre by aircraft or 10 or more gallons per acre by ground equipment. Apply when foliage is well developed. Thorough coverage is required. Use 1 gallon of DMA 4 IVM plus 4 to 8 fluid ounces of an agricultural surfactant per 100 gallons of water. Two or more treatmel)ts may be required. Precautions and Restrictions: . Do not apply to newly seeded areas until grass is well established. o Bentgrass, St. Augustine, clover, legumes and dichondra may be severely injured or killed by this treatment. " Do not apply more than 8.42 ptJacre of DMA 4 IVM (4.0 Ib of acid equivalent) per use season. o Db not reapply to a treated area within 30 days of a previous application. o If grazing of meat or dairy animals or hay harvest is desired in non-crop areas, do not apply more than 4.21 ptlacre of DMA 4 IVM (2.0 Ib of acid equivalent) and do not harvest forage for hay within 7 days of application. Non-crop Turf Areas Includes cemeteries and parks, airfields, roadsides, vacant lots, and drainage ditch banks Use Requirements for Ornamental Turf Areas: When this product is applied to omamental turf areas, follow PPE and reentry instructions in the oNon-a ricultural Use Re uirements. section of this label. 3/4 to 1 Well-established grasses 2 to 4 Biennial and perennial broadleaf weeds 4 S ecific Use Directions Apply when weeds are small and actively growing. For best results, apply. when soil moisture is adequate for active weed growth. Deep-rooted perennial weeds such as bindweed and Canada thistle may require repeat applications. Do not apply to newly seeded grasses until well established (five-leaf stage or later) and then use a maximum of 1 ptlacre. Cool season grasses are tolerant of higher rates. Precautions, Restrictions: Do not use on creeping grasses such as bent except as a spot treatment. Do not use on injury-sensitive southem grasses such as St. Augustinegrass. Do not use on dichondra or other herbaceous ground covers. Legumes may be damaged or killed. Do not reapply within 21 days of a previous application. Reseeding: Delay reseeding at least 30 days following application. Preferably, with spring application, reseed in the fall and with fall application, reseed in the spring. Do not apply more than 2 broadcast applications per year per treatment site (does not include spot treatments). 7 Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01 Aquatic Uses Use Requirements for Aquatic Areas: When this product is appUed to aquatic areas, follow PPE and reentry instructions in the "Non-agricultural Use R uirements" section of this label. Control of Weeds and Brush on Banks of Irrigation Canals and Ditches Tar et Plants Annuat Weeds Biennial and perennial broadleaf weeds and susceptible wood plants 4 S cific Use Directions Apply using low pressure spray (10 to 40 psi) in a spray volume of 20 to 100 gallons per . acre using power operated spray equipment. Apply when wind speed is low, 5 mph or less. Apply working upstream to avoid accidental concentration of spray into water. Cross-stream spraying to opposite banks is not pennitted and avoid boom spraying over water surface. When spraying shoreline weeds, allow no more than 2 foot overspray onto water surface with an average of less than 1 foot of overspray to prevent significant water contamination. Apply when weeds are small and growing actively before. the bud stage. Apply when biennial and perennial species are in the seedling to rosette stage and before flower stalks appear. For hard-to-control weeds, a repeat application after 30 days at the same rate may be needed. For woody species and patches of perennial weeds, mix 1 gallon of DMA 4 IVM per 64 to 150 gallons of total spray. Wet foliage by applying about 3 to 4 gallons of spray per 1000 ft 10.5 X 10.5 ste s . Restrictions and Umitations: . Do not apply more than 2 treatments per season or reapply within 30 days. . Do not use on small canals (less than 10 cts) where water will be used for drinking purposes. . Do not apply more than 8.42 ptlacre (4.0 Ib of acid equivalent) per use season. Aquatic Weed Control in Ponds, Lakes, Reservoirs, Marshes, Bayous, Drainage Ditches, Canals, Rivers and Streams that are Quiescent or Slow Moving, Including Programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority Notice to Applicators: Before application, coordination and approval of local and state authorities may be required, either by letter or agreement or issuance of special pennits for such use. Emergent and Floating Aquatic Weeds: Including Water hyacinth (Eichomia crassipe) Application Rate: 2 to 4 qtIacre. Specific Use Directions Application Timing: Spray weed mass only. Apply when water hyacinth plants are actively growing. Repeat application as necessary to kill regrowth and plants missed in previous operation. Use 4 qt/acre rate when plants are mature or when weed mass is dense. Surface Application: Use power operated sprayers with boom or spray gun mounted on boat, tractor or truck. Thorough wetting of foliage is essential for.maximum control. Use 100 to 400 gallons of spray mixture per acre. Special precautions such as use of low pressure, large nozzles and spray thickening agents should be taken to avoid spray drift to susceptible crops. Follow label directions for use of any drift control agent. Aerial Application: Use drift control spray equipment or thickening agent mixed in the spray mixture. Apply 1 gallon of DMA 4 IVM per acre using standard boom systems using a minimum spray volume of 5 gallons per acre. For Microfoir drift control spray systems, apply DMA 4 IVM in a total spray volume of 12 to 15 gallons per acre. 8 Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01 Submerged Aquatic Weeds: Including Eurasian Water Milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum} Maximum Application Treatment Site Rate t SDeciflc Use Directions Aquatic Weed Control in 2.84 gallons Application Timing: For best results, apply in spring or early summer when aquatic Ponds, Lakes, Reservoirs, (10.8 Ib of acid weeds appear. Check for weed growth in areas heavily infested the previous year. Marshes, Bayous, equivalent) per A second application may be needed when weeds show signs of recovery, but no later Drainage Ditches, Canals, acre foot than mid-August in most areas. Rivers and Streams that Subsurface Application: Apply DMA 4 IVM undiluted directly to the water through a boat are Quiescent or Slow mounted distribution system. Shoreline areas should be treated by subsurface injection Moving, Including application by boat to avoid aerial drift. Programs of the Surface Application: Use power operated boat mounted boom sprayer. If rate is less Tennessee Valley than 5 gallons per acre, dilute to a minimum spray volume of 5 gallons per surface acre. Authority Aerial Application: Use drift control spray equipment or thickening agents mixed with sprays to reduce drift Apply through standard boom systems in a minimum spray volume of 5 gallons per surface acre. For Microfoir drift control spray systems, apply DMA 4 IVM in a total spray volume of 12 to 15 gallons per acre. Aoolv to attain a concentration of 2 to 4 oom (see table belowl. t DMA 4 IVM contains 3.8 Ib of acid equivalent per gallon of product. Amount to AoDlv to Attain a Concentration of 2 to 4 Dam 2,4-0 Acid Equivalent to Amount of DMA 4 IVM Surface Area Averaae Deoth lftl Aoolv lIb/acrel to Aoolv (gal/acrel 1 5.4 to 10.8 1.42 to 2.84 1 acre 2 10.8 to 21.6 2.84 to 5.68 3 16.2 to 32.4 4.26 to 8.53 4 21.6 to 43.2 5.68 to 11.37 5 27.0 to 54.0 7.10 to 14.21 Precautions and Restrictions for Aquatic Use: . Do not treat areas that are not infested with aquatic weeds. Do not exceed 10.8 Ib of acid equivalent (2.84 gallons) per acre foot of treated water. Do not apply within 1500 It of an active potable or irrigation water intake. . Wind Speed: Do not apply when wind speed is at or above 10 mph when making ground or surface applications. Do not aerially apply when wind speed is greater than 5 mph. Wind speed restrictions do not apply for subsurface applications used in submerged aquatic weed control progl al 1.3. Dissolved Oxygen Ratio: Fish require oxygen dissolved in water for lite processes and a favorable water-oxygen ratio must be maintained. Decaying weeds use up dissolved oxygen in water. Fish kill resulting from decaying plant material can be prevented by: (1) treating the entire area when the weed mass is sparse and the rate of decomposition will not be sufficient to disturb the water-oxygen ratio; or (2) If application is delayed until there is a dense weed mass, treat no more than one-half of a lake or pond at one time. For large bodies of weed-infested water, apply product in lanes, leaving buffers strips at least 100 feet wide which can be treated in 4 to 5 weeks or when vegetation in treated lanes has decomposed. During the growing season, decomposition of treated strips will usually occur in 2 to 3 weeks. Irrigation: Unless an approved assay indicates that the 2,4-0 concentration is 100 ppb (0.1 ppm) acid or less, do not use water from treated areas for; (1) irrigation other than non-crop areas or those crops or plants labeled for direct application of 2,4-0; or (2) mixing sprays for agricultural or ornamental plants. Potable Water: Unless an approved assay indicates that the 2,4-0 concentration is 70 ppb (0.07 ppm) acid or less, do not use water from treated areas for potable water (drinking water). Other Uses of Treated Water: Except as stated above. there are no restrictions on use of water from treated areas for fishing, watering of livestock, or other domestic purposes. 9 Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01 Warranty Disclaimer Dow AgroSciences warrants that this product conforms to the chemical description on the label and is reasonably fit for the purposes stated on the label when used in strict accordance with the directions, subject to the inherent risks set forth below. Dow AgroSciences MAKES NO OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR ANY OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. Inherent Risks of Use It is impossible to eliminate all risks associated with use of this . product. Crop injury, lack of pelformance, or other unintended consequences may result because of such factors as use of the product contrary to label instructions (induding conditions noted on the label, such as unfavorable temperatures, soil conditions, etc.), abnormal conditions (such as excessive rainfall, drought. tornadoes, hurricanes), presence of other materials, the manner of application, or other factors, all of which are beyond the control of Dow AgroSciences or the seller. All such risks shall be assumed by buyer. Limitation of Remedies The exclusive remedy for losses or damages resulting from this product (including claims based on contract, negligence, strict liability. or other legal theories), shall be limited to, at Dow AgroSciences' election, one of the following: (1) Refund of purchase price paid by buyer or user for product bought, or (2) Replacement of amount of product used. Dow AgroSciences shall not be liable for losses or damages resulting from handling or use of this product unless Dow AgroSciences is promptly notified of such loss or damage in writing. In no case shall Dow AgroSciences be liable for consequential or incidental damages or losses. The tenns of the Warranty Disclaimer above and this LImitation of Remedies cannot be varied by any written or verbal statements or agreements. No employee or sales agent of Dow AgroSciences or the seller is authorized to vary or exceed the teons of the Warranty Disclaimer or this Limitation of Remedies in any manner. "Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LtC Dow AgroSciences LLC " Indianapolis, IN 46268 U.S.A. EPA-accepted 10/13/2000 Label Code: 002-141-001 Initial Printing 10 Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01 NA VIGA TE@ A SELECTIVE HERBICIDE FOR CONTROLLING CERTAIN UNWANTED AQUATIC PLANTS ACTIVE INGREDIENTS: Butoxyethyl ester, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, ................ .... ..27.6% INERT INGREDIENTS: .... ... .......... ........... ......... ............. ..... ..m.... .....72.4% TOTAl 100.0% "Isomer specific by AOAC Method, Equivalent to 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 19% EPA Reg. No. 228-378-8959 EPA Est. No. 228-IL-1 KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN CAUTION For Chemical Emergency, Spill, Leak, Fire, Exposure or Accident call Chemtrec Day or Night 1-800-424-9300 PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANtMALS CAUTION Harmful if swallowed, absorbed through skin, or inhaled. Causes eye irritation. Avoid contact with skin, eyes or clothing. Avoid breathing dust When handling this product, wear chemical resistant gloves. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handfing. When mixing, loading, or applying this product or repairing or deaning equipment used with this product, wear eye protection (face shield or safety glasses), chemical resistant gloves,long- sleeved shirt, long pants, socks and shoes. 1\ is recommended that safety glasses include front, brow and temple protection. Wash hands, face and arms with soap and water as soon as possible atter mixing, loading, or applying this product. Wash hands, face and hands with soap and water before eating, smoking or drinking. Wash hands and arms before using toilet. After work, remove all clothing and shower using soap and water. Do not reuse clothing worn during the previous day's mixing and loading or application of this product without cleaning first. Clothing must be kept and washed separately from other household laundry. Remove saturated clothing as soon as possible and shower. IF ON SKIN: IF INHALED: IF IN EYES: STATEMENT OF PRACTICAL TREATMENT IF SWALLOWED: Call a physician or Poison Control Center. ~rink 1 or 2 glasses of water and induce vomiting by touching back of throat with finger. If person is unconscious, do not give anything by mouth and do not induce vomiting. Wash with plenty of soap and water. Get medical attention. Remove victim to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth. Get medical attention. Flush eyes with plenty of water. Call a physician if irritation persists. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS This product is toxic to fish. Drift or runoff may adversely affect fish and non-target plants. Do not apply to water except as specified on this label. Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters. Unless an approved assay indicates the 2,4-0 concentration is 100 ppb (0.1 pnm) or iess, or. only growing crops and non-crop areas labeled for direct treatment with 2,4-0 will be affected, do not use water from treated areas for imgating pianls or mixing sprays for agricultural or ornamental plants. Unless an approved assay indicates the 2,4-0 concentration is 70 ppb (0.07 ppm) or less, do not use water from treated areas for potable water (drinking water). Clean spreader equipment thoroughly before using it for any other purposes. Vapors from this product may injure susceptible plants. Most cases of ground water contamination involving phenoxy herbicides such as 2,4-0 have been associated with mixingJloading and disposal sites. Caution should be exercised when handling 2,4-0 pesticides at such sites to prevent contamination of ground water supplies. Use of closed systems for mixing or transferring this pesticide will reduce the probability of spills. Placement of the mixinglloading equipment on an impervious pad to contain spills will help prevent ground water contamination. STORAGE Always use original container to store pesticides in a secure warehouse or building. Do not store near seeds, fertilizers, insecticides or fungicides. Do not stack more than two pallets high. Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal. It is recommended that a SARA Title III emergency response plan be created for storage facilities. Do not transport in passenger compartment of any vehicle. PESTICIDE DISPOSAL Pesticide wastes are toxic. If container is damaged or if pesticide has leaked, dean up spilled material. Improper disposal of excess pesticide is a violation of Federal law and may contaminate ground water. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance. CONTAINER DISPOSAL Do not reuse empty bag. Completely empty bag into application equipment. Then dispose of empty bag in a sanitary landfill or by incineration, or, if allowed by State and local authorities, by burning. If bag is burned, stay out of smoke. MANUFACTURED FOR: C\t) applIed bKxhemISts Milwaukee, WI 53022 1-800-558-5106 SEE ADDITIONAL PRECAUTIONS AND DIRECTIONS ON BACK NAVIGATE is a trademark of Applied Biochemists NET WT. 50 lBS. (22.68 KG) www.app/iedbiochemists.com 13529 DIRECTIONS FOR USE IT IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW TO USE THIS PRODUCT IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH ITS LABEUNG. READ THIS ENTIRE LABEL BEFORE USING THIS PRODUCT GENERAL PRECAUTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Do not use in or near a greenhouse. OXYGEN RATIO Fish breathe oxygen in the water and a water-oxygen ratio must be maintained. Decaying weeds use up oxygen, but during the period when NAVIGATE" should be used, the weed mass is fairly sparse and the weed decomposition rate is slow enough so that the water-oxygen ralio is not disturbed by treating the entire area at one time. If treatments must be applied later in the season when the weed mass is dense and repeat treatments are needed spread granules in lanes, leaving buffer strips which can then be treated when vegetation in treated lanes has disintegrated. During the growing season, weeds decompose in a 2 to 3 week period following treatment. Buffer lanes should be 50 to 100 feet wide. Treated lanes should be as wide as the buffer strips. (See illustration below) WATER pH Best results are generally obtained if the water to be treated has a pH less than 8. A pH of 8 or higher may reduce weed control. If regrowth occurs within a period of 6 to 8 weeks, a second application may be needed. PERMIT TO USE CHEMICALS IN WATER In many states, permits are required to control weeds by chemical means in public water. If permits are required, they may be obtained from the Chief. Fish Division, State Department of Conservation or the Slate Department of Public Health. GENERAL INFORMATION NAVIGATE" is formulated on special heat treated attaday granules that resist rapid decomposition in water, sink quickly to lake or pond bottoms and release the weed killing chemical in the critical root zone area. This product is designed to selectively control the weeds listed on the label. While certain other weeds may be suppressed, control may be incomplete. Reduced control may occur in lakes where water replacement comes from bottom springs. WHEN TO APPLY For best results, spread NAVIGATE" in the spring and early summer, during the time weeds slart to grow. If desired, this timing can be checked by sampling the lake bottom in areas heavily infested with weeds the year before. If treatments are delayed until weeds form a dense mat or reach the surface, two treatments may be necessal)'. Make the second treatment when weeds show signs of recovel)'. Treatments made after September may be less effective depending upon water temperatures and weed growth. Occasionally, a second application will be necessal)' if heavy regrowth occurs or weeds reinfest from untreated areas. HOW TO APPLY FOR LARGE AREAS: Use a fertilizer spreader or mechanical seeder such as the Gerber or Gandy or other equipment capable of uniformly applying this product. Before spreading any chemical, calibrate your method of application to be sure of spreading the proper amount. When using boats and power equipment, you must determine the proper combination of (1) boat speed (2) rate of delivery from the spreader, and (3) width of swath covered by the granules. FOR SMALL AREAS: (Around Docks or Isolated Patches of Weeds): Use a portable spreader such as the Cyclone seeder or other Bquipment capable of uniformly applying this product. Estimate or measure out the area you want to treat. Weight out the amount of material needed and sprPilc! (his uniformly over the area. More uniform coverage is obtained by dividing the required amount in two and covering the area twice, applying the second half at right angles to the first. Use the following formula to calibrate your sprea~er's delivel)' in pounds of NAVIGATE PER MINUTE: Miles per hour X sDreader width X oounds oar acre = pounds per minute 495 Example: To apply 100 pounds of NAVIGATE per acre using a spreader that covers a 20 foot swath from a.boat traveling at 4 miles per hour, set the spreader to deliver 16 pounds of NAVIGATE granules per minute. 4 mDh x 20 feet x 100 Lbs./A = 16 LbslMin. 495 AMOUNTS TO USE Rates of application val)' with resistance of weed species to the chemical, density of weed mass at time of treatment, stage of growth, water depth, and rate of water flow through the treated area. Use the higher rate for dense weeds, when water is more than. 8 feet deep and where there is a large volume tumover. . NAVIGATE NAVIGATE POUNDS POUNDS PER PER ACRE 2000 SQ. FT. SUSCEPTIBLE WEEDS Water MiWOIl (Myriophyllum spp.) 100 TO 200 5 Water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia) SLIGHTLY TO MODERATELY RESISTANT WeeDS Bladderwort (Utricularia spp.) White water Uly (Nymphaea spp.) YeUow water lily . (Nuphar spp.) 150 to 200 7-1/2 to 10 Or spatterdock" Water shield (Braserlia spp.) Water chestnut (Trapa nalans) Coontail" (Ceratophyflum Demersum) 'Reoeat treatments mav be needed UMITED WARRANTY AND DISCLAIMER The manufacturer warrants lhallt1is material conforms 10 its chemical description and is reasonably fit for the purposes stated on lhe label when used in accordance wi1h directions under normal conditions of use and Buyer assumes all risk of any use conlrary 10 such directions. SELLER MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED AS TO FITNESS OR MERCHANTABILITY, AND NO AGENT OF SELLER IS AUTHORIZED TO DO SO EXCEPT IN WRITING WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THJS WARRANTY. In no event shan lhe Seller's liability for any breach of warranty exceed lhe purchase price of lhe material as to which a claim is made. NAVlGATE01J02 Specimen Label .TMDow AgroSciences .- Rodeo@ Herbicide For aquatic weed and brush control. For control of anf:lual and perennial weeds and woody plants in and around aquatic and other noncrop sites; also for use in wildlife habitat areas, for perennial grass release, and grass growth suppression. Avoid contact of herbicide with foliage, green stems, exposed non-woody roots or fruit of crops, desirable plants and trees, because severe injury or destruction may result. Active Ingredient(s): glyphosatet: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, isopropylamine salt ................................................... 53.8% Inert Ingredients ........................................................................ 46.2% T otallngredients.................. ...................................................... 100.0% t Contains 504 pounds per gallon glyphosate, isopropylamine salt (4 pounds per gallon glyphosate acid). EPA Reg. No. 62719-324 Keep Out of Reach of Children CAUTION PRECAUCION Si usted no entiende la etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se Ia explique a usted en detalle. (If you do not understand the label, find someone to explain it to you in detail.) Precautionary Statements Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals Harmful If Inhaled Avoid breathing spray mist. Remove contaminated clothing and wash before reuse. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Applicators and other handlers must wear: . long-sleeved shirt and long pants . Shoes plus socks. Follow manufacturer's instructions for cleaning/maintaining PPE (Personal Protective Equipment). If no such instructions for washables, use detergent and hot water. Keep and wash PPE separately from other laundry. Engineering Controls When handlers use closed systems, enclosed cabs, or aircraft in a manner that meets the requirements listed in Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides [40 CFR 170.240 (d) (4-6)], the handler PPE requirements may be reduced or modified as specified in the WPS. User Safety Recommendations Users should: . Wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco, or using the toilet . Remove clothing immediately if pesticide gets inside. Then wash thoroughly and put on clean clothing. First Aid If inhaled: Remove individual to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-ta-mouth. Get medical attention. Environmental Hazards Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters. Treatment of aquatic weeds can result in oxygen depletion or loss due to decomposition of dead plants. This oxygen loss can cause fish suffocation. In case of leak or spill, soak up and remove to a landfill. Physical or Chemical Hazards Spray solutions of this product should be mixed, stored and applied using only stainless steel, aluminum, fiberglass, plastic or plastic-lined steel containers. Do not mix, store or apply this product or spray solutions of this product In galvanized steel or unlined steel (except stainless steel) containers or spray tanks. This product or spray solutions of this product react with such containers and tanks to produce hydrogen gas, which may form a highly combustible gas mixture. This gas mixture could flash or explode, causing serious personal injury, if ignited by open flame, spark, welder's torch, lighted cigarette or other ignition source. Notice: Read the entire label. Use only according to label directions. Before buying or using this product, read "Warranty Disclaimer" and "Umltatlon of Remedies" elsewhere on this label. In case of emergency endangering health or the environment involving this product, calI1-8OG-992-5994. If you wish to obtain additional product information, visit our web site at www.dowagro.com. Agricultural Chemical: Do not ship or store with food, feeds, drugs or clothing. Directions for Use It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Read all Directions for Use carefully before applying. This Is an end-use product. Cow AgroSclences does not Intend and has not registered It for reformulation. See Individual container label for repackaging limitations. Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during application. For any requirements SpecifIC to your state or tribe, consult the agency responsible for pesticide regulation. Agricultural Use Requirements Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains requirements tor the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nUlSeries, and greenhouses, and handlelS of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notifICation, and emergency assistance. It also contains specifIC instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE), and restricted entry interval. The requirements in this box only apply to uses of this product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard. Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry interval (REI) of 4 houlS. PPE required for early entry to treated areas that is permitted under the Worker Protection Standard and that involves contact with anything that has been treated, such as plants, soil, or water, is: . Coveralls . Chemical resistant gloves made of any waterproof material . Shoes plus socks Storage and Disposal Do not contaminate water, food, feed or seed by storage or disposal. Storage: Store above 10"F (-12"C) to keep product from crystallizing. Crystals will settle to the bottom. If allowed to crystallize, place in a warm room 6S"F (20"C) for several days to redissolve and roll or shake container or recirculate in mini-bulk containelS to mix well before using. Pesticide Disposal: Wastes resulting from use of this product that cannot be used or chemically reprocessed should be disposed of in a landfill approved for pesticide disposal or in accordance with applicable Federal, state or local procedures. Container Disposal: Emptied container retains vapor and product residue. Observe all labeled safeguards until container is cteaned, reconditioned or destroyed. Do not reuse this container. Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or by incineration, or, if allowed by state and local authorities, by buming. If bumed, stay out of smoke. General Information (How this product works) This product herbicide is a water-soluble liquid which mixes readily with water and nonionic surfactant to be applied as a foliar spray for the control or destruction of many herbaceous and woody plants. Rodeo is intended for control of annual and perennial weeds and woody plants in and around aquatic and other noncrop sites; also for use in wildlife habitat areas, for perennial grass release, and grass growth suppression. The active ingredient in Rodeo.moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact to and into the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within 2 to 4 days, 7 days or 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 advances to complete browning of above- ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. Unless otherwise directed on this label, delay application until vegetation has emerged and reached the stages described for control of such vegetation under the "Weeds Controlled" section of this label. Unemerged plants arising from unattached underground rhizomes or root stocks of perennials or brush will not be affected by the spray and will continue to grow. For this reason best control of most perennial weeds or brush is obtained when treatment is made at late growth stages approaching maturity. Always use the higher rate of Rodeo and surfactant within the recommended range when vegetation is heavy or dense. Do not treat weeds, brush or trees under poor growing conditions such as drought stress, disease or insect damage, as reduced control may result. Reduced control of target vegetation may also occur if foliage is heavily covered with dust at the time of treatment Reduced control may result when applications are made to woody plants or weeds following site disturbance or plant top growth removal from grazing, mowing, logging or mechanical brush control. For best results, delay treatment of such areas until resprouting and foliar growth has restored the target vegetation to the recommended stage of growth for optimum herbicidal exposure and control. Rainfall or irrigation occurring within 6 hoUIS after application may reduce effectiveness. Heavy rainfall or irrigation within 2 hours after application may wash the product off the foliage and a repeat treat",sn' Tal' be required. Rodeo does not provide residual weed control. For subsequent residual weed control, follow a label-approved herbicide program. Read and carefully observe the cautionary statements and all other information appearing on the labels of all herbicides used. NOTE: Use of this product in any manner not consistent with this label may result in injury to persons, animals or crops, or other unintended consequences. When not in use, keep container closed to prevent spills and contamination. Buyer and all users are responsible for all loss or damage in connection with the use or handling of mixtures of this product or other materials that are not expressly recommended in this label. Mixing this product with herbicides or other materials not recommended in this label may result in reduced performance. ATTENTION: Avoid drift. Extreme care must be used when applyIng this product to prevent injury to desirable plants and crops. 2 Specimen label Revised 05-29-02 Do not allow the herbicide solution to mist, drip, drift or splash onto desirable vegetation since minute quantities of this product can cause severe damage or destruction to the crop, plants or other areas on which treatment was not intended. The likelihood of plant or crop injury occurring from the use of this product is greatest when winds are gusty or in excess of 5 miles per hour or when other conditions, including lesser wind velocities, wHI allow spray drift to occur. When spraying, avoid combinations of pressure and nozzle type that will result in splatter or fine particles (mist) which are likely to drift. Avoid applying at excessive speed or pressure. Mixing and Application Instructions Clean sprayer and parts Immediately after using this product by thoroughly flushing wIth water and dispose of rlnsate according to labeled use or disposal Instructions. Apply these spray solutions In properiy maintained and calibrated equipment capable of delivering desired volumes. Hand-gun applications should be properly directed to avoid spraying desirable plants. Note: reduced results may occur If water containing soil Is used, such as water from ponds and unlined ditches. Mixing Rodeo mixes readily with water. Mix spray solutions of this product as follows: 1. Fill the mixing or spray tank with the required amount of water while adding the required amount of this product (see "Directions for Use" and "Weeds Controlled" sections of this label). 2. Near the end of the filling process, add the required surfactant and mix well. Remove hose from tank immediately after filling to avoid siphoning back into the water source. Note: If tank mixing with Garlon. 3A herbicide, ensure that Garlon 3A is well mixed with at least 75 percent of the total spray volume before adding Rodeo to the spray tank to avoid incompatibility. During mixing and application, foaming of the spray solution may occur. To prevent or minimize foam, avoid the use of mechanical agitators, place the filling hose below the surface of the spray solution (only during filling), terminate by-pass and retum lines at the bottom of the tank, and, if needed, use an approved anti-foam or defoaming agent. Keep by-pass line on or near bottom of tank to minimize foaming. Screen size in nozzle or line strainers should be no finer than 50 mesh. Carefully select correct nozzle to avoid spraying a fine mist. For best results with conventional ground application equipment, use flat fan nozzles. Check for even distribution of spray droplets. IMPORTANT: When using this product, unless otherwise specified, mix 2 or more quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution. Use a nonionic surfactant labeled for use with herbicides. The surfactant must contain 50 percent or more active ingredient. Always read and follow the manufacturer's surfactant label recommendations for best results. These surfactants should not be used in excess of 1 quart per acre when making broadcast applications. Carefully observe all cautionary statements and other infonnation appearing in the surfactant label. Colorants or marking dyes approved for use with herbicides may be added to spray mixtures of this product. Colorants or dyes used in spray solutions of this product may reduce perfonnance, especially at lower rates or dilutions. Use colorants or dyes according to the manufacturer's label recommendations. Application Equipment and Techniques ATTENllON: AVOID DRIFT. EXTREME CARE MUST BE EXERCISED WHEN APPLYING THIS PRODUCT TO PREVENT INJURY TO DESIRABLE PlANTS AND CROPS. Do not allow the herbicide solution to mist, drip, drift, or splash onto desirable vegetation since minute quantities of this product can cause severe damage or destruction to crops, plants, or other areas on which the treatment was not intended. The likelihood of plant or crop injury occurring from the use of this product is greatest when winds are gusty or in excess of 5 miles per hour or when other conditions, including lesser wind velocities, will allow spray drift to occur. When spraying, avo~ combinations of pressure and nozzle type that will result in splatter or fine particles (mist) which are likely to drift. AVOID APPLYING AT EXCESSIVE SPEED OR PRESSURE. Note: Use of this product in a manner not consistent with this label may result in injury to persons, animals, or crops, or other unintended consequences. When not in use, keep container closed to prevent spills and contamination. Spray Drift Management Avoiding spray drift at the application site is the responsibility of the applicator. The interaction of many equipment-and-weather-related factors determine the potential for spray drift. The applicator and the grower are responsible for considering all these factors when making decisions. The following drift management requirements must be followed to avoid off-target drift movement from aerial applications to agricultural field crops. These requirements do not apply to forestry applications, public health uses or to applications using dry formulations. 1. The distance of the outer most nozzles on the boom must not exceed 314 the length of the wingspan or rotor. 2. Nozzles must always point backward parallel with the air stream andinever be pointed downwards more than 45 degrees. Where states have more stringent regulations, they should be observed. The applicator should be familiar with and take into account the information covered in the following Aerial Drift Reduction Advisory Information: Importance of Droplet Size: The most effective way to reduce drift potential is to apply large droplets. The best drift management strategy is to apply the largest droplets that provide sufficient coverage and control. Applying larger droplets reduces drift potential, but will not prevent drift if applications are made improperly, or under unfavorable environmental conditions (see Wind, Temperature and Humidity, and Temperature Inversion section of this label). 3 Specimen label Revised 05-29-02 Controlling Droplet Size: Volume-Use high flow rate nozzles to apply the highest practical spray volume. Nozzles with higher rated flows product larger droplets. Pressure-Use the lower spray pressures recommended for the nozzle. Higher pressure reduces droplet size and does not improve canopy penetration. When higher flow rates are needed, use higher flow rate nozzles instead of increasing pressure. Number of nozzles-Use the minimum number of nozzles that provide unifonn coverage. Nozzle Orientation-Orienting nozzles so that the spray is released backwards, parallel to the airstream will produce larger droplets than other orientations. Significant deflection from the horizontal will reduce droplet size and increase drift potential. Nozzle Type-Use a nozzle type that is designed for the intended application. Wrth most nozzle types, narrower spray angles produce larger droplets. Consider using low-drift nozzles. Sond stream nozzles oriented straight back produce larger droplets than other nozzle types. Boom Length-For some use pattems. reducing the effective boom length to less than '% of the wingspan or rotor length may further reduce drift without reducing swath width. Application-Applications should not be made at a height greater than 10 feet above the top of the largest plants unless a greater height is required for aircraft safety. Making applications at the lowest height that is safe reduces exposure of droplets to evaporation and wind. Swath Adjustment: When applications are made with a cross-wind, the swath will be displaced downwind. Therefore, on the up and downwind edges of the field, the applicator must compensate for this displacement by adjusting the path of the aircraft upwind. Swath adjustment distance should increase, with increasing drift potential (higher wind, smaller drops, etc.). Wind: Drift potential is lowest between wind speeds of 2-10 mph. However, many factors, including droplet size and equipment type detennine drift potential at any given speed. Application should be avoided below 2 mph due to variable wind direction and high inversion potential. Note: Local terrain can influence wind pattems. Every applicator should be familiar with local wind patterns and how they affect drift. Temperature and Humidity: When making applications in low relative humidity, set up equipment to produce larger droplets to compensate for evaporation. Droplet evaporation is most severe when conditions are both hot and dry. Temperature Inversions: Applications should not occur during a temperature inversion, because drift potential is high. Temperature inversions restrict vertical air mixing, which causes small suspended droplets to remain in a concentrated cloud. This cloud can move in unpredictable directions due to the light variable winds common during inversions. Temperature inversions are characterized by increasing temperatures with altitude and are common on nights with limited cloud cover and light to no wind. They begin to fonn as the sun sets and often continue into the moming. Their presence can be indicated by ground fog; however, if fog is not present, inversions can also be identified by the movement of smoke from a ground source or an aircraft smoke generator. Smoke that layers and moves laterally in a connected cloud (under low wind conditions) indicates an inversion, while smoke that moves upwards and rapidly dissipates indicates good vertical air mixing. Sensitive Areas: The pesticide should only be applied when the potential for drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g., residential areas, bodies of water, known habitat for threatened or endangered species, non-target crops) is minimal (e.g., when wind is blowing away from the sensitive areas). Aerial Equipment For aerial application of this product In California, refer to Federal supplemental label for Rodeo herbicide entitled "For Aerial Application In California Only". In Califomia, aerial application may be made in aquatic sites and noncrop areas, including aquatic sites present in noncrop areas that are part of the intended treatment For control of weed or brush species listed In this label using aerial application equipment: For aerial broadcast application, unless otherwise specified, apply the rates of Rodeo and surfactant recommended for broadcast application in a spray volume of 3 to 20 gallons of water per acre. See the 'Weeds Controlled" section of this label for labeled annual and herbaceous weeds and woody plants and broadcast rate recommendations. Aerial applications of this product may only be made as specifically recommended in this label. A VOID DRIFT. Do not apply during Inversion conditions, when winds are gusty or under any other condition which will allow drift. Drift may cause damage to any vegetation contacted to which treatment Is not Intended. To prevent Injury to adjacent desirable vegetation, appropriate buffer zones must be maintained. Coarse sprays are less likely to drift; therefore, do not use nozzles or nozzle configurations which dispense spray as fine spray droplets. Do not angle nozzles forward into the airstream and do not increase spray volume by increasing nozzle pressure. Drift control additives may be used. When a drift control additive is used, read and carefully observe the cautionary statements and al/ other infonnation appearing in the additive label. The use of a drift control agent for conifer and herbaceous release applications may result in conifer injury and is not recommended. Ensure uniform application. To avoid streaked, uneven or overlapped application, use appropriate marking devices. Thoroughly wash aircraft, especially landing gear, after each day of spraying to remove residues of this product accumulated during spraying or from spills. Prolonged exposure of this product to uncoated steel surfaces may result In corrosion and possible failure of the part. landing gear are most susceptible. The maintenance of an organic coating (paint) which meets aerospace specifICation MIL -C-38413 may prevent corrosion. 4 Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02 Ground Broadcast Equipment For control of weed or brush species listed In this label using conventional boom equipment: For ground broadcast application, unless otherwise specified, apply the rates of Rodeo and surfactant recommended for broadcast application in a spray volume of 3 to 30 gallons of water per acre. See the 'Weeds Controlled" section of this label for labeled annual and herbaceous weeds and woody plants and broadcast rate recommendations. As density of vegetation increases, spray volume should be increased within the recommended range to ensure complete coverage. Carefully select correct nozzle to avoid spraying a fine mist For best results with ground application equipment, use flat fan nozzles. Check for even distribution of spray droplets. Hand-Held and High-Volume Equipment (Use Coarse Sprays Only) For control of weeds listed In this label using knapsack sprayers or high-volume spraying equipment utilizing handguns or other suitable nozzle arrangements: High volume sprays: Prepare a 314 to 2 percent solution of this product in water, add a nonionic surfactant and apply to foliage of vegetation to be controlled. For specific rates of application and instructions for control of various annual and perennial weeds, see the 'Weeds Controlled" section in this label. Applications should be made on a spray-to-wet basis. Spray coverage should be uniform and complete. Do not spray to point of runoff. Low volume directed sprays: Rodeo may be used as a 5 to 8 percent solution in low-volume directed sprays for spot treatment of trees and brush. This treatment method is most effective in areas where there is a low density of undesirable trees or brush. If a straight stream nozzle is used, start the application at the top of the targeted vegetation and spray from top to bottom in a lateral zig-zagmotion. Ensure that at least 50 percent of the leaves are contacted by the spray solution. For flat fan and cone nozzles and with hand-directed mist blowers, mist the application over the foliage of the targeted vegetation. Small, open- branched trees need only be treated from one side. If the foliage is thick or there are multiple root sprouts, applications must be made from several sides to ensure adequate spray coverage. Prepare the desired volume of spray solution by mixing the amount of this product in water, shown in the following table: Spray Solution Desired Amount of Rodeo Volume 314% 1% 1 1/4% 1 1/2% 2% 5% 8% 1 gal 1 1 1/3 12/3 2 22/3 61/2 10 1/4 ft oz f10z fI oz ftoz f10z ft oz ftoz 25 gal 1 1/2 1 qt 1 1/4 qt 1 1/2 qt 2qt 5qt 2 gal pt 100 gal 3 qt 1 gal 11/4 11/2 2 gal 5 gal 8 gal gal gal 2 tablespoons = 1 fluid ounce For use in knapsack sprayers, it is suggested that the recommended amount of this product be mixed with water in a targer container. Fill the knapsack sprayer with the mixed solution and add the correct amount of surfactant. Wiper Applications For wick or wiper applications, mix 1 gallon of this product with 2 gallons of clean water to make a 33 percent solution. Addition of a nonionic surfactant at a rate of 10 percent by volume of total herbicide solution is recommended. Wiper applications can be used to control or suppress annual and perennial weeds listed on this label. In heavy weed stands, a double application in opposite directions may improve results. See the 'Weed Controlled" section in this label for recommended timing, growth stage and other instructions for achieving optimum results Aquatic and Other Noncrop Sites Apply Rodeo as directed and under conditions described 10 control or partially control weeds and woody ptants listed in the 'Weeds Controlled" section in industrial, recreational and public areas or other similar aquatic or terrestrial sites on this label. Aquatic Sites Rodeo may be applied to emerged weeds In all bodies of fresh and brackish water which may be flowing, nonflowlng or transient. This Includes lakes, rivers, streams, ponds, estuaries, rice levees, seeps, Irrigation and drainage ditches, canals, reservoirs, wastewater treatment facilities, wildlife habitat restoration and management areas, and similar sites. If aquatic sites are present In the noncrop area and are part of the Intended treatment, read and observe the following directions: . Rodeo does not control plants which are completely submerged or have a majority of their foliage under water. · There is no restriction on the use of treated water for irrigation, recreation or domestic purposes. . Consult local state fish and game agency and water control authorities before applying this product to public water. Permits may be required to treat such water. 5 Specimen label Revised 05-29-02 . NOTE: Do not apply this product directly to water within 1/2 mile up- stream of an active potable water intake in flowing water (i.e., river, stream, etc.) or within 1/2 mile of an active potable water intake in a standing body of water such as lake, pond or reservoir. To make aquatic applications around and within 1/2 mile of active potable water intakes, the water intake must be turned off for a minimum period of 48 hours after the application. The water intake may be turned on prior to 48 hours if the glyphosate level in the intake water is below 0.7 parts per miUion as detennined by laboratory analysis. These aquatic applications may be made only in those cases where there are alternative water sources or holding ponds which would pennit the turning off of an active potable water intake for a minimum period of 48 hours after the applications. This restriction does not apply to intermittent inadvertent overspray of water in terrestrial use sites. . For treatments after drawdown of water or in dry ditches, allow 7 or more days after treatment before reintroduction of water to achieve maximum weed control. Apply this product within 1 day after drawdown to ensure application to actively growing weeds. . Floating mats of vegetation may require retreatment. Avoid wash-off of sprayed foliage by spray boat or recreational boat backwash or by rainfall within 6 hours of application. Do not re-treat within 24 hours following the initial treatment. · Applications made to moving bodies of water must be made while traveling upstream to prevent concentration of this herbicide in water. When making any bankside applications, do not overlap more than 1 foot into open water. Do not spray in bodies of water where weeds do not exist. The maximum application rate of 7 1/2 pints per acre must not be exceeded in any single broadcast application that is being made over water. . When emerged infestations require treatment of the total surface area of impounded water, treating the area in strips may avoid oxygen depletion due to decaying vegetation. Oxygen depletion may result in fish kill. Other Noncrop Sites Rodeo may be used to control the listed weeds In the following terrestrial noncrop sites and/or In aquatic sites within these areas: Habitat Restoration & Management Areas Highways & Roadsides Industrial Plant Sites Petroleum Tank Fanns Pipeline, Power, Telephone & Utility Rights-of-Way Pumping Installations Railroads Similar Sites Cut Stump Application Woody vegetation may be controlled by treating freshly cut stumps of trees and resprouts with this product. Apply this product using suitable equipment to ensure coverage of the entire cambium. Cut vegetation close to the son surface. Apply a 50 to 100 percent solution of this product to freshly cut surface Immediately after cutting. Delay in applying this product may result in reduced perfonnance. For best results, trees should be cut during periods of active growth and full leaf expansion. When used according to directions for cut stump application, this product will control, partially control or suppress most woody brush and tree species, some of which are listed below: Common Name Alder Coyote brush' Dogwood' Eucalyptus Hickory , Madrone Maple' Oak Poplar' Reed, giant Salt cedar Sweet gum' Sycamore t Tan oak Willow Sclentlfic Name Alnus spp. Baccharis consanguinea Comus spp. Eucalyptus spp. Carya spp. Arbutus menziesii Acer spp. Quercus spp. Populus spp. Arundo donax Tamarix spp. Liquidambar styraciflua Platanus occidentalis Uthocarpus densiflorus Salix spp. t Rodeo is not approved for this use on these species in the state of Califomia. . Wildlife Habitat Restoration and Management Areas Rodeo is recommended for the restoration and/or maintenance of native habitat and in wildlife management areas. Habitat Restoration and Maintenance: When applied as directed, exotic and other undesirable vegetation may be controlled in habitat management areas. Applications may be made to allow recovery of native plant species, to open up water to attract waterfowl, and for similar broad-spectrum vegetation control requirements in habitat management areas. Spot treatments may be made to selectively remove unwanted plants for habitat enhancement. For spot treatments, care should be exercised to keep spray off of desirable plants. Wildlife Food Plots: Rodeo may be used as a site preparation treatment prior to planting wildlife food plots. Apply as directed to control vegetation in the plot area. Any wildlife food species may be planted after applying this product, or native species may be allowed to reinfest the area If tillage is needed to prepare a seedbed, wait 7 days after applying this product before tining to allow for maximum effectiveness. Injection and Frill Applications Woody vegetation may be controlled by injection or frill application of this product. Apply this product using suitable equipment which must penetrate into living tissue. Apply the equivalent of 1 ml of this product per 2 to 3 inches of trunk diameter. This is best achieved by applying 25 to 100 percent concentration of this product either to a continuous frill around the tree or as cuts evenly spaced around the tree below all branches. As tree diameter increases in size, better results are I;Ichieved by applying dilute material to a continuous frill or more closely spaced cuttings. Avoid application techniques that allow runoff to occur from frin or cut areas in species that exude sap freely after frills or cutting. In species such as these, make frin or cut at an oblique angle so as to produce a cupping effect and use undiluted material. For best resuhs, applications should be made during periods of active growth and full leaf expansion. 6 Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02 This treatment will control the following woody species: Common Name Oak Poplar Sweet gum Sycamore Scientific Name Quercus spp. Populus spp. Uquidambar styraciflua Platanus occidentalis This treatment will suppress the following woody species: Common Name Black gum t Dogwood Hickory Maple, red Scientific Name Nyssa sylvatica Camus spp. Carya spp. Acer rubrum t Rodeo is not approved for this use on this species in the state of California. Release of Bermudagrass or Bahiagrass on Noncrop Sites Release Of Dormant Bermudagrass and Bahiagrass When applied as directed, this product will provide control or suppression of many winter annual weeds and tall fescue for effective release of dormant bermudagrass or bahiagrass. Make applications to dormant bermudagrass or bahiagrass. For best results on winter annuals, treat when weeds are in an early growth stage (below 6 inches in height) after most have germinated. For best results on tan fescue, treat when fescue is in or beyond the 4 to 6-leaf stage. Weeds Controlled Rate recommendations for control or suppression of winter annuals and tall fescue are listed below. Apply the recommended rates of this product in 10 to 25 gallons of water per acre plus 2 quarts nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of total spray volume. Weeds Controlled or Suppressed t Note: C = Controlled; S = Suppressed Rate of Rodeo (Fluid Ounces Per Acre) Weed Species 6 9 12 18 24 48 Barley, little S C C C C C Hordeum Dusil/um Bedstraw, catchweed S C C C C C Galium aoarine Bluegrass, annual S C C C C C Poa annua Chervil S C C C C C Chaerophvllum tainturieri Chickweed, common S C C C C Slel/aria media Clover, crimson . S S C C C Trifolium incamatum Clover, large hop . S S C C C Trifolium camoestre Speedwell, com S C C C C C Veronica atvensis Fescue, tall . . . . . S S Festuca arundinacea Geranium, Carolina . . S S C C Geranium carolinianum Henblt . S C C C C Lamium amplexicau/e Ryegrass, Italian . . S C C C Lolium multiflorum Vetch, common . . S C C " I '-' Vicia sativa -----..J t These rates apply only to siles where an established competitive turf is present. Release of Actively Growing Bermudagrass NOTE: Use only on sites where bahlagrass or bennudagrass are desired for ground cover and some temporary injury or yellowing of the grasses can be tolerated. When applied as directed, this product will aid in the release of bermudagrass by providing control of annual species listed in the "Weeds Controlled" section in this label, and suppression or partial control of certain perennial weeds. For control or suppression of those annual species listed in this label, use 3/4 to 2 1/4 pints of this product as a broadcast spray in 10 to 25 gaUons of spray solution per acre, plus 2 quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of total spray volume. Use the lower rate when treating annual weeds below 6 inches in height (or length of runner in annual vines). Use the higher rate as size of plants increases or as they approach nower or seedhead formation. 7 Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02 Use the higher rate for partial control or longer-term suppression of the following perennial species. Use lower rates for shorter-term suppression of growth. Bahiagrass Dallisgrass Fescue (tall) Johnsongrass t Trumpetcreeper tt Vaseygrass t Johnsongrass is controlled at the higher rate. tt Suppression at the higher rate only. Use only on well-established bennudagrass. Bennudagrass injury may result from the treatment but regrowth will occur under moist conditions. Repeat applications in the same season are not recommended, since severe injury may result. Bahiagrass Seedhead and Vegetative Suppression When apptied as directed in the "Noncrop Sites. section in this label, this product will provide significant inhibition of seedhead emergence and will suppress vegetative growth for a period of approximately 45 days with single applications and approximately 120 days with sequential applications. Apply this product 1 to 2 weeks after full green-up of bahiagrass or after the bahiagrass has been mowed to a uniform height of 3 to 4 inches. Applications must be made prior to seedhead emergence. Apply 5 fluid ounces per acre of this product, plus 2 quarts of an approved nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of total spray volume in 10 to 25 gallons of water per acre. Sequential applications of this product plus nanionic surfactant may be made at approximately 45-day intervals to extend the period of seedhead and vegetative growth suppression. For continued vegetative growth suppression, sequential applications must be made prior to seedhead emergence. Apply no more than 2 sequential applications per year. As a first sequential application, apply 3 fluid ounces of this product per acre plus nonionic surfactant. A second sequential application of 2 to 3 fluid ounces per acre plus nonionic surfactant may be made approximately 45 days after the last apptication. Annual Grass Growth Suppression For growth suppression of some annual grasses, such as annual ryegrass, wild barley and wild oats growing in coarse turf on roadsides or other industrial areas, apply 3to 4 ounces of this product in 10 to 40 gallons of spray solution per acre. Mix 2 quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution. Applications should be made when annual grasses are actively growing and before the seedheads are in the boot stage of development. Treatments made after seedhead emergence may cause injury to the desired grasses. Weeds Controlled Annual Weeds Apply to actively growing annual grasses and broad/eaf weeds. Allow at least 3 days after application before disturbing treated vegetation. After this period the weeds may be mowed, tilled or burned. See "Directions for Use: "Generallnlormation" and "Mixing and Application Instructions" for labeled uses and specific application instructions. Broadcast Application Rates: Use 1 1/2 pints of this product per acre plus 2 or more quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution if weeds are less than 6 inches tall. If weeds are greater than 6 inches tall, use 2 1/2 pints of this product per acre plus 2 or more quarts of an approved nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution. Hand-Held~High-Volume Application Rates: Usea.31~ percent solution of this product in water plus 2 or more quarts of a nornoOlC surfactant per . 100 gallons of spray solution and apply to foliage of vegetation to be controlled. When applied as directed, Rodeo plus nonionic surfactant will control the following annual weeds: Common Name Balsamapple t Barley Bamyardgrass Bassia, fivehook Bluegrass, annual Bluegrass, bulbous Brome Buttercup Cheat Chickweed, mouseear Cocklebur Com, volunteer Crabgrass Dwarfdandelion Falseflax, smallseed Fiddleneck Flaxleaf fleabane Fleabane Foxtail Foxtail, Carolina Groundsel, common HorseweedlMarestail Kochia Lambsquarters, common lettuce, prickly Momingglory Mustard, blue Mustard, tansy Mustard, tumble Mustard, wild Oats, wild Panicum Pennycress, field Pigweed, redroot Pigweed, smooth Ragweed, common Ragweed, giant Rocket, london Rye Ryegrass. Italian tt Sandbur, field Shattercane Shepherd's-purse Signalgrass, broadleaf Smartweed, Pennsylvania Sowthistle, annual 8 Scientific Name Momordica charantia Hordeum vulgare Echinochloa cros-galli Bassia hyssopifolia Poa annua Poa bulbosa Bromus spp. Ranunculus spp. Bromus secalinus Cerastium vulgatum Xanthium stromarium Zea mays Digitaria spp. Krigia cespitosa Camelina microcarpa Amsinckia spp. Conyza bonariensis Erigeron spp. Setaria spp. Alopecuros carolinianus Senecio vulgaris Conyza canadensis Kochia scoparia Chenopodium album Lactuca serriola Ipomoea spp. Chorispora tenella Descurainia pinnata Sisymbrium altissimum Sinapis arvensis Avena fatua Panicum spp. Thlaspi arvense Amaranthus retronexus Amaranthus hybridus Ambrosia artemisiifolia Ambrosia trifida Sisymbrium irio Secale cereale LoIium multiflorum Cenchros spp. Sorghum bicoIor Capsella bursa-pastoris Brachiaria platyphylla Polygonum pensyivanicum Sonchus oleraceus Specimen label Revised 05-29-02 Spanishneedles tt Stinkgrass Sunflower Thistle, Russian Spurry, umbrella Velvetleaf Wheat Witchgrass Bidens bipinnata Eragrostis cilianensis Helianthus annuus Salsola /cali Holosteum umbel/atum Abutilon theophrasti Triticum aestivum Panicum capillare 'Apply with hand-held equipment only. tt Apply 3 pints of this product per acre. Annual weeds will generally continue to germinate from seed throughout the growing season. Repeat treatments will be necessary to control later germinating weeds. Perennial Weeds Apply Rodeo to control most vigorously growing perennial weeds. Unless otherwise directed, apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached early head or early bud stage of growth. Unless otherwise directed, allow at least 7 days after application before disturbing vegetation. NOTE: If weeds have been mowed or tilled, do not treat until regrowth has reached the recommended stages. Fall treatments must be applied before a killing frost. Repeat treatments may be necessary to control weeds regenerating from underground parts or seed. Specific Weed Control Recommendations: For perennial weeds, apply the recommended rate plus 2 or more quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution. See the "General Information", "Directions for Use" and "Mixing and Application" sections in this label for specific uses and application instructions. When applied as directed, Rodeo plus nonionic surfactant will control the following perennial weeds: (Numbers in parentheses "(-j" following common name of a listed weed species refer to "Specific Perennial Weed Control Recommendations" for that weed which follow the species listing.) Common Name Alfalfa (31) Alligalorweed '(1) AniseIFennel (31) Artichoke, Jerusalem (31) Bahiagrass (31) Bermudagrass (2) Bindweed, field (3) Bluegrass, Kentucky (12) Blueweed, Texas (3) Brackenfem (4) Bromegrass, smooth (12) Canarygrass, reed (12) Cattail (5) Scientific Name Medicago sativa Altemanthera philoxeroides Foeniculum vulgare Helianthus tuberosus Paspalum notatum Cynodon dactylon Convolvulus arvensis Poa pratensis Helianthus ciliaris Pteridium spp. Bromus inermis Phalaris arundinacea Typha spp. Clover, red (31) Clover, white (31) Cogongrass (6) Cordgrass (7) Cutgrass, giant' (8) Dallisgrass (31 ) Dandelion (31) Dock, curly (31) Dogbane, hemp (9) Fescue (31) Fescue, tall (10) Guineagrass (11) Hemlock, poison (31) Horsenettle (31) Horseradish (9) Ice Plant (22) Johnsongrass (12) Kikuyugrass (21) Knapweed (9) Lantana (13) Lespedeza, common (31) Lespedeza, sericea (31) Loosestrife, purple (14) Lotus, American (15) Maidencane (16) Milkweed (17) Muhly, wirestem (21 ) Mullein, common (31) Napiergrass (31) Nightshade, silverleaf (3) Nutsedge, purple (18) Nutsedge, yellow (18) Orchardgrass (12) Pampasgrass (19) paragrass (16) Phragmitestt (20) Quackgrass (21) Reed, giant (22) Ryegrass, perennial (12) Smartweed, swamp (31) Spatterdock (23) Starthistle, yellow (31) Sweet potato, wild '(24) Thistle, artichoke (25) Thistle, Canada (25) Timothy (12) Torpedograss '(26) Tules, common (27) Vaseygrass (31) Velvetgrass (31) Watemyacinth (28) Waterlettuce (29) Waterprimrose (30) Wheatgrass, western (12) Trifolium pratense Trifolium repens Imperata clylindrica Spartina spp. Zizaniopsis miliacea Paspafum dilatatum Taraxacum officinale Rumex crispus Apocynum cannabinum Festuca spp. Festuca arundinacea Panicum maximum Conium macufatum Solanum carolinense Armoracia rusticana Mesembryanthemum crystallinum Sorghum ha/epense Pennisetum c/andestinum Centaurea repens Lantana camara Lespedeza striata Lespedeza cuneata Lylhrum sa/iearia Nelumbo lutea Panicum hematomon Asclepias spp. Muhlenbergia frondosa Verbascum thapsus Pennisetum purpureum Solanum elaeagnifolium Cyperus rotundus Cyperus escufentus Dactylis glomerata Cortaderia jubata Brachiaria mutica Phragmites spp. Agropyron repens Arundo donax Lolium perenne Polygonum coccineum Nuphar luteum Centaurea solstitial is Ipomoea pandurata Cynara cardunculus Cirsium arvense Phleum pratense Panicum repens Scirpus aculus Paspafum urvillei Holcus spp. Eichomia crassipes Pistia stratiotes Ludwigia spp. Agropyron smithii 'Partial control. ttpartial control in southeastern states. See "Specific Weed Control Recommendations" below. 9 Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02 Specific Perennial Weed Control Recommendations: 1. AlIIgatorweed: Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment to provide partial control of alligatorweed. Apply when most of the target plants are in bloom. Repeat applications will be required to maintain such control. 2. Bermudagrass: Apply 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 11/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and when seedheads appear. 3. Bindweed, field I Sllverleaf Nightshade I Texas Blueweed: Apply 6 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray west of the Mississippi River and 41/2 to 6 pints of this product per acre east of the Mississippi River. With hand-held equipment, use a 1 1/2 percent solution. Apply when target plants are actively growing and are at or beyond full bloom. For silverleat nightshade, best results can be obtained when application is made atter berries are formed. Do not treat when weeds are under drought stress. New leaf development indicates active growth. For best results apply in late summer or fall. 4. Brackenfern: Apply 4 1/2 to 6 pints of this product per acre as a . broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply to fully expanded fronds which are at least 18 inches long. 5. Cattail: Apply 4 1/2 to 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and are at or beyond the early-to-full bloom stage of growth. Best results are achieved when application is made during the summer or fall months. 6. Cogongrass: Apply 4 1/2 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray. Apply when cogongrass is at least 18 inches tall and actively growing in late summer or fall. Allow 7 or more days atter application before tillage or mowing. . Due to uneven stages ot growth and the dense nature ot vegetation preventing good spray coverage, repeat treatments may be necessary to maintain control. 7. Cordgrass: Apply 4 1/2 to 71/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 to 2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Schedule applications in Older to allow 6 hours before treated plants are covered by tidewater. The presence of debris and silt on the cordgrass plants will reduce perfonnance. It may be necessary to wash targeted plants prior to application to improve uptake of this product into the plant. 8. Cutgrass, giant: Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 percent solution with hand-held equipment to provide partial control of giant cutgrass. Repeat applications will be required to maintain such control, especially where vegetation is partially submerged in water. Allow for substantial regrowth to the 7 to lQ-leaf stage prior to relreatment. 9. Dogbane, hemp I Knapweed I Horseradish: Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment: Apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached .the late bud-to-flower stage of growth. For best results, apply in late summer or fall. 10. Fescue, tall: Apply 41/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached the boot-to-head stage of growth. When applied prior to the boot stage, less desirable control may be obtained. 11. Gulneagrass: Apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and when most have reached at least the 7-leaf stage of growth. 12. Johnsongrass 1 Bluegrass, Kentucky I Bromegrass, smooth I Canarygrass, reed I Orchardgrass 1 Ryegrass, perennial 1 Timothy I Wheatgrass, western: Apply 3 to 4112 pints 01 this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached the boot-to-head stage 01 growth. When applied prior to the boot stage, less desirable control may be obtained. In the fall, apply before plants have turned brown. 13. Lantana: Apply this product as a 3/4 to 1 percent solution with hand- held equipment. Apply to actively growing lantana at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. Use the higher application rate for plants that have reached the woody stage of growth. 14. Loosestrife, purple: Apply 4 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 to 1 1/2 percent solution using hand-held equipment. Treat when plants are actively growing at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. Best results are achieved when application is made during summer or fall months. Fall treatments must be applied before a killing frost 15. Lotus, American: Apply 4 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment Treat when plants are actively growing at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. Best results are achieved when application is made during summer or fall months. Falltreatments must be applied before a killing frost. Repeat treatment may be necessary to control regrowth Irom underground parts and seeds. 16. Maldencane I Paragrass: Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment Repeat treatments will be required, especially to vegetation partially submerged in water. Under these conditions, allow for regrowth to the 7 to 1 Q-leaf stage prior to retreatment. 17. Milkweed, common: Apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-he'd equipment Apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached the late bud-ta-f1ower stage ot growth. .18. Nutsedge: purple, yellow: Apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray, or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment to control existing nutsedge plants and immature m:tk.l'o attached to treated plants. Apply when target plants are in flower or when new nutlets can be found at rhizome tips. NuUets which have not germinated will not be controlled and may germinate following treatment. Repeat treatments will be required lor long-term control. 19. Pampasgrass: Apply a 1 1/2 percent solution of this product with hand-held equipment when plants are actively growing. 20. Phragmltes: For partial control of phragmites in Aorida and the counties of other states bordering the Gulf of Mexico, apply 7 1/2 pints per acre as a broadcast spray or apply a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. In other areas ot the U.S., apply 4 to 6 pints per acre as a broadcast spray or apply a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment for partial control. For best resuhs, treat during late summer of fall months when plants are actively growing and in full bloom. Due to the dense nature of the vegetation, which may prevent good spray coverage and uneven stages of growth, repeat treatments may be necessary-to maintain control. Visual control symptoms will be slow to develop. 21. Quackgrass I Kikuyugrass I Muhly, wirestern: Apply 3 to 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment when most quackgrass or wirestem muhly is at least 8 inches in height (3 to 4-leaf stage of growth) and actively growing. Allow 3 or more days atter application before tillage. 22. Reed, giant I ice plant: For control of giant reed and ice plant, apply a 1 1/2 percent solution of this product with hand-held equipment when plants are actively growing. For giant reed, best results are obtained when applications are made in late summer to fall. 10 Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02 23. Spatterdock: Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when most plants are in full bloom. For best results. apply during the summer or fall months. 24. Sweet potato, wild: Apply this product as a 1 1/2 percent solution using hand-held equipment. Apply to actively growing weeds that are at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. Repeat applications will be required. Allow the plant to reach the recommended stage of growth before retreatment. 25. Thistle, Canada I artichoke: Apply 3 to 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment for Canada thistle. To control artichoke thistle, apply a 2 percent solution as a spray-to-wet application. Apply when target plants are actively growing and are at or beyond the bud stage of growth. 26. Torpedograss: Apply 6 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment to provide partial control of torpeclograss. Use the lower rates under teri"estrial conditions, and the higher rates under partially submerged or a floating mat condition. Repeat treatments will be required to maintain such control. 27. Tules, common: Apply this product as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply to actively growing plants at or beyond the seedhead stage of growth. After application, visual symptoms will be slow to appear and may not occur for 3 or more weeks. 28. Waterhyaclnth: Apply 5 to 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or apply a 314 to 1 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and at or beyond the early bloom stage of growth. After application, visual symptoms may require 3 or more weeks to appear with complete necrosis and decomposition usually occurring within 60 to 90 days. Use the higher rates when more rapid visual effects are desired. 29. Waterlettuce: For control, apply a 314 to 1 percent solution of this product with hand-held equipment to actively growing plants. Use higher rates where infestations are heavy. Best results are obtained from mid-summer through winter applications. Spring applications may require retreatment. 30. Waterprlmrose: Apply this product as a 3/4 percent solution using hand-held equipment. Apply to plants that are actively growing at or beyond the bloom stage of growth, but before fall color changes occur. Thorough coverage is necessary for best control. 31. Other perennial weeds listed above: Apply 41/2 to 71/2 pints of Rodeo per acre as a broadcast spray or apply as a 314 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Woody Brush and Trees NOTE: If brush has been mowed or tilled or trees have been cuI, do not treat until regrowth has reached the recommended stage of growth. Application Rates and Timing When applied as a 5 to 8 percent solution as a directed application as described in the "Hand-Held and High-Volume Equipment" section, this product will control or partially control all wood brush and tree species listed in this section of this label. Use the higher rate of application for dense stands and larger woody brush and trees. Specific Brush or Tree Control Recommendations: Numbers in parentheses "(-)" following the common name of a listed brush or tree species refer to .Specific Brush or Tree Control Recommendations" which follow the species listing. See this section for specific application rates and timing for listed species. For woody brush and trees, apply the recommended rate plus 2 or more quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution when plants are actively growing and, unless otherwise directed, after full-leaf expansion. Use the higher rate for larger plants and/or dense areas of growth. On vines, use the higher rate for plants that have reached the woody stage of growth. Best results are obtained when application is made in late summer or fall after fruit formation. In arid areas, best results are obtained when application is made in the spring or early summer when brush species are at high moisture content and are flowering. Ensure thorough coverage when using hand-held equipment Symptoms may not appear prior to frost or senescence with fall treatments. Allow 7 or more days after application before tillage, mowing or removal. Repeat treatments may be necessary to control plants regenerating from underground parts or seed. Some autumn colors on undesirable deciduous species are acceptable provided no major leaf drop has occurred. Reduced perfonnance may result if fall treatments are made following a frost. See the .Directions for Use" and "Mixing and Application Instructions" sections in this label for labeled use and specific application instructions. When applied as directed, Rodeo plus nonlonic surfactant will control the following woody brush plants and trees: (Numbers in parentheses .(-)" following common name of a listed brush or tree species refer to .Specific Brush or Tree Control Recommendations. for that species which follow the species listing.) Common Name Alder (1) Ash t (20) Aspen, quaking (2) Bearclover, Beannat (20) Birch (3) Blackberry (1) Broom, French (4) Broom, Scotch (4) Buckwheat, California t (5) Cascara t (20) Catsclaw t(6) Ceanothus (20) Chamise (17) Cherry, bitter (7) Cherry, black (7) Cherry, pin (7) Coyote brush (8) Creeper, Virginia t (20) Dewberry (1) Dogwood (9) 8derberry (3) Elm t (20) Eucalyptus, bluegum (10) Hasardia t (5) Hawthorn (2) Hazel (3) Hickory (9) Holly, Rorida (11) (Brazilian peppertree) Honeysuckle (1) Hombeam, American (20) Kudzu (12) Locust, black t (20) Manzanita (20) 11 Scientific Name Alnus spp. Fraxinus spp. Populus tremuloides Chamaebatia foliolosa Betula spp. Rubus spp. Cytisus monspess:;/anc IS Cytisus scoparius Eriogonum fasciculatum Rhamnus purshiana Acacia greggi Ceanothus spp. Adenostoma fascicuJatum Prunus emarginata Prunus serotina Prunus pensytvanica Baccharis consanguinea Parthenocissus quinquefolia Rubus trivialis Comus spp. Sambucus spp. Ulmus spp. Eucalyptus globulus Haplopappus squamosus Crataegus spp. Cory/us spp. Cal}'a spp. Schinus terebinthifo/ius Lonicera spp. Carpinus caroliniana Pueraria lobata Robinia pseudoacacia Arctostaphylos spp. Specimen label Revised 05-29-02 Maple, red '(13) Maple, sugar (14) Maple, vine' (20) Monkey flower '(5) Oak, black' (20) Oak, northern pin (14) Oak, post (1) Oak, red (14) Oak, southern red (7) Oak, white t (20) Persimmon t (20) Poison-ivy (15) Poison-oak (15) Poplar, yellow t (20) Prunus (7) Raspberry (1) Redbud, eastern (20) Rose, multiflora (16) Russian-olive (20) Sage: black (17), white Sagebrush, California (17) Salmonbeny (3) Salt cedar t (9) Saltbush, sea myrtle (18) Sassafras (20) Sourwood t (20) Sumac, poison t (20) Sumac, smooth' (20) Sumac, winged t (20) Sweetgum (7) Swordfem t (20) Tallowtree, Chinese (17) Thimblebeny (3) Tobacco, tree t (5) Trumpetcreeper (2) Waxmyrtle, southern' (11) Willow (19) Acer rubrum Acer saccharum Acer cireinatum Mimulus guUatus Quercus velutina Quercus palustris Quercus stellata Quercus rubra Quercus falcata Quercus alba Diospyros spp. Rhus radicans Rhus toxicodendron Liriodendron tulipifera Prunus spp. Rubus spp. Gereis canadensis Rosa multiflora Elaeagnus angustifolia SaMa spp. Artemisia caJifomica Rubus spectabilis Tamarix spp. Baccharis halimifo/ia Sassafras aibidum Oxydendrum arboreum Rhus vemix Rhus glabra Rhus copal/ina Liquidambar styraciffua Po/ystichum munitum Sapium sebiferum Rubus parvifforus Nicotiana glauca Campsis radicans Myrica cerifera Salix spp. t Partial control (See below for control or partial control instructions.) Specific Brush or Tree Control Recommendations: 1. Alder I Blackberry / Dewberry I Honeysuckle' Oak, Post I Raspberry: For control, apply 4 1/2 to 6 pints per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 314 to 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. 2. Aspen, Quaking' Hawthorn I Trumpetcreeper: For control, apply 3 to 4 1/4 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 314 to 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. 3. Birch I Elderberry' Hazell Salmonberry' Thimbleberry: For control, apply 3 pints per acre of this product as a broadcast spray or as a 314 percent solution with hand-held equipment. 4. Broom, French' Broom, Scotch: For control, apply a 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. 5. Buckwheat, California' Hasardia' Monkey flower' Tobacco, tree: For partial control of these species, apply a 314 to 1 1/2 percent solution of this product as a foliar spray with hand-held equipment. Thorough coverage of foliage is necessary for best results. 6. Catsclaw: For partial control, apply a 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment when at least 50 percent of the new leaves are fully developed. 7. Cherry, bitter / Cherry, black' Cherry, pin /Oak, southern red, Sweetgum I Prunus: For control, apply 3 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. 8. Coyote brush: For control. apply a 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment when at least 50 percent of the new leaves are fully developed. 9. Dogwood' Hickory' Salt cedar: For partial control, apply a 1 to 2 percent solution of this product with hand-held equipment or 6 to 7 1/2 pints per acre as a broadcast spray. 10. Eucalyptus, b1uegum: For control of eucalyptus resprouts, apply a 1 1/2 percent solution of this product with hand-held equipment when resprouts are 6 to 12.feet tall. Ensure complete coverage. Apply when plants are actively growing. Avoid application to drought- stressed plants. 11. Holly, Aorlda I Waxmyrtle, southern: For partial control, apply this product as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. 12. Kudzu: For control, apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Repeat applications will be required to maintain control. 13. Maple, red: For control, apply as a 3/4 to 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment when leaves are fuUy developed. For partial control, apply 2 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray. 14. Maple, sugar I Oak: northern pin' Oak, red: For control. apply as a 314 to 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment when at least 50 percent of the new leaves are fully developed. 15. Poison-lvy' Polson-oak: For control, apply 6 to 71/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Repeat applications may be required to maintain control. Fall treatments must be applied before leaves lose green color. 16. Rose, multiflora: For control, apply 3 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Treatments should be made prior to leaf deterioration by leaf-feeding insects. 17. Sage, black' Sagebrush, California I Chamlse , Tal!owtroc Chinese: For control of these species, apply a 314 percent solution of this product as a foliar spray with hand-held equipment. Thorough coverage of foliage is necessary for best results. 18. Saltbush, sea myrtle: For control, apply this product as a 1 percent solution with hand-held equipment. 19. Willow: For control, apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 314 percent solution with hand-held equipment. 20. Other wOody brush and trees listed above: For PCirtial control, apply 3 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 314 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. 12 Sped men Label Revised 05-29-02 Warranty Disclaimer Dow AgroSciences warrants that this product conforms to the chemical description on the label and is reasonably fit for the purposes stated on the label when used in strict accordance with the directions, subject to the inherent risks set forth below. Dow AgroSciences MAKES NO OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR ANY OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. Inherent Risks of Use It is impossible to eliminate all risks associated with use of this product. Crop injury, lack of performance, or other unintended consequences may result because of such factors as use of the product contrary to label instructions (including conditions noted on the label, such as unfavorable temperatures, soil conditions, etc.), abnormal conditions (such as excessive rainfall, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes), presence of other materials, the manner of application, or other factors, all of which are beyond the control of Dow AgroSciences or the seller. All such risks shall be assumed by buyer. Limitation of Remedies The exclusive remedy for losses or damages resulting from this product (including claims based on contract, negfigence, strict liability, or other legal theories), shall be limited to, at Dow AgroSciences' election, one of the following: (1) Refund of purchase price paid by buyer or user for product bought, or (2) Replacement of amount of product used. Dow AgroSciences shall not be liable for losses or damages resulting from handling or use of this product unless Dow AgroSciences is promptly notified of such loss or damage in writing. In no case shall Dow AgroSciences be liable for consequential or incidental damages or losses. The terms of the Warranty Disclaimer above and this Umitation of Remedies cannot be varied by any wrillen or verbal statements or agreements. No employee or sales agent of Dow AgroSciences or the seller is authorized to vary or exceed the terms of the Warranty Disclaimer or this Umitation of Remedies in any manner. 'Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC Dow AgroSciences LLC -Indianapolis, IN 46268 U.S.A. Label Code: 002-148-002 Replaces Label: 002-148-001 EPA-accepted 05/1512002 Revisions: 1. Update of specific uses allowed in the state of Cafifomia. 13 Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02 This sample label is current as of 10127199. The product descriptions and recommendations provided in this sample label are for background infonnation only. Always refer to the label on the product before using Monsanto or any other agrichemical product. 21195YH/CG 3.0 3.1 PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals Complete Directions for Use in Aquatic and Other Noncrop Sites. Keep out of reach of children. CAUTION! Remove contaminated clothing and wash clothing before reuse. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. 3.2 Environmental Hazards Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment wash waters. Treatment of aquatic weeds can result in oxygen depletion or loss due to decomposition of dead plants. This oxygen loss can cause fish suffocation. In case of: SPill or lEAK, soak up and remove to a landfill. ~lJAMASTERrM H.:rbicide b.r .11oIls<mto EPA Reg. No. 524-343 3.3 Physical or Chemical Hazards AVOID CONTACT OF HERBICIDE WITH FOLIAGE, GREEN STEMS, EXPOSED NON-WOODY ROOTS OR FRUIT OF CROPS, DESIRABLE PLANTS AND TREES. BECAUSE SEVERE INJURY OR DESTRUC- TION IS LIKELY TO RESULT. Spray solutions of this product should be mixed, stored and applied using only stainless steel, aluminum, fiberglass. plastic or plastic-lined steel containers. DO NOT MIX. STORE OR APPLY THIS PRODUCT OR SPRAY SOLUTIONS OF THIS PRODUCT IN GALVANIZED STEEL OR UNLINED STEEL (EXCEPT STAINLESS STEEl) CONTAINERS OR SPRAY TANKS. This product or spray solutions of this product react with such containers and tanks to produce hydrogen gas which may form a highly combustible gas mixture. This gas mixture could flash or explode, causing serious personal injury, if ignited by open flame, spark, welder's torch, lighted cigarette or other ignition source. AQuaMaster is a trademark of Monsanto Company. 2000-1 Read the entire label before using this product. Use only according to label instructions. It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in any manner inconsistent with its labeling. Not all products recommended on this label are registered for use in Califomia. Check the registration status of each product in California before using. Read the "LIMIT OF WARRANTY AND LIABILITY" statement at the end of the label before buying or using. If terms are not acceptable, return at once unopened. THIS IS AN END-USE PRODUCT. MONSANTO DOES NOT INTEND AND HAS NOT REGISTERED IT FOR REFORMULA- TION OR REPACKAGING. SEE INDIVIDUAL CONTAINER LABEL FOR REPACKAGING LIMITATIONS. DIRECTIONS FOR USE It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in any manner inconsistent with its labeling. For any requirements specific to your State or Tribe. consult the ago"CY f,Sf,;;" ble for pesticide regulations. n.lls PRODUCT, OR T. DAY OR NIGHT, 4.0 STORAGE AND DISPOSAL 00 not contaminate water, foodstuffs, feed or seed by stor- age or disposal. STORAGE: STORE ABOVE 100F (-120C) TO KEEP PRODUCT FROM CRYSTALLIZING. Crystals will setUe to the bottom. If allowed to crystallize, place in a warm room 680F (20OC) for several days to redissolve and roll or shake container or recirculate in mini-bulk containers to mix well belore using. DISPOSAl: Wastes resulting from the use of this product that cannol be used or chemically reprocessed should be disposed of in a landfill approved for pesticide disposal or in accordance with applicable Federal, state, or local proce- dures. Emptied container retains vapor and product residue. Observe all labeled safeguards until container is cleaned, reconditioned, or destroyed. FOR REFilLABLE PORTABLE CONTAINERS: 00 not reuse this container except for refill in accordance with a valid Monsanto Repackaging or Toll Repackaging Ag reemen!. If not refilled or returned to the authorized repackaging facility, triple rinse container, then puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or by incineration, or, if allowed by state and local authorities, by buming. If bumed, stay out of smoke. FOR METAL CONTAINERS (non-aerosol): Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for recycling or reconditioning, or puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or by other procedures approved by state and local authorities. FOR BULK CONTAINERS: Triple rinse emptied bulk container. Then offer for recycling or reconditioning, or dispose of in a manner approved by state and local authorities. 1.0 INGREDIENTS ACTIVE INGREDIENT: 'Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, In the form of its isopropylamine salt .......... 53.8% OTHER INGREDIENTS: ......,...............~ 100.0% 'Contains 648 grams per litre or 5.4 pounds per U.S. gallon 01 the active ingredient. glyphosate, in the form of its isopropyJamine salt. Equivalent to 480 grams per litre or 4 pounds per U.S. gallon of the acid, glyphosate. 2.0 IMPORTANT PHONE . NUMBERS 1. FOR ~anl!l.l:er;INe~tl!ilti/;OR ASSISTANCE IN USING THIS PRODUCT, CAll TOLL-FREE, :t#~boi33~#31;1jj> 1 FOR PLASTIC 1-WAY CONTAINERS ANO BOTTLES: Do not reuse container. Triple rinse container, then puncture and dis- pose of in a sanitary landfill, or by incineration, or, if allowed by state and local authorities, by burning. If burned. stay out of smoke. FOR DRUMS: 00 not reuse container. Return container per the Monsanto container return program. If not returned, triple rinse container, then puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or by incineration, or, if allowed by state and local authorities, by burning. If burned, stay out of smoke. 5.0 GENERAL INFORMATION This product, a water-soluble liquid, mixes readily with water and nonionic surfactant to be applied as a foliar spray for the control or destruction of many herbaceous and woody plants. This product moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact to and into the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within 2 to 4 days but on most perennial brush species may not occur for 7 days or more. Extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects are a gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant which advances to complete browning of above- ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. Unless otherwise directed on this labet, delay application until vegetation has emerged and reached the stages described for control of such vegetation under the "WEEDS CONTROLLED" secllon of this label. Unemerged plants arising from unattached underground rflizomes or root stocks of perennials or brush will not be affected by the spray and will continue to grow. For this reason best control of most perennial weeds or brush is obtained when treatment is made at late growth stages approaching maturity. Always use the higher rate of this product per acre within the recommended range when vegetation is heavy or dense. Do not treat weeds or brush under poor growing conditions such as drought stress, disease or insect damage. as reduced control may result. Reduced results may also occur when treating weeds or brush heavily covered with dust. Reduced control may result when applications are made to any weed or brush species that have been mowed, grazed or cut. and have not been allowed to regrow to the recom- mended stage for treatment. Rainfall or irrigation occurring within 6 hours after application may reduce effectiveness. Heavy rainfall or irrigation within 2 hours after application may wash the product off the foliage and a repeat treatment may be required. When this product comes in contact with soil (on the soU surface or as suspended soil or sediment in water) it is bound to soil particles. Under recommended use situations, once this product is bound to soil particles, it is not available for plant uptake and will not harm off-site vegetation where roots grow into the treatment area or if the soil is transported off- site. Under recommended use conditions. the strong affinity of this product to soil particles prevents this product from leaching out of the soil profile and entering ground water. The affinity between this product and soil particles remains until this product is degraded, which is primarily a biological degradation process carried out under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions by soil micronora. This product does not provide residual weed control. For subsequent residual weed control, follow a label-approved herbicide program. Read and carefully observe the cautionary statements and all other information appearing on the labels of all herbicides used. Buyer and all users are responsible for all loss or damage in connection with the use or handling of mixtures of this product or other materials that are not expressly recom- mended in this label. Mixing this product with herbicides or other materials not recommended in this label may result in reduced performance. ATTENTION AVOID DRIFT. EXTREME CARE MUST BE USED WHEN APPLYING THIS PRODUCT TO PREVENT INJURY TO DESIR- ABLE PlANTS AND CROPS. 00 not allow the herbicide solution to mist, drip, drift or splash onto desirable vegetation since minute quantities of this product can cause severe damage or destruction to the crop, plants or other areas on which treatment was not intended. The likelihood of plant or crop injury occurring from the use of this product is greatest when winds are gusty or in excess of 5 miles per hour or when other conditions, includ- ing lesser wind velocities, will allow spray drift to occur. When spraying, avoid combinations of pressure and nozzle type that will result in splatter or fine particles (mist) which are likely to drift. AVOID APPLYING AT EXCESSIVE SPEED OR PRESSURE NOTE: Use of this product in any manner not consistent with this label may result in injury to persons, animals or crops, or other unintended consequences. Whim not in use, keep con- tainer closed to prevent spills and contamination. 6.0 MIXING Clean sprayer parts immediately after using this product by thoroughly flushing with water. NOTE: REDUCED RESULTS MAY OCCUR IF WATER CON- TAINING SOIL IS USED, SUCH AS VISIBLY MUDDY WATER OR WATER FROM PONDS AND DITCHES THAT IS NOT CLEAR. 6.1 Mixing with Water and Surfactant This product mixes readily with wateL Mix spray solutions of this product as follows: Fill the mixing or spray tank with the required amount of water. Add the recommended amount of this product and the required surfactant near the end of the filling process and mix well. Use caution to avoid siphoning back into the carrier source_ Use approved anti-back- siphoning devices where required by state or local regula. tions. During miXing and application, foaming of the spray solution may occur. To prevent or minimize foam, avoid the use of mechanical agitators, terminate by.pass and return lines at the bottom of the tank and, if needed, use an approved anti-foam or defoaming agenL Maintain good agitation at all times until the contents of the tank are sprayed. If the spray mixture is allowed to settle, thorough agitation may be required to resuspend the mixture before spraying is resumed. Keep by-pass line on or near the bottom of the tank to mini. mile foaming. Screen size in nozzle or line strainers should be no finer than 50 mesh_ When using this product, mix 2 or more quans f)' 3 ncnio"'.. surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution. Use a nonionic surfactant labeled for use with herbicides. The surfactant must contain 50 percent or more acllve ingredient. These surfactants should not be used in excess of 1 quart per acre when making broadcast applications. Always read and follow the manufacturer's surfactant label recommendations for best results. Carefully observe all cautionary statements and other information appearing in the surfactant label. 6.2 Mixing for Hand-Held Sprayers 1 Gal 1 oz. 1113 oz. 12/30Z. 2 oz. 6 oz. 10'/40Z. 25 Gal 1'/2 pt. 1 qt. 11/4 qt. 1112 qt. 5 qt. 2 gal. 100 Gal 3 qt. 1 gal. 11/4gal. l'/2gal. 5 gal. 8 gal. For use in backpack, knapsack or pump-up sprayers, it is sug- gested that the recommended amount of this product be mixed with water in a larger container. Fill sprayer with the mixed solution and add the correct amount of surfactant. 6.3 Colorants or Dyes Agriculturally-approved colorants or marking dyes may be added to this product. Colorants or dyes used in spray solu- tions of this product may reduce pertormance, especially at 2 lower rates or dilution. Use colorants or dyes according to the manufacturer's recommendations. 7.0 APPUCATlON EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES Do not apply this product through any type of irrigation system. APPLY THESE SPRAY SOLUTIONS IN PROPERLY MAIN- TAINED AND CALIBRATED EQUIPMENT CAPABLE OF DELIVERING DESIRED VOLUMES. SPRAY DRIFT MANAGEMENT AVOID DRIFT. EXTREME CARE MUST BE USED WHEN APPLYING THIS PRODUCT TO PREVENT INJURY TO DESIR- ABLE PlANTS AND CROPS. Do not allow the herbicide solution to mist, drip, drift or splash onto desirable vegetation since minute quantities of this product can cause severe damage or destruction to the crop, plants or other areas on which treatment was not intended. Avoiding spray drift at the application site is the responsibility of the applicator. The interaction of many equipment-and- weather.related factors determine the potential lor spray drift. The applicator and the grower are responsible for consider- 1ng all these factors when making decisions. AERIAL SPRAY DRIFT MANAGEMENT The follOWing drift management requirements must be followed to avoid ofHarget drift movement from aerial appli- cations to agricultural field crops. These requirements do not apply to forestry applications or to public health uses. 1. The distance of the outermost nozzles on the boom must not exceed 3/4 the length of the wingspan or rotor. 2. Nozzles must always point backward parallel with the air stream and never be poinled downwards more than 45 degrees. Where states have more stringent regulations, they should be observed. Importance 01 Droplet Size The most effective way to reduce drift potential is to apply large droplets. The best drift management strategy is to apply the largest droplets that provide sufficient coverage and con- trol. Applying larger droplets reduces drift potential, but will not prevent drift if applications are made improperly. or under unfavorable environmental conditions (see the "WIND", "TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY", and "TEMPERATURE INVERSION" sections of this label). Controlling Droplet Size . Volume: Use high flow rate nozzles to apply the highest practical spray volume. Nozzles with the higher rated nows produce larger droplets. · Pressure: Use the lower spray pressures recommended for the nozzle. Higher pressure reduces droplet size and does not improve canopy protection. When higher flow rates are needed, use higher flow rate nozzles instead of increasing pressure. . Number of nozzles: Use the minimum number of nozzles that provide uniform coverage. . Nozzle orientation: Orienting nozzles so that the spray is released backwards, parallel to the airstream, will produce larger droplets than other orientations. Significant deflec- tion from the horizontal will reduce droplet size and increase drift potential. . Nozzle type: Use a nozzle type that is deSigned for the intended application. With most nozzle types, narrower spray angles produce larger droplets. Consider using low- drift nozzles. Solid stream nozzles oriented straight back produce larger droplets than other nozzle types. · Boom length: For some use patterns, reducing the effective boom length to less than 3/4 of the wingspan or rotor length may further reduce drift without reducing swath width. . · Application height: Applications should not be made at a height greater than 10 feet above the top of the largest plants unless a greater height is required for aircraft safety. Making applications at the lowest height that is sale reduces 1he exposure of the droplets to evaporation and wind. Swath Adjustment When applications are made with a crosswind, the swath will be displaced downward. Therefore, on the up and downwind edges 01 the field, the applicator must compensate lor this displacement by adjusting the path of the aircraft upwind. Swath adjustment distance should increase, with increasing drift potential (higher wind, smaller droplets, etc.). Wind Drift potential is lowest between wind speeds of 2 to 10 mph. However, many factors, including droplet size and equipment type determine drift potential at any given speed. Application should be avoided below 2 mph due to variable wind direc- tion and high inversion potential. NOTE: Local terrain can influence wind patterns. Every applicator should be familiar with local wind pattems and how they affect drift Temperature and Humidity When making applications in low relative humidity, set up equipment to produce larger droplets to compensate for evaporation. Droplet evaporation is most severe when condi- tions are both hot and dry. Temperature tnversions Applications should not occur during a temperature inversion because drift potential is high. Temperature Inversions restrict vertical air mixing, which causes small suspended droplets to remain in a concentrated cloud. This cloud can move in unpredictable directions due to the light variable winds common during inversions. Temperature inversions are characterized by increasing temperatures with altitude and are common on nights with limited cloud cover and light to no wind. They begin to form as the sun sets and often con- tinue into the moming. Their presence can be indicated by ground fog; however, if fog is not present, inversions can also be identified by the movement 01 smoke from a ground source or an aircraft smoke generator. Smoke that layers and moves laterally in a concentrated cloud (under low wind conditions) indicates an inversion, while smoke that moves upward and rapidly dissipates indicates good vertical air mixing. Sensitive Areas The pestiCide should only be applied when the potential for drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g., residential areas, bodies of water, known habitat for threatened or endangered species, non-target crops) is minimal (e.g., when wind is blowing away from the sensitive areas). 7.1 Aerial Equipment 00 NOT APPLY THIS PRODUCT USING AERIAl SPRAY EQUIPMENT EXCEPT UNDER CONDITIONS AS SPECifiED WITHIN THIS LABEL fOR AERIAL APPUCATlON IN CAUfORNIA, REfER TO THE FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTAL LABEL fOR AERIAL APPliCA- TIONS IN THAT STATE FOR SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. AVOID DRIFT-oO NOT APPLY DURING LOW-LEVEL INVERSION CONDITIONS, WHEN WINDS ARE GUSTY OR UNDER ANY OTHER CONDITION WHICH fAVORS DRIFT. DRIFT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO ANY VEGETATION CONTACTED TO WHICH TREATMENT IS NOT INTENDED. TO PREVENT INJURY TO ADJACENT DESIRABLE VEGETATION. APPROPRIATE BUFFER ZONES MUST BE MAINTAINED. Use the recommended rates of this product and surfactant in 3 to 20 gallons of water per acre as a broadcast spray, unless otherwise specified. Coarse sprays are less likely to drift; therefore, do not use nozzles or nozzle configurations which dispense spray as fine .spray droplets. 00 not angle nozzles forward into the airstream and do not increase spray volume by increasing nozzle pressure. Drift control additives may be used. When a drift control additive is used, read and carefully observe the cautionary statements and all other information appearing on the addi. tive label. Ensure uniform application-To avoid streaked, uneven or overlapped application, use appropriate marking devices. PROLONGED EXPOSURE OF THIS PRODUCTTO UNCOATED STEEL SURFACES MAY RESULT IN CORROSION AND POSSIBLE fAILURE OF THE PART. The maintenance of an organic coating (paint) which meets aerospace specification 3 MIL-c-38413 may prevent corrosion. To prevent corrosion of exposed parts, thoroughly wash aircraft after each day of spraying to remove residues of this product accumulated during spraying or from spills. Landing gear are most sus- ceptible. 7.2 Ground Broadcast Equipment Use the recommended rates of this product in 3 to 40 gallons of water per acre as a broadcast spray unless otherwise specified. See the "WEEDS CONTROLLED" section of this label for specific rates. As density of weeds increases. spray volume should be increased within the recommended range to ensure complete coverage. Carefully select proper nozzles to avoid spraying a fine mist. For best results with ground application equipment, use flat fan nozzles. Check for even distribution of spray droplets. 7.3 Hand-Held and High- Volume Equipment Use Coarse Sprays Only For control of weeds listed in this label using backpack or knapsack sprayers or high-volume spraying equipment utilizing handguns or other suitable nozzle arrangements- Prepare a 3/4 to 2 percent solution of this prOduct in water, add a nonionic surfactant and apply to fOliage of vegetation to be controlled. For specific rates of application and instruc- tions for control of various annual and perennial weeds. see the "WEEDS CONTROLLED" section in this label. Applications should be made on a spray-ta-wet basis. Spray coverage should be uniform and complete. Do not spray to point of runoff. This product may be used as a 5 to 8 perrent solution for low-volume directed sprays for spot treatment of trees and brush. It is most effective in areas where there is a low den- sity of undesirable trees or brush. If a straight stream nozzle is used. start the application at the top of the targeted vege- tation and spray from top to bottom in a lateral zig-zag motion. Ensure that at least 50 percent of the leaves are con- tacted by the spray solution. For flat fan and cone nozzles and with hand-directed mist blowers. mist the application over the foliage of the targeted vegetation. Small; open..IJranched trees need only be treated from one side. If the foliage is thick or there are multiple root sprouts, applications must be made from several sides to ensure adequate spray coverage. 7.4 Selective Equipment (Wiper Applications) A wiper or sponge applicator applies the herbicide solution onto weeds by rubbing the weed with an absorbent material containing the herbicide solution. Wiper applications can be used to control or suppress annual and perennial weeds listed on this label. In heavy weed stands, a double application in opposite directions may improve results. See the "WEEDS CONTROllED" section in this label for recommended timing, growth stage and other instructions for achieving optimum results. AVOID CONTACT OF HERBICIDE WITH DESIRABLE VEGETA- TION AS SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH IS lIKEI. Y TO OCCUR. For wick or wiper applications. mix 2 1/2 gallons of this product plus 1 quart of a nonionic surfactant with 7 1/4 gallons of clean water to prepare a 25 percent solution. Mix only the amount of solution to be used during a 1-day period. as reduced activity may result from use 01 leftover solutions. Clean wiper parts immediately after using this product by thoroughly flushing with water. 8.0 SITE AND USE RECOMMENDATIONS Detailed instructions follow alphabetically. by site. Unless otherwise specified, applications may be made to con- trol any weeds listed in the annual. perennial and woody brush tables. Refer also to the "SELECTIVE EQUIPMENT" section. 8.1 Aquatic and Other Noncrop Sites When applied as directed and under the conditions described in the "WEEDS CONTROLLED" section in this label, this prod- uct will control or partially control the labeled weeds growing in the following industrial. recreational and publiC areas or other similar aquatic and terrestrial sites. Aquatic Sites This product may be applied to emerged weeds in all bodies of fresh and brackish water which may be flowing. nonnow- ing or transient This includes lakes, rivers, streams, ponds, estuaries, rice levees, seeps. irrigation and drainage ditches, canals. reservoirs. wastewater treatment facilities, wildlife habitat restoration and management areas, and similar sites. If aquatic sites are present in the noncrop area and are part of the intended treatment, read and observe the following directions: This product does not control plants which are completely submerged or have a majority of their foliage under water. There is no restriction on the use of treated water for irriga- tion. recreation or domestic purposes. Consult local state fish and game agency and water control authorities before applying this product to public water. Pennits may be required to treat such water. NOTE: 00 not apply this product direcUy fo water within 1/2 mile up-stream of an active potable water intake in flowing water (i.e.. river, stream, etc.) or within 1/2 mile of an active potable water intake in a standing body of water such as lake, pond or reservoir. To make aquatic applications around and within 1/2 mile of active potable water intakes, the water intake must be tumedoff for a minimum period of 48 hours alter the application. The water intake may be turned on prior to 48 hours if the glyphosate level in the intake water is below 0.7 parts per million as detennined by laboratory analysis. These aquatic applications may be made ONLY in those cases where there are altemative water sources or holding ponds which would perinit the turning 011 of an active potable water intake for a minimum period of 48 hours after the applica- tions. This restriction does NOT apply to intermittent in- advertent overspray of water in terrestrial use sites. For treatments after drawdown of water or in dry ditches. allow 7 or more days after treatment before reintroduction of water to achieve maximum weed control. Apply this product within 1 day after drawdown to ensure application to actively growing weeds. Floating mats of vegetation may require retreatment. Avoid wash-oll of sprayed foliage by spray boat or recreational boat backwash or by rainlall within 6 hours of application. Do not re-treat within 24 hours following the initial treatment Applications made to moving bodies of water must be made while traveling upstream to prevent concentration of lt1is herbicide in water. When making any bankslde applications. do not overlap more than 1 foot into open water. Do not spray in bodies of water where weeds do not exist. The maximum application rate of 7 1/2 pints per acre must not be exreeded in any single broadcast application that is being made over water. When emerged infestations require treatment of the total surface area of impounded water. treating the area in strips may avoid oxygen depletion due to decaying vegetation. Oxygen depletion may result in fish kill. Other Noncrop-Type Sites-This product may be used to control the listed weeds in terrestrial noncrop sites and/or in aquatic sites within these areas: Airports Golf Courses Habitat Restoration & Management Areas Highways Industrial Plant Sites Lumberyards Natural Areas Par1<ing Areas Parks Petroleum Tank Farms Pipeline. Power. Telephone & Utility Rights-ol-Way Pumping Installations Railroads Roadsides Schools Storage Areas Similar Industrial and Non-crop Sites 4 8.2 Cut Stump Application Cut stump treatments may be made on any site listed on this label. This product will control many types of woody brush and tree species, some of which are listed below. Apply this product using suitable equipment to ensure coverage of the entire cambium. Cut trees or resprouts close to the soil sur- lace. Apply a 50 10 100 percent solution of this product to the freshly-cut surface immediately after culling. Delays in application may result in reduced performance. For besl results, applications should be made during periods of active growth and fult leaf expansion. When used according to directions for cut stump application, this product wilt CONTROL, PARTIALLY CONTROL or SUP- PRESS most woody brush and tree species, some of which are listed below: Alder Alnus spp. Coyote brush" Baccharis consanguinea Dogwood" Comus spp. Eucalyptus fucalyptus spp. Hiclory" Carya spp. Madrune Arbutus menziesii Maple" Acer spp. Oak Quercus spp. Poplar" Populus spp. . Reed, gianl Arundo donax Sail cedar ramarix spp. Sweet gum" Liquidambar styraciOua Sycamore . Platanus occidentalis Tan oak Lithocarpus densinorus Willow Salix spp. "This product is not approved for this use on these species in the State of California. DO NOT MAKE CUT STUMP APPLICATIONS WHEN THE ROOTS OF DESIRABLE WOODY BRUSH OR TREES MAY BE GRAFTED TO THE ROOTS OF THE CUT STUMP. INJURY RESULTING FROM ROOT GRAFTING IS LIKELY TO OCCUR IN ADJACENT WOODY BRUSH OR TREES. 8.3 Habitat Restoration and Management This product is recommended for the restoration and/or maintenance of native habitat and in wildlife management areas. Habitat Restoration and Management This product may be used to control exotic, alien and other undesirable vegetation in habitat management and natural areas, including riparian and estuarine areas, and wildlife refuges. Appfications can be made to allow recovery of native plant species, prior to planting desirable native species, and for similar broad spectrum vegetation control requirements. Spot treatments can be made to selectively remove unwanted plants for habitat management and enhancement. Wildlife Food Plols This product may be used as a site preparation treatment prior to planting wildlife food plots. Any wildlife food species, including natives, may be planted after applying this prOduct, or native species may be allowed to repopulate the area. If tillage is needed to prepare a seedbed, wait 7 days after appli- cation before tillage to allow translocation into underground plant parts. 8.4 Injection and Frill Applications Woody vegetation may be controlled by injection or frill appli- cation of this product. Apply this product using suitable equipment which must penetrate into living tissue. Apply the equivalent of 1 ml.of this product per 2 to 3 inches of trunk diameter. This is best achieved by applying 25 to 100 percent concentration of this product either to a continuous frill around the tree or as cuts evenly spaced around the tree below all branches. As tree diameter increases in size, better results are achieved by applying dilute material to a con- tinuous Irill or more closely spaced cuttings. Avoid applica- tion techniques that allow runoff to occur from frill or cut areas in species thai exude sap freely after frills or cutting. In species such as these, make frill or cut at an oblique angle so as to produce a cupping effect and use undiluted material. For best results, applications should be made during periods of active growth and full leaf expansion. This treatment WILL CONTROL the following woody species: Oak Sweet gum Quercus spp. Liquidambar styraciflua Poplar Sycamore Populus spp. Platanus occidentalis This treatment WILL SUPPRESS the follOWing WOOdy species: Black gum" . Hickory Nyssa sylvatica Carra spp. Dogwood Maple, red Comus spp. Acer rubrum 00 NOT MAKE INJECTION OR FRIll APPLICATIONS WHEN THE ROOTS OF DESIRABLE WOODY BRUSH OR TREES MAY BE GRAFTED TO THE ROOTS OF THE TREATED TREES. INJURY RESULTING FROM ROOT GRAFTING IS UKEL Y TO OCCUR IN ADJACENT WOODY BRUSH OR TREES. "This product is not approved for this use on this species in the State of California. 8.5 Roadsides RELEASE OF OORMANT BERMUOAGRASS ANO BAHIAGRASS When applied as directed. this product Will provide control or suppression of many winter annual weeds and tall fescue for effective release of dormant bennudagrass or bahiagrass. Make applications to donnant bennudagrass or bahiagrass. For best results on winter annuals, treat when weeds are in an early growth stage (below 6 inches in height) after most have germinated. For best results on tall fescue. treat when fescue is in or beyond the 4- to 6-leaf stage. WEEDS CONTROllED Rate recommendations for control or suppression of winter annuals and tall fescue are listed below. Apply the recommended rates of this product in 10 to 25 gallons of water per acre plus 2 quarts nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of total spray volume. WEEDS CONTROLLED OR SUPPRESSED' NOTE: C = Control S = Suppression AOUAMASTER fLUID OZlACRE 6 9 12 18 24 48 S C C C C C WEED SPECIES Barley,lillle Hordeum pusillum Bedstraw, catcllweed S C C C C C Galium aparine Bluegrass, annual Poa annua Chervil Chaerophy/lum tainturieri Chickweed, common Stellaria media Clover, crimson Trifolium incamatum Clover, large hop Trifolium campestre Speedwell, corn Veronica arvensis Fescue, tall Festuca arundin;u;ea Geranium, Carolina Geranium carolinianum Henbit Lamium amplexicaule Ryegrass, Italian Lolium multiflorum Vetch, common Vicia sativa "These rates apply only to sites where an established com- petitive turf Is present. S C C C C C S C C C C C S C C C C C s S C C C S S C C C S C c C C C S S S S C C S C C C C S C c C S C C C 5 RELEASE Of ACTIVELY GROWING BERMUOAGRASS NOTE: USE ONLY ON SITES WHERE BAHIAGRASS OR BERMUDAGRASS ARE DESIRED FOR GROUND COVER AND SOME TEMPORARY INJURY OR YEllOWING OF THE GRASSES CAN BE TOLERATED. When applied as directed, this product will aid in the release of bermudagrass by providing control of annual species listed in the "WEEDS CONTROllED" section in this label. and suppression or partial control of certain perennial weeds. For control or suppression of those annual species listed in this label. use 3/4 to 2 1/4 pints of this product as a broad- cast spray in 10 to 25 gallons of spray solution per acre, plus 2 quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of total spray volume. Use the lower rate when treating annual weeds below 6 inches in height (or length of runner in annual vines). Use the higher rate as size of plants increases or as they approach flower or seedhead formation. Use the higher rate for partial control or longer-term sup- pression of the fOllowing perennial species. Use lower rates for shorter-term suppression of growth. Bahiagrass Johnsongrass" Dallisgrass Trumpetcreeper' Fescue (tall) Vaseygrass 'Suppression at the higher rate only. " Johnsongrass is controlled at the higher rate. Use only on well-established bermudagrass. Bermudagrass injury may result from the treatment but regrowth will occur under moist conditions. Repeat applications in the same season are not recommended. since severe injury may result. BAHIAGRASS SEEOHEAD AND VEGETATIVE SUPPRESSION When applied as directed in the "NONCROP SITES" section in this label. this prOduct will provide significant inhibition of seed head emergence and will suppress vegetative growth lor a period 01 approximately 45 days with single applications and approximately 120 days with sequential applications. Apply this product 1 to 2 weeks after full green-up 01 bahia- grass or after the bahiagrass has been mowed to a unilorm height of 3 to 4 inches. Applications must be made prior to seedhead emergence. Apply 5 fluid ounces per acre of this product. plus 2 quarts 01 an approved nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of total spray volume in 10 to 25 gallons of water per acre. Sequential applications of this product plus nonionic surfac- tant may be made at approximately 45-day intervals to extend the period of seedhead and vegetative growth suppression. For continued vegetative growth suppression. sequential applications must be made prior to seedhead emergence. Apply no more than 2 sequential applications per year. As a first sequential application, apply 3 fluid ounces of this prod- uct per acre plus non ionic surfactant. A second sequential application of 2 to 3 fluid ounces per acre plus nonionic sur- factant may be made approximately 45 days after the last application. ANNUAL GRASS GROWTH SUPPRESSION For growth suppression of some annual grasses, such as annual ryegrass, wild barley and wild oats growing in coarse turf on roadsides or other industrial areas. apply 3 to 4 ounces of this product in 10 to 40 gallons of spray solution per acre. Mix 2 quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution. Applications should be made when annual grasses are actively growing and before the seed- heads are in the boot stage of development. Treatments made after seedhead emergence may cause injury to the desired grasses. 9.0 WEEDS CONTROLLED 9.1 Annual Weeds Apply to actively growing annual grasses and broadleaf weeds. Allow at least 3 days after application before disturbing treated vegetation. After this period the weeds may be mowed. tilled or burned. See "DIRECTIONS FOR USE", "GENERAlINFORMATlON" and "MIXING AND APPlICATION INSTRUCTIONS" for labeled uses and specific application instructions. Broadcast Application-Use 1 1/2 pints of this product per acre plus 2 or more quarts 01 a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons 01 spray solution il weeds are less than 6 inches tau. If weeds are greater than 6 inches tall. use 2 1/2 pints of this product per acre plus 2 or more quarts 01 an approved non- ionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution. Hand-Held. High.Volume Application-Use a 3/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution of this product in water plus 2 or more quarts of a non ionic surfactant per 100 gallons 01 spray solu' tion and apply to foliage of vegetation to be controlled. Use the higher rate for tough-to-control species or for weeds over 24 inches tall. When applied as directed under the conditions described in this label. this product plus nonionic surfactant Will CON. TROl the following ANNUAL WEEDS: Balsamapple" Mustard. tansy Momordica charantia Descurainia pinnata Barley Mustard, tumble Hordeum vulgare Sisymbrium altissimum Barnyardgrass Mustard, wild Echinochloa crus-galli Sinapis alVensis Bassia. livehook Oats, wild Bassia hyssopifolia Avena fatua Bluegrass. annual Panicum Poa annua Panicum spp. Bluegrass. bulbous Pennycress, field Poa bulbosa Thlaspi alVense Brome Pigweed, redrool Bromus spp. Amaranthus retroflexus Buttercup Pigweed, smooth Ranunculus spp. Amaranthus hybridus Cheat Puncturevine Bromus secalinus Tribulus terrestris Cheeseweed Ragweed, common Malva palViflora Ambrosia artemisiifolia Chickweed, mouseear Ragweed, giant Cerastium vulgatum Ambrosia trifida Cocklebur Rocket, london Xanthium stmmarium Sisymbrium irio Corn. volunteer Rye lea mays Secale cereal!! Crabgrass Ryegrass, lI~liafl' Digitaria spp. Lolium multifiD. tlm Dwarfdandelion Sandbur. field Krigia cespitosa Cenchms spp. Fatseflax, smallseed Shattercane Camelina microcarpa Sorghum bicolor fiddleneck Shepherd's-purse Amsinckia spp. Capsella bursa-pastoris Aaxleaf fleabane Signalgrass, broadleal Conyza bonariensis Brachiaria platyphylla Aeabane Smartweed, Pennsylvania Erigeron spp. PO/ygonum Foxtail pensylvanicum Setaria spp. Sowthistle. annual Foxtail, Carolina Soncllus oleraceus Alopecums carolinianus Spanishneedles. Groundsel, common Bidens bipinnata Senecio vulgaris Stinkgrass HorseweedIMarestail Eragrostis cilianensis Conyza canadensis Sunflower Kochia Helianthus annuus Kochia scoparia Thistle. Russian Lambsquarters. common Salsola -killi Chenopodium album Spurry, umbrella lettuce, prickly Holosteum umbellatum Lactuca serriola Velvetleaf Morningglory Abutilon theophrasti Ipomoea spp. Wheat Mustard, blue . Triticum aestivum Chorispora tenella Witchgrass Panicum capillare 'Apply 3 pints of this product per acre. *' Apply with hand-held equipment only. 6 Annual weeds will generally continue to germinate from seed throughout the growing season. Repeat treatments will be necessary to control later germinating weeds. 9.2 Perennial Weeds Apply a 3/4 to 11/2 percent solution of this product to con- trol or destroy most vigorously growing perennial weeds. Add 2 or more quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution to the rates of this product given in this list See the "GENERAL INfORMATION,' "DIRECTIONS FOR USE" and "MIXING AND APPUCATION" sections in this label for specific uses and application instructions. Ensure thorough coverage when using spray-to-wet treat- ments using hand-held eq uipment. When using hand-held equipment for low volume directed spot treatments, apply a 5 to 8 percent solution of this product. Unless otherwise directed. allow at least 7 days after applica- tion before disturbing vegetation. If weeds have been mowed or tilled, do not treat until regrowth has reached the recom- mended slages. fall treatments must be applied before a killing frost. Repeat treatments may be necessary to control weeds regen- erating from underground parts or seed. When applied as recommended under the conditions described, this product plus surfactant WILL CONTROL the fOllowing PERENNIAL WEEDS: Allalla MOOicago sativa AlIigatorweed" Altemanthera philoxeroides AniselFennel Foeniculum vulgare Artichoke, Jerusalem Helianthus tuberosus Bahiagrass Paspalum notatum Beachgrass, European Ammophifa arenaria Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon Bindweed, field Convolvulus arvensis Bluegrass, Kentucky Poa pratensis Blueweed, Texas HeOanthus ciliaris Brackenlem Pteridium spp. Bromegrass, smoolh Bromus inermis Canarygrass, reed Phafaris arundinacea Catlail Typha spp. Clover, red Trifolium pratense Clover, while Trifolium repens Cogongrass Impera13 cylindrica Cordgrass Spartina spp. Cutgrass, giant" Zizaniopsis mifiacea Dallisgrass Paspalum dilatatum Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Dock, curly Rumex crispus Dogbane. hemp Apocynum cannabinum Fescue Festuca spp. FeSClle, tall Festuca arundinacea Guineagrass Panicum maximum Hemlock, poison Conium macufatum Horsenetlle Solanum carolinense Horseradish Armoracia ruslicana Ice Plant Carprobrotus adulis Ivy, Gennan, cape Senecio mikanoides Delairea odorata Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense Kikuyugrass Pennisetum cfandestinum Knapweed, Russian Centaurea repens Lanlana Lantana camara Lespedeza: common, serices Lespedeza striata Lespedeza cunea13 Looseslrlle, purple Lythrum salicarla Lotus, American Nelumbo lulea Maidencane Panicum hematomon Milkweed ASClepias spp. Muhly, wirestem Muhlenbergia frondosa Mullein, common Verbascum thapsus Napiergrass Pennisetum purpureum Nightshade, silverieal So/anum elaeagnifolium Nulsedge: purple Cyperus rotundus yellow Cyperus esculentus Orchardgrass Dactylis glomera13 Pampasgrass Cortaderia jubata Paragrass Brachiaria mutica Pepperweed, perennial Lepidium lalilo/ium Phragmiles. " Phragmites spp. Quackgrass Agropyron repens Reed, giant Arundo donax Ryegrass, perennial Lolium perenne Smartweed, swamp Polygonum coccineum SpaUerdock Nuphar Meum Starthistle, yellow Centaurea solslilialis Sweel polato, wild. Ipomoea pandurata TbisUe, artichoke Cynara cardunculus TbisUe, Canada Cirsium arvense Timothy Phleum pratense Torpedograss" Panicum repens Tules, common Scirpus acutus Vaseygrass Paspalum urviffei Velvelgrass Holcus spp. Waterhyaclnth Eichomia crassipes Walerlefluee Pistia sttatiotes Walerprimrose Ludwigia spp. Whealgrass, western Agropyron smithii .Partial control. .. Partial conlrol in southeastern states. See specific recom- mendations below. A1ligatorweed-Apply 6 pints 01 this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 11/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment to provide partial control of a1ligatorweed. Apply when most of the target plants are in bloom. Repeat applica- tions will be required to maintain such control. Bermudagrass-Apply 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand- held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively grow- ing and when seed heads appear. Bindweed, field/Silverleal Nighlshade/Texas Blueweed- Apply 6 to 7 112. pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray west of the Mississippi River and 4 1/2 to 6 pints of this product per acre east of the Mississippi River. With hand- held equipment. use a 1 1/2 percent solution. Apply when target plants are actively growing and are at or beyond full bloom. For sllverleaf nightshade, best results can be obtained when application is made after berries are formed 00 rot treat when weeds are under drought stress. New leaf development indicates active growth. For best results apply in late summer or tall. Srackenlem-Apply 4 1/2 to 6 pints 01 this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply to tully expanded Ironds which are at least 18 inches long. Cauall-Apply 4 1/2 to 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target planls are actively growing and are at or beyond the early-to-Iull bloom stage 01 growth. Best resulls are achieved when application is made during the summer or fall months. Cogongrass-Apply 4 1/2 to 7 1/2 pinls of this product per acre as a broadcast spray. Apply when cogongrass is at least 18 inches lall and actively growing in late summer or lall. Allow 7 or more days after application before tillage or mowing. Due to uneven stages of growth and the dense nature of vegetation preventing good spray coverage, repeat treatments may be necessary to mainlain control. Cordgrass-Apply 4 1/2 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as alto 2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Schedule applications in order to allow 6 hours before treated plants are covered by tidewater. The presence of debris and silt on the cord grass plants will reduce performance. It may be necessary to wash targeted plants prior to application to improve uptake 01 this product into the plant. Cutgrass, giant-Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 percent solution with hand-held equipment to provide partial control of giant cutgrass. Repeat applications will be required to maintain such control, especially where vegetation is partially submerged in water. Allow for substantial regrowth to the 7- to 1o-1eaf stage prior to retreatment. 7 Dogbane, hemp / Knapweed I Horseradish-Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached the late bud-to-f1ower stage of growth. For best results, apply in late summer or fall. fescue, tall-Apply 4 112 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached the boot-te-head stage of growth. When applied prior to the boot stage, less desirable control may be obtained. Guineagrass-Apply 4 1/2 pints of this prOduct per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and when most have reached at least the 7 -leaf stage of growth. Johnsongrass I Bluegrass, Kentucky / Bromegrass, smooth / Canarygrass, reed I Orchardgrass I Rvegrass. perennial I Tlmothv / Wheatgrass, weSlem-Apply 3 to 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached the boot-to-head stage of growth. When applied prior to the boot stage, less desirable control may be obtained. In the fall. apply before plants have turned brown. lantana-Apply this product as a 3/4 to 1 percent solution with hand.held equipment. Apply to actively growing lantana at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. Use the higher appli- cation rate for plants that have reached the woody stage of growth. loosestrile, purple-Apply 4 pints 01 this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 to 11/2 percent solution using hand-held equipment. Treat when plants are actively growing at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. Best results are achieved when application is made during summer or fall months. Fall treatments must be applied before a killing frost. lotus, American-Apply 4 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Treat when plants are actively growing at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. Best results are achieved when application is made during summer or fall months. Fall treatments must be applied before a killing frost. Repeat treatment may be necessary to control regrowth from under- ground parts and seeds. Maidencane I Paragrass-Apply 6 pints of this prOduct per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solutiOll with hand-held equipment. Repeat treatments will be required, especially to vegetation partially submerged in water. Under these conditions, allow lor regrowth to the 7- to to-leaf stage prior to retreatment. Milkweed, common-Apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 112 percent solution with hand-held eqUipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached the late bud.to-nower stage of growth. Nutsedge: purple, yellow-Apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray, or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipmentto control existing nutsedge plants and immature nutlets attached to treated plants. Apply when larget plants are in flower or when new nutlets can be found at rhizome tips. Nutlets which have not germinated will not be controlled and may germinate fOllowing treatment. Repeat treatments will be required for long-term control. Pampasgrass-Apply a 1 1/2 percent solution of this product with hand-held equipment when plants are actively growing. Phragmites-for partial control of phragmites in Aorida and the counties of other slates bordering the Gulf of Mexico, apply 7 1/2 pints per acre as a broadcast spray or apply a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. In other areas of the U.S., apply 4 to 6 pints per acre as a broadcast spray or apply a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equip- ment for partial control. for best results, treat during lale summer 01 fall months when plants are actively growing and in full bloom. Due to the dense nature of the vegetation, which may prevent good spray coverage and uneven stages of growth, repeat treatments may be necessary to maintain control. Visual control symptoms will be slow to develop. Quackgrass / Kikuvugrass I MUhly, wirestem-Apply 3 to 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment when most quackgrass or wirestem muhly is at least 8 inches in height (3-to 4-leaf stage of growth) and actively growing. Allow 3 or more days after application belore tillage. Reed. giant/Ice Plant-For control 01 giant reed and ice plant, apply a 1 1/2 percent solution of this product with hand-held equipment when plants are actively growing. For giant reed, best results are obtained when applications are made in late summer to lall. Spatterdock-Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when most plants are in full bloom. for best results, apply during the summer or fall months. Sweet potato, wild-Apply this product as a 1 1/2 percent solution using hand-held equipment. Apply to actively grow- ing weeds that are at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. Repeat applications will be required. Allow the plant to reach the recommended stage of growth before retreatment. Thistle: Canada, arlichoke-Apply 3 to 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment for Canada thistle. To control artichoke thistle. apply a 2 percent solution as a spray-to-wet application. Apply when larget plants are actively growing and are at or beyOlld the bud stage 01 growth. Torpedograss-Apply 6 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held eqUipment to provide partial control of torpedograss. Use the lower rates under terrestrial condi- tions, and the higher rates under partially submerged or a floating mat condition. Repeat treatments will be required to maintain such control. Tules, common-Apply this product as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply to actively growing plants at or beyond the seedhead stage of growth. After appli- cation, visual symptoms will be slow to appear and may not occur for 3 or more weeks. Waterhyacinlh-Apply 5 to 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or apply a 3/4 to 1 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and at or beyond the early bloom stage of growth. After application, visual symptoms may require 3 or more weeks to appear with complete necrosis and decomposition usually occurring within 60 to 90 days. Use the higher rates when more rapid visual effects are desired. WaterleUuce-for control. apply a 3/4 to 1 percent solution 01 this product with hand-held equipment to actively growing plants. Use higher rates where infestations are heavy. Best results are obtained from mid-summer through winter appli- cations. Spring applications may require retreatment. Waterprimrose-Apply this product as a 3/4 percent solu- tion using hand-held equipment. Apply to plants that are actively growing at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. but before fall color changes occur. Thorough coverage is neces- sary lor best control. Other perennials "Sled on ibis labe!-Apply 4 112 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached early head or early bud stage 01 growth. 9.3 Woody Brush and Trees Apply a 1 to 2 percent solution of this product to control or partially control the woody brush and tree species listed below. Add 2 or more quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons 01 spray solution to the rafes of this product given in this list. See the "GENERAlINFORMATlON", "DIRECTIONS FOR USE" and "MIXING AND APPLICATION" sectiOlls in this label for specific uses and application instructions. Ensure thorough coverage when using spray-te-wet treat- ments using hand-held equipment. When using hand-held equipment for low volume directed spot treatments. apply a 5 to 8 percent solution of this product. When applied as recom:nended under the conditions described, this product plus surfactant CONTROLS or PARTIALLY CONTROLS the following woody brush plants and trees: 8 Alder Alnus spp. Ash" Fraxinus spp. Aspen, quaking Populus tremuloides Bean:lover, Beannat Chamaebafia foliolosa Birch Betula spp. BlacldJeny Rubus spp. Broom: French Cytisus monspessulanus Scotch Cytisus scoparius Buckwheat, California" Eriogonum fasciculatum ClI$C8ra * Rhamnus purshiana Castor bean Ricinus communis Catselaw" Acacia greggi Ceanothus Ceanothus spp. Chamise Adenostoma faseieulatum Cheny: Bitter Prunus emarginata Black Prunus serotina Pin Prunus pensy/vanica Cottonwood, easlern Populus deltoides Coyote brush Baccharis consanguinea Creeper, Virginia * Parthenocissus quinquefolia Cypress, swamp, bald Taxodium distichum Deerweed Lotus scoparius Dewberry Rubus trivia/is Dogwood Comus spp. Elderbeny Sambucus spp. Elm* Ulmus spp. Eucalyptus, bluegum Eucalyptus globulus Gallbeny llex glabra Hackbeny, weslern Celtis occidentalis Hasardia * Haplopappus squamosus Hawthorn Ctataegus spp. Hazel Cory/us spp. Hickory Cal}'8 spp. Honeysuclde Lonicera spp. Hornbeam, American Carpinus caroliniana Hucklebeny Vaccinium spp. Kudzu Puetaria /obata Locusl, b1ack* Robinia pseudoacacia Magnolia, sweelbay MagnOlia virginlana Manzanila Arctostaphylos spp. Maple: Red** Acer rubrum Sugar Acer saccharum Vine" Acer circinatum Monkey Rower* Mimulus guttatus Oak: Black" Quercus velufina Northern pine Quercus paJustris Posl Quercus stel/ata Red Quercus rubra Southern red Quercus talcata Whlte* Quercus alba Orange, Osage Mac/uta pomifeta Peppertree, Brazilian- (Florida Holly) 5chinus terebinthifolius Persimmon" Oiospyros spp. Poison Ivy Rhus tadicans Poison Oak Rhus toxicodendron Poplar, yellow* Uriodendron tulipifera Pronus Prunus spp. Raspbeny Rubus spp. Redbud, eastern Cercis canadensis Redcedar, eastern Juniperus virginlana Rose, mullinora Rosa multillota Russian-olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Sage: black, white Salvia spp. Sagebrush, California Artemisia califomica Salmonbeny Rubus spectabifis Salleedar, Iamarisk* Tamarix spp. Sallbush, Sea myrtle Baccharis halimifolia Sassafras Sassafras aibidum Sourwood" Oxydendrum arboreum Sumac: Laurel" Rhus toxicodendron Poison* Rhus vernix Smooth" Rhus g/abra Sugarbush" Rhus ovata Winged" Rhus copal/ina Sweel gum Uquidambar styraciffua Swordfern" Po/ystichum munitum "Partial control "See below for conlrol or partial conlrol instruction. NOTE: If brush has been mowed or mled or trees have been cuI. do not treal unlil regrowth has reached the recom- mended stage of growth. Apply the recommended rale of this product plus 2 or more quarts of a non ionic surfaclant per 100 gallons of spray solu- tion when plants are actively growing and. unless otherwise directed. alter full-leaf expansion. Use the higher rale for larger plants and/or dense areas of growth. On vines, use the higher rate for plants that have reached the woody Slage of growth. Best results are oblained when application is made in late summer or fall alter fruil formation. In arid areas, besl results are oblained when application is made in Ihe spring or early summer when brush species are at high moisture content and are Dowering. Ensure Ihorough coverage when using hand-held equipmenl. Symptoms may not appear prior to frost or senescence with fall treatments. Allow 7 or more days after application before tillage. mowing or removal. Repeat treatments may be necessary to control plants regeneraling from underground parts or seed. Some autumn colors on undesirable deciduous species are accept- able provided no major leaf drop has occurred. Reduced per- formance may resun if fall treatments are made followHig a frost. See the "DIRECTIONS FOR USE" and "MIXING AND APPLI- CATION INSTRUCTIONS" sections in this label for labeled use and specific application instructions. Applied as a 5 to 8 percent solution as a directed application as described in the "HAND-HELD AND HIGH-VOLUME EQUIPMENT" section, this product will control or partially control all species lisled in this section of this label. Use the higher rate of application for dense stands and larger woody brush and trees. Apply the product as follows to control or partially control the following woody brush and trees. Alder I BlacldJeny I Dewberry I Honeysuckle I Oak, Posll Raspberry-for control. apply 4 112 10 6 pints per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Aspen, Quaking I Hawthorn I Trumpelcreeper-for control, apply 3 to 4 1/4 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Birch I Elderbeny I Hazell Salmonbeny IThlmbleberry-for control, apply 3 pints per acre of this product as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Broom: french, Scolch-for control, apply a 1 1/4 to 1 112 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Buckwheat, California I Hasardia I Monkey flower I Tobacco, Tree-For partial control of these species. apply a 3/4 to 1 112 percent solution of this prOduct as a foliar spray with hand-held equipment. Thorough coverage of foliage is necessaty for best results. Castorbean-For control, apply a 1 112 percent solution of this product with hand-held eqUipment. Cals&law-for partial control, apply a 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment when at feasl 50 percent of the new leaves are fully developed. Tallowlree, Chinese Sapium sebiferum Thimbleberry Rubus parvillorus Tobacco, tree" NicoYana glauca Toyon" Herteromefes arbufifofia T rumpelcrellJler Campsis radicans Waxmyrlle, soulhern" Myrica cerifeta Willow Sa/Ix spp. Verbasenla, California Eriodictylon californicum 9 Cheny: Bitter, Black, Pin I Oak, Southern Red I Sweet Gum I Prunus-for control, apply 3 to 7 112 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 to 1 112 percent solu- tion with hand-held equipment. Coyote brush-for control. apply a 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand.held equipment when at least 50 percent of the new leaves are fully developed. Dogwood I Hickory / Salt cedar-for partial control. apply a 1 to 2 percent solution of this product with hand-held equip- ment or 6 to 7 1/2 pints per acre as a broadcast spray. Eucalyptus, bluegurn-For control of eucalyptus resprouts, apply a 1 112 percent solution of this product with hand-held equipment when resprouts are 6- to 12~feet tall. Ensure com- plete coverage. Apply when plants are actively growing. Avoid application to drought-stressed plants. Kudzu-for control, apply 6 pints 01 this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand- held equipment. Repeat applications will be required to main- tain control. Maple, Red-For control, apply.as a 3/4 to 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment when leaves are fully developed. For partial control, apply 2 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray. Maple, Sugar I Oak: Northern Pin, Red-for control, apply as a 3/4 to 1 1/4 percent solulion with hand-held equipment when at least 50 percent of the new leaves are fUlly devel- oped. Peppertree, Brazilian (Holly, Florida)! Waxmyrtle, south- em-for partial control, apply this product as a 1 1/2 percent solulion with hand-held equipment. Poison Ivy! Poison Oak-for control, apply 6 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Repeat applica- tions may be required to maintain control. Fall treatments must be applied belore leaves lose green color. Rose, multiftora-for control, apply 3 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment Treatments should be made prior to leaf deterioration by leaf-feeding insects. Sage, black I Sagebrush, California! Chamise ! Tallowtree, Chinese-for control of these species, apply a 3/4 percent solution of this product as a foliar spray with hand-held equipment. Thorough coverage of foliage is necessary for best results. Saltbush, Sea myrtle-for control, apply this product as a 1 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Willow-for control. apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Other WOOdy brush and trees listed in this label-for par- tial control, apply 3 to 7 112 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. 10.0 LIMIT OF WARRANTY AND LIABILITY Monsanto Company warrants that this product conforms to the chemical description on the label and is reasonably fit for the purposes set forth in the Complete Directions for Use label booklet ("Directions") when used in accordance with those Directions under the conditions described therein. NO OTHER EXPRESS WARRANlY OR IMPLIED WARRANlY OF FITNESS FOR PARTICUlAR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABIL- IlY IS MADE. This warranty is also subject to the conditions and limitations stated herein. Buyer and all users shall promptly notify this Company of any claims whether based in contract. negligence, strict liability, other tort or otherwise. Buyer and all users are responsible for all loss or damage from use or handling which results from conditions beyond the control of this Company, including, but not limited to, incompatibility with products other than those set forth in the Directions, application to or contact with desirable vegeta- tion, unusual weather, weather conditions which are outside the range considered normal at the application site and for the time period when the product is applied. as well as weather conditions which are outside the application ranges set forth in the Directions, application in any manner not explicitly set forth in the Directions, moisture conditions out- side the moisture range specified in the Directions, or the presence of products other than those set forth in the Directions in or on the soil, crop or treated vegetation. This Company does not warrant any product reformulated or repackaged from this product except in accordance with this Company's stewardship requirements and with express writ- ten' peonission of this Company. THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE USER OR BUYER, AND THE LIMIT OF THE lIABIlIlY OF THIS COMPANY OR ANY OTHER SEllER FOR ANY AND All LOSSES, INJURIES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF . THIS PRODUCT (INClUDING CLAIMS BASED IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT lIABIlIlY, OTHER TORT OR OTHER- WISE) SHALL8E THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID BY THE USER OR BUYER FOR THE QUANTllY OF THIS PRODUCT INVOLVED, OR, AT THE ELECTION OF THIS COMPANY OR ANY OTHER SElLER, THE REPLACEMENT OF SUCH QUAN. TIlY, OR, IF NOT ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE, REPLACEMENT OF SUCH QUANTITY. IN NO EVENT SHAll THIS COMPANY OR ANY OTHER SElLER BE lIABlE FOR ANY INCIDENTAl, CONSEQUENTiAl OR SPECIAL DAMAGES. Upon opening and using this product, buyer and all users are deemed to have accepted the teons of this LIMIT OF WAR- RANlY AND lIABIlIlY which may not be varied by any ver- bal or written agreement If teons are not acceptable. return at once unopened. EPA Reg. No. 524-343 In case of an emergency involving this prodUCt, or for medical assistance, Call Collect, day or night. (314) 694-4000. @2000 MONSANTO .COMPANY ST. lOUIS, MISSOURI, 63167 U.S.A. 10 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 ofFish 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 waterlily control work. North Lake IA VMP - Appendix D D-l STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard. Mill Creek. Washington 98012. (425) 775-1311 FAX (425) 338-1066 15 September 2004 Wendy Honey 3800 S. 328th Street Auburn W A 98001 RE: - North Lake, King County. Your request for copies of official records per telephone conversation 01 September 2004. Copies will be used in support of the North Lake IA VMP submitted to Department of Ecology. Dear Ms. Honey: Enclosed are the documents that you requested. These include the following: a. Post-rehabilitation record dated July 28, 1950. b. " " "dated September 7, 1954. c. " " "dated October 31, 1963. d. Lake rehabilitation September 18, 1968. No pre-/post-rehabilitation record found. Referenced on pre-rehabilitation record for September, 1972, rotenone application (Refer to "e"). e. Post-rehabilitation record dated September 29, 1972. f Lake rehabilitation October 5, 1979. No pre~/post-rehabilitation record found. Referenced in Department of Game internal memorandum dated September 12, 1979. g. Letter from Department of Game to North Lake Improvement Club, Auburn, W A, March 12, 1951. Re available herbicides to control water lilies along North Lake shoreline. h. Letter from Department of Game to North Lake Weed Control Committee, Auburn, W A, July 6, 1966. Response to inquiry re Department of Game support and funding to manage the water lily situation. In light of the periodic nature of these lake rehabilitation events, I suspect that there may have been a lake rehabilitation in 1958, but I was unable to find any corroborating documentation in the historical files. 15 Sep 2004 North Lake rehabilitation records P 2 of 2 Please contact me at 425-775-1311, extension #116, if you have any questions or additional requests for copies of records to include in the documentation packet supporting the North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP). Si:e~:~~'. ~ L~;~oda Area Fish Biologist Region 4 - King, Island, and south Snohomish Counties Enclosures SEP 15 '1214 08:08FtM WDFW PUBLIC AFFAIRS STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WilDLIFE Maihng Addl'e$S: 600 Capitol Way North Office Location: I J II Washington Street S.E. Olympia, Washington 9850 J -1091 Telephone (360)902-2253 · FAX (360)902-2171 P.2/2 ()t1 3$?' Request No. ~ V/ (Department Use Only) REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORD NOTE: The Department of Fish and Wildlife may impose a charge for providing copies of public records (ReW 42.17.300) I.IllQlJ.sroR's NAMe /z?4 1:: H/k)/ FIRM: Mrli &--1-,.. - -r;.~ f>/?fl/)d.n?~/l .; , i . MAILING ADDRESS: e j; .3 fc:1::J . c;$, .32 Y f. TELEPHONE; t;::<.6'gS~';::2' ?.2 K? FAX: -- Chh (' NL/I!. .) A/~tLfn 11//1 LJfcJ;J/ City/State Zip Code n -:2:1YPE OF RecORo(sfoRSPECtFIC ReCORD REQU6TEo: /bp~ o.fJ-Ik, Mrfj La-I:-. r~"flL,;// ~-:'t(H? r?>f"Jdd:::; '{br~~~/l/i~ d~d /9~ I f';l-"L.? /C}~~ ~ t-J:--- A/Llt'__ 3. PROVIDE INFORMAT.JON BY: . clnspeaion ~ot'OCopy OList cMlI8netic: tape CDlskeue - Size: Cl..1bels cComputer PrintOUt cOther AGREEMENT TO PROTECT USrS-OF..JNDIVIDUALS - FROM USE FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSe As defined in RON 42.17.~60(7). I hereby agree that the list of ind"lViduals-provided me by the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall not be used for any commercial purpose by myself or by any other individual or organization I represent and I will protect the information from access by anyone who ma)" use it for purposes of contacting the individuals named therein or otherwise personally affecting them in the furtherance of any profit-seeJdng aCtivity_ I dedare under penalty of rjury under the laws of the State ofWashiogton that the foregoing is true.and correa. . .' - iA '?v{T _ 9'11S:..:7~ Si ~'. NL.r~ ;;~s,j)4v' Date FOR DEPARTMENT USEONLY: Request No. ~q3<?\ Date Received q - 15 -04- Date Completed Approved v Denied Reason for denial Account # Invoice iF Amount $ -- ~~ 01~tl~ Lei: s. KiLg Cc. .to;' ~.' LAKE';'-~ , 'g;J NCR Tn COUNTY King, See. 15,'l'wp. 2111., / DATE "~6IsoNED . .~jillY':2'e')'1950' '. .:-.~:.:.":~.;.,.;.';;;. ':':~ ,,(.'~ .....-_.:.. ;-'.. Jige. ..'4l'B~'.' Fill.inthe fpllowing information accurately; :dfid:c.:.;::'~ 1. Surface acreage 56 ., ''.::e.(ir6$:;~'i. .;, ~~;'..;:- :". ;~i{ ~. - 'J';~, .; . -;~" :~,:':' e;;::r=: ,..L 34 feet'; a,,~r~gO.dePth.. "13 .'<.. ,L~~'.i:~!~!"':jl~:. . ..~. relir. .. 2. Maximum depth .... .;_".'... ;.~:!~r:: :: 3. Volume of water in the lake 3~t5~2,.OO~ cu. fect';.:. c....;'.... .;..,..~ '. " .'.....~~ _'.,.:~ . . 4: '. ~icightni ','11;'.;'11 fit" :~II ~;,!:!,; "2.220"'125,'OOO:'::~:.....~~~.~,: ...:.~',l~' . ","", ";:;,.:~ ...-. . .'" .-- - --..- " '-- . 5. Rotanen., prcduct required to PoJ._~l,1,~e~akO 2700 poundspa~ed on, 1 pa5~roi~;'~br::~.}';';tJi~t;~.~.:' ;~;"".:::, " ..;,..".."..:....1 ~'r '-~'-:. -_,~->.. "":./"'1.,.. -,-.r.r':()~r.....~...iv .,_r;:-- : f:-"'.'~. __j,';' 6. . C6~t o,f,poi:scn.@ lJ.-' ";29. ~"por.pound:..$ . '783.' ..' p~~ts:t'~tel1?~e , to ~,OOO, QqQ., , f:.--.;I.:~ .f. ~tr:,;: ; f~,;::-C::'t~ ..'1 _ ,~_! :~! ".:' t!-_W.;';::,. .! . ..l, ':':A ~ ~I '.' ~, ~h~t .l.; !~t~~ Jon -.:~ ~::G ~ 7. '. ~.". i:: - }.fan hc.urs effort e:<pended in survey .'16" Ua.'1 h9urs e.(f.ort :~end~<L'~~';i;iS~~~' .64 .... "'-.. -::...:.~:;;.. :'f'.' ';:_'_-;.~-r~'. -:-. p"t-~..c" "_J>,:'" p, '~-:'-,,-,~,-\,:'-L,,":",:. rl:'; -........\; 9.Conditicns i.tlt.he lake,~n~d.~ of poi~O~B:;~':'!,:;,_" ., ".'.:. -' ""- ".'-.... .;., -- ',.' ._,.\. .', - . --- : - Depth in Feet'.:.:. :;r~m~~at~' pH ", : -'::".::' ,!~ .. 8. ". . j ,. ";:i :_ .' '~: .;~ ;_.- ':J :. j',,;~' . 1 -- . -.~ _~~ \---.f ':'" -.- .-' DissolVe~,:: .... ~':' . i.' ; QXJ'gel!Conte~~_~~: ..2 ,.. ... 0 .:s.. . [" ':10 15 20 -'2~ 30 35 40 ,75 7.9 ..+<..1... 7.8.. ;'~ f~r' ~.O";iv~( U.n. ~~'-: .1 7C:r J. 8;8 60 "'54 ---2.~ 5.6 ( {. ~~ 3';te ~ - i~ ;;, 'il. ' r f J.., 1,'2. "50 ,~_ ~'" '''1"',. 'l"~," :.. ~;'5~;:~: :?~~~~.-....L L' ..I'_...~~: ~:~':J.1:~b ~~..... ;,_J..~' 45 50 10. Uumbers and species of .fish eradicated: L.M. Bass '75~000 1"-17" Perch 100,000 1"-7l" Sunfish 25'.200 1"_5" Crappie 5.000 1 "_13" Rainbow Trout 25 8"-12" Catfish .1.000 4"-3!lbs. e"~. '..............;....:.......... " ~-~-."-;. (o~f') -'.--'_._--~~~-_... . " . -',. , .' .,' - ,,,'-" . _<"'--'....:.....,;._.. ....._.O:~....:.....~-"'-_._'......_.~_---._.__....._~""':'--"'___ . , ".J!l~~;Y;; :: rlf&ci; ;' 61) . ( :::~=::'~:~:::i:::~~t~:TY,~.. -i:;~;"\;i->" . '~'. -~, '\.~ 1. Surface acreage " 'II . 'a'tres. .; '~.i-' -." - (~':'. .~- ~.'.r' 2. Maxirnum deRth : . -~'-:::";,,~ ;~~:..' I "':~~;'..' t:e.e~fa~el'a~e '~e.Pth" 14.8 feet. 4."~ieightll pounds. ,€., , .I Rotenclle prcduct required to poison the lake '~goo'n.. Pllll)OOl~.. .ap....,. arld dUet. -.- -> . ~..~ I. - . . _ _, _' _ '.: parts rotenone to 1;000,000 "II 'i."';. If . i'1( "U 1 '~..J.2t_": .. J - . :" :.;'~ 0: ..~ ~ :. ; '. ' l,nO,llf'GOO. 'C', " 3. Volume of meter in tho lal<e cu. feet. , 5. pounds basod on ~>:~.. -. ,.) ~ parts o:flv.?tC!r-b~'weight. .6. Cost of.poiseD @$ '''l."~ound$ 0IIl. 7. Man hours efforte;<pended in survey 77S.00 16 8. Man.ho':tNfeffort~endedin po~solling " . ~ 9. Conditicns in the lake ondate'or po~son~g: Depth in Fef.'t 'femperai; itre pH Dissolved o.xygen Content .~ 11.4 0. 5 10. 15 ", ~ c~ u.o ---- -~.--- 20. s, n s., 25-6 ]0. 35 -.....-- 0.8 40. 45 50 10.. Numbers and species of nsh eradicated: 20,000 ,eretl j.. .8 inob. a...... W 12 UlOhe$ : 10,000 ..ttbh 6... 1 tcob ......... 1U1nlJllllUl,Xh'UllI ..an '200 ri1RbOww.ut. lO .. .1' !neb.. .11. Possibility of a complete kill gClOCl 'u:'&i;ri~n~-=~';:~citi&i-~~~~d;:":~.~~': ~,:: :;!}'.,' (ow l' ) r.........................................-...-- ,)~. .',.' " . ~o.... ;, .. f-}.-:.:.; ..'. --. ---CIIIIf'-------....---- --- FOiUl 65 .. LAm NORTH COUNTf KING t ....~. .~;l ;;- DATE POISONED 1"6-- 3l-6'f- ~ , . ~: . -.... - " -. . - . FU1 in the t:':::'M'l: int.Jm;l.t1on accuratel7' - - 1. sU~Z~"v3 a':":'eage...-==-:'"2~.~ aC~8~ -, 2. Ms..::'::um d"J:t~___~ ,3.4...-~.~~e-t; aveJ'ae~ iep'~: _ --'!4~8_.._ .~.__~:=ee.:.. , . . :3 Vol".:,'" of \ <i"er :'.1 th,,, 2..ik~::':..:.:..:..-1S. 522:" 000" .-_. .__ _._, ". ~'Ju.:~s.;. 4. Weight If II 'I II . . .. ~_<'..:.. .~. .t-- _". ..... .".~. ..... . II 2.220.12S'.000.. ..__ _._.__.~,1t~S. . "" . , 5. Rotenone product !"~~.:;c<:i to p~::son the leke1800.-1Jl.ql~.:HU:.?.:r.~~.~st poU1~..:is bas~ on 1 . _. .-- .. . .. .. ___'larts rotenone t-o.;.....l..QQ.Q.,P.Q!L.._... ....... pari;s of Wt'.ter L:;- welg~,t.. 6. ()c)si. ot P(,~.3on@ $ .16lt. O)e:'." po-.rad $ 295.QL.. ._. . -. 1. Man hours dfort expended:in f,:!1"'1,,-'.l' ~.~ . .. 'i~~~. 8. Man hours <.:for'.. 3XpOn6.ed in poisoni.rut 12 'to . .......... 9. Coneitions in tb lake on d'1te of F:'30nir...'J1 Depth in Feet Teillpe:o.ature pH ]lir.:.O::.v.;d ~gen Content. o 49 6.8 7.00 ,-: ~ 5 10 3ecchi Disk R~~8e - ---1Ij_ _.JW..._ 6.90 15 ~;v -la._ J..:L.. 6 a84--... . ~~S ':0 h.Q . 7.0::> .. - ,.. .;J ;~5 =-0 In,. NumJ;a::-s ar.O: ;;pec.:,oo of ~'3h <"'I'....di.c?-~..,,: G~2.q.i?-=10~ _,;. __.?2..00Q.___ R~~~-l;J,. II') ..__.___....220._., ---~--_.._--_....- . _....- ......._......~....--_-..... .-......... -_..._'.-_-.-_~. y. Pos' .i~:j:l:.~ cr r ~"..np~,; .'. :d1;._.....Q.~9.<f~~..lonE...~j.~~.D. .in.J:sm.ilm.<}t;i..9n ~1~ tl~.~~_!?.~.~~.1!:~~to ..fJ:9<l!!.J!l].illq~~L-_.__. .......,.....-_ ___ .i2. Ro':;s~O!le prcd.uct~3ec1 _~t1Jf:.<W~2.2.L--_.---- ..- (oner) ./ form #65 PRE-REHABILITATION fORM I. Name of Water Norttl County 11n<< Section l' Tp. 2l1f Range It I: Neares t Town Auburn 2. Surface Acres 56 Maximum depth 34' \ICXIlt. (Wt.) 2.220.125iOOO 1.. 3. Oate of last previous rehabi litation Sept. 18, 1968 Toxicant used Botenone- Pro-nox (earl1) 4. Anticipated treatment date Sept., 19'12 Estimated replanting date October. 19'12 5.' Proposed toxicant Rot.DOIIe Concentrati on 1.1.000.000 Amount 2.200 lba. Method of application Boat 6. Objectives: Complete ki II Yes Target species Percb. Cattiab Partial ki II (Percent) 7. .~Procedures . for sal vage and di sposa I of dead fi sh None 8. Type of outlet: P~rmanent .Intemi ttent x Ory Hi les. of stream Stream flow 9. Does affected area contain rare, endangered or endemic species No measures to be taken for their protection if so, descri: 10. Measure to protect downstream resources Kay beed to IlaDdbag OIIUet due to Weyerbaewser pond below WI. (if none, sped fy why) a&tl.t d~ at t1ae of application II. Will detoxicant be used .0 Type 12. Expected duration of beneficial effects 13. Public access Yea Developed Long te1'lll Yee Pub Ii c Major land ownership: Private ' X Other 14. Established resorts: RoM. eUll operat1Ds IS. Public attitude: local res'idents '!'boa. ClOlltaoted Sports Club Favorable l'aVOftQle Pub Ii c Head ng 1'(0 16. Is water used locally for domestic, industrial or irrigation purposes No If so, clearance required 17. Five-Year Planting Record: S88 other .140 ~ Sf ;e Sped es 18. Catch i nformati on: 1;68 fi sh~men No. Fish Speci es Averal~2 Catch ~( lUS ,. .&.9 8~ 1'(8 4.( -u?O tA;, ....~ ~ 6.~ -xm: ii ;: MU ~.(j( -n72 D :5.1 19. Remarks: Toxicant used is based on ~ active ingredient. . 7 Fisher i e~~!~l Og1 Reg.H_______ Date F~6S.A POST REHABILIT.ATION FORM 1. lake or Stream Norib County IiI2R .Secti on 15 Township 21. Range 4Jll 2; O~te Treated 9-29-'12 3. Surface .Acreage 56 . 4. Hflesof Stream Federal Project No. Date submi tted Miles of tributary or outlet treated Miles of tributaries ~. Haxi mUll clept h )It ( ft. ) VolUllle of water fn lake",,22,OOOcu.ft. .Average depth 15' Weight of water in lake 2.22>.125.000 .~. 7. Toxicant used to rehabf 1i tate lake IotenoDe Jlmount used 1,650 ( I bs. ~ JfaqC) 8. Pounds based on 1 parts of BoteuoDe tol,OOO,OOO pts. of water by wt. 9. CoSt of matedal at $ per lb or gal. Total cost of material~ 10. Han hours effort expended in treatement ao 11. Conditions in the lake on date of treatments Dep~h in Ft; Temperature ~ Dissolved Oxygen Total Dissolved Solids 0' 62,0 8.4 12. Numbers and species of fish eradicated: Yellow Peroh IQslllOlltb ..... 3-9" 8-16" I ~. Jlaiabow ~t ~ 8,000 100 100 150 Brow .11b_4 8-12" 8-14" 13. 14. Possibility of a complete kill: Good Oetoxf fi cati on If so, report on effects recorded on downstream fishery. IS. Period of toxicity: !~. Fish Stocking: ~ 1fOD-~ b11foy_~r ao, 19'12 Species Size Pound~ ~ Number '1 Fish~~109ist Region N-----Pate . STATE OF WASHINGTON North Lake King Co. ~- .-, '. c..... ..'_ . -'"~ ./' -,;~> \ r-'0;/~,--:;i~::;,~~~.. J..:;., , \:::)/;~ I ;, .. ~ 4iJ.''':-;'''' A ,.#,. "'__..,-/~.."</'Jt..t'- .- .~. r ....; - :1" ~ :..~ ; .;"~-1r(~f;;~'\ THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME DON W. CLARKE. D.._. 1509 FAIRVIIlW AVIENUIE NORTH SEA TTLIC .. March 12 t 1961 "<',~ , , liorth Lake Improvement. C1ub t Route 3, Box 1387 Aubarn, Washington Dear Sirs: '... '/ Receipt is acknowledged of your letter requesting ini'ormation on the control of water-lllies. The ?enite-6 mentioned in ou~' Game Bulletin is used mainly for the control of submerged aquatic plants ani would not be too effective in the control of water- lilies. Researchers in vr.rious ;)ar'bG of' the. co~.,..-have not been successful in finding a sure method lot co-ntrol for these p~ant.s. However the fo~lowing have had some form o~ success. 1. 25', 24D containing an 011 carrier or detergent. 2. 2"; 24D (2 Lbs 24D, 1 'it Triethanolamine, and 25 gellonswater) 3 . 245T tiater1i1ies have waxy coverings requ:tr:.i..as _~.,.....:.........1_ strong &olutioDsc~nteining oil carriers Q~ ae~erEent6 rv~ ~-~~-~,nenetr~tion 2nd cOTerage. .Theref~~e your ~ tr:lals witn OOWoereu .::.-:=' ,",.::IYe 1oI.l-vvll:r...:LDef'fec"t1.ve. One 01: the most effective formulLtion3 of & 24L used to date on waterlilies and other waxy-coated p1ants is a.cormnercial solution consisting of 35.0% 24D end 17.5% phe~~acetic acid. .!of you could get t.his mat.erial inmaldng u;J your solutions, you might. have bet t.er success. T'o not be discouraged if you do not acb~e control atter the first applica.tion. Continued applications shouJ.d be made and it might take two to t.hree seasons to get complete control. Ilone of the above mat.eriaJ.s should be harmful to fish. lithe Department can be of further assistance please :30 not besi t.ate to vr.r1 te' . we appreciate your efforts to protect the fish in the lake in trying to solve yourbroblem. Kindly keep us in:forme:j.on the success of your proje'ct. Very t~ yours, :: ~:r~AME ... F. :I. Det t.mer, Aquatic Chemist COJP>Y , ~ STATE OF WASmNGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME Memo for March 6, 1951 Herb Dettmer Aqua tic Chemist Dear Herb: Enclosed is a letter from the North Lake Improvement Club regarding weed control. would you answer this and send me a copy of your reply. Very ~<mrs, Clarence F. Pautzke, Chief Fishery Management Division CFP:c ~ /' dUJ~ A>> ' MEETINGS .=....UI'IU . OF EACH MONTH AT e:~r~~ ~ "'1~ NORTH LAKE IMP~~~MEN~~~"YB~ ROUTE 3. BO~. 1-. . \. h .~~ AUBURN, WASHINGTON ~ro' ...~ :~,.h ~ 'v . .,'1J "?r-1 <;>b~Y ~ <r f)~~_. , Jl~~~ ~/9-.5-/~ ,X-<..~. . ' ~~~a ' ~ '. ~ ~-c'u-~7asdl.t1s), ~,~~JI~;(..~ ~~~/~/tz:~. ~4 La~~'- ~~ J~CL~~7~~' I~ ~{//J'// ,/ . ~ ~ . t5J.-z-~-e-t/ ~~~~ ',-' , ~, ~"~~~ .' · "~~~'eJ-~:'8 ~4~. (/ ~ .~Z-C r~~:Z' ) ~~-.~ '.~ 7&Z-L ~ U~~ ~~. ~& 'ifo'f f/'1 r;a~e Cor..mis.roncrf I Harold A, Pebbles, ChaiNn4n, Ol,mpi4 . . ArlhMf' S. Coffin, Y.lima; I_mes H. Rails, Wilson C,.cek; Alberl T. Prieh,.,.J, K"'-u; CUu4e Bekins, SUllie; uson Dow, WenMchee Dif'ectof' ,jf 6am'? / !':Jh.l A. Biggs State of Washington DEP.A.RT~ENT OF G.A:M:E " ~-' ~ ':~. . - ~. < ., . ;'~~--1r:-':~<~k~J:2t.f.~~;: J .... 509 FIIirriew Nt1tIh / &4rJk, W mh. 9110J July 6. 1966 Mrs. Vi v1anBeaudo1n Borth Lake Weed Control Committee 33453 33rd P1acs South Auburn, Washington 98002 Dear Mrs. Beaudoin: It would be extremely difficult for the Game Department to justi!'y the expenditure of monies for the purpose you have suggested. This is true even though the amount involved is not large. We are of course, charged wi th producing and m.a1n- ta~g populations or fish in North Lake and the removal of' Water Ll11ies woUld in no way enhance this program. In fact the complete removal of vegetative life mi~t have Just the opposite ertect. This does not mean that we are not sympathetic with your problem and we hope that the l111y control operation 1s successful. We know Mr. Ca.rsner and respect his ability and accomplishments. EAC:vj / cc - H11lenbach v Knott Ayerst Supervisor, # 7 CCXQl1PY ~"3 (. - , . i S~LE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT R8LEA.'SH FORM Target Weed tJ. W[)~ Loa ~ ~;.(L ~mon na;t) . Agent Gto.J..QJ( u.~ t ~ ~ dll (t:S . (Scientific name) County ~~ T 1-1 Township N S Dale 7 !25/~ '> Number released 2 (eAAJo 1 ~ R Ra~W Sec I~ 1/4~ Section Lat. latitude Long. longitude BlM _ USFS ~ PRI J'E _ USFWS _ STATE ~ OTHER ..... GPS Derived? Yes~ No .Land Owner: Land Manager: (8 riel & Ranger At, I National Forest & r" I Refuge Dept. of Transportation I City I County I Rancher, etc.) Site Name: N(~-~_JD.\<f) ~9~ Lav.~~ (Use geographical reference: mountain, nver, valley, road, campground, powerline, etc.) r ~ Nearest town Road Weather: Clear _ Pardy cJoudly. .,.. CIC>U<'W', .~. Slope: None -JlI Slight~ Mnttf3. ....$t~QP .... SOli: Sandy .____loant---=-,s.iIJ ____~OlV~.....:;: . ..,~,::Terraln:.. Valley ____ FoOtt1i1I~~ou!1tain .c%' >Xi;;"Yegetatlon::ct3rass1and.. ..>> i:.Si1~Itl: . .'. \. : /.DeOIduousforest-(' ->MixEK:tf~ . Plant Covel': (estimate %) Target weed \< .FoltiS(tlOJirjQIUdingtatg~fr"'",~':g~;..:.!<;. Grasses Shrubs . treeS C,. .'t.itterSare9fquil(f;.... Dominant Plant Species: ..... ..'. .... .... . ... ..... .. . ..... ..... ......... .....;.:):;.y;i Land Use: Aange ~~Timber ----,Wildlif~.,.:/>ftightotWay~ P$~ture.~':;<~~}?:::;,,;. .>.... DlstUm:~~~..~... .... ... .._i~~t~t;..~~~('!~~'i~~~I'&;';;iif~k~;y~;;' CultIVation ___ Construction ~ .. . .,. ,.. ..... ... .... ..., , . .'n, -<'-""-~':' ";'-'-~,-f/t3:':K;.'," :::",' :,.::":---\,'- ", . -. ,~ ' " . , &;\ u SAMPLE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENf RELEASE FORM TargelWeed ~~ 11')o~~:"~. Date 7- A-u.<J () 2- (. ) . ~~~ Agent Gu..l.J2Xu..~u.c..... MvY\C4r\an<)d&.mberreleased.' . ~ (Scientilic name) I County Y.l~ T 2JJ.J Rm~ See Township N S Range E W Section 1/4 1J/;;. Lat. Long. GPS Derived? Yes No latitude Longitude Land Owner: BlM _ USFS _ PRIVATE ~SFWS _ STATE )( OTHER Land Manager: ~"~L~~ I,~ (flPW @~ (BlM District & ~ ~~ Forest & Ranger District I Refuge I Oept. of Transportation I City I County I Rancher. etc.) 11;ef>'\J SlteName:J.)(}('~ latQ - WtfC~ -/S71(~ll.)( (Use geographical reference: mountain, river. valley. road. ~ound. powerline. etc.) .<.-....... ~: y" ...... SITE DATA Check all items that apply and fill in blanks. (Draw map on back of form.) -- ~~ ~ Road~ "~OlllP'O'~IePost~ '/iF. . Weather: Clear_Partly cloudly Cloudy _ Temp i.JJ So. Wind ... ~. ..... . . . . . Slope: None ~ Slight~ Moderate _ Steep _ Aspect: S---..:..E--"- ~ N__._ .'.i.>..SOIl: Sandy_ Loam_ Silt~Gravel_ C1a.Y_ ... . EleVa!i9t'. ...., i ., . .;~;~";<";;-r'Terraln:"alleY---2F1>Othill . . Mountain Plain............ .R~tii.'\. ...~~~L .'/~;;.':2\~,;~~f',VegetatlCH1: .GICiSSIand .>:. .... Shrub land"-,- Crop land.' . .~!P~:ujAA.~~ffeHf~(e$t~ ...... ... . - /''':. ..DeOiduousforest?( Mixedfotest_ OIlier ' .. ".' . f..cr">", . . Plant CoVer: (esti)J1~ %) Targ~t weed. fntJ <7Jo Fo (no~inCludingtarget5 Grasses z~ Shrubs-. . Trees 0.. ,Litter ~ Bare ground Dominant Plant Species: . . er. ~~ -,-,,( LandUse:.Range-,-- Timber . ... Wildlife _ight ofWay-,-- asture ---'---"- Crop.:_~_ /,bi" ........VaCant~Wetland~ecreation~Mining--.--- Other .. . . .. '.i'i l~~ft.7::=~~~~~~~7.~ . ::-;".i.'>~.f:"::-SIze Oflilft!5.t.ation: ...(Acres) ..~t.~. ......2..10___. 11-5()~.51-99______~1~.~ ;1J11:< '.. . . . .8tv<lI..' . ..~ (fee'l,"'l,l'~.!,! !';;~1' '~f;t"~"~ 7~,;> ..;~~;j! ... :'$;:.~-, IMPORTANT NOl1FICATION Tentatively, Whitworth Pest Solutions is scheduled to begin treatment of North Lake's Jillypad eradication on June 1'fh and June 18th, pending weather conditi9ns. Prior to beginning treatment, Whitworth will be posting signs on the shoreline where applications will be made. There will also be notification posted at ~ public boat Iaunch area. .It is important that these signs remain in place for 48 hours after treatment. Also, anyone who uses water fur watering etc. should refrain from using lake water for any pwpose for at least 48 hours after spraying has OCCUrred. Members of the North Lake Steering Committee will be collecting these signs to be used again in future treatment applications. It is ~o important to mention that Whitworth Pest Solutions has received permission from the county to use a gas powered motor on their boat for applying treatment to the Iilly pads. TheyIwere on the lake on June ']'h assessing the amount of Lilly pads for treatment and did receive a visit from the Sheriff. Please, if you see them on the 1']'h and 181h of June; do not contact the Sheriff department. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel to contact members of the Steering Committee or Whitworth Pest Solutions directly. Thank you all fur your support of this project. North Lake Steering Committee Wendy Honey 952.5283 Tom Jovanovich Debra Hansen 921.7789 Chuck Gibson Julie Cleary 874-9138 874-8238 661..()490 WHITWORTH PEST SOLUTIONS INC. 2533 INTE.R AVE. PUYALLUP, WASHINGTON 98372 Pierce Co. (253) 845-1818 · King Co. (206) 248-2222 . Toll Free 1-888-959-1818 Fax Line (253) 845-1133 · E-mail: wpctwbug@aol.com HERBICIDE APPLICATION RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS NOTICE North Lake will be treated with an aquatic herbicide between June 1 and September 30, 2004 by Whitworth Pest Solutions, phone #253-845-1818. Attached is a map of the areas to receive treatment. Notices will be posted .on the shoreline at the public boat raunch and on shorelines within 150 feet of treatment areas prior to each treatment. The herbicide used is Rodeo and the active ingredient is glyphosate. The only restriction after treatment is potable water intakes must be shut off for 48 hours. It is expected that 2 or 3 treatments will be performed, one in June, possibly one in July or August, and one in September. This herbicide treatment is regulated under a permit issued by Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program and administered by the Washington Department of Agriculture. These herbicides have been approved for this purpose by Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department of Agriculture. I j _1. - - -~ -,- - r- , . I I -"1-----..I...L_L / 4t:t--- - T" '7-r ~ ~:'~l- .:y:.- _l -~ _1-_ - -~\ ~..(:":.'<;'-' - -: --f-1- -. - - - - ~ ~~r,L. -;- -_~ I I 'L_r--'r ~'--r' : f I I , I S 328 ~(, f f , , I I _.J_-! : ~ J_.1 r -. -~- ----I ~ - -+-- ---- - --'::.:. ./-:. -..f I ~!..~ ----f I ---~ VJ ,----- -----I ell t.<.: ~..":'~ (\J <<:- . "'"',' -'. . . .' ".' .... '--~'-.' . ..\;:;;':t;~4~IF" ...J.. . :~i...:~~...~~:.;.~;i.h. ~_~~ -' -:" /. .';~. , " ' ". .. , ,vi / ~ ( CONTINUED ON SOUTH - X J'~TrfttJ1 (Nt of c.t rUo t> be iY Cttt~ ~~,;\ o ~ t----< 500' , 1---1 NY""-fhac.a oJ('>ftd Q 1000' I 1500' J I I &, f, lJ. f ":'1' t: C' , I 'll-DC ~ gOD J.:J 1. ./ 'f '?)~},1 ( 'J' ( \ /~~IC ~~:~. (l'{ tlef! \,.t o\k ~ t,j \ ( (I \--0 , .\ 0' \ . '. f .1.t~-j n -.l,- rv e('<.. f; I t L\ C/'<' y~- t1-c~.~ ... . '-\ t' .~.; (1'\ /L~ . \ "'-./"- C,._,( fl' , (11.' f ~ l+ '5 (I' " . ~4 If..-i,'. -.;; ..... f I { S ..\ .' i " ". -. 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 BACK G ROUND ........ .................................................... ............................................................................... 2 U 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 AOUA TIC NOXIOUS WEED PERMIT ...................................................................................... 6 5.0 2005 AOUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................... 7 ~ CONTRACT FOR AOUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 7 5.2 INITIAL SYSTEMATIC SURVEY ...................................................................................................................... 7 5.2.1 Eurasian Watermi/foi/.... ............... ............... ....................................... .... .............. ...... ..... ............... 7 5.2.2 Fragrant Water Li/v........................................................................................................................ 8 5.2.3 Yellow Flag Iris ...............................................................................................................................8 5.2.4 Purple Loosestrife ...........................................................................................................................8 5.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS........................................................................................................................ ..... 9 5.3.1 Eurasian Watermi/foi/ Treatment.............................................................................................. 10 5.3.2 Fragrant Water Li/v Treatment.................................................................................................. 10 5.3.3 Yellow Flag Iris Treatment......................................................................................................... 11 5.3.4 Purple Loosestrife Treatment..................................................................................................... 11 5.4 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 12 5.5 SECOND SYSTEMATIC SURVEY .................................................................................................................. 13 5 .6 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL.................................................................................................................. 15 5.7 BOTTOM BARRIER INST ALLATION.............................................................................................................. 16 5.8 WEED RAKEs ............................................................................................................................................. 16 6.0 WATER OUALITY MONITORING ...................................................................................................... 16 Q.,1 2005 WATER OUALITYMONITORING......................................................................................................... 16 7.0 EDUCA TIONIPUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................. 19 1.J. 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 WorksholJ.......................................................................................................................21 7.1.5 Boater Education... ....................................................... .................. ..... .......................... ............... 21 7.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION .. ....... ................................ ........................................... ............................................... 22 7.2.1 Quarterlv Newsletter.... ........ ............ ........................................ ....... .............. ............... ................ 22 7.2.2 Public Notices ............................................................................................................................... 22 7.2.3 Educational Fivers and Signs..................................................................................................... 22 7.2.4 Web Page DevelolJment............................................................................................................... 23 7.2.5 Annual RelJort............................................................................ ....... .......................... ............ ....... 23 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 8.0 2005 BUDG E T RE VEIW ............... ........ .............. ........................ .............................................................. 23 tl TASKS I & 2 BUDGET. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION'VEGETATIONMANAGEMENT...................................... 24 8.2 TASK 3 BUDGET. PUBLIC EDUCATION ........................................................................................................ 24 9.0 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2006.................................................. 25 2J. 2005 EVALUATION ...................................................... ............................................................................... 25 9.1.1 Aquatic Vegetation Management ................................................................................................ 25 9.1.2 Contract Management.... ................. .................................. ....... ........... .................. .... ....... ............ 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 Management .................................................................................................................. 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 INFOF'<MAJION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE (http://www.citvoffede.:atwav.com/Paae.aspx?paae=1 061) 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 (IA VMP). King County staff developed the IA VMP, 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 (IA VMP). The IA VMP is a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed control efforts in North Lake. The IA VMP 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 (A WMF). 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 oflakefront 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. 1 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 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 Eurasian watermilfoil Purple loosestrife Fragrant water lily Yellow flag iris Scientific Name Myriophyllum spicatum Lythrum salicaria Nymphaea spp. Iris pseudacorus Weed Class B B C C 2.0 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 ~ 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". 2 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 counfy-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 ofPL (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 (IA VMP) was planned. In addition, it was also reasoned that an Ecology-approved IA VMP 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 IA VMP. Concurrently, the options for grant funding from the DOE Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (A WMF) were explored. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer in order to gather public comment, and to finalize the IA VMP. 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 IA VMP implementation (2005} The IA VMP was submitted on September 16, 2004. DOE issued final approval for the plan on October 8. With an approved IA VMP, application was made to DOE for a long-term A WMF 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 (A WMF) 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 (A WMF). 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. 5 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 (http://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 AdministrationlManagement Task 2 - Vegetation Management Task 3 - Public Education Task 4 - Reporting Task 1 (Project AdministrationlManagement) 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 ofthe surface waters ofthe 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). 6 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 Arc View 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= 1 061). 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 IA VMP 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 ofthe 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 1he 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 I 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. GlvDhosate 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 (USEP A) 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. 9 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT The advantages of2, 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 (l0) 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 of7-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-haIf(I.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 Ll700 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.comlPage.aspx?page=106I). 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 YFI. 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 ofPL 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 of95%. 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 Muskgrass Water nymph Big leaf pondweed Slender leaf pondweed Common waterweed Fanwort Scientific Name Chara sp. Najas sp. Potamogeton Amplifoious Potamogeton filiformis Elodea Canadensis Cabomba caro/iniana Weed Class Native Native Native Native Native 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 HP A would be required to due to downstream habitat concerns. 15 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT Upon review of the HP A application, WDFW notified SWM staff that given the proposed scope of work, a HP A 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 HP A 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 #CI226) using USEPA Chromatography Method 8151 GC/MS Modified. Glyphosate samples were submitted to STL, and subcontracted to Coffey Labs in Portland through Edge Analytical in Burlington. Coffey Labs (DOE accredited laboratory #CI264) used USEP A Chromatography Method 547. Tables 1 and 2 below outline the results of the sampling. Table 1. 2005 North Lake 2,4-0 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 Glvphosate Water Samplina 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 8/2105 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 EP A label establish application concentrations for 2,4-D DMA4 *IVM 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*IVM 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 IA VMP - a dynamic document initially prepared by King County staff in 2004. The DOE Grant Agreement incorporates the information in the IA VMP, 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) * Chuck Gibson - (Co-Chair)* Debra Hansen Barry James * Appointed to their respective positions on April 21, 2005 James Chastain Julie Cleary Weyerhaueser Representitives * * Jennifer Hale Alex Juchems ** Lake residents and SWM staff agreed to make a Committee position available to aWeverhaueser 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 7.1.2 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 ofthe 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. Julv 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 IA VMP 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 Veeetation 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 ([he 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 7.2.4 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 IA VMP (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, blu~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: Table 3. 2005 North Lake Budaet Overview 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 (-) $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 Administrationl Vegetation Management Table 4 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2. Table 4. 2005 North Lake Budaet, TASK 1 & 2, Proiect AdministrationNeaetation Mamt. GOAL 2005 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses Two diver survevs (Sprina & Summer) $4,225.00 $4,596.80 Milfoil herbicide treatment $1,500.00 $2,992.00 Fraarant water lilv herbicide treatment $1,500.00 $448.30 Yellow f1aa iris; purole loosestrife treatment $4,100.00 $2,244.00 Bottom barrier installation $250.00 0 Water IiIv island removal 0 0 Water auality monitoring $1,600.00 $1,400.00 NPOES notifications $625.00 $680.00 Post control survev $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 $160.00 $15.69 auarterly meetinas SWM staff waaes 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. T N h L k B S br Ed abieS. 2005 ort a e udget, TA K3Pu IC ucation GOAL 2005 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses Quarterlv newsletter $400.00 $163.52 Annual evaluation report* $200.00 0 Community Meetina $50.00 $15.69 Plant 10 workshoo/cookout $200.00 0 Public education printina $300.00 $102.13 Boater outreach proaram $100.00 0 New signs at boat launch $200.00 $114.46 Materials for Plant 10 workshop $100.00 $58.00 City LMO web paae 0 0 SWM staff waaes 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 AN) 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 ofthe 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 HP A 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 IA VMP 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 BACK G ROUND ................................................... ................................... ..................................................... 1 2.1 IA VMP DEVELOPMENT ................................................. .............................................................................. I 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 INSTALLA TION................................................................................................................ 9 4.7 WEED RAKEs ............................................................................................................................................... 9 4.8 SECOND SYSTEMATIC SURVEY .................................................................................................................... 9 4.9 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SURVEY .......................................................................................................... II 4.10 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 12 4.11 ALGAE................................................................ ........................................................................................ 13 5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ...................................................................................................... 13 5. I 2006 WATER QUALITY MONITORING....................................................................... .................................. 13 6.0 EDUCA TION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................. 15 6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................................................... IS 6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC).............................................................................................. 15 6.1.2 Development of2005 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 RE VIEW ........................................................................................................................... 19 7.1 TASKS I & 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.citvoffederalwav.com/Paae.aspx?paae=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 Iowa 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 (IA VMP) - 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 IA VMP Development An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) 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 IA VMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up- to-date IA VMP 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 IA VMP. During this period, efforts began to prepare an Ecology Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (A WMF) grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public comment and to finalize the IA VMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way, Surface Water Management staff began participating in the process. The IA VMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the plan on October 8. With an approved IA VMP, application was made to Ecology for an A WMF grant. Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal Way. As a result, an A WMF 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 I - Project AdministrationlManagement Task 2 - Vegetation Management Task 3 - Public Education Task 4 - Reporting Task 1 (Project AdministrationlManagement) 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 lake front 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 Washingtop. 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 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 Fragrant water lily Yellow flag iris Purple loosestrife Scientific Name Nymphaea odorata Iris pseudacorus Lythrum sa/icaria Weed Class C C B 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 ofRCW 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 2006 AQUATIC WEED MANAG8VlENT 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 Arc View 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 (W A 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. 5 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. Glvphosate 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 (USEP A) 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 6 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 I) 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. 7 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 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). 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 A WMF 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 often 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 Cattail Spike Rush Bull Rush 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 Typha spp. Eleocharis sp. Scirpus spp. Scientific Name Nuphar spp. Nuphar polysepalum Brasenia schreberi Scientific Name Chara sp. Najas sp. Potamogeton Amplifoious Potamogeton richardsonii Elodea Canadensis Utricularia sp. Myriophyllum sibericum Weed Class Native Native Native Weed Class Native Native Native Weed Class Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Emer!!ent 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. Floatin!! 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 Spreading rush Naked-stemmed bulrush Purple marshlocks Narrow leaf cattail Scientific Name Juncus sp. Schoenoplectus sp. Comarum palustre Typha angustifolia Weed Class Native Native Native Non-native FLOATING PLANTS Common Name Water-purslane Scientific Name Ludwigia palustris Weed Class 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 pelformance. 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 #CI203) and analyzed by USEPA Chromatography Method 547. Table I below outlines the results of the sampling. Table 1. 2006 North Lake Glyphosate Water Sampling Oate Pre/Post Inside/Outside Location Concentration (ppb) Treatment Zone Background in littoral zone, 6/30/06 Pre Inside approximately 700' south of Non Oetect 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 Oetect outside water lily populated area Outside littoral zone, 8/11/06 Post Outside approximately 700' south of Non Oetect 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 Oetect 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 USEP A 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 EDUCA TION/PUBLlC INVOLVEMENT The elements of the Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake are based primarily on the Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP). The Ecology Grant Agreement incorporates the information in the IA VMP, 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 20CX> 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) Chuck Gibson - (Co-Chair) Julie Cleary Debra Hansen Barry James 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. Mav 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 IA VMP 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 Ve2etation 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 PlantslBad 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 IA VMP (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 plantslbad 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: T bl 2 2006 N rth L k B d t 0 a e . 0 a e uIge vervlew 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 Administrationl 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, Proiect AdministrationNeaetation Mgmt. GOAL 2006 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) 2006 Permit Public Notice requirement 150.00 163.00 Two diver surveys (Sprino & Summer) 4,597.00 4,597.00 Milfoil herbicide treatment 1,500.00 0 Fraarant water IiIv herbicide treatment 500.00 224.00 Yellow flag iris and purple loosestrife 980.00 224.00 treatment Advance resident notifications & shoreline 680.00 680.00 postino Water auality monitorina 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 IiIv island control 3,000.00 0 Miscellaneous water Quality issues (Le. alaae) 300.00 7.00 Refreshments and supplies for NLSC 60.00 12.00 auarterlv meetinas Grant-eligible SWM staff waaes and benefits 4,500.00 5,070.00 Grant-elioible lake volunteer time 2,250.00 1,413.00 TOTALS $ 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. T bl 4 2006 N rth L k B d t TASK 3 P br Ed a e 0 a e u lae, u IC ucatlon GOAL 2006 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) Quarterlv newsletter 350.00 309.00 Annual evaluation reoort 100.00 96.00 Annual Sprino Community Meetino 50.00 0 Plant ID workshop/cookout 300.00 88.00 Public education orintina 150.00 51.00 Boater outreach proaram 100.00 102.00 City LMO web Dace 0 0 Grant-eliaible SWM staff waaes and benefits 3,500.00 4,753.00 Grant-elioible 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: T N h L k G R abieS. ort a e rant unnmg 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 AN) 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 YFI. 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 time sheet 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 A WMF 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 BACK G ROUND ................................ .......................................... ................................................................. 1 2.1 IA VMP DEVELOPMENT ........................... ......................... ........... ......................... ......................... .............. 1 2.2 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM ...................................................................................................................2 3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT .....................................................................................3 4.0 2007 AQUA TIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................... 4 4.1 CONTRACT FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................4 4.2 INITIAL SYSTEMATIC SURVEY ...................................................................................................................... 4 4.2.] 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.] 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 ........................................................................................................ II 4.9 ALGAE... .... ......................................................................................................................... .................... .... 12 5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ...................................................................................................... 12 6.0 EDUCA TION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................. 13 6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ..... ................. ............... ....... ................. ......................................................... 13 6.]. I North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC).............................................................................................. ]3 6.1.2 Development of2007 Work Plan............................................................................ ............................. ]4 6. ].3 Annual Spring Meeting ........................................................................................................................ ]4 6. ].4 Plant ID Workshop .............................................................................................................................. ]5 6. ].5 Boater Education ................................................................................................................................. ]5 6.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION ...................................... ...... ............ ............... ............................................................ 15 6.2.] Quarterly Newsletter............................................................................................................................ ]5 6.2.2 Public Notices ...................................................................................................................................... ]5 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 I & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION' VEGETATIONMANAGEMENT...................................... 17 7.2 TASK 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION ....................................................................................................................... 18 7.3 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 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 EDUCA nON 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 (htto:/Iwww.citvoffederalwav.com/Paae.asox?oaae=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 lily, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris and narrow leaf cattail - were targeted for control at as Iowa 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 (IA VMP). 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 IA VMP Development An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) 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 IA VMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up- to-date IA VMP 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 IA VMP. During this period, efforts began to prepare an Ecology Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (A WMF) grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public comment and to finalize the IA VMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way, Surface Water Management staffbegan participating in the process. The IA VMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the plan on October 8. With an approved IA VMP, application was made to Ecology for an A WMF grant. Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal Way. As a result, an A WMF 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 AdministrationlManagement Task 2 - Vegetation Management Task 3 - Public Education Task 4 - Reporting Task I (Project AdministrationlManagement) 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 2 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 ofRCW 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 2007 FINAL REPORT 4.0 2007 AQUATIC WEED MANAGENlENT 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 W A 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. 4 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. 5 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 to meet the requirements of both the Ecology Grant Agreement and NPDES permit. Within this framework, the 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. Glvphosate 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 (USEP A) 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 6 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. 8 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 often 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 Cattail Spike Rush Bull Rush Scientific Name Typha spp. Eleocharis sp. Scirpus spp. Weed Class Native Native 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 Nuphar spp. Nuphar polysepalum Brasenia schreberi Scientific Name Chara sp. Najas sp. Potamogeton Amplifoious Potamogeton richardsonii Elodea Canadensis Utricularia sp. Myriophyllum sibericum Weed Class Native Native Native Weed Class Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Emel1!:ent 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. Floatin!!: 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 EDUCA TION/PUBLlC INVOLVEMENT The elements of the Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake are based primarily on the Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP). The Ecology Grant Agreement incorporates the information in the IA VMP, 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) Chuck Gibson - (Co-Chair) Julie Cleary Debra Hansen Barry James James Chastain Weverhaueser Representitive 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 IA VMP 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 Ve2etation 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 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 em ailed 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 IA VMP (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 plantslbad 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 I below provides an overview of the final North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2007: Table 1. 2007 North Lake Budaet Overview TASK Estimates Actual Expenses Task 1 & 2, Project $11,995 $10,936 AdministrationNegetation Management Task 3, Public Education $4,230 $4,347 YEAR END $16,225 $15,283 7.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administrationl 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, Proiect AdministrationNegetation Mamt. GOAL 2007 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) Annual Permit Fee (for 2008 coveraae) $338.00 $357.00 New contract RFP Advertisement $0 $43.82 Two diver survevs (Sorina & Summer) $2,024.00 $1.012.16 Weed rake $0 $97.91 Milfoil herbicide treatment $762.00 $0 Fraorant water IiIv herbicide treatment $480.00 $2,111,33 Yellow flag iris, purple loosestrife and narrow $480.00 $2,111.33 leaf cattail treatment Oiver removal of milfoil $590.00 $0 Advance resident notifications & shoreline $705.00 $606.89 postina Native weed manual removal $1,350.00 $0 Water IiIv island control $0 $0 Post control visual inspection $751.00 $750.72 Contractor final reoort $0 $0 Contractor attendance at meetinas $915.00 $0 Grant-elioible SWM staff waaes and benefits $2,250.00 $1,692.00 Grant-elioible 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. T bl 3 2007 N rth L k B d t TASK 3 P br Ed f a e 0 a e u Ige, u IC ucalon GOAL 2007 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) Refreshments & supplies for quarterly $60.00 $10.63 meetinas Quarterly newsletter (LakeV;ew) $350.00 $309.08 SWM Annual Lake Report $120.00 $0 Annual Serina Community Meeting $0 $0 Plant 10 workshop/cookout $200.00 $0 Public education printinas $150.00 $80.47 Boater outreach erogram $0 $9.41 City LMO web paoe $0 $0 Grant-elioible SWM staff waaes and benefits $2,750.00 $3,022.00 Grant-elioible 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: T bl 4 N rth L k G a e 0 a e rant unnmg a ance 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 R BI 18 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 8.0 2007 ANNUAL EVALUATION AN) 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 A WMF 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 BACK G ROUND ........................... ................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 IA VMP 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 4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily........... ..................................................................................................................... 4 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 & 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...... .............................................................................................................. 8 4.6 WEED RAKEs .......................... ..................................................................................................................... 8 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 ED U CA TI 0 N/PUBLI C INV 0 L VEMENT .............................................................................................. 12 6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT .. ............................... ..................................................................................... 12 6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC).............................................................................................. 12 6.1.2 Development of2008 Work Plan ......................................................................................................... 14 6.1.3 Spring Meeting... ................................. ...................................... ....... ..................... .......... ............. ........ 14 6.1.4 Plant 1D 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 BUDGE T REVIEW.................................................. ...... ................................................................... 17 7 .1 TASKS I & 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. lMD Assessment....... ........................... ............ ............. 20 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE (http://www.citvoffederalwav.com/Paae.aspx?paae=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 (IA VMP) - 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 IA VMP Development An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) 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 IA VMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up- to-date IA VMP 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 IA VMP. During this period, efforts began to prepare an Ecology Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (A WMF) grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public comment and to finalize the IA VMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way, Surface Water Management staffbegan participating in the process. The IA VMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the plan on October 8. With an approved IA VMP, application was made to Ecology for an A WMF grant. Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal Way. As a result, an A WMF 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 I (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 lake front 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 2008 FINAL REPORT 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 2008: Common Name Fragrant water lily Yellow flag iris Purple loosestrife Scientific Name Nymphaea odorata Iris pseudacorus Lythrum salicaria Weed Class C C 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 (#W AG-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 ofRCW 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 MANAGBIIENT 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 Arc View 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). 5 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. GlvDhosate 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 (USEP A) 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. 6 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 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 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. 4.6 Weed Rakes 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 often 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 8 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 Cattail Spike Rush Bull Rush 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 Typha spp. Eleocharis sp. Scirpus spp. Scientific Name Nuphar spp. Nuphar polysepalum Brasenia schreberi Scientific Name Chara sp. Najas sp. Potamogeton Amplifoious Potamogeton richardsonii Elodea Canadensis Utricularia sp. Myriophyllum sibericum Weed Class Native Native Native Weed Class Native Native Native Weed Class Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Emel1!ent 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 9 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 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. 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 - ha~less 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 (IA VMP). The Ecology Grant Agreement incorporates the information in the IA VMP, 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 2000 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) Chuck Gibson - (Vice Chair) Julie Cleary Debra Hansen Barry James 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 III 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 IA VMP 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 ofthe 2008 Work Plan: Task 1: Aquatic Veeetation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water lily, 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 PlantlBad Plant) were made available on North Lake's web site year round and were discussed in the July 2008 issue ofthe 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 IA VMP (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, blu~green algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plantslbad 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 I below provides an overview of the final North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2008: T bl 1 2008N rthL k B d to a e . 0 a e ulge vervlew TASK Estimates Actual Expenses Task 1 & 2, Project $10,935 $6,069 AdministrationNegetation Management 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. T bl 2 2008 N h L k B d TASK 1 & 2 P Ad . . N M t a e . ort a e U Iget, , roject ministration egetatlon ~am . GOAL 2008 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) Annual Permit Fee (for 2009 coverage) 338 397 Two diver surveys (Sprino & Summer) 2,024 2,029 Milfoil herbicide treatment 762 0 Fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris, purple 2,000 442 loosestrife and narrow leaf cattail treatment Oiver removal of milfoil 590 0 Advance resident notifications & shoreline 705 353 postino Native weed manual removal 1,350 0 Water IiIv island control 0 0 Post control visual inspection 751 752 Contractor attendance at meetinas 915 126 Contractor final report 0 0 Grant eliaible 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. T bl 3 2008 N rth L k B d t TASK 3 P br Ed f a e . 0 a e u lae, u IC ucalon GOAL 2008 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) Meetina refreshments 50 16 Quarterlv newsletter 500 255 Annual evaluation report 150 0 Annual Sprina CommunltV-Meetina 0 0 Plant 10 workshoo/cookout 600 0 Public education orintina 150 165 Boater outreach oroaram 0 0 City LMO web paoe 0 0 Grant-eliaible SWM staff waaes 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: T bl NrthLkG tR BI a e4. 0 a e ran unnma a ance 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-Iakefront 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-l Corporate Park-l Single Family Residential RS9.6 (1 unit/9,600 square feet) 20 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 9.0 2008 ANNUAL EVALUATION AN) 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 A WMF Grant. At the end of2008, $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 EXHIBIT B "clition to the Feder-a' \Va)' City ('ound' to Create a I.akc Management Uistrict rOf- Not-tl, Lake \Ve, the uJI(krslgncd North Like IHOpClty owners, rL:qucst tklt thc Fcdaal \Vay City Councd approve the CT<-:ation ofa Lake Managemc..:nt Dlstncl (LMf>) tiH North Lake plltsuant to RC\V 3661 - The LM () funds Will tin;ulcc eftorts to protect and enhance North Lake in tenus of w;dcr (Iuallty, rccrc..:atioual allll aesthdlc valuc_ ,- Purpose of thc Lake Management Distnct · forlll a Lake Management District that creates a Ilmding source and an operational program ItX all tuture deSignated aquahc plant management and water quality managcmcnt, ruallltenance and monilonng activittcs · Perfonll annual dlvcr surveys to monitor changes m the aquatic plant community. · Control, remove, and contain aquatic ()(ants. includmg non-native populations at as Iowa denSity as IS envlronmcntally and ecollomically feaSible, and at levels that \\'ill not impact public safety or the beneficial us.es of the lakc_ · Reduce all other identified species of noxious weeds per the requirements of \V AC 16-750, and further to levels that do not Impact public safety, beneficial uses, or en">logy of the lake Use ;'rilf ,;pn~lk aquatIc plant control alltl lrc..:atlllcllt llIdhods as needed {or all other prohlemdtlC aquatIc weeds, using the hest ;rv~ulahlc science to identify and understand theu ctkcts on hUflI;III, aquallc and klTestflal ecosystems prior to implcmentatlorl. · Control, unprove. and monitor water levels and w;rter quality_ · Continue puhlic educatIOn to prevent the mtmductlOn of noxious weeds, nuisaiwe plants aud lion native animal species to the bke; ~llld to aid in the early detectlOlI of aquatIC \\cn! re -Ill kstatlOllS · Conduct;1 11Illlkd \ ohllllcer-dn veu water 4ua!lt y Illoflltoflng program that w;, lake healtlr hascd 011 tire collectIOn of data, indudlflg hut not limited to: water lev~:. temperature, Secchi depth, phosphorous and nitrogen · Conduct puhltc educatron to reduce the amounts of nOll-point source pollutant.,; entering the lake, whrch can result in au lflCfeasc ill aquatic algae_ · Continue to IIlVoh'c the North Lake COflUflUlIlty III the aquatic plant management process _ The attached 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (lA VM P) and subsequcnt Annual Reports (2005 - 20(8) mclude the basis for the annual LMD work piau 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 36.6J .020 may be considered in the LMD scope, including: (I) controlling or removing aquatic plants aud vegetation; (2) improving water quality; (3) controlling water levels; (4) treating and divcrtmg stoml\'Jater; (5) controlfing 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 rdated administrative, North Lake LMD P.:I'l"m Page I of" englneenng. legal. and operational costs. including the co~ts ofcreatmg the lake nl~Ulag~~nlcflt dlstnct ') Boundary The proposed boundary of the LMD would include all the property With lakcfront on North l.ake, and two individual adjacent properties that have lake access deeds. See attached lIlap of proposed properties within the district. 3. Duration The proposed duration of the LMD is 10 years. 4 Charges to property Annual rates and charges will be used to raise funds to support LMD activities. The following is the fonnula of rates and charges proposed tor estabhshment of the assessment role for the LMD: IS. 11'::S~:::::~::':~:~~67 - . ~-=-=~~ale ~-=-~_Reve~ue ($) . - Lakefr<Jfh property l---O~~~~~d~~~~~;-(5j ur~i;~)-------- X $100.00 per umt ---l--~ ~ $5,30\1- --~a~;~;~;op~~y (168 ft)-- -.- - -- X $0.70 per lakef;ont f~~----- --- - ~ 113 ~ --------------------- ---------------- - ---------- -------- ---- ------~--______l I , I Single Family Residential (RS9_6), Non-Iakefmnt property with deeded lake access Developed property (1 unit) X $7500 ,;".. un" ~ ---~ ___ _ $" j X $15_00 per unit $ t5 Vacant property (1 (JOlt) Weyerflaeuser (RS9_6) -- Vac~nt proP~~Y(82 fi_~=_=~~===-_=_-3Yo-m per lakefront foot= Weyerhaeuser (CP-1) ~---~------~--_._----~---- - -j $ 57 ---_.~----- - Commercial property (3.714 It) X $0.80 per lake front foot WOFW Public Boat launch ---1--- $2,971 $4.000 Single annual assessment TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT $12,536 _._--~~~ --.-- The estimated maximum amount that is proposed for the LMD in 2010 is $12,536.20. An automatic increase based on the Seattle Consumer Price Index (CPf) will be included in each annual billing after 2010 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 (en year LMD based on an annual five percent increase fOf inflation is $157,678.98_ Issuance of revenue bonds is not proposed. Nonh Lalce LMD Pelition Page Z of 4 rhe LiVID budget and rates will be approved through a public heanng and a public vote alkr the clly council adopts a resolution to form the LMf). Once approved by the public and cHy COllnCJ" the annual rates and charges may not be altered without another' public \'Oh: afl(l clly council approval with the exception of the CPt increase described above. 5. North Lake Management District Steering Committee The volunteer North Lake Management District Steering Committee is proposed to represent the interests of LMD pmperty owners in the various neighborhoods around the lake Clly staff will work with the Steering Committee to develop the annual work plan. The annual LM f) work plan and budget will be forwarded by the Steering Committee for implementatJon by the City's surface water utility_ The Steering Committee will track and revIew activities and expenditures by the City as well as outside contractors. City staff will provide Steering Committee support including quarterly financial reports. North lake LMD Petlllon Page j of4 -~_._--~----~---- -.- ---- --- ---.-.- Sjgnalu,-e of p,-operty owne,- - ~ --.- ---. -... -.--. -. . - - ---.-- -------,--~----.~----- --'-_._----~--------- ----. "- Full address Pa,-ce' number (jt known) ----I 1/ I '-I 3 ~ 0 0 0 ~o 2 33'4(" 1- -33~?L S ~g'o:'l S 3.;L<j'i"- -~- -- -~~f~at"~;e~':{P,~-I'cc;2,b'L7 U-f;_ ___ _ J---- -- "--"- --"----"-~ ---- --- ----------- - ----"------- __n___"_ --------"------ _______________---1 ~- ~1Yc _C-:;r3~~~5 _ '3 3(j'4 F -~_jL!3v()O J.Sj _ J ' >331.2.-6 331"';;;~ __ (j; 17"3~OO,;u,h_1 t------?}>1JZL:2 ~ &() ~{-~ -- -_ __ ________ __ _ I :,' ~~ff!.ZL ~:\'/l3A'Stl5Mi6S~~~IT-~/1~j';:j()Q(y)S ,I L~-<_ _ _______ __ ___ __... _ _ __ __________ ___ : :/;--------- -~~IL~~; ~___ __ __ __ ~ ---~7~------~--------- ----"---- --"---______ j ~~4 ~~ _ .iCi'%liqf ~?'/ t/L.,Lj'CcT (}]Po _ I~V"~/~ 9~ ~c~1 ~~<1:\~" <D~4-3(Q c) CJI_~C) 1941A1:/1 -- --- _3;::"'Y~~LiI '{';>DO 1_ -_G} 'i 360 03 S-" w -~J-1__-It.o 0 -3 7.s-___ ----- -~~--------------~~---~ I --- ~ I ~2 .'-~,.-.- ._---~------------------- J_ . -----_._------~-~---~~ -----------------------~~------_.~---_._- --------.~-_.-._---~----- 4 -'-- --------~-_._------------------.~~ ---- ----------- -------~--------~._--- North Lakc LMD Pctition Page 4 of -t North Lake LMD Petition Signing Summary, February 24, 2009 ~- Name of P.-operty Owne.- Pa.-cel Numbe.- Lot (Sa FT) Lot Add.-ess (ac.-eage) u_ 1 TImothy Cook 33041 38'" Ave S 6143600150 23280 053441568 2 Bruce Flndl 32857 J81h Ave S 6143600075 20.16C o 46279296 3 Roger Hazzard 3610 S 334'" St 6143600230 62.726 I 43993806 4 Don Vandenheuvel 3718 S 334lh St 6143600190 95.832 219991939 5 Ross Bentson 33009 38'" Ave S 6143600100 21.520 049401312 6 Lori Sechrist 328 1 7 381h Ave S 614360 0020 19.600 04499376 7 r er,-ance Thomas 33467 3J'd PI. S 6143600375 9.551 0.21925276 8 Wendy Honey 3800 S 328lh SI 152J04 9J23 62,29 J 14299522 9 Larry Flesher 33223 ]8'" Ave S 614360 0180 84.07D 192991092 10 Julie Cleary 3312 S 334'" SI 6 14360 0255 46,173 105994739 11 Julie Cleary 3312 S 3341h St 614360 0266 I 1.700 0.2685852 12 Ch,-is Johnson 33403 33'd PI. S 6143600280 25.200 05784912 13 Debra Hansen 32805 38th Ave S 6143600005 26,35C 06048906 14 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0010 10.557 0.24234649 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 726120 0035 17.610 040425516 L Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO 80x 9777 t521049178 1.591,246 36 5286432 Jerry HeinZ (lor Weyerhaeuser) PO 80x 9177 1621049013 2.353.54 7 540280249 Jerry Heinz (fo.- Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 1621049036 20.165 046290774 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0025 15,557 0.35712649 Je.-ry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuse.-) PO 80x 9777 442060 0030 29.900 06863844 --- Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO 80x 9777 4420600040 17.000 0390252, Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0045 19.500 0447642 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600050 13.700 C .lli491d Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600055 10.200 02J~~!~1 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0060 9,300 0.2134908 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600065 7.600 o 1744656 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600070 5,900 o 1354404: --. Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO 80x 9777 4420600075 9,300 0.2134903 Jerry Hecnz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200420 825.036 18.9395264 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200470 23.844 054736286 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200480 25.370 058239372 Jerry Heinz (fo.- Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200515 38.591 0885895 Je.-ry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuse.-) PO Box 9777 7978200520 34.782 o 79845559 Je.-ry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200565 78.375 J. 799 1 765 15 Charles Gibson 33461 33'd PI S 6143600380 22.645 0.51983862 16 No.-man Kutscha 33021 38lh Ave S 6143600120 22.640 0.51972384 17 Barry James 33449 33'd PI. S 614360 0355 16.680 038290608 Total ac.-eage signing: 131.5 Total acreage in LMO: 161.8 Pe.-cent acreage signing petition: 81% ~. ~' ,~.-/- -.------.______.--.-!:r~~_~=_;2..~~.._____ COUNCIL MEETlNG DATE: April 21, 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Resolution of Intent to Form North Lake Management District Number Two POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council adopt a resolution of intention to form the North Lake Management District Number 2 and set a public hearing date for the June 2, 2009 regular City Council meeting. COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: April 6, 2009 CA TEGORY: o Consent o City Council Business o Ordinance o Resolution o o Public Hearing Other STAFF REpORT BY:\Nill~ple!.?ll:'...f:...l:-=-,_S_~rf~~l?_~~~~I".f\1~~ger Attachments: I. North Lake LMD Petition 2. Resolution No. Options Considered: DEPT: Public Works I. Adopt a resolution of intention to form the North Lake Management District Number 2, and set a public hearing date for the June 2, 2009 regular City Council meeting. 2. Do not adopt a resolution of intention to create North Lake Management District Number 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option I. Council DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ~ /: . -'- omnuttee cil CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: ll~< Committee (!/1At1., COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation for Option I to the April 21, 2009 City Council Consent Agenda. PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "[ mov rpproval of a resolution of intention to form the North Lake Management District Number 2 and set a public hearing date for the June 2. 2009 regular City Council meeting " LL'L~~ \..----/i~,...... l....... '---<--- ~ -=-F-,-(}--c~ ( , I '. Linda Kochmar, Chair Dini Duclos, Member COUNCIL ACTION: ~ APPROVED o DENIED o TABLEDfDEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READlNG (ordinances only) REVISED - 0210612006 (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL # 1ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # oq - '!PIN.. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: April 6, 2009 Land Use and Transportation Committee Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager [YJ:v1.. Win Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager~ Dan Smith, Water Quality Program Coordinator Resolution ofIntent to Form Lake Management District Number Two (North Lake) SUBJECT: BACKGROUND Since incorporation in 2005, Surface Water Management (SWM) has been working with the residents living adjacent to North Lake in the management of noxious freshwater aquatic weeds, including fragrant \vater lily, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris and narrow leaf cattail 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 lake front properties. n.t(Li,~11 this period, SWM has been charged with administering a Washington State Department of Ecology Aq":,u,: Weeds Management Fund Grant procured for North Lake. The grant has allowed funding for the program, which has included contractor management, annual aquatic plant surveys, herbicide treatments, manual control and public educatim. The five-year grant is set to expire December 31, 2009. In order to continue a long-term aquatic weed management program beyond December 2009, North Lake residents submitted a signed letter on August 25, 2008 to the City Manager requesting assistance in fonning a Lake Management District (LMD). In subsequent North Lake Steering Committee meetings, agreem(';~l \\. concerning the LMD scope, annual cost (see attached resolution~ boundary, duration, and asse:;:;ment rate structure for lakefront properties On February 24,2008, 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 (attached) to the City Council, was signed by sixteen property owners affected by the LMD, including WeyerhaeuserCo. 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 enables the Council to take action regarding the formation of a North Lake LMD. cc: Project File Day File K:\LUT02009\04-6-09 North lake Resolution of Intent to form lMDdoc "etition to tbe Fede.-a' \Vay City Council to C.-eate a Lake Management Dist.-ict fo.- No.'th lake We, the ullderslgncd North Lakc propcrty owncrs, request that the Fedcral Way City Council approve the creation of a Lakc Managcment DistflCt (LMD) tin North Lakc pw'suant to RCW 36.61. The LMD funds WIll finance efforts to protect and enhance North Lake in terms of water quality, recreational and acsthetic valuc. L Purpose ofthc Lake Management District · Form a Lake Management District that creates a funding source and an operational program for all future designated aqualtc plant management and water quality management, maintenance and monitonng activities. · Perfonn annual diver surveys to monitor changcs in the aquatic plant comlllunity. · Control, remove, and contain aquatic plants, including non-native populations at as Iowa density as is environmentally and economically fea.<;ible, and at levels that will not impact public safety or the beneficial us.es of the lake. · Reduce all other identified species of noxious weeds per the requirements of WAC 16-750, and furthcr to levels that do not impact public safety, beneficial uses, or ecology of the lake " Use appropriate aquatIc plant control and treatmcnt methods as needed for all other problematiC aquatic weeds, using the best available science to identify and understand their eftCcts on human, aquallc and terrcstnal ccosystems prior to implementation. · Control, improve, and monitor water levels and water quality. · Continue public education to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, IlUiSail(~C plants and non.natlve animal species to the lake; and to aid in the early detcction of aquatic \...-ccd rC-IIII~stations. · Conduct a Iimitcd volunteer-drivcn watcr quality monitoring pr'ogram that w;. lake health based on the collection of data, including but not limited to: watcr /cvd, temperature, Secchi depth, phosphorous and nitrogcn · Conduct public educatIOn to reduce the amounts of non-point Source pollutants entering the lake, which can result in an lIlcreasc in aquatic algae. · Continue to involvc the North Lake Community in the aquatic plant management process. The attached 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2008) 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: (I) controlling or removing aquatic plants and vegetation; (2) improving water quality; (3) controlling water levels; (4) treating and diverting stonnwater; (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, North Lake LMD Pd,llO" Page I or 4 engineering, Icgal. and operational costs, including the costs of creating the lake management dlstrict_ 2 _ Boundary The proposed boundary of the LMD would include all the property with lakefront on North Lakc, and two individual adjacent properties that have lake access deeds_ Sec attached map of proposed propertics within the district. J _ Duration The proposed duration of the LMD is 10 years_ 4_ Charges to property: Annual rates and charges will be used to raise funds to support LMD activitics_ The following is the formula of rates and charges proposed for establishment of the assessment role for the LMD: ----------_.~-- Assessment ------ _._--_...~--_.__.. ---.------ Si'3le raa;ily Residenti Lakefmm property '------------ -- Developed property (53 ~-- - --- Vacant woperty (168 ft) --- Single Family Residenti Non-Iakefront property lake access -.-------..-.-.-..- Developed property (1 u ~-~~,_.~_.~_._-- - --- Vacant property (1 umt) Weyel11aeuser (RS9_6) Vacant property (82 tt) Weyerhaeuser (CP-1) Commercial property (3. WOFW Public Boat laun TOTAL ANNUAL AS unit .-.-.- ---------------- _--=l egory Rate Revenue ($) ----_._-~- ----- --~---_._--------- S9_6), ---.--. s) X $100_00 per unit $5,300 .-.--- ....----...-.-.-- -- -.----- X $0_70 per lakefront fool ~118 --.-----.--- --~. --1 S9_6), I I deeded I --~-- -- $701 X $75_00 per unil ..- - -- ------ X $15_00 per unil $15 --- -i --..- X $0_70 per lakefronl fOOCJ $ 57 tt) X $0_80 per lakefronl fool $2,971 Single annual assessmenl $4,000 SMENT $12,536 - Cat al (R al(R with nil) 714 ch SES The cstimated maximum amount that is proposed for the LMD in 2010 is $12,53620_ An automatic increasc based on the Seattle Consumer Price Index (CPl) will be included in each annual billing after 20 I 0 per approval by the North Lake Advisory Committec_ At no timc is the increase to be more than five (5) percent per yeaL Total maximum LMD rate revenue for the ten year LMD based on an annual five percent increase for innation is $157,678-98_ Issuance of revenue bonds is not proposed_ Nonh Lake lMD Petilion Page Z of 4 lhe LMD budget and rates will be approved through a public hearing and a public vote atkr the city council adopts a resolution to form the LMD_ Once approved by the public and elly counCIl, the annual rates and charges may not be altered without another public VOle and city council approval with the exception of the CPI increase described abovc_ 5 - North Lake Management District Steering Committee The volunteer North Lake Management District Steering Committee is proposed to represent the interests of LMD pmperty owners in the various neighborhoods around the Jakc_ City staff will work with the Steering Committee to develop the annual work plan_ The annual LMD work plan and budget will be fOlwarded by the Steering Committee for implementation by the City's sucface water utility_ The Steering Committee will track and review activities and expenditures by the City as well as outside contractors_ City staff will provide Steering Committee support including quartedy financial reports_ North Lake LMD Pelition Page .3 of 4 ~----~._,-- -----.~.- ---._- -- -----~-----.~~_. --------- --.. -~---_._-----~-,----- ~---~------_.._-~---------_.- Signature of property owner Full address Parcel number (if known) 3'<010 'S -~3~ -'~---'-~ -~~- 2L~.433i<L ~S-T_ 3:; <-'0 9- _.s\?r:l, 4h? Y-rll-~Itw go &/4 .3 t" 0 0 0 ~O 334(" 1- -33K.p?L S 3~o O:3::rS- ~_~ ~g-oo?..5 3.;:L<6i~:;;,./- ~ --- . ---. ... ~3Z'1..r ~~~~4-- /';2/0< '3/2;; .. - .. ------------------- ----- ------------~------------ -~------------ --------J - -g}lQ - ~_:.__;j_!~_~___:3 3_1~~_'_ ~LLj3vO(J J.S5 ~ !'~~-L -32'20 33"1-"'_5/_ &/134-00iU?h I - p ~' ------______?_2__lf21-2._~&f}L!.[_~____ ~_ ~_~_ _.I J;~~n~7{1 }-?1Q5~~1~~~77 _C;i'~3liJO()r~~_ I 1'-- ___ ----~0~~~ ~b 3 _ .._--1 I () t~d-W~ ()JQ.. 13"< , ~-- t-/L/.7C:O tJ]Po Q 1_ 2..0 Fetfe.-a( \..u"<<7' ~Jl 9''/)001 b/Lj 0 035S- -- ,--------- ---- --- 7--r-------- - 20 -- - - ------ --- --~Z- --- ------- --7-l.---::;;-sri) - ---- I - - ~--;.< ~~~L :::~:z_JtJcJl ,{jYU-<- f;::JJ 2 .- 7 L'i.J) 3 -0 t< tlUl j- ----.. ._-- ~---~_._...._---------,-_._--~--- ~.~-_.~----- ~---------------------------------._-- --._~-- 21 22 _._-~--------- 23_ -------------------------~-~ -~------------~---- .~._--~~------~----_._-- 24 - --.---.--------- ---_.._.._-_._-------~-~ --_..~_.~---~- ._~------"------"-_._._~----_._-.._.~--- North Lake LMD Pelltion Page 4 of 4 North Lake lMD Petition Signing Summary. February 24. 2009 Name of Property Owner Parcel Number Lot (SQ FT) Lot Address (acreage) 1 Timothy Cook 33041 38th Ave S 6143600150 23.280 053441568 2 Bruce Find! 32857 38th Ave S 6143600075 20.160 o 46279296 3 Roger Hazzard 3610 S 334th SI 6143600230 62.726 1 43993806 4 Don Vandenheuvel 3718 S 334111 SI 6143600190 95,832 2.19991939 5 Ross Bentson 33009 38th Ave. S. 6143600100 21.520 049401312 6 Lori Sechrisl 32817 38th Ave. S. 614360 0020 19.600 04499376 7 Terrance Thomas 33467 33'd PI. S 6143600375 9.551 021925276 8 Wendy Honey 3800 S. 328lh SI. 152104 9123 62.291 14299522 9 Larry Flesher 33223 38th Ave. S 6143600180 84.070 1.92991092 10 Julie Cleary 3312 S. 334/n SI 6143600255 46,1 73 105994739 11 Julie Cleary 3312 S 334lh SI. 614360 0266 11.700 0.2685852 12 Chris Johnson 33403 33'd PI. S 6143600280 25.200 05784912 13 Debra Hansen 32805 38th Ave. S 6143600005 26.350 0.6048906 14 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600010 10.557 024234649 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 726120 0035 17.610 040425516 L Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 152 104 91 78 1,591,246 365286432 Jerry Heinz(for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 1621049013 2,353.54 7 540280249 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 1621049036 20.165 046290774 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0025 15,557 0.35712649 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0030 29.900 0.6863844 -- Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0040 17,000 0.390252 ' Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0045 19,500 0447642 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600050 13.700 t..1Li4972 - -------~ Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0055 10.200 0.234151~1 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0060 9.300 02134908 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600065 7.600 0.1744656 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600070 5,900 o 1354404 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0075 9,300 02134908 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200420 825,036 18.9395264 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200470 23,844 0.54736286 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200480 25,370 0.58239372 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200515 38,591 0885895 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200520 34.782 o 79845559 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 797820 0565 78.375 L 7991765 15 Char1es Gibson 33461 33'd PI. S 6143600380 22,645 0.51983862 16 Norman Kutscha 33021 38111 Ave. S. 6143600120 22.640 051972384 17 Barry James 33449 33'd PI. S 614360 0355 16.680 038290608 Total acreage signing: 131.5 Total acreage in lMO: 161.8 Percent acreage signing petition: 81% RESOLUTION NO. 01 -5~/) A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Federal Way, Washington, to form North Lake Management District number 2, declaring its intention to so, and setting a public hearing on the formation of tbe proposed district. WHEREAS, the City completed the attached 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2008) (together the "Plan") (Exhibit A) which includes the basis for the annual LMD work plan and LMD management goals.; and WHEREAS, the Plan was initiated because of citizen interest in the long term protection of North Lake; and WH2RI,AS, North Lake contains si!:,1Jlificant natural resources including wetlands, and supports many beneficial public purposes including recreation, water quality, stormwater protection, aesthetics, and property value support; and WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 35.21 RCW and chapter 36.61 RCWa lake mdnagur.~ih district may be formed to provide funding to support the maintenance and improvement oflakes; and WHEREAS, the North Lake community has demonstrated support for the NLMD through submittal of a petition calling for the formation of the of the NLMD (Exhibit B) pursuant to the requirements of chapter 36.61 RCW; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way is committed to a good faith effort to continuing these activities through a North Lake Management District (NLMD); and WHEREAS, the hearing notice requirements of chapter 35.61 RCW provide an opportunity to evaluate property owner interests in the NLMD activities. RES # 01 ~ 51'?' , Page I NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, RESOL YES AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Intention to fom1 the North Lake Management District. The City of Federal Way City Council declares, by passing this resolution, its intention to conduct the activities required by RCW 36.61 for the establishment of Lake Management District Number 2 (North Lake) (The "NLMD" or the "District"). The nature ofthe proposed activity to be undertaken by the District is the continued implementation of the North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP). The estimated maximum amount of special assessments that is proposed for the LMD in 2010 is $12,53(;.20. which will be collected annually to finance the District activities, with the total amount to be collected during the life of the District being S J 57,678.9S, which includes an automatic inflation increase based upon an annual increase for inflation not to exceed five percent in any given year. The proposed duration ofthe District is tcn years from the date such District is actually formed by ordinance. The proposed boundaries of the District encompass all propertics adjacent to I~\)il" Lake with lake front footage or with deeded lake access. The proposed rate structure is based on equal charges for similar parcels. Undeveloped parcels with lake frontage will be charged $.70 per lake front foot per year. Single family developed parcels will be charged $100 per year. Single family developed parcels with deeded access will be charged $75 per year. Undeveloped parcels with deeded access will be charged $15. Commercial property wi II be charged $.80 per lake front foot per year. The Department ofFish and Wildlife parcel with a public boat launch will be charged $4,000 per year. Section 2. Public Hearing. A public hearing conducted by the City of Federal Way City RES # 01-- 5t.f;}.. , Page 2 Council shall be held on the formation of the proposed District: DATE: June 2nd, 2009 TIME: 7:00 pm or shortly thereafter PLACE: City of Federal Way City Hall 33325 8th Ave South Federal Way, W A Section 3. Establishment of Advisory Committee. If North Lake Management District Number 2 is formed, the City of Federal Way City Council will establish a non-paid Advisory Board of lakefront property owners representative of the diversity among property owners around North Lake to oversee the implementation of the Lake Management District program and to assist the City of Federal Way in establishing annual budgets and work plans for the use of Lake Management District revenues and expenditures. The Advisory Board will meet regularly as determined by the Board, propose annual budgets for Lake Management District expenditures to the City of Federal Way, educate its neighbors on Lake Management District issues, and submit annual reports of Lake Management District activities to the City of Federal Way. Section 4. Public Notice. The City of Federal Way Clerk is hereby directed to publish and mail notices as required by RCW 36.61. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase ofthis 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 6. 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 references thereto. RES # C'Cl'~/5tf.;A , Page 3 I Section 7. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section . Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOL VED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON this day of , 2009. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MA YOR, JACK DOVEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILL Y, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.: RES # 01- 5~:?1 , Page 4 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 19,2009 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments POLICY QUESTION: Should the City approve text amendments to Chapter Six, Capital Facilities, and text and map amendments to Chapter 10, Private Utilities, of the comprehensive plan; two citizen-initiated requests for site-specific changes to the comprehensive plan map and zoning map; and one city-initiated request for a site- specific change to the comprehensive plan map and zoning map? COMMITTEE: Land Useffransportation Committee MEETING DATE: May 4, 2009 CATEGORY: o Consent ~ Ordinance 0 Public Hearing o City Council Business 0 Resolution D Other S~~F!..~~.Q~T ~r:_..~.~Ei~.!J~~~~M.~gare~ H:Slark,_AIC~_.._._._..______~~:~: Co~~~~_ De~:.~op~.~~!.. Servi~:~__. Background: Federal Way adopted its comprehensive plan in November 1995 and amended the plan in December 1998, September 2000, November 2001, March 2003, July 2004, June 2005, and July 2007. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the Growth Management Act (GMA) limits plan updates to no more than once per year, except under certain circumstances. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 15, 2009, at the close of which they recommended to the council approval of the following amendments: 1) amendments to the text and maps of the comprehensive plan (Exhibit A of the draft Adoption Ordinance); 2) approval of the Federal Way Village Site-Specific Request (Exhibit B of the draft Adoption Ordinance); 3) approval of the Nguyen Site-Specific Request (Exhibit C of the draft Adoption Ordinance); and e) approval of the City-initiated Site-Specific Request for Pacific Heights (Exhibit D of the draft Adoption Ordinance). The recommended changes to the text and maps of the comprehensive plan (Exhibit A of the draft Adoption Ordinance) are shown as strikethrough (deletions) and underline (new) text. Attachments: 1) Draft Adoption Ordinance with Exhibits A, B, C, and D; 2) April 2, 2009, Staff Report to the Planning Commission with Exhibits C, D, and E (vicinity maps of site-specific requests); 4) Minutes of the April 15,2009, Planning Commission Public Hearing (please note that due to their bulk, Exhibits A and B, and F- K of the Planning Commission Staff Report are not included in the City Council packet, but are available in the City Council Conference Room). Options Considered: 1) Adopt the Planning Commission recommended amendments as shown in Exhibits A, B, C, and D to the Draft Adoption Ordinance; 2) Adopt the Planning Commission recommended amendments as further amended by the LUTC; 3) Do not adopt the amendments. -......-.....--.-......................---................----.-....-........-................---.............------................................--..-....-..-..--.--......-.....---.....----..............--..-..........--.---..........-........-.-...---..........-..........--.....-.-...-....."........-... STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve option #1; adopt the Planning Commission recommended amendments as shown in Exhibits A, B, C, and D to the Draft Adoption Ordinance CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Comnnttee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the Ordinance to full Council on May 19,2007, for first reading. Linda Kochmar, Chair Dini Duclos, Member Jim Ferrell, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S): 1sT READING OF ORDINANCE (May 19, 2009): I move to forward the LUTC's recommendation to approve the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, which are attached as Exhibits A, B, C, and D to the Adoption Ordinance to a second reading for enactment on the June 2, 2009, consent agenda. " 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE (June 2, 2009): I move approval of the LUTC's recommendation to approve the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, which are attached as Exhibits A, B, C, and D to the Adoption Ordinance. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # K:\Comprehensive PIan\2008\LUTC\Agenda BiII.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to amendments to the City's comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan map, and zoning map. (Amending ordinance no's. 90-43, 95-248, 96-270, 98-330, 00-372, 01-405,03-442,04-460,04-461,04-462,05-490, 05-491, 05-492 and 07-558.) WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act of 1990 as amended (Chapter 36. 70A RCW or "GMA''), requires the City of Federal Way to adopt a comprehensive plan which includes a land use element (including a land use map), housing element, capital facilities plan element, utilities element, economic development element, and transportation element (including transportation system map [ s]); and WHEREAS, the GMA also requires the City of Federal Way to adopt development regulations implementing its comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City Council adopted its comprehensive plan with a land use map (the "Plan") on November 21, 1995, and adopted development regulations and a zoning map implementing the Plan on July 2, 1996; and subsequently amended the comprehensive plan, land use map, and zoning map on December 23, 1998; September 14,2000; November 1, 2001; March 27, 2003; July 20,2004; June 16,2005; and July 16,2007; and WHEREAS, the City may consider Plan and development regulation amendments pursuant to Process VI, under Title 19 (Zoning and Development Code) of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), chapter 19.80 FWRC, pursuant to chapter 19.35 FWRC; and WHEREAS, under RCW 36. 70A.130, the Plan and development regulations are subject to continuing review and evaluation, but the Plan may be amended no more than one time per year; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered amendments to the text and maps of the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan map, and the zoning map, specifically amendments to the text of Chapter 6, Capital Facilities, and the text and maps of Chapter 10, Private Utilities, two citizen-initiated requests (Request #1 - Federal Way Village and Request #2 - Nguyen) for changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning map designations; and a city-initiated change to the comprehensive plan and zoning map designation for Pacific Heights (Request #3); ORD# , PAGE 1 WHEREAS, on March 14, 2009, the City's SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on Apri115, 2009, at the close of which they recommended to the council approval of the following amendments: 1) amendments to the text of Chapter 6, Capital Facilities, and the text and maps of Chapter 10, Private Utilities; 2) approval of two citizen-initiated requests (Request # 1 - Federal Way Village and Request #2 - Nguyen) for changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning map designations; and 3) approval of a city-initiated change to the comprehensive plan and zoning map designation for Pacific Heights (Request #3); and WHEREAS, the Land Use/Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council considered the comprehensive plan amendments on May 4,2009, following which it recommended approval of the Planning Commission's recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City Council, through its staff, Planning Commission, and City Council connnittee, received, discussed, and considered the testimony, written comments, and material from the public, and considered the matter at its City Council meetings on May 19,2009, and June 2,2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the: 1) amendments to the text and maps of the comprehensive plan; 2) two citizen-initiated requests for changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning map designations; and 3) one city-initiated request for changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning map designations. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, 00 ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findin~s and Conclusions. ( a) The proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan maps and comprehensive plan text, as set forth in Exhibits A, B, C, and D, attached hereto, are consistent with the Council vision for the City ofF ederal Way; will allow development which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, including adjacent single-family uses; provide convenient goods and services at a pedestrian and neighborhood scale close to adjacent residential ORD# , PAGE 2 uses; provide for capital facilities and private utilities to serve both present and projected population; and therefore bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, and welfare; are in the best interest of the residents of the City; and are consistent with the requirements ofRCW 36.70A, the King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the un-amended portion of the Plan. (b) The proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan maps and comprehensive plan text, as set forth in Exhibits A, B, C, and D, attached hereto, are compatible with adjacent land uses and will not negatively affect open space, streams, lakes, or wetlands, or the physical environment in general. The amendments will allow for growth and development consistent with the Plan's overall vision and with the Plan's land use element household and job projections, and will allow reasonable use of property subject to constraints necessary to protect environmentally sensitive areas. The amendments, therefore, bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, and welfare; are in the best interest ofthe residents ofthe City; and are consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A, the King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the un-amended portion of the Plan. ( c) The proposed amendments to the zoning map, set forth in Exhibits B, C, and D, attached hereto, are consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan land use map proposed to be amended in Section 2 below, bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, and welfare, and are in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City. (d) The proposed amendments have complied with the appropriate process under state law and the FWRC. Section 2. Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Maps, and Zoning Map Amendments Adoption. The 1995 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, as thereafter amended in 1998,2000,2001,2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007, copies of which are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, the comprehensive plan map, and the zoning map are amended as set forth in Exhibits A, B, C, and D, attached hereto. Section 3. Amendment Authoritv. The adoption of plan and map amendments in Section 2 above is pmsuant to the authority granted by Chapters 36.70A and 35A.63 RCW, and pursuant to chapter 19.80 FWRC. Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the ORD# , PAGE 3 application thereofto any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 5. Savings Clause. The 1995 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, as thereafter amended in 1998,2000,2001,2003,2004,2005, and 2007, shall remain in full force and effect until these amendments become operative upon the effective date of this ordinance. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after passage and publication, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of 2009 . CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, JACK DOVEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO: K:\Comprehensive Plan\2008\LUTC\Adoption Ordinance. doc Orm# , PAGE 4 Exhibit A Proposed Amendments to Chapter 6, Capital Facilities & Chapter 10, Private Utilities CHAPTER SIX - CAPITAL FACILITIES 6.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Federal Way is expected to add 6,188 housing units and 7,481 jobs between the years 2001 and 2022. This growth will stimulate the local economy and maintain a diverse and vibrant community. Unfortunately, it will also generate a corresponding demand for new public services and facilities, such as schools, parks, and streets. These new facilities, and the financial implications they will have for Federal Way and its citizens, are the subject of this chapter. The Growth Management Act The Growth Management Act (GMA) refers to capital facilities planning in two of the 13 statewide planning goals. The two relevant goals are: L Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. 2. Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. More specifically, the GMA mandates that the City prepare a capital facilities plan which contains the following components: . An inventory of existing facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the facilities. · A forecast of the future needs for such facilities. · The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new facilities. · At least a six-year financing plan that will finance such facilities and clearly identify sources of public money for such purposes. . A requirement to reassess the Land Use chapter if probable funding falls short. In the pages that follow, this chapter complies with the GMA requirements for a capital facilities plan. FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Level of Service To prepare a Capital Facilities chapter, one of the first decisions a jurisdiction must make involves establishing a level of service (LOS) standard. The level of service standard refers to the amount and quality of services and facilities that a community wants. For example, the LOS for a parks system is usually described in terms of the number of acres of parkland per 1,000 population. If a community has a strong desire for a good parks system, it will establish a high LOS standard for itself, maybe something on the order of 20 acres of park per 1,000 residents. On the other hand, 20 acres of developed parkland is expensive to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain. As a result, the community may be forced, for financial reasons, to accept a lower LOS standard. In any event, adopting LOS standards for all the services and facilities the City provides would help it: 1) evaluate how well it is serving existing residents, and 2) determine how many new facilities will have to be constructed to service new growth and development. Concurrency In addition to mandating that a Capital Facilities chapter be included in comprehensive plans, the GMA also introduced the concept of concurrency. In general terms, concurrence describes the situation where adequate and necessary public services and facilities are available "concurrent" with the impacts of new development, or within a specified time thereafter. Concurrency has two levels of applicability. The first is at the planning level and refers to all services and facilities, over the long term, and at the citywide scale. Planning level concurrency is what this chapter is all about. It inventories all existing facilities and services, establishes a LOS standard for each, estimates new facility requirements to accommodate projected growth, and develops a financing plan that identifies the revenues necessary to pay for all the new facilities. If the necessary revenues are not available, then the jurisdiction fails the planning level concurrency test and must take appropriate action. Those actions include lowering the LOS standard, raising taxes, restricting growth, or a combination of these actions. This chapter satisfies the planning level concurrency requirement as outlined in the GMA. The second level of concurrency analysis is project specific and only required for transportation facilities. Specifically, the GMA (RCW 36.70A. 070[6]) states: ".. .local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development." That same section goes on say that "concurrent with the development" shall mean that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.2 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities conunitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. To satisfy the project level concurrency requirement, the last section of chapter three, Transportation, contains a concurrency management discussion. As mentioned previously, project level concurrency is only required for transportation system facilities. However, the Washington State Office of Community Development's interpretation (WAC 365-195-070[3]) states that, "...concurrence should be sought with respect to public facilities in addition to transportation facilities. The list of such additional facilities should be locally defined." This section goes on to say that local jurisdictions may fashion their own regulatory responses. The City adopted a Transportation Concurrency Management System, which became effective January 1,2007. Impact Fees Local jurisdictions planning under the GMA are authorized to assess impact fees for development activity as part of financing for public facilities, such as parks, transportation, and schools. The fire district also has a direct impact on their level of service based on growth and thus, is working both locally and legislatively to ensure that they also receive impact fees directly related to growth. Impact fees must be based on an adopted capital facilities plan. In addition, the collected fees must be used for projects that are reasonably related to and will reasonably benefit the development paying the fees. The fees must also be used within a specified time from the date they were collected or returned to the payee. Impact fees may be imposed for system improvement costs previously incurred to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements, provided they not be imposed to make up for any system improvement deficiencies. To impose an impact fee program, the City must have a plan in place to make up any existing system deficiencies. Countywide Planning Policies The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) originally adopted in 1992, and amended in 1994, contain a number of goals and policies regarding capital facilities and the provision of urban services. Those relevant CWPPs are the following: COt Jurisdictions shall identify the full range of urban services and how they plan to provide them. C02 Jurisdictions and other urban service providers shall provide services and manage natural resources efficiently, through regional coordination, conjunctive use of resources, and sharing of facilities. Interjurisdictional planning efforts shall evaluate approaches to share and conserve resources. C03 Service provision shall be coordinated to ensure the protection and preservation of resources in both Rural Areas and in areas that are developing, while addressing service needs within areas currently identified for growth. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.3 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities C04 All jurisdictions acknowledge the need to develop a regional surface water management system which crosses jurisdictional boundaries and identifies and prioritizes program elements and capital improvements necessary to accommodate growth and protect the natural and built environment. The GMPC shall develop and recommend a financing and implementation strategy to meet this need. COS Water supply shall be regionally coordinated to provide a reliable economic source of water and to provide mutual aid to and between all agencies and purveyors. The region should work toward a mechanism to address long-term regional water demand needs of agencies and water purveyors. C07 Water reuse and reclamation shall be encouraged, especially for large commercial and residential developments and for high water users such as parks, schools, golf courses, and locks. COIO In the Urban Area identified for growth within the next ten years, urban water and sewer systems are preferred for new construction on existing lots and shall be required for new subdivisions. However, existing septic systems, private wells, and/or small water systems may continue to serve the developments so long as densities and physical conditions are appropriate, the systems are allowed by the relevant jurisdictions, and management keeps the systems operating properly and safely. C013 Urban sewer system extensions in unincorporated King County shall be permitted consistent with the provisions of the King County Sewerage General Plan, Countywide Policies, and the policies of the jurisdiction in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed. FW13 Cities are the appropriate provider of local urban services to Urban Areas, either directly or by contract Counties are the appropriate provider of most countywide services. Urban services shall not be extended through the use of special purpose districts without approval of the city in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed. Within the Urban Area, as time and conditions warrant, cities should assume local urban services provided by special purpose districts. FW32 Public capital facilities of a Countywide or Statewide nature shall be sited to support the Countywide land use pattem, support economic activities, mitigate environmental impacts, provide amenities or incentives, and minimize public costs. Amenities or incentives shall be provided to neighborhoods/jurisdictions in which facilities are sited. Facilities must be prioritized, coordinated, planned, and sited through an interjurisdictional process established by the GMPC, or its successor. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.4 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities LU29 All jurisdictions shall develop growth-phasing plans consistent with applicable capital facilities plans to maintain an Urban Area served with adequate public facilities and services to meet at least the six-year intermediate household and employment target ranges consistent with LU67 and LU68. These growth phasing plans shall be based on locally adopted definitions, service levels, and financing commitments, consistent with State GMA requirements. The phasing plans for cities shall not extend beyond their potential annexation areas. Interlocal agreements shall be developed that specify the applicable minimum zoning, development standards, impact mitigation, and future annexation for the potential annexation areas. LU30 Where urban services cannot be provided within the next 10 years, jurisdictions should develop policies and regulations to: · Phase and limit development such that planning, siting, density and infrastructure decisions will support future urban development when urban services become available. · Establish a process for converting land to urban densities and uses once services are available. Funding/Financing Typically, cities and the residents they service would like to have higher LOS standards than they can afford. Federal Way has worked hard to provide the highest LOS possible without raising taxes. It is a difficult balance to maintain and the City is currently at a point where it may have to consider raising additional revenues to pay for capital facilities and the associated maintenance and operations costs. If the City decides to generate additional revenues, there are several sources available. Some of these revenues are "on-going" in the sense that the City levies the tax and the revenues are added to the City's general fund on an annual basis. On-going revenues include property taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, impact fees, and business and occupation taxes. The other category of funds is called "one time" funds because the City cannot count on having these funds available on an annual basis. These funds include bond sales and grants such as, TEA-21, lAC, and Urban Arterial Fund money. On-going funds can be used for either capital facilities or maintenance and operations. However, it is prudent financial management and adopted City policy that one-time funds be used only for capital improvements. As is discussed later in this chapter, the City proposed two bond issues to finance capital facilities in the Fall of 1995. As part of that bond issue, voters were asked to approve a permanent utility tax to pay for the maintenance and operations costs associated with the new capital facilities. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.5 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities 6.1 SURFACE WATER Inventory of Existing Facilities Natural Systems The Federal Way area consists of two major drainage basins, the Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound. The Hylebos Creek Basin consists of the West Branch Hylebos Creek, East Branch Hylebos Creek, and the Lower Hylebos Creek Sub-Basins. The Lower Puget Sound Basin consists of the North Lower, Central Lower, and South Lower Puget Sound Sub-Basins. Map VI-l (maps are located at the end of the chapter) shows the planning area boundary, and boundaries. Map VI-2 shows the major features of the natural system. The natural systems have been reviewed on a sub-basin level. This sub- basin information is contained in the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Facility Plan. Man-Made System As part of its 1994 Surface Water Facilities Plan, the City completed an inventory of the stormwater drainage trunk system. There are ten major trunk lines in the system, and one can find more details about their capacity and location in the Surface Water Plan. The City has made a significant number of improvements to the manmade system since incorporation in 1990. Most of the projects completed to date corrected existing localized flooding problems. As a result of resolving these "spot" problems, the City and its surface water utility have significantly improved the LOS on a system-wide basis. The City has gone to a regional system for detention/retention of surface water. Several regional detention/retention facilities have been, or will be, constructed to handle stormwater runoff. However, individual developments must treat stormwater on site prior to releasing it to the regional system. System Capacity As part of the Surface Water Facilities Plan, the City developed a model of its surface water facilities, including the natural part of the system, the various lakes, streams, and wetlands. This model uses the following design or LOS standards: · 25-year storm conveyance capacity on lateral systems; · 25-year storm conveyance capacity on major trunk systems; · 25-year storm storage capacity in local retention/ detention facilities; and · 100-year storm storage capability in regional retention/detention facilities. Based on these LOS standards and the data on existing facilities, the model helps utility engineers identify deficiencies in the existing system and the most cost effective way to resolve them. The model also allows engineers to describe the new facilities that will be needed in the future to acconunodate new growth and development as outlined in the Land Use chapter. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Waler, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amenclment VI.6 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Faciliijes Forecast of Future Needs Based on model results, utility engineers annually update a detailed 10 six-year capital facilities plan. The plan identifies projects, prioritizes them, estimates the cost, and re- examines the utility rate structure to ensure that there is sufficient funding available over the next six years to construct these projects (Table VI-I). Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities Table VI-I includes the surface water facilities project list. For more complete discussion of this list, and maps describing project locations, please refer to Chapter IV of the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Plan. As noted earlier, these projects address existing system deficiencies as well as the new facilities that will be needed to accommodate projected growth. Finance Plan The City has created a surface water utility to manage stormwater drainage, prevent flooding, and improve water quality. The City charges property owners an annual surface water fee, which is based upon the amount of impervious surface on the property. These fees, along with any outside grant monies and low interest loans, provide the revenues that pay for capital facilities projects, and operation and maintenance of its surface water system. As outlined in Table VI-l, projects are scheduled based on anticipated revenues. The capital facilities spreadsheet indicates project scheduling based on available funding and priority ranking. The City annually updates the capital facilities plan for surface water. The Comprehensive Surface Water Plan, which includes the capital facilities plan, is adopted by reference in this plan, including changes made during the City's annual update. 6.2 TRANSPORTATION The GMA requires that local jurisdictions prepare a transportation chapter as part of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). The GMA also authorizes jurisdictions to assess impact fees for transportation system improvements that are necessary to accommodate the traffic created by the new development. In order to assess impact fees, the capital facilities plan must include the list of transportation improvements and associated costs that necessitate the impact fees. Discussion related to Transportation- related capital facilities can be found in FWCP Chapter 3, Transportation. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.7 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities or ace ater ana2ement omJ onent 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total SWM SOlTRCES Revenues and Financing Carry Forward from CIP and Operations 7,030,158 6.206.435 5.025.729 3,8%,890 3,351,651 2,878,155 968,961 User Fees with GMA Project Growth 3,239,534 3,232,389 3,256,629 3,281,054 3,305,662 3,330,454 3.355,432 46,657,770 Interest Earnings 75,564 171,536 152,212 131,901 119,685 90,634 64.086 1,449,806 Transfer In - Street Fund 149,901 149,901 149,901 154,398 159,030 163,801 168,715 2,106,172 Grant Funding 1,093,160 720,000 Subtotal Revenues and Financing 11,588,317 10,480,259 8,584,470 7,464,243 6,936,027 6,463,044 4,557,194 113,867,643 Expenditures - One Time & Debt Service One Time Funding 0 Public Works Trust Fund Loan 203,577 201,754 199,930 198.107 196,283 194,459 192,636 3,757,108 Subtotal Expenditures 203,577 201,754 199,930 198,107 196,283 194,459 192,636 3,757,108 Available Revenue 11,384,739 10,278,505 8,384,540 7,266,137 6,739,744 6,268,584 4,364,559 110,110,535 Total Required Sources 5,254,682 5,454,530 4,687,580 4,112,593 4,057,873 5,494,083 3,859,339 59,421,297 SWM USES Maintenance and Operations Current 2,540.016 2.576.016 2,578,016 2,664,432 2,753,752 2,846.074 2.941,500 36,895,119 Subtotal Maintenance and Operations 2,540,016 2,576,016 2,578,016 2,664,432 2,753,752 2,846,074 2,941,500 36,895,119 Annual Programs III Fund 221.744 200,000 207.000 214.245 221,744 229,505 237.537 2,809,041 Subtotal Annual Programs 221,744 200,000 207,000 214,245 221,744 229,505 237,537 2,809,041 Capital Project List SPB-Clp.Ol: Joe Creek Regional 1.542,391 1,946,489 Detention Pond SPJ2-CIP.02: Lake Jeane Outlet 125,000 430,000 555,000 Control SllUclUre SPJ2-CIP-02: Lake Lorene Outlet 95,000 295,000 390,000 Control SllUclUre S 373'd Bridge Replacement Project 160,000 661,760 910,000 SPJ4-CIP-Ol: SW 325'" St 150,000 150,000 Culvertffrunk Replacement SPlJ-CIP-02: Lower Joes Creek 323.678 1,898,373 2,222,051 Channel Restoration SPL5-CIP-02: SW 332nd St Trunk 200,000 635,000 835,000 Replacement CPR6-CIP-0 1: S 308'" St Lateral 60,000 105,000 165,000 Drainage Intercept SPM3-CIP-02: East 15-Inch Lateral 211,953 248,092 Detention WHI2-CIP-02: S 316'h PI Detention 88,188 517 ,223 605,411 Table VI.I City of Federal Way Facilities Plan S f W M C Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI-8 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Facility WH07-CIP-02: I" Way STrunk 97,634 572,621 670,255 Replacement CPR6-CIP.02: Outlet Channel 50,000 130,000 180,000 Modification WHI5-CIP-02: 21" AveSW Detention 60,615 355,506 416,121 Facility WH II-CIP.04: Low Flow 45,193 265,056 310,249 Diversion/Infiltration Trench W Hylebos Channel Riparian Habitat 400,000 720,000 1,120,000 Easement Acquisition 10'" Ave S Drainage Improvement 55,000 375,000 430,000 S 336'" and 348'" Ave S Drainage 25,000 120.000 145,000 Improvement SR 99 Phase III Cost Share 150.000 150,000 6.3 PARKS AND RECREATION Inventory of Existing Facilities The City of Federal Way adopted the first Park, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan in December of 1991. The City updated the Plan in 1995,2000, and 2006. This plan, which is now called the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, is incorporated by reference. The planning area of the 2000 and 2006 Parks Plans are based only on the City limits of Federal Way, although the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) is inventoried and discussed. As in previous plans, the Parks Plan has been subdivided into subareas, referred to as Parks Plan Planning Areas (Map VI-3), for purposes of long- range planning. The 2006 Parks Plan updates the inventory to include new parks and properties added to the City's system. In addition to City-owned parks and open space, the Parks Plan also lists school district, state, and county facilities, as well as private recreation facilities. Map VI-4 depicts the location of major parks and open space within the Federal Way planning area. Table VI-2 summarizes this inventory as of June 2006. Su Table VI-2 f E . f C't P k d R f A as mmary 0 XIS me: ItV ar -an ecrea Ion re DEVELOPED PARK LAND CATEGORIES ACRES 14 NeighbOlhood Parks 156.4 5 Communitv Parks 222.3 o Recional Parks . 0.0 4.2 mi Trails Acreage 118.0 4 Park Facilities Acreage 25.8 Total Developed Park Land 5225 Total Undeveloped Park Land 543.5 Total Park Land in Federal Way 1066.0 Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amerntnent VI.9 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities When the City incorporated in 1990, there were approximately eight acres of parkland available per 1,000 population in Federal Way. Since that time, the City has purchased additional property and developed new facilities. These include the Lake Killamey Open Space Park, Heritage Woods Neighborhood Park, Wedgewood Neighborhood Park, BPA Trail 1, 11, and 111, Madrona Park, Cedar Grove Park, Klahanee Lake Community Senior Center, Dumas Bay Centre, Celebration Park, Steel Lake Annex facilities, and the Community Center, which opened March 2007. In 2004, Washington State Parks transferred West Hylebos Wetlands Park to the City. King County has also transferred several properties to the City in the last six years. These parks and facilities are described in greater detail in the Parks Plan. As of 2006, the City is providing 10.9 acres of park land per 1,000 population. The City's goal is to maintain a level of service of 10.9 as Federal Way grows in population and size. In the past, the City has obtained land through plat dedication. The City is also now considering a Park Impact Fee to provide funds for parks acquisition and development. In addition to acquiring and developing new facilities, the City has taken administrative actions to take advantage of other available public recreational facilities. The City enacted interlocal agreements with the School District to jointly operate and maintain school recreational facilities. As a result, the City jointly operates and maintains a major community park in conjunction with Saghalie Middle School. Also, the City has agreements to provide recreational programs and schedule play fields at several elementary schools, in addition to middle schools. These facilities are now formally available nights and weekends, year around for use by local residents. As referenced above, City residents now have access to 10.9 acres of parks and open space per 1,000 population. This inventory includes City owned parks and open space within the City limits. The City currently provides 1066 acres of parkland, which the City maintains and operates. Of the total 1 066 acres, 522.5 acres is developed for recreational use areas and 543.5 acres is undeveloped. Note: Washington State Parks has a regional park facility within the City limits, which residents often use. Dash Point State Park is 230 acres of state land, which provides a regional (statewide) recreation use for camping, swimming, picnicking, walking trails, and beachfront. The state park land is not included in the City's LOS simply because the state owns, operates, and maintains this facility. For the purposes of parks planning, the recommended LOS standard in the City's Parks Plan and this Capital Facilities chapter is 10.9 acres of City owned parkland per 1,000 population. Forecast of Future Needs The 2006 Parks Plan states that the inventory of public park and open space land will be adequate to serve both the current and future projected population within the City and PAA. However, much of this acreage is un-programmed, undeveloped open space. The primary deficiency, both now and projected, is in improved trails. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.10 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities The updated Parks Plan makes recommendations based on five Core Values identified through an extensive planning process. Four of these relate to capital facilities and include: Core Value #1: Improve Existing Facilities and Provide Multiple Functions in Parks Core Value #2: Develop a Walking and Biking Community Through an Integrated Trail and Sidewalk Network Core Value #3: Retain and Improve Our Open Spaces Core Value #4: Create Community Gathering Place and Destinations Capital facilities that respond to these Core Values have been incorporated into the Six- Year CIP. Some of the major efforts planned for this six year period include: · Design and redevelopment of Lakota and Sacajawea Parks . Acquisition of Camp Kilworth and associated site improvements to allow public access . Introduction of community gathering spaces in neighborhood parks · Site and building assessments for Dumas Bay Centre · Trail and Pedestrian improvements · Upgrade Saghalie Park soccer field to artificial turf In addition, the City completed a cultural arts survey in 1994. The survey evaluated several alternatives for a performing arts center and concluded that at some time in the near future, the City would need such a facility with a capacity of about 1,000 seats. The City has converted a portion of Dumas Bay Centre into the Knutzen Family Theatre, a 250-seat civic theater facility. This facility will begin to fulfill the identified community need for a performing arts center. Locations & Capacities of Future Facilities Map VI-4 indicates the location of the parks, recreation facilities, and open space subareas the City will need to maintain the adopted LOS. The Parks Plan breaks the planning area into subareas and addresses future facilities at the subarea level. For more details about the type, size, and cost of these new facilities, please refer to the 2006 Parks Plan. Map VI-4A shows potential locations of public spaces in the City Center. Finance Plan Table VI-3 (Parks Six-Year Capital Improvements Plan, 2006-2012) describes the proposed parks projects that will be needed between now and the year 2012, together with cost estimates programmed by year. Table VI-3 also identifies the revenues that will be available during the same time period to finance these new facilities. Please refer to Chapter 7, "Implementation," of the 2006 City of Federal Way Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan for information on the finance plan. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.ll FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities The City biennially updates its Parks & Recreation Capital Improvement Plan. These updates reflect new project priorities, eliminate projects that have been completed, and add new projects to the program. Sources/Uses 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Real Estate Excise Tax 1,007 344 460 510 507 421 2292 Misc. Transfers 21 21 Grants/Anticipated 810 500 1,000 2,310 Grants/Contributions Received Miti"ation Funds Received 110 110 General Fund 0 Total Financinl! Sources 1,533 344 320 870 385 1,281 4,733 Park Projects PlaVl!round 134 134 136 136 137 138 815 BMXlBike Facilitv 15 15 Camp Kilworth - Acq. & lmp'ts 1,550 1,100 800 3,450 Conununitv Gatherinl! SDaces 30 37 108 112 112 126 525 Downtown Public Space 100 100 Dumas Bav Centre: Buildinl! 33 193 140 140 140 140 786 Dumas Bay Centre: Site Restor. 137 Lakota Park Design & Redev. 723 11,000 11.723 Major Maintenance - Park Faci!. 110 110 110 110 110 110 660 Panther Lake Open Space 24 68 92 Poverty Bay Master Plan 41 41 Saghalie Pk Soccer Fld - Artif Turf 920 920 Trail & Ped Access lmp'ts 40 130 78 65 67 70 450 West Hylebos Boardwalk 1,365 1,365 Subtotal (G) 4,736 1,704 2,256 11,672 1,513 9,003 30,884 Unfunded Ending Balance 0 0 (877) (10,669) (988) (7,582) (20.116) Table VI-3 Parks Six-Year Capital Improvements Plan, 2007-2012 (in thousands) 6.4 Community Facilities Significant community investments have been made in the last 10 years to implement the community's vision for Federal Way. In addition to the investments in the surface water, transportation, and parks areas, the City also acquired and improved a basic set of community facilities to house City operations and provide space for community gatherings and recreation. The City acquired Klahanee Lake Community/Senior Center (KLCC), and Dumas Bay Centre (a conference and retreat facility) in 1993. Strong local support in community recreation and arts activities translated into the City Council's adoption of a 2% For the Arts ordinance to provide funding for arts in public places in 1994, and the construction of the 254-seat Knutzen Family Theatre in 1998. The new City Hall, which consolidates Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.12 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities most City administrative offices, Public Safety, and the Municipal Court in one facility, was acquired in 2003. Also in 2003, King County divested itself of community swimming pools constructed with 1970 era Forward Thrust funds. The City assumed the operations of Kenneth Jones Pool (IGP) as a result. The City began construction of a new 72,000 square foot Community Center in fall 2005. Construction was completed in early 2007. The facility houses Recreation and Cultural Services staff, and includes athletic and community facilities suitable for a wide variety of events and programs. The facility will replace the KLCC and IGP operations. KLCC was surplused and sold in 2005 and leased back until the new center opened. The IGP facility will be returned to the Federal Way School District, who owns the underlying property. Inventory of Existing Facilities As of January 2007, the City owns or occupies a number of facilities, as shown in Table VI-4 and Map VI-5. Projected Community Needs The City has identified a number of facilities to help deliver services more efficiently and adjust to the changing demographics of this community in the future. These projected needs are beyond the City's ability to fund within the six-year planning horizon. However, in order to keep the community's vision alive, we purposely did not exclude any of these community projects. The City Council will periodically review and prioritize these projects and provide funding when available. A description of these facilities with a summary list is provided in Table VI-5. Table VI-4 Summary of Existing Community Facilities Building Name Own! Use Sq. ft/Occupancy Leased City Hall Own City operations not otherwise listed 88,085/approximately 300 FTE and Council Chamber Police Evidence Own Police evidence room 6,000/2 FTE Klahanee Community/ Leased Community recreation and recreation 11 ,200/13 FTE, gym, kitchen, etc. Senior Center operations Kenneth Jones Pool Leased Community pool Federal Way Community Own Community recreation center with 72,000/13 regular FTE and Center gym, pools, senior lounge, pre-school, approximately 20 part-time temporary and educational cla~srooms and personnel multipurpose room with kitchen. Opened in 2007 Recreation staff offices. Steel Lake Annex Own Daycare, arts and crafts programs 1,161/program only Revised 2008 ScIlool, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.13 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Building Name Own! Leased Use Sq. ft/Occupancy Steel Lake Maintenance Shop Own Maintenance operations, outdoor equipment and material storage Dumas Bay Center (DB C) Public park, meeting/banquet/ overnight lodging Own 254 seats petforming art~ theatre and rehearsal hall Own Knutzen Family Theater (at DBC) Miscellaneous Outdoor Storage Miscellaneous Indoor Storage Leased Street maintenance material and park equipment storage Leased Spare office equipment/facility parts/records 4,110 office and maintenance bay/32 FTE approximately 90 sq ft storage yard and approximately additional 1.5 acres available for future expansion 6 meeting rooms, 70 overnight rooms, 12 acre park ground 10,000 material storage 2,000 equipment storage 260 sf. ft. 2,160 cubic ft boxes stored offsite in a document stora~e facility Table VI-5 Projected Community Facility Needs 2007 - 2013 Type of Facility Year Size Cost (sf) (millions) 1. Indoor Competitive Sports Facility 2015 75,000 $10-$12 2. Petforming Arts Centre 2015 50,000 $35 - $40 3. Maintenance Facility 2009 120,000 yard $1.0 6,500 office 4. Public Parking Facilities 2010 200 - 400 stalls $5 to $10 TOTAL $51 - $63 Municipal Facility (General Government, Police, and Court Operations) The City acquired the current City Hall in 2003 and consolidated its police, court, and general governmental operations under one roof. About 10 percent or 8,000 of the total 88,500 square feet of space in this building is currently available for future expansions. In addition to the City Hall parcel, the City also acquired two vacant lots to the north which is the location of the Police Evidence facility and overflow parking for the City Hall! Municipal Court. The City Council is considering presenting the annexation ballot measure to our Potential Annexation Area voters in the fall of 2007. If approved, it would add an estimated 20,152 people and approximately 7.6 square miles to the City's service area. This is an increase of 23 percent in population and 36 percent in land area. These increases would again place pressure on the current City Hall capacity and would require the expansion of the existing maintenance facility, as discussed below. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.14 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Maintenance Facility The Parks and Public Works maintenance facility is located at 31132 28th Avenue South. The entire site is approximately 1.4 acres, with 1,060 square feet of office space and a 61,000 square foot fenced storage yard. The City acquired two adjacent parcels, for a total of 2.25 acres, to the north of the facility in 2003. Today, the maintenance facility contains around 3,500 square feet of office space and 90,000 in fenced storage space, with an additional 1.5 acres of land area available for future expansions. Parks Maintenance operates seven days a week, two shifts per day. The space needed for the maintenance operations includes a front counter/reception area, crew quarters (including an area for daily time cards, breaks, and crew meetings/training, etc.), as well as a locker room. Public Works streets and surface water maintenance operations have similar needs for office space; operating Monday through Friday, year round, one shift per day. Both Parks and Public Works maintenance operations tend to intensify during the su~er months and require up to 15 part-time, seasonal workers at any given time. The potential annexation would require an anticipated eight regular FfE and eight FfE in seasonal help, plus proportional vehicle and equipment increases. This increase would require the City to expand the maintenance office area by 2,000 to 3,000 square feet, and maintenance yard by 30,000 to 45,000 square feet The current site would accommodate the projected space needs. Should the City proceed with the South 31th Avenue extension and 1-5 Access Ramp Addition Project, it is anticipated that the site would be significantly affected by the right-of-way needs and may not be sufficient to meet the above needs. Maintenance Facility Recommendation · 6,500 square feet for office space, accompanied by a 120,000 square foot storage yard · Three to five acre site (the existing site is approximately four acres, which is deemed sufficient) · Development cost is estimated at $1 million Conference/Performing Arts Center In 1994, the City of Federal Way, through the Arts Commission, asked AMS Planning and Research to conduct a feasibility study of a cultural arts facility to serve the City. Under the guidance of a 27-member steering committee, AMS conducted a survey of local arts organizations, analysis of existing cultural and meeting facilities, market research with residents of the City and surrounding communities, interviews with key conununity leaders representing govemment and business, and meetings and workshops with the steering conunittee, all of whom provided base information. The study reconunended a performing arts center to seat 1,000 patrons and a visual arts gallery. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.15 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities The performing arts center proposed in this study included design criteria that incorporated multi-level seating to accommodate as many as 500 - 600 people on an orchestra level, while still achieving intimacy for audiences. The construction cost for a performing arts theater was estimated in the 1994 report to be between $190 - $240 per square foot. Adjusted to 2007, the per square foot cost can easily be $400 - $500, or $25 to $30 million for construction. Site requirements called for a minimum of five acres; two acres for the facility and three acres to provide for surface parking and to meet additional code requirements. Altematively, two to two and a half acres would be needed if structured parking is used. The additional cost for structured parking would be $5 to $8 million. Based on these assumptions, the full developmental cost is expected to be $35 to $40 million. Maintenance and operation costs for a facility of this size were estimated to be $750,000 per year. Projected revenues (using a 171 event day schedule) was $390,000, leaving a net operating cost of $360,000 to be generated through fundraising or an operating endowment. Conference/Performing Arts Facility Recommendation · 50,000 square foot facility · Two-acre site · $35 - $40 million Multipurpose Competitive Sports Center The City of Federal Way enacted a 1 % lodging tax and formed the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) in 1999 to promote and enhance the local tourism industry. The committee has commissioned a feasibility study for an indoor competitive sports facility that will increase visitors' stay in local hotels and complement the Aquatic Center and Celebration Park, two other regional/national amateur sports facilities in the City. A number of development concepts have been considered, one of which is a facility for basketball and volleyball tournaments with an athletic club for training/conditioning to generate on-going usage and revenue. One of the considerations for such a facility would be its ability to be financially self-sustaining. It would also ideally be developed and operated by the private sector, with minimum or no public participation. Conference/Performing Arts Facility Recommendation · 75,000 square foot facility · Five-acre site · $10 - $12 million development and construction only, to be funded by private developer Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.16 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Public Parking Facility The existing city center development is currently near or at capacity with the required surface parking to business-space ratio. To intensify the development, such as the multi- story mixed-use developments envisioned by the community, additional parking space will be needed. These additional parking spaces would most likely be achieved through structured parking, consistent with the multi-story mixed-use business space. These structured parking facilities are likely needed in order for each of the super-blocks to regain grounds for redevelopment. With the construction cost of structured parking at a premium when compared to land cost, some public/private partnership would likely be needed for them to be financially feasible. The partnership may be in various forms, but the essence is consistent that public funds are invested to secure certain amount of parking spaces in an otherwise private-business parking facility. Public Parking Facility Recommendation · 200 to 400 designated public parking spaces in conjunction with privately developed parking structures for redevelopment projects located within the City Center · Between $5 - $10 million total. Investments will vary depending on the need and type of redevelopment projects at each location. City funding sources would be a combination of the City's economic development incentive fund and other state and federal economic development, and/or infrastructure funding sources. Financing Plan It is desirable to have all theses facilities in the community as soon as possible. However, unless they are funded with private or voter-approved funding sources, the City's projected revenues will not support either the development or the required operating and on-going maintenance of these facilities. The financing of maintenance facility improvements is likely to be financed with contribution from King County for the proposed annexation. Other additional future facility additions would depend on future voter approval to raise additional capital and maintenance funds. The City updates its capital improvements program every other year in conjunction with its biennial budget process. These updates will reflect new project priorities and funding a vailabili ty. 6.4. 1 SCHOOL FACILITIES This section summarizes information in the Federal Way School District No. 210, ~ 2008 Capital Facilities Plan (School Plan) and adopts the School Plan by reference. This plan covers the entire Federal Way School District which includes the City of Federal Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.17 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Way, portions of the incorporated City of Kent, City of Des Moines, City of Auburn, and unincorporated areas of King County to the east of Interstate 5. The district provides educational programs to all students who live in the school district service area, whether they live in Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, Aubum, or unincorporated King County. A school outside the Federal Way City limits may provide service to students who live within the City limits and vice versa. Inventory of Existing Facilities Map VI-6 shows the location of every school in the district. Table VI-6 summarizes the district's student capacity. The district has sufficient capacity in the existing schools and portable buildings to house all of the students in the district. Program Capacity The school district has established a Standard of Service, similar to LOS, for itself, which it calls "program capacity." The district's program capacity is based on: 1) the number of students per classroom; 2) the number of classrooms per school; 3) the number of classes that can be held in each classroom per day; and 4) other operational conditions. ~ C<\P <\ CITY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gl_atary l;SRQQ! ~ ~ ~ J).,4+4 J).,4+4 J).,4+4 J).,4+4 Hi.8Ql@ l;s!lQQI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l;Mioc High ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Table VI-6 Summary of Existing Facilities Capacities* 't}"KX.m- TI:I~'j' ?'1JX1.~h'j'r an f':?r ~'l1ltllRgr ~R~' aNd dg ARt lIl~lml'i: J?9t:tapJ? d"rrWPP"6 TI:I~g '"&f1'i1'Ylh?'r an; bafi~~ RR tlw Ma.:"UA'UR '\Ui'J gf tll~ bmltllA8f. CAPACITY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Actual Elementarv School 8.495 8.495 8.495 8,595 8,695 8,695 8,695 Middle School 5,818 5,818 5,818 5,818 5,818 5,818 5.818 Senior High 5,969 5.969 5,969 5.969 5.969 5,969 5,969 TOTAL 20,282 20.282 20,282 20.382 20.482 20.482 20.482 .NOTE: These caooohcs arc for bUlldllll!s onlv and do not mcludc Dortablc cla.<;sroom<;, These cau8Clbcs arc ba.<;cd on the maxImum use of the bUlJdml!s. Program capacity assumes that the average class will serve the following numbers of students: Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.18 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Grade K-2 20 Students per classroom Grades 3-5 25 Students per classroom Grades 6-]2 26 Students per classroom G.^...TE* 25 Stl:u!eats per s]assreom Special Education 12 Students per classroom Portables 25 Students per classroom lEP** 15 Stlu:leets per s]assreom * G.'\Ui iR !He Giftell aall T-all!lltell ~IlIUlaliiBB flCBgFlIHI ** YiP ar.@ !H@ !mlhdHallildHsatiQR P~R The school district uses portables at many school sites as an interim measure to house new students until permanent facilities can be built. There are other administrative measures that the school district could use to increase school capacity. These measures may include double shifting, modified school calendar, and year-round schooling. These measures have been used in the district on a limited basis, but not district wide. Forecast of Future Needs - Student Forecasts The school district's Business Services Department prepares a forecast of student enrollment annually. Projections are detailed at various levels; district total, school- building totals, and grade level totals. Special populations such as vocational students, special education students, and English as Second Language students are also included in the forecast. The basis for projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time. In a stable population, the cohort would be 1.00 for all grades. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. The district uses this method with varying years of history and weighting factors to study several projections. Because transfers in and out of school system are conunon, student migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases survival rates. Entry grades (kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis. The district collects information on birth rates within the district's census tracts and treats these statistics as a cohort of kindergarten for the appropriate enrollment years. Long-range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the cohort survival method. The cohort method becomes less reliable the farther out the projections are made. The school district study of long-range projections includes information from jurisdictional planners and demographers as they project future housing and population in the region. Table VI-7 describes increased enrollment through the year;wH 2014. It shows that the school district's student population will grow steadily every year with the highest growth in elementary. The district has compared existing school capacity with growth forecasts. New construction, modernization and expansion, and additional portable purchases will mitigate the deficit in permanent capacity for the next six years. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.19 FWCP - Chapler Six, Capital Facilities ENROlllIENT (YrE) JOO.1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A<<uaI IiI8IB8Rtary ~ Q,.IJ4 ~ ~ ~ ~ AA-I4 Middl8 SGRs91 ~ 4;%9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S llRlsr Wigll. ~ ~ 9,9&& ~ ~ ~ 9,+U ~ ~ ~ u,.m ~ ~ ~ ~ Table VI-7 Federal Way School District Student Forecast ENROLLMENT (YrE) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Budl!et Elementary 9.025 8.976 9.006 9.054 9.113 9.208 9.312 Middle School 5.1 62 5.091 5.119 5.120 5.085 5.037 5.0lI Senior High 6.880 7.012 6.985 6.797 6.749 6.725 6.729 TOTAL 21.067 21.079 21.110 20.971 20.974 20.970 21.052 Location of New and Improved School Facilities The district presented a bond for voter approval on May 15,2007, which was approved. The bond will be used to replace four elementary schools (Lakeland, Panther Lake, Sunnycrest, and Valhalla) and one middle school (Lakota). The Transportation, Nutrition Services, and Maintenance departments would also be replaced. Additionally, district wide upgrades to 24 other schools and district facilities will be paid for with the bond. Existing schools are identified in Map VI-6. Finance Plan Table VI-8 describes the school district's six-year finance plan to support the school construction. The table identifies $&,9{iig,301 $7,833,686 available from secure funding sources and an additional $172,640,000 $123,940,000 anticipated from other funding sources between ~ 2008 and ~ 2014. These funds will cover the $15g,000,000 $104,386,946 in planned project costs to the year ~ 2014. The School Plan states that state matching funds and impact mitigation fees, if realized, will be used to decrease the need for future bonds or will be used on additional capital fund projects. The School Plan currently covers the years 200~ 2013 2008-2014. The School Plan and accompanying six-year finance plan will be updated annually by the school district. This will bring the plan into full compliance with GMA requirements. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.20 c: co 5: '" .S:! == '0 co ~ ] 's. ~ ;; ClClI5: OO~~ ~~c: ;:;:':ico <l,) .5 - ~ .c::. '" ... ~oco .8~ ~ .~ .~ 00 :c = ~ >. co ~ ~ 't:l Q,) ~ ~ '0 '" u.. 1il .~ U X i:ij j ~ <5 I n. U :;: u.. i ~ Ji i n III j II n 1 j 'I I I I n:i11 Iii JfUIIII II"" ~ ~I il I il I I . . ! ~ II ,I, . Ii . . - Ii ' , ~ ~ - - ~ Ii . . J . II I fl~ H I I I , . . I~ . . j ; '1' :> , " . 5i -8 5i ~ c '" a: .. > .~ -5i ~ o U li; ~ U) "0 C '" .: fil :;: of Ii: -g -5 U) 23 '" '" "0 III .~ a: I . . ,,", '" "'r '" x ~ ~ ,,", ,,", '" 00 8 8 8 ..,. ..,. ,,", '" os '" .,., .,.,'" ~ ~ '" '" ;:t;~ x ;r; 8 ~ ..,. ,,", 00 ..,. N to N '" ::: '" t:l :c ... '" '" N z r- - z ,,", ..,. .,., .." z :c '" z .." ..l '" ;; <J C z 'li .c -;; z ..ll .. <J => .." .. ... <J " iZ ... c ~ ~ " ~ ~ CIl iZ ~ ... <J => ... .." = tJ ... 0 = :;;;~ c ~ QI~ -;; 11 Q <f ? 00,5 CIl B ... 00 l;l ~ 11 0 S .." ,5 l'Q CIl en .." c j c j 0 l'Q N 'l' 8 8 8 8 8 :> i - - u I; c E-< I 8 8 8 8 8 I; ~ - - c l; E-< c '" i ... c .. .. i ... c .. ... I ... c .. s m c .. '"' I g .. 0"" - ON .. i '" '" r::: r::: '" c '" '" .,., .,., ,,", ~ '" '" r- r- .,., '" " B - - '6 0: " ~ I "0 " 1 a 0: 0: ~ " '" > 1i: :;; " L€ c.:: ] ... 51 "0 '~ -8 0: " '" ~ .i:: U ;; 5i ::l " ::l ~ as .0 u c: c:: 00 < '" ;;: ~ .in 5i -5i CIl ~ >-< 0 0 U 0 Qj =: ~ u w CIl en ~ ." :~ c:: '0 <"I '" '" f.l LL- ]I :s: .ft of U ~ >< -g (jj Q; -fi ~ en '" .c 0 U 0 I '" n. ." 0 5l :s: .Iii LL- a: FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities 6.4.2 WATER SYSTEMS This section summarizes the Lakehaven Utility District's.J.9.98. 2006 Comprehensive Water System Plan (Water Plan, incorporated in full by reference) while providing up-to- date information where warranted. Map VI-7 shows Lakehaven Utility District's (hereinafter referred to as "the District" in this section) water service area boundary. Other purveyors provide water to portions of the District's corporate area. The Tacoma Public Utilities, for example, serves an area on the west side of the District's corporate area and the=Highline Water District serves a small portion of the north side of the District's corporate area (Map VI-B). The City of Milton serves a small area on the south side of the District's corporate area that is within the City of Milton limits. Areas on the east side of 1-5 within the City limits of Auburn and Pacific are also provided water service by the District BY agreemeRt witJ:J. the cities. These areas are at a higher elevation than the valley cities can cost effectively serve. Inventory of Existing Facilities The locations of the District's wells, storage, and other major components of the distribution system are provided in the Water Plan. The water system includes approximately 450 miles of water main, 24 production wells, and 12 storage tanks. The average annual daily demand in ~ 2007 was about ~ 10.54 million gallons:per:. day (MDG). The facilities are described in the following sections. Groundwater Resources The District's existing groundwater sources originate from four aquifer systems: the Redondo-Milton Channel Aquifer; Mirror Lake Aquifer; Easter Upland Aquifer; and the Federal Way Deep Aquifer. The Water Plan estimates that the combined production limit for these aquifers on an average-annual basis is 12.3 MGD during average precipitation, and 8.7 MGD during a simulated lO-year drought. The current peak-day combined pumping capacity is 27.8 MGD, assuming the District's largest production well, Well lOA (2,650 gpm), is out of service. Second Supply Project The District participates in the Second Supply Project (SSP, aka Tacoma's Pipeline No. 5). The District is accessing the pipeline at three flow control facilities provided at strategic locations along its route through greater Federal Way. These facilities allow the District to receive water from and send water to the Second Supply Project (SSP). These facilities together add an average +:& 7.6 MGD to the District's water supply, depending upon the availability of water from the Green River. Water available from the SSP is conditioned upon adequate in-stream flows in the Green River. Water Quality Wisterically Prior to 2000, the District has not had to treat its water supplies to meet regulatory requirements before distribution to its customers. However, the District began Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.23 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities a chlorination and corrosion control treatment program in July 2001 for all of its groundwater and other sources of supply to meet newer regulations. The district's status with respect to regulated drinking water contaminants covered by the WAC 246-290 and anticipated water quality regulations is summarized in Section 10~ "Water Quality," of the Water Plan. Regulations that are prompting treatment ofthe District's groundwater supplies are the Lead and Copper Rule, the anticipated Ground Water Rule, and the Surface Water Treatment Rule, due to the petemial f-ar iRereased distribution of surface water obtained from Taeema's (er ether atilities') system(s) t!l.re1:l.gao1:l.t the Distriet's aistribHtioB system the SSP. The District has also installed water treatment systems at Well Sites 9, 17/17N17B, 19/19A, 20/20A, ~22/22N22B, 23/23A, and 29 that remove iron, manganese, and other impurities from the groundwater. Storage Facilities According to the Water Plan, storage facilities will remain adequate through the planning period. For the storage analysis, extended-period simulation modeling was conducted to evaluate the storage draw-down during fire flow events and to evaluate storage equalization during multiple-day periods of maximum-day demand conditions. The storage analysis model was conducted using the "Backup Power Approach," which is summarized in Section 9, "System Analvsis," of the Water Plan. The District has installed an emergency power system at its W ell I 0/1 OA Site, and is iR the preeess of has install~d emergency power systems at its WeIl17/17N17B, and 19/19A, ana Well 25 sites to preclude the need for new storage facilities. Water Conservation Measures The District is committed to implementing aggressive water conservation measures to reduce per capita water consumption. These include programs such as public information campaigns, including block water rate structure to reduce peak day consumption, winter- summer water rate adjustments to reduce summer consumption, and a "wet-month average" sewer rate structure. The District is also working with the City to introduce water conservation measures by amending the zoning and building codes. These measures include a requirement for low flow showerheads and toilets, utilizing species for landscaping with reduced irrigation needs, and use of reclaimed water for irrigation. TransmissionIDistribution System The results of computer modeling have found the transmission and distribution pipeline network to be very robust. Of particular note is that the fIre insurance rating for South King Fire and Rescue improved from Class 3 to Class 2 in 2004. The majority of the District is served by this fIre agency. Forty percent of the score for the rating process is based upon available water supply. This rating improvement is a signifIcant accomplishment, as the new classifIcation is on par with the rating held in Seattle and Bellevue, the only other departments to hold a Class2 rating (no fire agency in Washington holds a Class 1 rating). The pipeline network is continuing to be expanded through developer extension projects undertaken by land development activity. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.24 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Emergency Interties Emergeac)' The District has eight emergency interties the Distriet's water system with adjoining systems of other utilities. Emergency interties allow the District to buy or sell water with adjoining utilities in an emergency and provides- enhanced system reliability. The District has three emergency interties with the City of Tacoma's water system, three emergency interties with Highline Water District's water systems, M8 one emergency intertie with the City of Milton's water system, and one emergency intertie with the City of Auburn. Forecast of Future Needs The Water Plan estimates future need by analyzing existing water demand (measured consumption plus unaccounted-for/non-revenue water loss) patterns on a daily, seasonal, and yearly basis. The District breaks down the water demand values on an "equivalent residential unit" (ERU) basis, which is essentially the amount of water used by an "average" family residing in an "average" single family residence situated within the District's water service area, if used uniformly over the year. The seven-year District- wide average of measured unit consumption between 1999 and 2005 was 234.41 gallons per day per ERU. When including the unaccounted-for/non-revenue water loss component, the District-wide average day demand becomes about 255 gallons per day per ERU. Population and employment growth projections converted to ERU's are then utilized to estimate future water demands. Utilizing a conservative methodology that disregards the impact of the District's water conservation efforts, the Water Plan estimates average day demands will increase from ~ 10.56 MGD in ~ 2010, to J..l-,Q4. 11.90 MGD in 2012, and to ~ 13.76 MGD in 2025. Expanded and Improved Facilities The District has programmed a number of system improvements to maintain and expand the existing water system. These improvements are sununarized below. Groundwater Resources The District is drilling aad developing an additional production well (Well No. 33) to fJerfest its water rights be added to the Well 19 water right permit. The District is continuing to pursue its OASIS ~ (Optimization of Aquifer Storage for Increased Supply) project, under the ASR coacept (Aquifer Storage and Recovery) concept. The OASIS feasibility study determined that the Mirror Lake Aquifer can be used to store up to approximately 9.4 billion gallons of water filled over the winter from excess water supply and withdrawn over the drier summer months for water supply purposes. Combining funding from its wastewater utility, the District is also pursuing its Water Reuse/Reclamation ~ Program, utilizing wastewater suitably treated at the Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant, conveyed through a separate pipeline system, and utilized for beneficial purposes, such as augmenting groundwater supplies. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.25 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Second Supply Pipeline Improvements are being implemented to the Howard Hanson Dam-on the Green River that will expand storage behind it, which will help mitigate the seasonal variation in available water by increasing in-stream flows during the drier parts of the year. Water Quality Filtration is planned for the Green River water conveyed by the Second Supply Project in the future in coordination with the SSP partners. The District has plans to install WfHef one additional treatment systems at the Well S#e& 10C; site 17/17.^~/17B, aRE! 21 to remove iron, manganese, and other impurities from the groundwater. Transmission/Distribution System Minor improvements to the transmission and distribution pipeline network are recommended in the Water Plan, such as a new transmission main in the Adelaide and Lake Grove neighborhoods to convey water more efficiently to nearby storage facilities. The District has also developed a design feasibility report for the OASIS 538-578 Pressure Zone Transmission Main Proiect. This proiect would improve the local supply capabilities from Pressure Zone 538 to Pressure Zone 578. Significant investments are also contemplated to relocate existing pipelines that will conflict with infrastructure resulting from street improvement projects undertaken by other agencies within the District's water service area. Finance Plan A utility undertakes a capital program for many different reasons, including: expanding the capacity of its systems, maintaining the integrity of existing systems, and addressing regulatory requirements. The District is required to comply with its own Water Plan and to support regional decisions on population growth and land use. The District has identified several significant capital improvement projects in its Water Plan. The scheduling of these projects is included in the District's most recent Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that is developed and approved annually. The District has access to sufficient funds that can be utilized for operation and maintenance of its existing facilities, and for pursuing capital projects. In addition, the District has depreciation, interest income, assessment income, and connection charge monies that it can utilize for funding the CIP. Additionally, the District can borrow money or increase rates, if necessary, to best meet the needs of its customers. The District has utilized a very conservative approach in budgeting for the CIP by utilizing the growth projections developed by each of the land use jurisdictions located within the District. The District will provide facilities as required to support growth within its service area. The schedule and project costs will be updated annually through the District's budget and capital improvement program process. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.26 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities 6.4.3 SEWER SYSTEMS Lakehaven Utility District's Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan (Wastewater Plan, incorporated in full by reference, including modifications made to it through the first four amendments [Amendment No.4 was adopted on February 9, 2006], and any future amendments) was last updated in 1999. The Wastewater Plan is in the process of being updated and is scheduled 1e138 l:lfleat8a 6eeB for completion in the summer of 2009. The Lakehaven Utility District's (hereinafter referred to as "the District" in this section) sewer area is located in the southwest portion of King County, including the unincorporated areas east of the existing City limits of Federal Way. Map VI-9 shows the District's sewer service area. Other utilities provide retail sewer service to relatively small portions of the District's corporate area, including Midway Sewer District on the north side of the District, the City of Auburn on the east side of the District, and the City of Milton/Pierce County on the south side of the District. In addition, other utilities provide conveyance and treatment services to portions of the District's retail sewer service area, including Midway Sewer District, Metro/King County, Pierce County, and the City of Tacoma. As of the end of ~ 2007, the District was serving a residential population of approximately ~ 114,000 through ~ 24,500 connections. Inventory of Existing Facilities The sanitary sewer system is comprised of three major components: the trunk collection system, the pump station system, and the wastewater treatment and disposal system. The trunk system collects wastewater from drainage basins and conveys it to the treatment facilities, primarily by gravity flow. In areas where the use of gravity flow is not possible, pump stations and force mains are used to pump the sewage to a location where gravity flow can be used. The locations of the major components are provided in the Wastewater Plan. The existing collection system operated and maintained by the District consists of approximately ~ 340 miles of sanitary sewer pipe, 28 pump stations, six siphons, and two secondary wastewater treatment plants, namely the Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Redondo Wastewater Treatment Plant. The system has been constructed over a number of years, as dictated by development trends in the area. The system is currently divided into seven primary basins and 40 smaller sub-basins. The wastewater generated within the two largest basins, Lakota and Redondo, flow to the District's wastewater treatment plants. The remaining five basins currently discharge to the other utilities for treatment and disposal, as mentioned above. The District currently has the capacity in all the major components of the system to accommodate the existing demand for sanitary sewer service. The wastewater treatment plants have been retrofitted with ultraviolet (UV) disinfection systems to replace chlorination systems to comply with state regulations. Major sewer facilities have recently been constructed to expand sewer service into large "unsewered" areas (the 19th/20th A venue SW Sewer Trunk and Weyerhaeuser Sewer Trunk), and to divert flow to its own Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.27 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities treatment facilities that had previously been conveyed to other utilities for treatment (Pump Station No. 45 and the South End Diversion Sewer Trunk). Significant upgrades have been undertaken for its largest pumping facility, Pump Station No.6, to improve its reliability and provide an odor control system. Other existing pump stations have been significantly upgraded with new pumps and electrical systems (Pump Station No.7, 10, and 22), and others have been provided on-site emergency generators to allow their continuous operation during a commercial power outage (Pump Station No. 35). A recent major project was undertaken to replace deteriorated pipe material for the North Beach Sewer Trunk Pipeline along the Puget Sound shoreline at Lower W oodmont. In addition to the expansion of the District's collection system funded by developers, the District recently funded a new low pressure sewer collection system topro'/id@ sewer s@f'/ic@ availaBility to resiEleNts iN the establiskeEl Lalwta ~eaGk Neigk1:lockeeEl Near the Pyget ~eHNEl sRgfeHNe in the North Lake and Five Mile Lake areas. Forecast of Future Needs Population forecasts are based on the adopted land use plans of the various jurisdictions within which the District operates. The population figures are presented by drainage basin to allow for evaluation of the system and consideration of future improvement alternatives. The population within the District's sewer service area is projected to increase to nearly 150,000 127,000 by ~ 2028, approaching the projected "ultimate" population of 180,000 based upon land capacity. An estimated 7,500 on-site wastewater disposal systems are in operation within the District's corporate boundary. It is anticipated that sewer service will be extended to these "unsewered" areas as on-site systems become less viable to maintain and/or when new development requires public sewers. The average base daily flow tributary to the District's two wastewater treatment plants, excluding infiltration and inflow (l & I), is currently estimated at ~ 7.2 MGD and is expected to increase to nearly W 8.2 MGD by ~ 2028, and nearly 17.0 MGD at full development. Peak hourly flows tributary to the District's two wastewater treatment plants, including I & I, are currently estimated at ~ 20.0 MGD, and are expected to increase to nearly ~ 21.3 MGD by ~ 2028, and 40.0 MGD at full development. Hydraulic capacity at both wastewater treatment plants is estimated to be available up to the original design peak hour capacities of 22.2 MGD for Lakota and 13.8 MGD for Redondo. Expanded and Improved Facilities The District il'> f)lanNing has started construction for the rehabilitation and lengthening of the Redondo Wastewater Treatment Plant's outfall pipeline that discharges treated wastewater into Puget Sound. This proiect will be completed by September 2008. A project to fyrther dewater and dry the replace old biosolids material that resHlts {rem the wastewater treatment process is beiNg CONsidered dewatering eQuipment with new, more efficient eQuipment to help reduce operating costs is under design. The District is pursuing many other proiects to improve the performance of the facilities (energy Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.28 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities conservation, water Quality, biosoild Quality, reduced maintenance, etc.). Combining funding from its water utility, the District is also pursuing its Water ReuseIReclamation Project, utilizing wastewater suitably treated at the Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant, conveyed through a separate pipeline system, and utilized for beneficial purposes, such as augmenting groundwater supplies. Additional new and expanded sewer facilities are planned to divert additional flow to its own treatment facilities that is currently being conveyed to other utilities for treatment (new Pump Station No. 44 and expanded Pump Station No. 33). On-site emergency generators are planned at other existing pump stations (Pump Stations No. 12,37 and 41) to allow their continuous operation during a commercial power outage. The District is continuing to fund new pressure sewer collection systems to provide sewer service availability to residents in established neighborhoods, particularly those around lakes (North Lake, Five Mile Lake, etc.). Finance Plan A utility undertakes a capital program for many different reasons, including: expanding the capacity of its systems, maintaining the integrity of existing systems, and addressing regulatory requirements. The District is required to comply with its own Wastewater Plan and to support regional decisions on population growth and land use. The District has identified several significant capital improvement projects in its Wastewater Plan. The scheduling of these projects is included in the District's most current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that is developed and approved annually. The District has access to sufficient funds that can be utilized for operation... and maintenance of its existing facilities, and for pursuing capital projects. In addition, the District has depreciation, interest income, assessment income, and connection charge monies that it can utilize for funding the CIP. Additionally, the District can borrow money or increase rates, if necessary, to best meet the needs of its customers. The District has utilized a very conservative approach in budgeting for the CIP by utilizing the growth projections developed by each of the land use jurisdictions located with the District. The District will provide facilities as required to support growth within its service area. The schedule and project costs will be updated annually through the District's budget and capital improvement program process. 6.4.4 FIRE FACILITIES This section summarizes the South King Fire and Rescue Strategic Leadership Plan, and the department's subsequent updates. The fire department provides service to the entire City of Federal Way, the entire City of Des Moines, and surrounding unincorporated Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.29 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities area. Total population in the department's service area is approximately 150,000 citizens. Services include fIre suppression, fIre prevention (building inspection and public information), emergency medical, hazardous materials responses, public education, emergency management, and rescue emergencies (special operations). South King Fire and Rescue has a contract with the City of Federal Way and Valley Communications for the provision of emergency 911 communications, wherein they act together with the City as a part owner of Valley Communications. The South King Fire and Rescue Strategic Leadership Plan identifies and programs improvements that are necessary to maintain existing service standards and to meet the needs of future residents and businesses. The plan and future updates are adopted by reference into the FWCP. The fIre department provides fIre suppression service to the entire City. In order to do this, the department has adopted LOS standards found in the South King Fire and Rescue Resolution Number 413. . Each emergency fIre response should include a minimum of 15 trained and equipped fIrefIghters and apparatus commensurate with the emergency (a standard response of four engines, one ladder truck, and one command vehicle are sent on all structural incidents). . Each emergency medical response should include a minimum of one response vehicle and three fully-equipped and fully-trained crew members on a responding engine company, or two crew members on an aid car (either an engine or an aid car, or a combination of both, can be sent on the response depending upon the severity). . The fIre department provides a full building inspection service for fIre code compliance. The department is currently providing service that is generally consistent with its adopted LOS standards. The fIre department also depends on having adequate water pressure available in fire hydrants to extinguish fires. The department works with the Lakehaven Utility District, Highline Water District (in the City of Des Moines), and other water utilities within its corporate limits, to ensure that adequate "fIre flow" is always available. Lakehaven Utility District's Water System Plan analyzes "fIre flow" rates available at different points in its water system, and programs improvements to the water system to ensure that suffIcient water is available for fire suppression. Emergency Medical Services Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responds to 911 calls and provides fIeld services. This service is paid for by property taxes. EMS is provided as a marginal cost to the fIre department as fire facilities are utilized to provide this service to the community. The fIre department replaces its fIve front line aid cars, of which staffs three on a normal basis, Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.30 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities conunensurate with its capital replacement plan and capital reserves system. The section on funding (Funding Plan) addresses how the ongoing replacement purchase of these aid cars will be funded. Inventory and Capacity of Existing Facilities The department has two major types of capital facilities. One is fire stations and the other is capital investment in equipment and, in particular, fire engines. The department's fire stations are shown on Map VI-JO. Forecast of Future Needs From 1986 through 1992, emergency responses increased at an average annual rate of over eight percent. In 1990, public education efforts included 91 I-use/abuse training. The increases in call volume during 1993 and 1994 leveled off with 1994 volume increasing only 1.5 percent from the 1992 level. It is unknown, however, how much, if any, effect the 911 public education effort had on actual call volumes. In 1995 and 1996, calls for service again increased at an average rate of 8.1 percent. Although calls actually decreased slightly in 1997, call volumes increased by 14 percent in 1998. The call data indicates a fairly steady increase of approximately six percent per year. Emergency medical incidents have increased more rapidly than non-medical incidents. During the 1990s, structure fires have declined. The challenge for the fire department will be to manage fixed-cost investments, such as new stations, and to be flexible in its ability to meet fluctuating call volumes. Location and Capacity of Expanded or New Facilities In September of 2005, the citizens within the City of Des Moines (protected by King County Fire Protection District #26) voted overwhelmingly to merge with the ~ Federal Way Fire Department (King County Fire Protection District #39). The result of this merger caused the name of the fire department to change from the Federal Way Fire Department to its present South King Fire and Rescue. The legal name for the fire district is actually King County Fire Protection District #39 (KCFPD #39), although the department does business as South King Fire and Rescue. South King Fire and Rescue operates out of eight stations, seven of which are response stations with the eighth being a training and maintenance facility. Two ofthe eight stations are located within the City of Des Moines, two stations lie within unincorporated King County, and four are located with the City of Federal Way. As of 2006 projections, the fire department responds on approximately 16,000 emergencies annually. The department may have need for an additional station in the near future in the south end of the City in the vicinity of 356lh and Pacific Highway; or, possibly a little more north in the area of South 336lh or 348lh and Pacific Highway South. If this area continues to experience significant commercial growth, the department anticipates that the calls for Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.31 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities service will also continue to grow. In this eventuality, an additional station may be needed to maintain acceptable response times. The department has acquired property in the area of 356lh and Pacific Highway South through a swap of properties with Lakehaven Utility District to assure future availability of a station site. Additionally, the department may have a need for an additional station in the future in the far north end of the fire district within the City of Des Moines. The North Hill area of Des Moines is protected both by South King Fire and Rescue, as well as KCFPD #2, via an interlocal first response agreement. The timing of this potential new station would be predicated upon any future merger discussions between the two fire districts (South King Fire and Rescue and KCFPD #2), none of which are currently taking place. Any new station should be able to accommodate an on-duty crew of three fire fighters, with appropriate living and sleeping quarters. In addition, the structure should be able to house two engines and an aid car, with room for growth dictated by LOS demands. It may also be appropriate to provide a public meeting room and an office for community policing in new facilities. The cost of these facilities is approximately $2,009,999 $4,000,000. Equipment would be in the range of $700,000 $1,000,000 for a new station. The fire department does not presently have a timeline for construction of new fITe stations at either of their two proposed fITe station locations. Funding Plan The fire department has established a capital reserve fund for the systematic replacement of all capital equipment. These reserves are funded from the annual revenues of the department. The department also has established a long term goal of a minimum of four- paid fITe fighters on each fire apparatus (this is the national standard adopted by NFPA 1710). Additional staff that is hired in support of that goal will be funded from either new construction levies or additional voter-approved levies. The department has not established any funds for purchase of new stations or associated equipment. These purchases would require voter-approved bonds. In the department's annually adopted budget, capital projects are identified. This capital projects list is up-dated based on completed projects and changing priorities. The FWCP adopts by reference the South King Fire and Rescue Strategic Leadership Plan~ as well as the annual capital improvements program update. Additionally, the department is seeking to receive impact fees based upon growth within the community, which directly affects its level of service. This is being sought both locally and legislatively, as fire districts have to manage growth the same as schools and other public facilities. If successful, impact fees could assist in offsetting the capital costs of added infrastructure. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.32 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities 6.5 GOALS AND POLICIES The goals and policies in this section implement the GMA requirements and the CWPP. The City of Federal Way takes responsibility for implementing only those goals and policies for services provided by the City. Special service districts, such as the school, utility, and fire districts, must implement goals and policies that are consistent with their respective plans. The City does intend, however, to closely coordinate the City's plan with these service districts so that the citizens of Federal Way receive the highest level of service possible. Goal CFGl Annually update the Capital Facilities Plan to implement the FWCP by coordinating urban services, land use decisions, level of service standards, and financial resources with a fully funded schedule of capital improvements. Policies CFPl Provide needed public facilities and services to implement the FWCP. CFP2 Support and encourage joint development and use of community facilities with other governmental or community organizations in areas of mutual concem and benefit. CFP3 Emphasize capital improvement projects that promote the conservation, preservation, redevelopment, or revitalization of commercial, industrial, and residential areas in Federal Way. CFP4 Adopt by reference all facilities plans and future amendments prepared by other special districts that provide services within the City. These plans must-be consistent with the FWCP. CFP5 Adopt by reference the annual update of the Federal Way Capital Improvement Program for parks/recreation, surface water management, and the Transportation Improvement Program. CFP6 Protect investments in existing facilities through an appropriate level of maintenance and operation funding. CFP7 Maximize the use of existing public facilities and promote orderly compact urban growth. Goal CFG2 To meet current needs for capital facilities in Federal Way, correct deficiencies in existing systems, and replace or improve obsolete facilities. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.33 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Balancing existing capital facilities needs with the need to provide additional facilities to serve growth is a major challenge for Federal Way. It is important to maintain our prior investments as well as serve new growth. Clearly, tough priority decisions are facing Federal Way policy-makers. Policies CFP8 Give priority consideration to projects mandated by law, and those by state and federal agencies. CFP9 Gi ve priority consideration to subsequent phases of phased projects when phase one is fully funded and under construction. CFPIO Give priority consideration to projects that renovate existing facilities and preserve the community's prior investment or reduce maintenance and operating costs. CFPll Give priority consideration to projects that correct existing capital facilities deficiencies, encourage full utilization of existing facilities, or replace worn out or obsolete facilities. CFP12 Give priority to projects where leveraged monies such as grants and low interest loans can be used. Goal CFG3 Provide capitalfacilities to serve and direct future growth within Federal Way and its Potential Annexation Area as they urbanize. It is crucial to identify, in advance of development, sites for schools, parks, fIre and police stations, major stormwater facilities, greenbelts, open space, and road connections. Acquisition of sites for these facilities must occur in a timely manner and as early as possible in the overall development of the area. Otherwise, acquisition opportunities will be missed, with long-term functional or fInancial implications. Policies CFP13 Provide the capital facilities needed to serve the future growth anticipated by the FWCP. CFP14 Coordinate efforts between the Public Works and Parks Departments in the acquisition of and planning for public open space, recreation, public education, and stream preservation within the Hylebos Basin. Departments may combine resources as appropriate to increase project effIciencies and success rates in pursuit of grant opportunities. CFP15 Give priority consideration to projects needed to meet concurrency requirements for growth management. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.34 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities CFP16 Plan and coordinate the location of public facilities and utilities in advance of need. CFP17 Implement a concurrency management system which permits project approval only after a finding is made that there is capacity available in the transportation system sufficient to maintain the adopted level of service standard. CFP18 The provision of urban services shall be coordinated to ensure that areas identified for urban expansion are accompanied with the maximum possible use of existing facilities and cost effective service provisions and extensions while ensuring the protection and preservation of resources. CFP19 Coordinate future economic activity with planning for public facilities and services. CFP20 Purchase property in the Potential Annexation Area and keep it in reserve for future City parks and surface water facilities. CFP21 Consider public/private partnerships to leverage structured parking in association with City Center development or redevelopment, in fulfillment of comprehensive plan vision and goals. Goal CFPG4 Provide adequate funding for capital facilities in Federal Way to ensure the FWCP vision and goals are implemented. The GMA requires that the Land Use chapter be reassessed if funding for capital facilities falls short of needs. The intent is to ensure that necessary capital facilities are available prior to, or concurrently with new growth and development. Capital facilities plans must show a balance between costs and revenues. There are essentially five options available for balancing the capital facilities budget: increase revenues, decrease level of service standards, decrease the cost of the facilities, decrease the demand for the public service, or reduce the rate of growth and new development. Policies CFP22 Manage the City of Federal Way's fiscal resources to support providing needed capital improvements. Ensure a balanced approach to allocating financial resources between: 1) major maintenance of existing facilities; 2) eliminating existing capital facility deficiencies; and 3) providing new or expanding existing facilities to serve new growth. CFP23 Use the Capital Facilities Plan to integrate all ofthe community's capital project resources including grants, bonds, general funds, donations, impact fees, and any other available funding. CFP24 Ensure that long-term capital financing strategies and policies are consistent with all the other FWCP chapters. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.35 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities CFP25 Pursue funding strategies that require new growth and development to pay its fair share of the cost of facilities that are required to maintain adopted level of service standards. One such strategy that should be implemented in the near term is an impact fee program for parks and transportation. CFP26 Promote a more efficient use of all public facilities by enacting interlocal agreements which facilitate joint maintenance and operations of those facilities. CFP27 Use the following available contingency strategies should the City be faced with capital facility funding shortfalls: . Increase revenues by selling general obligation bonds, enacting utility taxes, imposing impact fees, and raising property tax levy rates. . Decrease level of service standards to a level that is more affordable. . Decrease the cost of the facility by changing or modifying the scope of the project. . Decrease the demand for the service or facilities by establishing a moratorium on development, focusing development into areas where facility capacity is available, or changing project timing and/or phasing. CFP28 Aggressively pursue grants or private funds when available to finance capital facility projects. CFP29 Maximize the usefulness of bond funds by using these monies to the greatest extent possible as matching funds for grants. Goal CFPG5 Ensure that the Federal Way Capital Facilities Plan is current and responsive to the community vision and goals. The role of monitoring and evaluation is vital to the effectiveness of any planning program and particularly for the Capital Facilities chapter. The City's revenues and expenditures are subject to economic fluctuations and are used to predict fiscal trends in order to maintain the City's adopted level of service for public facilities. This Capital Facilities Plan will be annually reviewed and amended to verify that fiscal resources are available to provide public facilities needed to support adopted LOS standards. Policies CFP30 Monitor the progress of the Capital Facilities Plan on an ongoing basis, including the completion of major maintenance projects, the expansion of existing facilities, and the addition of new facilities. Evaluate this progress with respect to trends in the rate and distribution of growth, impacts upon service quality, and FWCP direction. CFP31 Review, update, and amend the Capital Facilities Plan annually. Respond to changes in the rates of growth, new development trends, and changing City priorities, budget, and financial considerations. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment VI.36 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Make provisions to reassess the FWCP periodically in light of the evolving Capital Facilities Plan. Take appropriate action to ensure internal consistency of the chapters in the plan. CFP32 Continue to coordinate with other capital facility and service providers to ensure that all necessary services and facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with new growth and development. Goal CFPG6 Manage the Suiface Water Utility in a manner that makes efficient use of limited resources to address the most critical problems first, and which expresses community values and priorities. Policies CFP33 The utility shall continue to have a role in developing and implementing regional, state, and federal surface water policies and programs and, in doing so, shall seek to: · Achieve the City's environmental goals. · Contain utility ratepayer costs. . Ensure state and federal requirements are achievable. . Maintain local control and flexibility in policy/program implementation. · Provide consistency with CWPP. The utility's role in developing and implementing regional, state, and federal surface water policies and programs will include: . Influencing legislation through lobbying and written and verbal testimony during formal comment periods · Participating in rule making · Reviewing technical documents . Serving on advisory committees and work groups . Participating in multi-jurisdictional studies and basin planning . Entering into cooperative agreements with neighboring and regional agencies to accomplish common goals as appropriate and necessary CFP34 The utility's funds and resources shall be managed in a professional manner in accordance with applicable laws, standards, and City financial policies. CFP35 The utility shall remain a self-supporting enterprise fund. CFP36 The utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will provide funding for the following types of projects: 1) Projects addressing flood control problems. 2) Projects needed to meet water quality policies. 3) Projects needed for renewal/replacement or additions to current infrastructure and facilities. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment V\.37 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities 4) Projects necessary for resource protection and stewardship. CFP37 To the extent of funding limitations, the CIP shall be sustained at a level of service necessary to implement cost effecti ve flood control mitigation; meet water quality policies; maintain system integrity; provide required resource stewardship and protection; and meet federal, state, and local regulations. CFP38 The utility will continue to strive to minimize the use of loans to fund necessary capital improvements, and will generally operate on a "pay-as-you-go basis." However, low interest loans (i.e. Public Works Trust Fund) and/or grants will be used to leverage local funds when feasible. CFP39 Rates shall be set at the lowest level necessary to cover utility program expenses, meet levels of service identified in the "Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan," meet debt coverage requirements, and sustain a reserve balance consistent with these policies on a long-term basis. CFP40 Utility rates shall be evaluated annually and adjusted as necessary to achieve utility financial policy objectives. CFP41 Utility rates will allocate costs between different customer classes on an equitable basis. CFP42 The utility rate structure will be based on a financial analysis considering cost- of-service and other policy objectives, and will provide adjustments for actions taken under approved City standards to reduce related service impacts. CFP43 Rates shall be uniform for all utility customers of the same class throughout the service area. CFP44 Rate assistance programs may be provided for specific low-income customers. CFP45 The utility's annual budget and rate recommendations shall provide funding for the following reserve components: I. A working capital component based on 45 days of the current year's budgeted operating and maintenance expenses. Under no circumstances shall a budget be submitted for a planned drop in reserves below this leveL 2. An emergency/contingency component to cover excessive costs resulting from unexpected catastrophic events or system failures. Based on historical utility experience, this amount will be set at $500,000, which is the estimate of the net cost of emergency services to be paid from rate resources, excluding any potential reimbursements that may be recei ved from Federal Emergency Management Act grants, the City's General Liability Fund, or other external revenue sources. Revised 2008 School, Fire, Water, and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Amendment V 1.38 ~ ,;. . c ... - 0 ~ > = 0 .B is- '" 0- S<ll ~ = - c: ., '" ~ <C '" 0 ~ ro .,0 _ <II ::E Co", ~ ...... ~ :!!.c 0- f>> t:: -0 ctl c: a: ~- <1> 'en ... .- '" c: e! 0 .c<ll (]) E .la ctl Q.~ .- 'E <( Ql 8 !!! = a <II > f>> ~ c: c ~~ <II t: CO :.:i .2 .en '0 ~ ~ >. as lU c: ctl c: -!5 ~ en ~ ~ 'en Ql ~ '-Jl >- ., 0 (]) 0 :2. c: ~ m (I,) u ctl -~l ~ '" = .::.: en "'''' "C ,<1> Ql Ql Ql - ., (]) >- c: Qj .. ~ I 0... ;::; c: ... e! -<II (]) CD ~ Ql alE ..c :.:::: <( > () Cl ~ '0 ~ '" >- LL (]) - tJ) Cii ,!!! i:i:: <II 11. !~ as as <0 C c: 0 ... CD =- ~ ~ u.. ... .c Ql a"O .- <II ... Ql Ql '" - a. Ql Ql ~ Ql ~ .- ., 0 CD c: - '0 - e! >. - '" 5& g.;f Ql 0 ~ ~ E .- ~ " U. 11. C> J: ....J E_ ~ "C as '- c (/)0 ::; ~ .ra 0 0 Cl Ql D .c >- ~ CD ... Cl I I ....= <1 -1z ..0 () () u. C Ql I~ .91., ....J ~j!: ~-.. .. - - -- - ""<( ~- ~ ~ <( - Vi -g Cl c: u.. C\,) ::::::: c: '.~ 'C; ,,_Cl :2: ., ., /~ ., :"'r - -'~~ -\ N ,;. . i - 1: > 0 c 0 ..815- u c: 0> Q. .!!lea c c - ~ " " ~ ro 'S E i <( = g ~ Q) _ ea .... a. s:; " ui :E Q.., a.. c:: "0 ~ E .. !!;e: 0: Q) c " -0 CI> (1l ....., > 'iij ClI)': ~ ~- ~ '- ea >- .- .. (1) U) E .l!l E ::l (1l ~ ~1i 0 .s:::ea ... <( Q.~ .> E ~ 'E Q) 00 c al "c>- B e! C ro Q) c 1ii >- ~'~~g ::~ UJ ::J ,S! .- 'iij -c ~ii L- en ... Q) >- U c (1l c -50_0 = ~ (1) ns ~ CQ 00 'iij al ::l ~!!N ~~ ~ c: ... CI) U X Q) CO (1l 0 .& ~ ~.!/l 1;1 g "'C ~ U) .CI> Q) CI Cl) al ..>0: 00 -~! " .. (1) C Cl) Q) 3:~" C ~ .0::. >- (1l '- ~ Q) ~Q)~~ '" - " (1) ..c: ~ :.:::: ~ c c ..- ~ Ii .g--; <( 'Cij ....., U CI :.~ ;; E "gE l.L. '0 ::l <> e (1) Q) en ~ '- III 0:: ca . GJ 0 S .,,>- (l) li! 0 -C III a.. ;!~~ 100 <3 S~ L- U 'E c III C 0 '- CliO 1 cu "- ~ lL. Q) ..>0: (1l Q) .Q Q) :2 ,a.5.!! c_ o a. ~ Q) c ~ Q) Q) ."0 .- ea -c ..>0: Q) ~ ~ ea >--5 ., - - '0 ::l >. .- " E c Q) (1l '- 0 ...! c_ - '" ~.f g.-g ~ 1:1 11. a.. ~ ...J C) I ...J ;-8~~ ~ tt ~ C ElL ::s '- ~~~~ me :; .!!O ..... 0 ::s Q.. Q) D - ( 0 ~ ... Cl I I j!:.~ () () en ~ a 21 I~ g-~i~ -1z ..u :; .!/l ~ " " ~F .. ?J -~- .. -- 1 ~ ","-. .t~o: - C Q> :::::: Vol 'Q> Q /. ::-- '::. :~ M ,:. . c ~ - 0 > c 0 .,!! ii- u <1l '" C. .!! '" C ~ c - <I> " " ... ! <( g:8 ~ ro <( -'" :i ""on ~ ..... Cl 1ij ~.'I:l: a. t:: c ill -0 <1l '2 al "'- Q) u. ~= U) ~ C -0 Q) E .l!! <1l ""~ CG .E <( a:: ~ !c > Lil u "'''' ro c ~~ ",t: CD :.:i .2 -t!: = ~ L- en '- .~ 1ii <1l ==is >. Q) C c( CI) x ll.. :::!;'" ~ 51 g () <I> -~. "on 'U Q) u~ i - " Q) >. c 0... c: '- c -", Q) C) ..... ~ iE .r:. '- <( CG :-0 e 0 "0 >- U. Q) - c: ~ ~ !~ L- a. .- co E (II c_ 'to- u.. <I> .'1:1 .- '" a. c <I> on - <I> a; .- " 0 - '0 '0 - 0: ~.f Ii';f E ~ c: !!! <I> <1l 0. '0 LL ll.. () ~ E_ ~ '- CG '- c (/)0 ::; ~ .!!! 0 - 0 CG Q.. <I> D I - F~ - CO Cl I -1Z .. () () () a. a.. 0 ~ 1-, ~ 4l ZF - ....- .. 'I' - '- "'<:( ~~.<:( - al a.: = ll. Q) :::::: '- ":- '::.r -.:::::." \et) ~ Q :"r. City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Potential Location of City Center Public Spaces and Bicycle Routes Legend .._11 Planned Bicycle Route .~ Surface Water Building D Street This map is accompanied by NOwarranties. City Center Frame Map Date: March, 2007 ~ Scale: NO 500 I 1,000 Feet I Potential Public Space Locations .. Park - Existing Bicycle Route City Center Core A Federal Way Capital Facilities Element Map VI-4a lot) >. . C E - 0 5 > c VI () ,g/S '" Q. SOl c c: .... " c - ~ " ::I ~ en 0 Q) '" <( :c 8 E 'E ~ - Ol ~ E Q) >- :E a.., a.. ..... u ca i l!!.1;: c: 0 ~ -0 <b ca U .c of fl- ~ .... .- ., Q) E VI Q) 1:: VI '0 .cOl Q) .... ~ a.i!:' := <( 'E Q) .c 0 '" f!! c > U) ~ E I- Z G CDOl ro ::i c: Q) 1: ~~ Ol t: Q) LU .2 Q) u Q) = ~ "- en .... :e:- C6 'E x lit U c: c: c: ==5 >- Q) .- lit >- Q) .2 .2 .2 :2!:'" Ql 0 C ..... II) U x ,!!! Q) := c: GI Q) ~ ., c <b Q) c: i C6 C6 C6 -~~ ::c -c Q) .- c: ~ U ~ c: ~ - '- >- <( ca Vi Vi Vi '" 0... Q) ..... ~ c: 'y >- E 'y ....l :6 -Ol ..c .- '- .0 .0 .0 1lE :-.; <( ca Q) ~ u. (J (3 IV CD E ~ IV Q) ~ ~ ~ 1! :0>> Q) .~ u.. 0 ca u.. Q) (/) (/) (/) Il'! 8 ~~ CO ~ ~ (ij VI ....l c: \t- "- 'E " ::I: ca U " ca Q) Q) Q) o ~ CU c_ U. Q) Q) E OJ Q) .2 .2 .2 ."0 .- Ol 0 a. Q) ~ .c Qj t ., - -c ~ lit .- Ql - - c Q) ca "0 "0 "0 ~.f g-~ E ~ i:i Q) 0 ~ ~ Q) en IV S2 (ij 0: ~ u.. a.. u 0 z Q) a.. a.. a.. (.) Q. ~ C q .J (/)0 ~ E_ '- .Y.! 0 :!::: 0 ..... Q.. Gl D I ~ ~~ .- ~ ClI , , 50 CD CD 0 ~a a II a () () 0 ~ --{z ..(.) '''' u ~ G) ZF - ~ - .. " - - - -- - "'~ ~~~ - ~ 0..: . c u. ~ ~ c \.~ 'Q .0 ~ ./ a; \~, CD ,;, . C &: :> 0 c c 5 :Sii' <.l - '" CL ~ ! C 0 c 0 >2 cD" ~ ro ...... <Il~ <( illS 0 ~ ~ '" ~ - ~" :IE ~,~ 0.. .c t:: t> .- ~ -0 (.) <1> co 'C ~il fl- N u. .- '" Q) E Q) (jj '0 -a'" en $ "- i5 &: "'z:- q: ~c > iU 'E u a", ro C a ~ ",t: ~O ::J .2 a ~ ~ L- en Cii 0 5 Q) ~ "t""" ~ ~ 0 '" ~ cD 0 C lI) U x (,) ~ ~ ~ '" c "'0 N ,<1> Q) (/) (,) '0 " '" Q) ~ ., c: (/) 0.... Q) =It ~ >- c: >- 0 a Ii i~ ..c ~ q: ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ u. '0 co (,) ~ e ." >- Q) - ..... (ij c (/) (,) 0 j~ L- eG (.) co (ij .., (ij Q) Q) (/) IJ'! * cu c_ ~ L. LL Ci> c: Ci> E =0 iUO .- '" a. Q) ~ ~"C '" ~ 0 .- -0 '0 -0 -0 OJ .~ .- ., CD L. - Q) fi~ E ~ Q) Q) w ~ I (ij 0: 5& ..... " u. Q.; u. Co ~ "C (,) .. E_ 0 '- c (/)0 ::; .re 0 ~ 0 CD Q.. ell 0 1- 0 ~ F~ .- co 01 tiI 4 ~ () () C ~ I..! ---{z ..(,) LL 0 .e ., ~F B ~.: -~ ... = .. => :;;: tiI -~ A tiI ~ S aA'I1 tn9~ ./' ". ..... :>. . c .,. - 0 ~ > c 0 ,Bii- c: '" Q. .!!1m ~ c - " ::> >- CO CO ~ ~~ <( g: 8 =~ - m ~ ... ~ CO :i 0.", a. ..... "C =q !:t:::= CD t:: <( c: N ]; .... Q) CO <D ::::l ~ (1) E <D (,) 0 'l; .em ~ .Ie ~ .~ IXI ~~ <;' _ c .> ~ 'E Q) 0 o>m ro c: <D (;j ~ m t: ns LU ::J .2 (/) ~~ ~ U) (;j ... 8- (1) e ?:- <D 0 ~ ,,0 c: CI) Ul C U ~ - 0 ~ ~ '" c "'0 Q) ~ : m (1) CD <( '- >- c: U .2~ (1) ..... c: ..c: '- ~ li -ge > :-- <( c: c: ~ U- n <D Q) 1! -0 ,.. (1) ns CD (ij > > ~~ ~ (ij co co ~ ~ (,) ... +:I .c: .c: 1 ell c_ '+- .c <D c: ~ 0 .- m a. <D ~ Qi .'0 '" - 0 .- "C .~ .- " CD '= - <D '0 co co (ij '" hf 0.-0 E ~ " u.. a. ....J ....J 0- E~ >- ~ (,) G '- c (/)0 :> .Y! 0 .... 0 ns CD Q. ell 0 r , l ~ ~5 a Cl . 0 () -I en ~ I J . -1z .!!" . ~F (f III C "'i 0 CI'l ;;;: . ;:.... ~~q; '" q: . ~ n: '" ll.. ltl9~ ../ Iii ~ ~ ~;:... t!~ ;; "' MS ^V)sa.z f: }t' c ~ro ~a.. Q) -> ro._ L. C/) Q) c "OQ) Q)..c: LL.Q) ,+-L. 00. ~E ......0 00 ns ns E ! 0<( u CD ~ .~ olJ~ CD CD etn .- ~ - .eCD 0)10 J:~ ..... c: <b E dj U) <b :;::; '- :-- <3 co LL ~ '0.. co o ~ ltl 'C c: ::I o al ltl (I) ~ (I) u .~ (I) (/) E g U 0> :1ii ~ >- ==~ (\j:2:i u. '0 a ~ g (IJ co I :> Q. <C :E ,,;. ~ " ,8/S- .e", " - " ~ ~ 8 - '" 0... e.1=: -0 .~ -;; .c'" o.i!:' ~" a", ",l: rd~ " 0 .. " ~ .. - " 0... -", alE ", >- ii~ c:_ .- '" .. - .- " g-~ E_ .. 0 ~.~ ..0 ~CD ZF ~ ltl 'C c: ::I o al ltl ~ <( (I) U '~ (I) (/) .... (I) ~ ~ o u j.!!! ltl (I) $ ~ .E c: :::J 0 ~ ~ U ~ >- ~ ~ <( a; ... c: (I) o a.. .... .$ ~ (I) .5 :2 t>> :f a; Q) 'C (I) U. It) c:i CD a; o (/)0 ~ Ii ~ ~ .~ a:: 0- m :; >- ~ e CU .'tJ ~Lf ~ 't:l C CII CIl ~ .-. .. . l l o -\z 4l9t ......--, c, ~~' .' en ,;. . c f - 0 > c: u aii' C '" 0.. s'" ~ c:~ 3l B ~ ro III ~ <II '" <( '" u a- ~~ ~ '" ~ - Q) III 0... c... CD ...... .... -c :q ::E != t::: <( c ~; ~ <l> III Q) ::::l N .. <l> E: Q) (.) 0 u.. .t::'" (/J .... .~ In 1i o.~ CD - <( ~ !!! c: .> ~ .!: Q) Q) c ro 'iij u 0>", en CU c (J) "lii ii '" t:: '- U) LU :::J 0 .... III ~. ~ ~ .... 0 In ~ <l> c C CD CI) ~ ~ Co '- <n >- '" 0 ~ .. c: "C a- <l> U Q) <5 Q) 8 ~ : :g <l> CD <( :t::; >- c (J) () ~ OJ .215 <l> ..c "- ~ c Q) li > :-; <( c c (J) iE U. <l> CD U ro Q) Q) ~ ~ -0 >- CU > > H~ ~ ro +:I III III II) 'I- '- .c (.) Qj c .c .c ci * GJ c:_ a. Q) Q) .- '" 0 Q) Q) .'0 ..~ CD .- - '0 '0 ~ ~ ii .- '" E '= ~ Q) III III ~ '" ilf g.~ ~ ~ '0 u- n. ..J ..J Co C .. E_ '- (J) '" ...... 0 CD Q. GI 0 ~ .~ 0 CU 0 r , l .t::>o a l:lI . 1-." 0 0 ...I en j I J . -1z ..(.) .!!'" . ~~ l:-' -<ID tll9t 0- S ^V 1St c -- ... .-. u; ~ ~ ~::o., ~~ ;: ;;: '" <n MS ^'I IS~! ~ }{~ '///,::. 0 >. ~ "E f . 0 c u 5> ,giS- t: '" .\1! <II ~ C ~ a.. ., ::J :>. CO >- :a 8 ~ <C ~ <II ~ a.. - ~ c; ~..\'l t: .5 ! :E ~~ e Q.) ~ <II IL E '" VI"- .t::'" Q) ." 1l <1)0 Q.~ C ::J C ~~ !! c > .- ~ 0 '" "'<II CO LL 1Il c '" l:: lU ., N ~ s... en .. "E = ~ G) ::J .(ij Q) '" ~ 0 ~ ~g t: CD CI,) $ ., ::; '" ~ .( ., 'U Q.) .e 0:: .., ~ ~ ::J "' Q) C C ." ~ ., (,) '- :::; .2 '" 0... Q) ;!:: c c -", ..c: .- .~ 1ii '" .2 "' iii alE ~ tn '0 >< ! Oi ~ c ~ ! u. Q) 0 .. c ~ ." >- G) >- c ir: 0 <5 ~~ C\:J :f! c 0> i '" ~ s... u.. <( C <0 ;0 N '" .... "' <0 '" Iii l CU c_ .c Q: :m 2 Iii N <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 U') .- '" 0 a. (ij c c c c ! Qi a"D "' ~ "E c c c c c:i ~ .- .. ..... - a; .t:: ! .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 ii: li-;f E s .. :; ~ 0:: s& ~ ." '5 it I! I! I! I! I! I! I! I! 0. :>. "'C If 0 " a E_ o. '" 0> <Il '" '" '" '" '" '" <Il .. <( 1Il '5. ~ Dr 'OoS "' (/) 0 :;; .re 0 ~ 0 0 C 0 ~ r=.~ 0 0 en C\:J ~ IJ ~f99 49 8 8 9 f) 9 eO 0 -1z ..0 as 0 .silO Q. ~r= ~ '~ " " ~ '" " '" =-'" ; ~ :2 c.. " ~ ~ .;: :- ~2 CHAPTER TEN - PRIVATE UTILITIES 10.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter satisfies a Growth Management Act (GMA) requirement that cities prepare a Private Utilities chapter. This chapter describes the location of existing utilities and the proposed location of new utilities, as well as the capacity of existing and proposed utilities. The GMA requires the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) to have internal consistency. This means that the Private Utilities chapter must be fully coordinated with other chapters of the FWCP. This is particularly important for Federal Way's City Center and in the 1-5/99 corridor where new development and other land use change is anticipated in the near future. In accordance with WAC 365-195-320(2)(c), this Private Utilities chapter includes plans for natural gas, electricity, telecommunications, and cable television service for the City and its planning area (Map X-I - Council Approved PAA Boundary, maps are located at the end of the chapter and were revised in 2007 as part of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments). Each utility plan will describe and analyze existing and proposed utility systems within Federal Way and improvements necessary to meet growing consumer demand. In most cases, maps are provided to illustrate the existing system and proposed improvements. Plans for water supply and sewer are found in the Capital Facilities chapter of the FWCP. The City sees the GMA requirement to prepare a Private Utilities chapter as an opportunity to identify ways of improving the quality of services provided within the City. The City will use this Private Utilities chapter to identify goals and develop policies to ensure that provision of utilities is properly coordinated with land use. The City acknowledges that it would not have been possible to prepare this chapter without the assistance of local utility providers. 10.1 ORGANIZATIONAL AND lEGAL CONTEXT Privately owned electrical, natural gas, and line telephone utilities are regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). Cellular telephone communication companies are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Cable television companies are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Private utilities must have a franchise agreement to place utilities in the public right-of-way or on private property. Franchise agreements give each utility the non-exclusive right to provide its category of service within the City. FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies 10.2 COUNTYWIDE LAND USE POLICIES FOR UTILITIES The King County Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) drafted the following Countywide Planning Policy (CWPP) that is relevant to private utilities: C06 Aggressive conservation efforts shall be implemented to address the need for adequate supply for electrical energy and water resources, protect natural resources, and achieve improved air quality. Efforts shall include, but not be limited to, public education, water reuse and reclamation, landscaping which uses native and drought-resistant plants and other strategies to reduce water consumption, small lot size, low-flow showerheads, conservation credits, and energy efficiency incentives in new and existing buildings. This Private Utilities chapter is consistent with the aforementioned CWPP. 10.3 PUGET SOUND ENERGY Description of Utility Puget Sound Energy Company, Inc. (PSE) is an investor owned private utility headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. It provides electric and natural gas service to approximately 1,377,3gg 1,042,213 metered customers within the company's 6,000 square mile service territory. This service territory encompasses eleven counties in western and central Washington. PSE is regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 was designed to increase competition among energy sources by encouraging the development of new natural gas resources and the development of nationwide transmission pipelines. PSE builds, operates, and maintains an extensive electric and gas distribution system consisting of generating plants, electric transmission lines, gas supply mains, distribution systems, substations, and pressure regulating stations. It is a hydroelectric-based company purchasing about 40 percent of its power from utilities that own five large hydro facilities on the Columbia River. ~Four PSE owned hydroelectric plants, on the N09k&ack, Baker River, Snoqualmie, Whit0, and Puyallup rivers add to the hydro base on the west side of the Cascades. Other PSE owned or partly owned sources include three coal-fired plants (in Colstrip, Montana), and six gas and oil-fired plants. Revised ~ 2009 X.2 FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies General Location PSE supplies electric and natural gas service within the entire limits of the City of Federal Way. The quality of service within Federal Way is dependent on the local delivery system operated by PSE, the bulk transmission system operated by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and power generation by a number of agencies, including PSE. Natural gas is supplied to the entire region through pipelines owned and operated by Williams Gas Pipeline - West, Salt Lake City, Utah. The "gate station" off the pipeline that provides most of the natural gas supply to Federal Way is located in Derringer (near Aubum). Type of Service: Electric Transmission Lines (lI5kV). Schematically, Figure X-I (page 4) describes how electricity is transmitted from the generation source to customers. Map X-2 describes that portion of PSE's transmission system that covers Federal Way. It is a grid that provides a link between BP A's Bulk. Transmission System and the local distribution system that connects with customers. The "Bulk. Transmission System" is operated by the BPA, which operates a region wide, interconnecting, transmission system that supplies electric power to utilities from federal hydroelectric projects east and west of the Cascades. The primary service BPA provides to PSE is wheeling energy around the region. All the transmission lines supplying Federal Way are energized at 115kV (Kilovolt). These lines supply power into the Federal Way distribution system and provide connections to Tacoma City Light, King, and Pierce Counties. Power is transferred from the transmission system to Federal Way's local distribution system at six distribution substations. Power also comes into the City from substations located in Pierce County and unincorporated King County. Transmission Switching Stations. The only switching station in Federal Way is the Starwood Station. Switching stations are used to control and monitor power flow on 115kV lines in order to increase system reliability. Distribution Substations. Distribution substations transform voltages of 115kV or greater to lower voltages of 12 or 34kV. The following stations are located in Federal Way: Lakota, Kitts Corner, Belmore I, Belmore II, Marine View, Starwood 1, Starwood 2, West Campus, and Weyerhaeuser. Future Facility Construction PSE predicts tlial: the load for tlie greater Federal Wei)' area "Jill grow 13)' 103.9 MV:\. l:Jet'::eeR 1990 aRe 2020. Map X-2 shows proposed transmission lines and substations necessary to increase service reliability and/or capacity in the Federal Way area to meet this projected load growth. The additional substations needed include: . Killarney · Twin Lakes · Federal Way Five Mile Lake · Dolloff · Enchanted · Steel . In addition, Marine View will be expanded to a switching station. Revised ~ 2009 X-3 FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Ulil~ies Figure X-I Electricity Supply From Source to Customer Subslalfon rransrrmer 115kV transmission lines are proposed in two separate locations: . One additional line extending from Marine View Substation located at approximately South 295lh and Pacific Highway South, east generally along 304lh Street to 51 sl A venue South. . One additional line along Military Road from South 320lh Street south to the Pierce County line. PSE foreeasts that these im13f0','elmoo.ts, aleBg "lith ethers els8\Yhere in the sHbarea, will flrodHc@ a syst@Hl. that will b@ op@rating at 72.5 fl@fc@nt gf capaeity by th@ y@ar 2Q20. Additional transmission line and transformer capacity may be necessary on the PSE/Tacoma City Light (TCL) intertie at Starwood. Proposed cogeneration facilities in TCL's tideflats area eeal€l pot@fl.tially ex-paRd may require expansion ofthe existing Revised ~ 2009 X-4 FWCP -Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies system. The timing of any improvement would depend on the design and capacity of the cogeneration facility. PSE also has an active asset management plan. The plan includes replacing poles as they age, and as necessary to maintain or to increase line clearances. Type of Service: Natural Gas PSE provides natural gas to the City and surrounding communities through a network of interconnecting supply and distribution mains (Map X-3). The components and hierarchy of natural gas supply are illustrated in Figure X-2 (page 6). Accon:Iing to PSE's Rate Departmeat, tlhe average house (using natural gas for both heat and hot water) consumes about 1,000 therms per year. Ten therms equals approximately one "mcf' (one thousand cubic feet) of gas per year. When planning th@ size ef n@w gas mains, PSE ases a SatafatiOB m0e@1 .....hiCR assames all new aoaseRelEls .....ill ase nataral gas since 99 pereeRt ef new Remes eeast:raeteEl, "..here baild@fs have the cheic@, are asisg namral gas. Ext@llsioll of seryic@ (typically cesyeFsisll) is Basee ell r-eEtHest aRe die resalts sf a market analysis te eetenmse if re\'eRaes frem aR ex-taRsieR ",..ill effset the eest ef eenstnictios. PSE hae 17,319 gas castemocs is the City as 0fNEl'..ember 1999. There were 12,&55 is the City is Nov@mB@r 1999. Bas@e01l growth, PSE amieif)ates 22,500 eastom@rs ill the City BY 2999. Tae existiRg system is ca)3aele sf SHfl)3lyillg atJ)3reximately 39,990 cystomers is the Peeeral Way area. It is estimated that PSE currently serves 17.971 customers within the city limits of the City of Federal Way. Gas Supply Mains: These are geserally larger eiarneter (sixjllcR steel aRe larger) maiDS designee to Ofl@rat@ at higher pressar@ (100 psig to 250 psig) to eeli'l@r Rataral gas from die sypply soarce to pressar-e redacing statiElRs. PSE has 35,{j50 f-eet ef 12 iech SHfl)3ly raain.locatee ie Military Road Soadi aRe 3,200 feet ef six ieeh locatee else'shere. Pr-essure Redbtcing (District Regutawl's) StatieRs: These ar-e IEleal:ed at varieas lEleatiees throygaoHt the system to reayce Sywly main. pressHr@ to a staBdard eistribyti0n e)3@rat-isg pressHre ef approximately 60 )3sig. There are five regalatef stal:iees lecatee ie Peeeral W8!j. Distl'ilmtien Mains: DistriBation mains Bfe fee from District Regalators. TRese Bfe typically 8,6, 1,2 aRe 1.25 ieeR ie diameter. The pipe material is typieall)' pel)'eth)'lefle (PE). PSE earr@Rtly has approximately 350 miles of distrielitioll main ser..ing within the City of Federal '.V ay. Supply mains (measuring 16", 12", 8",6". and 4" in diameter) transport gas from the gate stations to district regulators. This pipe material is typically wrapped steel (STW). Revised ~ 2009 X.5 FWCP -Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies Figure X-2 Typical Puget Sound Energy Distribution System GATE STATlON Thl poInl al IIillcll oas Irom NY{ Plpennl erillls Ihe WlIG SYSIem. Here an OllOlanlls alld~ ror nlety. PrlSsvre Is reducecllo 200 10 300 psi, IMlho gas Ismelllell. LIMITING STATION HIlI tho flIlSS1lle Is ltiluetilllom 250 psi 10 btltteen 60 and 200 pll l1mlllnO sladollS"all ohen abaYl1lound S1hlCIUle1. ~-~. mllll selllncllldt I . lIoulalOfwhlollClltl Ihl PI_.IO abolil I/~ psi. Tha METER II JOUf homt muswlt lIiumounl 01 nlllllll ~1S btlno used 101 splCt and Wllerbllt1ng and otbetuseJ. SERVICE UNE MosI ranollftlltt lrom ~ Inclll/Uld.nt1tQ 10 2ll1011a. Indlamllet, WIIhpramnt IIGII'i<45 \0 GO pst ~.... "\ "\ "\ "\ -1 . ., - TRANSMISSION LINE 'I ThlSl vnderground nAlUIa bellleen 6 Ind 1S Incllu In d1ametll. P1est1lIe In 'I Iblllllnes iVeraoeulOlIId 250 psl > > >>> NORTl\WESTPIPEtINE Thalnlllsllll plpennllll'llnO VlN!} Is NW l'lp.dnl, Y/IIlcb col\$lsts 012 pmllll plpu, a 26-lncband a 3()'1nch. PtWllfI tlrtu lrom SOl) 10 900 pounds pet sqvare InclIlPsl). lba nilvralgll$PPIJ ollgllllles,PtlmarllJ Irom Canadllnd tbUoullnllsl Uollld SlIIIS. IIlTEIlMEOIAtt PRESSURE (IPI DISTIIICT REOULATOR lIere 1IIe~WIlfIIs rliluced aoaln 10 bllWaen 20 snd 80 psL Dbltlol re~alO1a lIImbb 011 10 WNtl's lnIermedlatl prWllfe (lP\d1strlblltloo I)1lem. IP DISTlllSunON MAl" TIlts. andIJVIOIInd Ilnas nlJ In sIlt Ita1Ill\ fn(bas ID S Indles Indlameler. . PrWllfU I'lIragl ~5 psi. District Regulators (DR) reduce supply main pressures to typical distribution operating pressures of 25 to 60 psig. Distribution mains are fed from the district regulators. These typically are 8", 6", 4", 2", and 11;4" diameter lines. The pipe material typically is polyethylene (FE) or wrapped steel (STW). Individual residential service lines are fed by distribution mains and are typically %" in diameter. Individual commercial and industrial service lines are typically 11,4",2" or 4" in diameter. Revised ~ 2009 X-6 FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies Future Facility Construction Tkere are tJrree tytles Elf SElflstruotiElR aRtisitlates iB t.ke Peseral Way area. TRese iBsh:lse: lilait' inst6111auen da@ tEl iBcr@as@d capacity Elf @XiStiBg Elastom@rs or cOR\,@f&ioo& from an alt@fRat@ fa@l. MaiH r-epl:&ce1'HB14t pJ<ejects tEl faElilitate iR'l}')fl3':es maiRteRQREle aRe system reliaBility. Rapklcemel'lt er r-etec61tien of fasiliti@s sa@ tEl HlaRi.oipal. ans state flroj@cts. Lang Range Plans (withiHji.ve yeaI'D): Iastal.l12 iaek STW High Pressaf6 Sa}')}')l)' Main ia t.ke aElrtJ::J. eRe Elf Peeeral Way at af}')FElKimatep;' SElat.R. 2nwJ Street aBs Military Roas SElYtR (Map X 4). Minimum pressure delivery in distribution systems is approximately 15 psig. If growth would result in design pressures below 15 psig, there are several methods of increasing the pressure in the line, including: a. Looping the distribution and/or supply lines to provide an alternative route for the gas to travel to an area needing additional supply. This method often involves construction of supply mains, district regulators, and distribution mains. b. Installing mains parallel to existing mains to supplement supply of natural gas to a particular service area. c. Replacing/upsizing existing pipelines to increase volume. There are three types of construction: I. New or replacement of existing facilities to increase capacity requirements due to new building construction and conversion from alternate fuel. 2. Main replacement to facilitate improved maintenance of facility. 3. Replacement or relocation of facilities due to municipal and state proiects. PSE makes an effort to coordinate construction work with municipal proiects in order to minimize cost and impacts to surrounding community. Due to franchise agreements, PSE is required to relocate existing facilities when required due to the municipal proiect. The following maior proiects (Map X-4) are anticipated between now and the year 2017 to serve customers in the City of Federal Way: Planned for 2008: . No distribution system improvements known or planned at this time. Revised ~ 2009 X.7 FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Utilnies Tentative Future Proiects: . Continuing to work on the Pacific Highway South proiect from 18th Avenue South, south to South 304th Street replacing an existing 4" STW IP with a 6" PE IP; estimated construction is 2008. . Long range plan is to install a 16" STW High Pressure Supply Main in the north end of Federal Way at approximately South 2720d Street and Military Road South; estimated completion in 2009. Due to the growing popularity of natural gas in the Federal Way and surrounding areas, PSE will continually evaluate the necessity of the above proiects and alternatives. Changes in the proiect route, construction schedule, and detail could occur as they are dependent on budgets and WUTC approvaL 10.4 TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLAN The teleconununications section focuses on line telephone, wireless conununication, Intemet service and cable TV. Telecommunications is not only important for voice transmission but also provides the infrastructure for the transmission of images and electronic data. In the City, teleconununications service providers include QWwest, which operates both land-based and cellular telephone systems, several wireless providers, and Comcast which provides cable TV and Internet service. The telephone portions of the te1econununications industry are extremely competitive and for this reason, the City had difficulty obtaining detailed information about operations and plans. As a result, the section of the plan addressing telephone service: (i) reflects the City's conunitment to providing advanced teleconununications services; (ii) provides a general description of how the existing system works; and (iii) describes the process for improving delivery. Telephone System Existing Facilities and Operations -QWwest CcHRHl.HRiGati0R COfPoration,.leG,- delivers teleconununication service to the Federal Way planning area as regulated by WUTC A local exchange area is served by a Central Office (CO), which contains various kinds of switching equipment. From a CO, there are typically four main cable routes extending relati vely north, south, east, and west. From each main cable route there are branch distribution routes. These facilities may be aerial or buried, copper or fiber. Extending from the branch distribution routes are local lines that can be used for voice or data transmission by subscribers. Revised ~ 2009 X-8 FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies Proposed Improvements -QWwest is required by law to provide adequate telecommunications services on demand in compliance with RCW80.36.090 and WUTC regulations. Accordingly, QW.~est will provide facilities, upon reasonable notice, to accommodate whatever growth pattern occurs within the City. Due to advances in technology, additional capacity is easily and quickly added to the system. Wireless Networks Existing Systems - The City of Federal Way is currently served with a number of wireless service providers. Wireless communication is becoming increasingly important in the telecommunications world. It is a combination of a portion of the radio frequency spectrum with switching technology, making it possible to provide mobile or portable telephone service to virtually any number of subscribers within a gi ven area. Transmission quality is comparable to that provided by conventional wireline telephones, and the same dialing capabilities and features available to wireline users are available to cellular users. The wireless/cellular communications sector of the economy is growing rapidly. In 1997, the City adopted land use review procedures for siting facilities associated with these services. These regulations were subsequently revised in 2000 and 2001. All of these technologies use a line-of-sight radio signal transmitted and received by antennas. Therefore, it is not possible to underground the antennas or structures on which the antennas are mounted. The FCC regulates the cellular telephone industry by controlling where carriers can operate and what frequencies can be utilized in their operation. This ensures that their operation does not interfere with AMlFM radio and cable television transmissions. If interference does occur, the cellular tower operator is required by the FCC to eliminate any noise or interference that impacts local citizens. For example, if a television set or radio experiences interference from the tower, the operator must either correct the problem or disable the cellular site. Wireless service transmits and receives low power high frequency radio signals. The basic technology is as follows: 1. The service originates from a cellular phone, pager, computer, dispatch service, or personal communications service. 2. The signal is transmitted to the nearest cellular communications facility, known as a cell site, which processes numerous cellular phone calls and routes them to the nearest hub cellular switching office. 3. At the cellular switching office, also known as a Mobile Telephone Switching Office, the call is further processed and the call is routed to the party being called. The call may be routed via traditionallandline or via a cellular network depending on the nature of the receiving device. System Capacity - Capacity is a function of frequency of use, the number of sites in a geographic area, and the number of customers. However, wireless service providers consider site locations, the number of calls handIed, number of customers, and cell site capacity to be proprietary information. Revised ~ 2009 X.9 FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies Improvements to the Cellular System - Like the non-cellular telephone companies, wireless companies expand services in response to growth. For this reason, companies closely analyze market demand to determine expansions into new service areas. The cellular network is expanded by dividing a larger cell into several smaller cells to increase the number of available channels. Capacity may also be expanded through technological advances in digital equipment. Internet Service Intemet service is presently provided by telephone, cable, and satellite. QWwest provides Intemet service via telephone lines and Comcast provides Internet service via cable. The Weyerhaeuser Company and Williams Communication have recently obtained franchises from the City to construct fiber optic conununication systems throughout the City. In addition, as the City constructs or reconstructs streets, it is providing conduits to assist in the installation of fiber optic conununication systems. Cable TV Plan On November 18, 2002, Comcast and AT&T Broadband merged to form the new Comcast Corporation. Comcast Corporation, which is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the largest U.S. cable company serving more than 21 million customers in 41 states, as of 2003. Figure X-3 (flags 1 Q) is a general description of the components of the cable TV (CATV) system and shows supply from source to customer. One of the primary components of a cable system is the headend siteCan electronic control center where the information signal is processed for distribution through the cable system. The signal can be received either off a hard line (cable), satellite dish, microwave antennas, and/or TV antenna. Existing Conditions Map X-5 shows-the Comcast service areas covering the City. Comcast's Tacoma, Pierce County system, serves the majority of the City. A small area in the northern part of Federal Way and parts of the area to the east of I -5 are served by the Comcast's Auburn system. The headends, located north and south of the City, supply the signal by microwave feed. The majority of the system has been designed and built at a capacity of 450 MHz and will be upgraded consistent with the franchise agreement between Comcast and the City of Federal Way. Map designations depict the main trunk cable lines (coax and fiber) distributing signals throughout Federal Way. Feeder cables (not depicted) branch from the main trunk cables to distribute the signals to neighborhood areas. From there, individual connections are made to the customer's service entry. Revised ~ 2009 X-10 FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies Figure X-3 Cable Source to Customer ..-.. .... [}N_~ ...--- ...-~- ---- ..-.. ...... ...... ...--- , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , --- -- Earth Stat/on o - , . L- Underground Feeder Cable System Analysis In June 1998, Comcast was providing cable TV service to 29,787 customers citywide. This service level represents 71 percent of potential customer connections in the City. Existing cable television facilities are currently capable of servicing approximately 98 percent of the potential customer connections in Federal Way. Comcast makes every attempt to provide service to all residents within its franchise areas. Factors considered in extending service are overall technical integrity, economical feasibility, and franchise requirements. Revised ~ 2009 X.ll FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Utilities Proposed Improvements Cable television installations are made to new subscribers (either to new dwelling units or, to a much smaller degree, to residences who have not opted for cable before) at published rates, provided they are less than 150 feet from a distribution or feeder line. Connections requiring longer runs are charged on a time and material basis. Most public work considerations, such as tree trimming, work in the right-of-way, restoration of property, and so on, are covered in the City of Federal Way Master Cable Television Ordinance and Franchise Agreement. Comcast works closely with utility companies and the City to stay informed on proposed developments so that cable can be a part of a development's plans. Each year, engineers assigned to the Federal Way area assess the need for system expansion based on telephone inquiries, permitting data from the City and County, and technological advances in distribution equipment. The total mileage of cable plant within the City is approximately 280 miles. The company now offers digital service to Federal Way customers Comcast has also begun replacing existing copper cable trunk lines with fiber optic, which can be configured to carry video or data transmission signals. 10.5 GOALS AND POLICIES FOR CITY ACTION The Private Utilities chapter provides an opportunity for the City to assist utility companies in delivering efficient service to customers, and to seek to reduce potential negative impacts on the natural and built environments. This section builds upon system descriptions to identify issues and sets forth policies to coordinate the provision of utilities with City planning. The GMA requires that the utilities element include the general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities. This has resulted in cities and counties becoming more actively involved in the way in which utilities are sitedand provided. In order to protect both citizens and utility customers, the City will work in accordance with the following goals and policies: Goals PUGl Work with private utility companies to allow them to provide full and timely service that meets the needs of the City's residents and businesses, both present and future. PUG2 Work with private utility companies to allow them to provide service in a way that balances cost-effectiveness with environmental protection, aesthetic impact, public safety, and public health. Revised ~ 2009 X.12 FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies PUG3 Process permits for private utility facilities in an efficient and timely manner, in accordance with franchise agreements, development regulations, the FWCP, and adopted codes. PUG4 Ensure that development regulations are consistent with public service obligations imposed upon private utilities by federal and state law. Policy and Issue Statements Issue Statement: Provision of Timely and Economic Services to the Citizens and Businesses of Federal Way. Partnership with private and public service providers is a continual theme of the FWCP. The City plays a critical role in the provision of private utilities. The City approves permits that allow utilities to build transmission towers, lay distribution lines, and connect customers. If the City responds quickly and appropriately, it helps the utility companies respond to customer needs quickly and efficiently. However, the City must balance these considerations with its other responsibilities, including bringing them into compliance with due process, ensuring consistency with the FWCP, addressing aesthetic impacts, and protecting the natural environment. Therefore, the City must continue to conununicate with utilities and periodically review their needs as well as the policies in the FWCP and its permit processing to ensure that the results are in the best interest of Federal Way residents and businesses. The City must also be mindful of the need to provide a choice of energy sources to Federal Way's residents and businesses. Choice of energy source is important because it creates competition in the marketplace that helps to keep costs down. Providing alternative energy sources is also important because if one energy source fails, the other may be available. Policies PUPl The City's right-of-way permitting process should not unnecessarily delay the expansion or improvement of the utility network. PUP2 The City will, if possible, coordinate with other jurisdictions on proposed utility improvements that impact a multi-jurisdictional area. PUP3 The City should work to encourage, to the extent possible, the supply of all utilities to existing and new homes, offices, industrial, and conunercial buildings. Issue Statement: Coordination Between Utilities, Capital Facilities, City, and Private Developers. Revised 2@ 2009 X.13 FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies The costs of pipe, cable, or conduit installation can add significantly to the cost of providing service. Installing utility lines, which follow existing right-of-ways and easements, can also create disruptions to traffic and cause damage to pavement and landscaping. These costs and disruptions can be reduced if utilities share the same trench and perform work simultaneously. Consequently, the City encourages utilities to continue exchanging information about plans for expansion, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities. The City presently provides information to all utilities about its public works projects, such as street improvements, which may provide opportunities for installing new systems. Policies PUP4 The City encourages the joint use of trenches, conduits, or poles, so that utilities may coordinate expansion, maintenance, and upgrading facilities with the least amount of right-of-way disruption. PUP5 The City encourages utilities to inform one another of plans to expand or improve utility services. PUP6 The City will endeavor to inform utilities of upcoming improvements or expansions that may provide opportunities for joint use. PUP7 The City will endeavor to notify utilities of proposed plans to make highway or right-of-way improvements. PUPS The City hereby incorporates by reference PSE's GMA Electrical Facilities Plan into this private utilities element as now existing or hereafter amended or adopted. Issue Statement: Energy Conservation. State and federal law requires energy conservation in building design. State and Federal statues also require that power providers implement energy conservation policies. In accordance with these mandates, PSE has an Energy Select Program that provides information on qualified contractors for potential customers. State law requires that the City's building code conforms to the Washington Energy Code (WAC 51-11). However, the energy code sets out only minimum standards for energy conservation. Therefore, cities have developed conservation conscious design codes that go beyond the minimum requirements of the energy code. Policies PUP9 The City shall, at minimum, ensure that its buildings comply with state and federal standards for energy conservation. PUPIO The City will endeavor to work with utility companies to promote and educate the public about strategies for conserving energy. Revised 2@ 2009 X.14 FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Utilrties Issue Statement: Importance of Telecommunications and the Information Superhighway. Society is in the midst of a revolution in information and conununication that is changing the way that people interact with each other. For example, today, many of the transactions and conununications that make up the majority of our day are possible from a single workstation. This revolution is being fueled by recent advances in computing and telecommunication technology. There are several technological innovations that have stimulated these changes in our lifestyles, including: fiber optic cables, the "Integrated Services Digital Network" (ISDN) and digital subscriber loop (high-speed communications over copper) technology. These technologies combine to expand the capacity of the telecommunications network. This expansion allows the provision of a di verse range of services on one system including, telecommunications, cable TV, radio, business services, shopping, and professional services. It will also be possible for institutions such as schools, universities, government, and emergency services to broadcast on this single system. Technology is also being developed to expand capabilities for transmitting information. In the past, one could transmit voice by telephone, text/graphics by facsimile, and data by modem. Now it is possible to transmit video images, and potentially to broadcast to a mass audience using these new technologies. These advances in technology are forcing telecommunication companies to reevaluate their business strategies. Technological change has made it possible for all services to be provided on one cable, and companies are jockeying for position to create that system. These advances have great potential to alter the way we do business in Federal Way. For economic development reasons, the City must ensure that the atmosphere for investment encourages companies to bring these advanced services to Federal Way, and that the community's growing needs are addressed. It is critical for people and businesses to have access to the information superhighway if they are to enjoy a fully active role in society and the economy. In this sense, the information superhighway is analogous to the road network, where all citizens have a "right-of-way." For this reason, government has an essential role in ensuring that the right of citizens to both receive and transmit information is protected, and in ensuring that municipalities maintain their ability to regulate information providers in the same manner that they regulate users of the rights-of-way. Policies PUPll The City will encourage and work with teleconununication and cable companies to develop fiber optic cable networks and to increase interconnectivity between different networks. PUP12 The City will endeavor to work with utility companies and other public institutions, such as the School District, to develop a full range of conununity information services, available to citizens and businesses through the teleconununication network. Revised 2Q@ 2009 X-15 FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies Issue Statement: Health Impact of Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF) and Microwaves. There is much public and scientific interest about the RBaltll. Bff-ests Elf EIBst:rEl Magaetis ~ low level Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) creat@s BY the @l@{;tricity gapply ~ emitted by the use of electricity and its impacts on human health. Tills iBtBf@gt has resw.ltes tlrimarily from stasies that saggest a tlElssible liFlk BBt\':eBB EMF aed certaiB forms Elf eaeeBr. We'.ve':er, this sta&istieallink sees Bet BeeBssarily iBeieatB eaase aBe Bffeet relati0Bslrifs. CeBsieer~le researsk is aBeer'l:ay, sBflflertee iB large flart BY tIl.e $<35 millioB foosiBg flroyisioB iB the NatioBal ER@rgy Peliey .^.et of 1992. Paget SeaRS EB@rgy kag takeR aR aetiv@ r-el@ iR t:ll.is a@bat@. Wew@','@r, there are, as yet, Be agr@@e lIfleR safety threshelEls Elr tElleraaee levels for hamaB eJlflElSarB te EMF. The National Institutes for Health and the World Health Organization have done extensive research on the topic, and have been unable to find a conclusive link between EMF exposure and adverse impacts on human health. Because EMF exposure is not recognized as a health hazard, it is not r~ulated by govemmental agencies. Electro-Magnetic Fields are found wherever electricity exists. EMF are generated by high-voltage transmission lines, low-voltage lines, and substations, as well as electrical appliances and devices found in homes and businesses. The strength of an EMF depends on the amount of current flow, not on voltage, and current is a function of energy consumption. Research is clear that EMF are not blocked, reduced, or altered by most solid objects. This means they are not blocked by vegetation, or by any form of screening, or covering by earth. It is however, important to note that EMF diminish rapidly with distance from source. R@s@arch eR Beth EMF aRe mierewav@s hag B@lOm cORt:radietory ailS g@R@rally iRcoBclHsi':@. WO\ve':er they are issaes tIl.at mast cOBtiBae to Be momtores. Foliey resfl0flses te tRis issue mugt B@ asoflt@d ag mOT@ inf-ormatioB !:l@eom@s available. Research on EMF and human health continues in the scientific community. PSE continuously monitors the results of this research and operates its electric system in compliance with all applicable safety regulations. Policies PUP13 The City shall continue to monitor research into the health effects of Electro- Magnetic Fields (EMF) and microwaves. The City will take appropriate action once definitive conclusions about health implications are reached. Issue Statement: Environmental and Aesthetic Impacts. Utility systems have a broad range of associated environmental and visual impacts. Much of Federal Way's electrical, telecommunications, and cable system is mounted on overhead poles. Pole-mounted systems not only reduce the aesthetic appeal of streetscapes but also contribute to system failures and power outages caused by falling trees and branches. Undergrounding utilities is a potential solution to both problems, but must be balanced against the cost associated with such undergrounding.X Revised 2@ 2009 X-16 FWCP -Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies As with other types of development, the impacts of utilities on environmentally sensitive areas need to be evaluated. These impacts are addressed in the context of broad environmental protection policies in the Natural Environment chapter of the FWCP and through measures for protecting critical areas in the zoning code. On the other hand, there is also a need to provide for the location and continuing maintenance of essential public and private utilities in environmentally sensitive areas, if no feasible alternative location exists. The existing Federal Way City Code (FWCC) makes provisions for this in the environmentally sensitive area provisions. The FWCC sets out some requirements for undergrounding utilities in new subdivisions and in existing right-of-way in accordance with the WUTC. These exemptions include the under grounding of transmission lines 115 k V and greater. The City should continue to work in partnership with the utility companies to further address aesthetic impacts. Requiring under grounding across the entire Federal Way area is prohibitively expensive. However, there are key areas, such as the City Center and along Highway 99, where undergrounding of utilities is important to improving the visual image of the area in order to stimulate economic development. The City should work with the utilities and also support statewide efforts by WUTC to devise a method of paying for such improvements. The City has a right-of-way vegetation ordinance that allows removal or pruning of vegetation within rights-of-way without a permit only when there is imminent danger to the health, safety, or welfare of residents. This process could be further improved if the City and utility companies prepared a right-of-way vegetation plan meeting utility needs and addressing environmental and streetscape improvements to be made by the City. This approach to streetscape is particularly important in the newly developing City Center. Policies PUP14 To the maximum extent possible and based upon applicable regulations, the City should require the undergrounding of utility distribution lines in new subdivisions, new construction, and significantly reconstructed facilities, consistent with all applicable laws. PUP15 To the maximum extent possible and based upon applicable regulations, the City should work with the utilities in preparing a plan for undergrounding utilities in areas where their visual impact is critical to improving the appearance of the City, such as the City Center and along Highway 99. PUP16 The City should, to the extent practical, work with utility providers in preparing a right-of-way vegetation plan that ensures that the needs of landscaping and screening are balanced with the need to prevent power outages. PUP17 The City should require that site-specific utility facilities such as antennas and substations be reasonably and appropriately sited and screened to mitigate adverse aesthetic impacts. Revised ~ 2009 X-17 FWCP - Chapter Ten, Private Util~ies PUP18 The City should work with the utilities and also support statewide efforts by WUTC to devise a method of paying for improvements associated with environmental and aesthetic impacts. PUP19 Through its development regulations, the City shall continue to address the siting, screening, and design standards for wireless/cellular facilities, substations, and antenna facilities in such a manner as to allow for reasonable and predictable review while minimizing potential land use and visual impacts on adjacent property. Issue Statement: Planning to Meet the City's Future Needs. The plans for system improvements and extensions described in the Private Utilities chapter are based on the population and growth forecasts provided by the utilities. The Land Use chapter will provide utility providers with information on where and when new growth will occur in the City. This will allow utility companies to plan for expansion of their systems to meet future needs. The City may assist the utilities by continuing to provide them with future plans and by soliciting input for future planning projects. Policies PUP20 The City should provide utility companies with plans, forecasts, and supporting data to assist in the proper planning for utilities. The City should integrate communication with the utility companies into its Management Information System to allow for fast and efficient conununication. PUP21 The City should encourage utility providers to base extension and sizing of systems on the Land Use Plan in order to adequately serve anticipated growth. PUP22 The City should encourage utilities to provide them with their utility service plans to allow better integration with other utilities and City plans. PUP23 The City and utilities should be encouraged to develop an integrated Geographic Information System (GIS) to better serve mutual needs and those of the public. Revised ~ 2009 X-1B ~ ,;.. . c .,. >< 0 ~ c 0 0. ~~ '" c ~ <C c - .. ::I ~ ro " ill 8 "C ~ :e _ CIl 0.", ~ 0; != a.. CD co ~ :H > u. .l!! ~ '0 .J:.CIl Q) ~ o.~ 0 .E <( 8 l!! c .~ c: O>CIl ro ... ...... ~1i CIl t: Q.ns t:: :::i .S! :g ~ '- (/) <1> Z. cu =~ ~ Q) Q."C ::. .. 0 c E u )( .. = Q) -~I ::I '" -0 <(5 s: - .. Q) ~ >- c: 0.>< Q) ~ c: ~ - CIl J:: LU <( ~ ~ II E "0 >- U. Q) - 0 .!2 H ~ II H .- t:: ~ '- C.) m <t1 E CII =- '+- Q) g~ .- CIl a. it Q) '" - 0 C -0 Q) ! ~ .- .. Q) 0 ~ i~ 0."0 E CIl .. ::J <( ~ -0 U. a.. E!: ~ c: (/) 0 ." ~ .!a 0 ...... 0 0 ~ '- Q) D I - F.5 =-- ell I () () 0 S .3 Ij -1z ~CD ZF - ,.. - .. r - :>.,' ~~~ '" '<t - ~ a: c ~ Q) Q) :::=:: en -= u.I :.r . " ':f c ~m m- so.. Q) -> m._ L. en (I) c ~Q) u.~ ~L.. 00. ~E :=:0 uu "CO) := c 000 Q." .- OU): .. .. .- Q.Ce ~EU) C)O)C c>l!e ;:ot-O) U) .. · .. ._ Q..c U) ><e::S~ W_(/)(/) ~ :<3 .s C,) ,! lL.i I I>.. 1::es <b<b ~Lii ijj"O c:: c:: ::J ~o a.:C/,) ~Q) :.:::0, :;:::::J :::>0.. llJ Q. ~ ell ~ .. ~ fi ~ ~i =8 :i!~ .. ~ ~I .!! l ~o i ~f >< c o ' 0.. I~ ~U !s :s.= lif .,t: II ; j;' ;~ i .2~ Iii ell .- 18 .9. .!! j t~ It... ~a ~: ..0 I~ - = ~ ::lIl: ~' 2:, 5cC c., ] ~ v: ~ ~ c::: - r:: C 0 o 'CiS :;: II) r:: .5 '~ ~ :s r:: en- !I) IV g t::, .0 ::l g en 'fa j Ci.i 0 I 0. ..c 0 ::l "- en a.. J!! j 'E r:: :::i 0 ~ ~ o Q) f ~ Ii e :;: r:: Q) .s i 0 u. a.. I' ) I_I 1. Q) r:: :::i r:: o 'CiS II) 'E 't:I !I) ~ ~ 8. ~ e .g a.. en ) ( Q) r:: :::i ~ CD r:: o :;::I !l en I ..c ::l en 't:I C jo ( . . 7J <jz ...,...."'-'. ~ "' "' "' III I . i,.. t!l ... . -... _.~ .. - II ---- ; ~ '1:1 ~... ao~Q; C'? ,:. . "2: i:j >< 0 .. c: ~ a.. .8 li- e:: ~ SOl <C c: ~ <Jl Q) ::l '" " >. ro U) ~ Q) " :E ~ .. ~ CO III Q.", a.. * i!!.. (!) .~ Q) ~~ .... .. a , E <( Q) ~ .c" Q) 0 ~E c Q) ~ I 6; .. > ~ .Q E "'.. ro ..... E C/l2 ClJ t::: t:: lo;;;. >. (;; (1).5 K! ~ L... (j) <1) <1) - >< CIS =~ Q) ~ C3 C ~ Q) 0 e:: E t:: Q) -~' '" c: '"C - >. c ~ ::l '" Q) Q. <1)lU c Q) g ~ ., ~ Q. 0.>< Q) --0 <( -.. .r:. Q. lUt:: ~ ii: (0 g ~ alE U. "'! ~ ."... Q) ~ t:: :::s (ij C c ~ (0 Q) 2~ L... ~O .... 0 o .. GI c:_ ~ en U) Q) Q) .9 .9 > .. ~ .- .. 0 C. 'C :0:: 0 ;& '" ~ a..CI) - (I) ;; .- ., C " Q) 0 ::J .0 - 0: Q.'" E .cQ) u. a. ,g N ~ <( ~ ~ .. ., U) c: E~ >. CG Q) '': (/)0 " ~ .!t.!: 0 :!: 0 CG :.:::0> C) D I - ( l I r=:fi I II) 0 0 C) :E ~:::s Q) C -1Z jj<; ~a.. ..J , J :U - "'-.. r - Q) = "1:1 1.1.I .- = Q) ::::: ~ . ~ i;'~ ,f3l:Q; '. en ., Q) ,.,0 :-- ~_"f .::: -.. c ~co ~o: Q) co.~ '- U) Q) c: '"CQ) Q)..c LLQ) ......'- 00. >-E ~o uu OJ c: CI) ~ \ '" .5 ~~ tn ... C CD is tI) CD 0> C.e oc. ... E 0.- ~ \-~ S I "'I \, cJ) ~"',~.,~ ~' ~ ~ ~. "-. ~ '" 1/:, " ~f.; ~ I ~e; (1)<1) ~Lti ijj1J c::5 ~o 0:(1) ..... ~<I) :.:::0, :t::::::J :::>0:. , r--- --___-.J CI.l co (!) ... ~ ~ ~ 1) lD E E E <<I is is ~ 8. 8. .- ii: ii: ~ C c: 0 00:;::; os os il .c .c .C ~ ~ :!i Ci Ci 0 "" <0 ~ <<I !! ~ 'E c: :.:i 0 .. ?: 12 <3 ~ >. ~ ~ iii iii c -8 II) II) 15 i:i u. a.. c & 0 r 1 .3 I_I ,.. l .. - .., --.~ r - ----- " "" _)0,- ~~~ 'Q II: ~ ,~ ... ;::, ~cC ~ ~ J fI)~ 11).. :~l J]i \ ~ f >< c: o.lf ~ t! J~ U. "I: -. :a; ,. 91g ~ ii '! i[ ... ~ ~ - -1! .'9. .!Ii iiI!: f II. ~.!!'ll f3.~ ..(.) I~ a.. c ~C\l ~a. (]) C\l > L... f/) (]) c '"C(]) (])..c: LL(]) .....L... 00. ~E .....0 uu - c ~ :::::: ",en ...~ _--'=I ~ .Q 0) (,) .- '= 0).... UJ~ 0) (,) :as C'G 0 00 ~ ./ -~. I ..... t:: <1> E t:: <1>.2 lLJ...... . CI) S; t::~ ~<1> a.:~ a~ :.:::::-0 :o::;cu ::)() .:!! E :.J ~ U >0- ~ <'ll Q) ~ c: .2 ~ Q) c: c: <( ~ E Q) -0 a.. I I I~ E Q) 1ii >0- W c: ... ;j ..c ;j <( E Q) 1ii >0- W >0- C ;j o o Q) !: Q) ~ <'ll E 8 ~ , 1ii B E o o ii ~ o . ~ ., ~ '" ~ ~ E Ul.l! Q).E =~ :Eo ....~~ ~ 8 U'! ~ o ;<D .. i S ~ :& ~ i' 000 '" ~ Q) 'C Q) U. , 1ii B E o o -i::i c: !D .~ ~ --\z " - ...-.. U) . >< Q. <( :E .;i- c o -Bii- s" c ~ " " :8 ~ " o.lIJ "... '::0 5- ._ lIJ .e" o.~ l!! c 0" ",I:: = ~ = g "lIJ ~ " 0... -" alE "',.. H c_ .- " .. - .- 0> 0.'" ~~ .. 0 ~~ ..0 So> ~F ~ 3: l! CU ~~ ~ Exhibit B Vicinity Map Site-Specific Request #1 Federal Way Village " U) ~ C Q) ~ U)ftS~ -CftS U)ftS.c Q)-o ::sa. co C"Q)C L... Q) > 0 Q) CO et:: .- .- "'C QuU)1Q QIt:CC Q) N'- Q) Q U. u.c ._ Q) Q) U) '+- c."Q) 0 UJ c.c Q)EQ ~ _oc '-0 +-' UJ .- .- () .. C o 0 """N :::!E !=: 0- m It fi! E GI .. Co) .. OCD .. m UIt a:II It_ GI:: rn. >i ~ - t1i -r- a1 >- =1:1: '0 Q) -E .!!! c: c: 1: ..... :J :J (J) ~ m c:: 0 ~.!a E ~ 0 ~ en en ~.- .. m >; - ~ al- <D - .- >. Q) CD ~.l!l ~ III Q) Q) >- 5 a; l!! CD o c: :::s Q) c: - :J OJ <3 No.OI 0 u.. c: 3l Q)C'" c- Jg :J >- alOm 0 >.l!! .... o Q. C I() C)<D Q) 5 en CO a1 - ..co. 0:: (J) '0 - Q) ~ ~l!! ~ -CDE caO::: >- (J) c: ~ =' 0. - (,) <3 ..... :J .- 0 ca 10: ~ - C:Ul.Q CD c:._ 0 aloe _0 '(3 - III m ~Q)Q) 0 0.0. ... - i+:: Q) III III '0 ~~ a; I() .."C E ~ OJ N Q) .- '0 0- m c: III E c: C) .~ :0 " ~.f 001 > en .... - a1 c: 8m <D Q) :2 Q) a1 ;: '2 Q) c: al "'C Q) '0 ~ ~ ~ U;.~ ~ al>. C. - Q) '3 - - 0 mo UlQ. Q) (f) "0 i:i5 u.. m en en N ~.,~ ~ .a..!; 0 c I 10 ~ E alUl LL <D Q) ~ Qi .glQ) <1Z E.~ ..... I:>> ~ -'rn> .~ -0 Q) o Q) 0 ~ffi (f) ...I 2-001 ~ ~I...I "I~ I I Od;; W./~ ~ L W"'. ~ ;rJ ~~~~ U Ul - l:Q j:. lj ~ Ul S AMH :>I:I':>Yd it J ~l! m ~ S - ,.. ~ j~ Ul ~ .! ::c ~ e ~ t~ '" '" '" Ul Ii , .., " .. r: s ld H.1t~ I-- :liB: '---- .a.e ~H ..~ E'~~ ".... :EUlO = :! ';; t: c=' fo ou . :~ //Ir~\ _ I~Lfi I - .~ ~~~~. OJ ; is ~ ~ .~ "'Q.'~ ~,,~ .. d ~i tj~ . S ld HJ.O~ :c 1;1 ~ Su . ^'t/ HJ.6 --' · S .. <Il '!: '0 .~ en Ii; · I!;,' .~ Q ~ -g ~ 5;!: 1:5 ' . t:fI)Q)1)QJ ~ #A )i <Il <Il :>.,.S: C\I.S: ll! . cW' ..t::o,Q)<U"'.BO) ~" iij ~ fij.s E ~ ~.iij 0 Ife"Oc: Q.E..c::ol!!",,"O<Il- =" (5 ::::s 0"-' (1)0'"5"0 ~~ ...,..... o 8 Ol~~ ~ !2 5l C C6 , . ~ "0 .S: 8: 0 '" ::J .1:>>_ -0.: c: <Il5OJlliC\l""o"OL.- '2 ~"'~~~c c::r-- fA Q) ~ Q."Oc:OJ<Il",.!!! Q):s, o 0 c: 0"0 l:! "" ~ ~ C';':; "l ~ -- a. ~ ~ -8 [~ .S: v, I----' ~ ~ <Il OJ 0 OJ <Il ~ .g>1..... "0 55 Ilf ~1i: ~1]j.s"" ol~ S..s::: LU ~ 1 ~:@ 0, u '- ~ LU ~~u'~u ~ ~ N ~ Co) ~8co~co~..f.1f~ 7: r~ \ -~ -r L---~ ... . -; ~) ~~iIil ~ ~ -:--r- ~~7~~~ ~ ~_iij j/~6~~~~ f) %~o//J (:i) ":l * g> (; ~ (.oy. = .c V' Y' = ~ ~ o::t' 8 N '<t :E N a::: ~ () a:l "0 .. 7ii j~ H~ ... 8'~ u li5 IICIICI. u_ i~ S AMH :>1:lI:>Yd ..... (,,) = z'/. ?;/ * = ~.~~,r,W"~ ~~, , ~ ~-0 82'0 z _~9/ ~ II) ::c ~ '" '" '" Ul i m.' - S ~; J . . ! ~ i~ :\ i it! ill \ .. \ i.. .JI' . '1 -1 -1.1 I . ., i ~ ..... "'-:;:j .. ii lJ . - ~z , ~\ '-- s , -= ~ '\ r T I .. "0 )( E; .... ~ '" !!J u.. 00 0 0 U ~ '" '. 'Iii II) ~ = = o::t' N == a::: II) c.. oc:: ~=Ctl caO: c .2l~ II)'Cij CDc:::>- QQ)= t>>-a5 E ,,0 C lo;;. J!! 0,0_ .- Q. I c:: ~ U) E :.0::; '- N ! .-o~c::~ " ~O~~~ ~~~~~ ff Iii r ~ I M a 1 ! o LLI . (,,). I -~HJ SAV"';!L ~ ~ .. e ~ ... <a~,.,-a '" .. i u) 'OJ ~ a:::l! ._ ;;;:!!!'5 ~ Exhibit C Vicinity Map Site-Specific Request #2 Nguyen -cf/) ~ C G) C\I co f/)asC) =It S -CC ..... f/) as as en G)_~ G> :::::I~O C ::] co c:TG)C C'" L- G) > 0 G)G> Q) CO 0::: -- -- ~o:: "'C ouf/)'ij Oij:CC :1 .2 Q) N -- G) C) C)~ u. u~__ G) G) f/) Z~ '+- c....G) 0 tJ) c. C a. ~ G)EC) en _oc G> :!: --0 tJ) -- ..... U ... C en o 0 'l-N : -0 ... '-' ns~ = (I) e C,Q mo .!~ ~ :(1) >0:: ~ J!i 00 c( 1;0 (I)~ me nsO -~ =(1) >0::: ^'f/ H18~ f! I- (I) rn ~ ns :J: :iJ!i I- nsOo co ~<( co N - (.) rn s= ~ CIa.) S AMH ~1:lI~Vd " o ~ $ g..~ ~ !s ~ . ~ ) CIa 16TH AV S ~ ~ G) J017ZWU '> "0 c :s 0 tn lli 1<1- .". - 'C"o ~ a. I I- S A" H.LS~ I 1 U) I. I I I. ,- , ,)\ - >: :c 0) 0 u. <Ii <I.l 0 .!!1 c= c: ~ E ::s +:: ~ en 1Il c: +" en 'x cO en ~ ~ co; <I.l W ~.l!l ::s U - 0C: C"' ~ c:31 <I.l CIO m >>~ 0:: 0) ~ 0 - .CIa. 0 0) c: 0 ~ -g~ ..... ::s N l;::: - .c .1:1 '0 0 CD en en OJ 1Il.r: (I) C) ~ a. a. C. c: en c: C) "C E l!! en +" 001 g <I.l m c: If <I.l ~ :;::: '2 811l +" ::::I ~ 0 1Il>> i:i5 +" .!!! Q. 'tJ OJ en N e 10 0 ~ a..~ CD lIlrn tD <1z Ern Q) .!!! :0 ~ .r:c: ~1Il ~ .... --... , SAVH~ / .. CIa .... I (.) = --...... ~lcfj c.l::>> ~ ~ rI) fir c~~ :w \Y1:V~ - e~ IU S AV _~a.. =~ c 'Cij ~t:: .s~ fl)Q) '. (I) I;. 0) ::s EQ. . s: C" . t:: CDOUOU _ O::UCDNCDgf" ~J~~~ :S:sc ioo tnOO ~ i!: g N U) - : \ c.) CIa Exhibit D Vicinity Map Site-Specific Request #3 Pacific Heights ~ co S "Ctn C (I) C) tn ca C -Cca tnca..c (1)-0 :::Ie. C"(I)C (I) > 0 r::t::.- ._ co(.)tn1; o C O'i:(I)C N '-..c C) (.) .- (I)!tn Q,Q,(I) Cl)Ec (l)oC) ~oc CI) .- .. C J2~ M tn=lt +'" ...... .c~ C)~ -- 0- G)(I) J:C::: U (.)tt:: -- 'u ....(1) -- a. Uen . ns (I) D..~ en co L- Q) "'C Q) U. ~ o ~ ...... .- () = = = .,... :IE CC ~ eft .~ C " u. .2 ~~ -......- cu a.: ::J ~~~_ 8 .u) '- >. co CCD ~ 'E i (l)ra tJ)..c:: u. '. c:::: c ~ I 0,- .- Q. <J) t:: <"! u; ~ 0>'- l"- .- 0;: c: t:: (f) >< 0._ .8 tV W () (f) '... u... Q Q = .... ~ cc Ii Ol='IO'tfd UJ c.,) CIa ~O = 10M = 0..... CQ NO .... ,... :E a:: 008 L II\IH ... N N G) ;! N~ N .... MCI) a:: ~unoo 6U!)f eft C o ~" cut:: c~ .!?a.: =~ c.- CI)>. -t::_ ... (1)'- S..c:: E 0 U)!J)ra..o CD au. 0,(0 :::s ~ ..1. .S: ('i') l:7' 0;: .. t:: CDO:;o~ o::o~~c:::: 'tJ c CD tJ) CD ...I - lJ) <J) ::::I 0- CD a::: o ~ '0 lJ) CD 0) lJ) Co c: _ C/) :2 lR .$ ':; i;. i:i5 al w en c: :;: lJ) 'x w - - (J) (J) o l.L o "it ~ ra '0 c: ::::I o al 0) c: '2 ~ D o a C\I - l2 CU ....C ~.f o ~ <:jz = = ca .... :E CC (66 ~S) S AMH Ol.:llOVd 008 L 11\I\1 III.:! ~ 'E E_ ::;..J >;~ ~o (.) III >. !~ '0 - :!: f! CD 11I'0 CD CD Ol.L >. ~ iii .!!l c. t1le: t:.2 t1l- ~s o e: e:51 >-l!! .Do. ~l!! .- 0 e:._ t1l.r: 0.0. E~ 00) ~t1l t1l>- <lie.. .- E 0.._ t1l III E.!!! .!!! "0 .r:c 1-t1l '" >< E <ti II> !fJ 00 o o ~ II> c;; Q) ::l a' Q) 0::: City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION April 15,2009 7:00 p.rn. City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 4, 2009 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS . PUBLIC HEARJNG 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. AUDIENCE COMMENT 9. ADJOURN Commissioners Merle Pfeifer, Chair Lawson Bronson Tom Medhurst Tim 0 'Neil Hope Elder, Vice-Chair Wayne Carlson Sarady Long (Alternate) City Staff Greg Fewins, CDS Director Margaret Clark, Senior Planner E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 K:\Planning Conunission\2009\Agenda 04.15-09.doc UrwH:, ci!~,'at:'ii:der(tiwav. com t::rrv 01' Federal Way MEMORANDUM April 2, 2009 To: Merle Pfeifer, Chair, Federal Way Planning Connnission FROM: Greg Fewins, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments MEETING DATE: April 15, 2009 I. BACKGROUND Federal Way adopted its comprehensive plan in 1995 and updated it in December 1998, December 2000, November 2001, March 2003, July 20,2004, June 16,2005, and July 16,2007. The Growth Management Act (GMA) [RCW 36.70A130(2)(a)] limits plan updates to no more than once per year, except under the following circwnstances: 1. The initial adoption of a sub-area plan that does not modify the comprehensive plan policies and designations applicable to the subarea. 2. The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program. 3. The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget. Except as otherwise provided above, the governing body shall consider all proposals concurrently, so the cmnulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained However, after appropriate public participation, a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform to this chapter whenever an emergency exists, or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. II. 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS The proposed changes to the comprehensive plan include housekeeping changes to Chapter 6, "Capital Facilities" and Chapter 10, "Private Utilities" (Exhibit A). Proposed changes to text of the comprehensive plan are shown in a strike out (proposed deletions) and underline (proposed additions). The proposed amendments also include two citizen-initiated requests for site-specific changes (descriptions below) to the comprehensive plan map and zoning map and a city-initiated plan amendment and rezone (Exhibit B). Planning Commission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 1 1. Citizen-Initiated Requests . File #06-104976- UP - A request by Federal Way Village, LLC to shift the dividing line between the western portion of the site designated Multi- Family and RM 2400 (one unit per 2,400 square feet) and eastern portion of the site designated Community Business (Be) to add 1.53 acres to the BC zoned parcels. The site is located south of South 336th Street and west of Pacific Highway South (Exhibit C). · File #07-105968-UP - A request by Trinh Nguyen to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of two lots, approximately 13,210 square feet in size, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South 288th Street and 18th Avenue South from Multi- Family and RM 3600 (one unit per 3,600 square feet) to Community Business and BC (Exhibit D). 2. City-Initiated Request · File #09-100848-00- UP - City-initiated proposal to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of two lots, approximately 3.34 acres in size, located south of South 279th Street and west of Pacific Highway South from Single-Family Residential and RS 7.2 (Single Family, one unit per 7,200 square feet), and Multi-Family and RM 1800 (Multi- Family, one unit per 1,800 square feet), to Multi-Family and RM 3600 (Multi-Family, one unit per 3.600 square feet) per a Settlement Agreement authorized per Federal Way Resolution #00-318 (Exhibit E). ill. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWCC Chapter 22, Article IX, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for comprehensive plan amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. To review and evaluate the requests for comprehensive plan amendments; 2. To determine whether the proposed comprehensive plan amendments meets the criteria provided by FWCC Sections 22-529, 22-530, and 22-488(c); and, 3. To forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY 3/14/09 Issuance of Determination ofNonsignificance pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A)! 3/30/09 End of SEP A Comment Period 4/13/09 End of SEP A Appeal Period ! Due to its bulk, a copy of the DNS is not attached, but is available for review in the Comrrnmity Development Services Department. Planning Conmrission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 2 4/15/09 Public Hearing before the Planning Commission v. AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHAPTERS AND MAps Pursuant to RCW 36.70A130(4), the City of Federal Way must update its comprehensive plan every seven years. The deadline for the next major update is December 1,2011. However, per Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-520, the City has elected to update its plan on an annual basis. As part of the annual review, the City may make housekeeping changes to chapters and maps of the comprehensive plan. The following housekeeping changes are being proposed: 1. Chapter 6, Capital Facilities - The GMA (RCW 36.70A070) requires that the comprehensive plan include a capital facilities chapter that addresses the following components: . An inventory of existing facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the facilities. . A forecast of the future needs for such facilities. . The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new facilities. . At least a six-year fmancing plan that will finance such facilities and clearly identify sources of public money for such purposes. . A requirement to reassess the land use chapter if probable funding falls short. Chapter 6 addresses the above components for Surface Water, Transportation, Parks and Recreation, Community Facilities, School Facilities, Water Systems, Sewer Systems, and Fire Facilities. As part of the 2008 amendment process, only those sections for School Facilities, Water Systems, Sewer Systems, and Fire Facilities were updated based on information provided from the agencies. The entire chapter will be updated as part of the major 2011 update. 2. Chapter 10, Private Utilities - The GMA (RCW 36.70A070) requires that the comprehensive plan include a utilities element consisting of the general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and natural gas lines. Chapter 10 includes plans for natural gas, electricity, telecommunications, and cable television service for the City and its planning area. Updated information on natural gas and electricity was provided by Puget Sound Energy (PSE). This included updating text as well as Maps X-2 and X-4. The City contacted Comcast and Qwest and requested that they update their sections. Qwest provided some updates; however, there was no response from Comcast. The City will be contacting these agencies again as part of the 2011 Update. Planning COrmrllssion Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 3 VI. SITE-SPECIFIC REQUEST #1- FEDERAL WAY VILLAGE LLC File Number: Parcels: Address: Location: Size: Existing Land Use: Applicant: Owner: Request: 06-104976-UP 202104-9004 & 202104-9072 33901 & 3405 Pacific Highway South South of South 336th Street and west of Pacific Highway South. This is the southeastern portion of the 27 acre-zoned RM 2400 site on the west side of a dividing line that extends southwards from the South 336th Street right-of- way and follows the eastern buffer of Wetland No.2, as shown in the Settlement Agreement and Covenant recorded under recording nmnber 9704211043, to a point approximately 351 feet north of the south property line of parcel 2021 04-9004, at which point said line follows the middle of the 13th Place South extended right-of-way to the south property line ofparce1 202104-9004 (Exhibit C). 1.53 acres (portion of parcels 2021049004 & 2021049072) Vacant Federal Way Village, LLC Kitts Comer Development, LLC . To shift the dividing line between the RM 2400 zoned parcels and the Be zoned parcels to add 1.53 acres to the BC zoned parcels located south of South 336th Street and west of Pacific Highway South (Exhibit C). Existing Comprehensive Plan: Multi-Family Existing Zoning: RM 2400 (Multi-Family, one unit per 2,400 square feet) with conditions as outlined in Ordinance 95-490 as amended by Ordinances 07-556 and 08-581 Requested Comprehensive Plan: Community Business Requested Zoning: Community Business (Be) Availability of Utilities Sanitary Sewer: Lakehaven Utility District Public Water: Lakehaven Utility District Solid Waste: Waste Management Availability of Public Services Police: City of Federal Way Police Department Fire/ Emergency Medical: South King Fire and Rescue Schools: Federal Way Public Schools Background This is a portion ofa larger site which received a Master Plan Approval (#07-100345-UP) on January 25, 2008, for a 326,450 square foot mixed-use development consisting of 178, 850 square feet of retail, 59,500 square feet of office, 17,600 square feet of restaurant, and 70,500 square feet of residential (55 units) on the eastern portion of the site, and a 94 zero-lot line townhouse development on the western portion of the site (Exhibit F). The applicant is requesting to change 1.53 acres from April 15, 2009 Page 4 Planning Commission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Multi-Family to Community Business (Be). This change would not affect the zero-lot line townhouse development located to the west of the wetlands, but would result in 1.53 acres being rezoned from RM 2400 to BC, and all multi-family zoning situated on the west side of the wetland feature and all BC zoning on the east side. If the request to move the dividing line between the RM 2400 zoned parcels and the BC zoned parcels is approved, this will require the future amendment of the February 16,2008, Master Plan prior to any applications for development being accepted by the City. No further environmental review would be required unless there is a change in the mix of uses on the BC-zoned parcels resulting in more impacts to the environment. Neighborhood Characteristics Parcels 202104-9004 and 202104-9072 are vacant. The remainder of the Master Plan site is also vacant except for parcel 202014-9086 to the east, on which Horan Realty (a real estate office building) is located, and parce12021 04-9090 also to the east, on which an automotive business is located A City-controlled regional detention pond, Kitts Comer, is located on the western portion of parcel 202104-9004. Uses to the north of the Master Plan site across South 336th Street are a mix of retail, office, church, and restaurants. To the south is vacant land that has been permitted as Progressive Auto Insurance. To the east across Pacific Highway South, moving from north to south, are small retail establishments, vacant property, a bank, Pacifica Park Office Building, and Canopy World In addition, Walt's Automotive is located on the triangular piece of property between Pacific Highway South and 16th Avenue South. To the west, moving from north to south, are Mitchell Place (a senior housing development) and industrial uses, including Frito Lay. Critical Areas A Class II Wetland and Major Stream (a branch of the Hylebos) are located to the west ofthe 1.53 acre site. Class II Wetlands have 100- foot setbacks. The on-site stream also has a 100- foot buffer. The stream buffer is either contained within the existing wetland buffer or flows through the regional detention pond located on the western portion of parcel 202104-9004. The relocated boundary would follow the edge of the wetland buffer. If future development is proposed in the vicinity of the on-site stream or wetland, compliance with FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIV, "Critical Areas," will be required. Drainage The site is located within the West Hylebos Creek Sub-Basin and a Levell Flow Control Area. Development is not proposed in conjunction with the request for a change in comprehensive plan and zoning designation. Any future development of the site will be subject to City regulations, including flow control. In addition, any water-related impacts will be mitigated in compliance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) in effect at that time. Access Based on the approved Master Plan (Exhibit F), proposed access to the BC-zoned portion of the site (area east of the large on-site wetland) is from South 336th Street, a principal arterial located to the north of the site via an extension of 13th Place South. Access would also be from Pacific Highway South, also a principal arterial located to the east via a westward extension of South 340th through the site. The Master Plan also shows a road connecting the western (area west of the large on-site wetlands) and eastern (area east of the large on-site wetland) areas. This connecting roadway would provide the BC-zoned portion of the site an additional access to South 336th Street through the residential area to the west. As part of the overall development of the site, an additional east/west Planning Commission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 5 access would also be required between South 336th and South 340th Streets. Potential Traffic Impacts Traffic impacts associated with build out of the approved Master Plan was analyzed as part of the Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance (MDNS) issued February 16,2008. The non-project action associated with shifting the boundaries between the Multi-Family and Community Business zones in itself is not anticipated to affect the results of the traffic analysis and required traffic mitigation. If staff later determines that there is an increase in trip generation, that increase would be required to be analyzed in a modified MDNS or in a concurrency analysis. Projections for Population and Employment Shifting the line is not expected to significantly affect either future population or employment. The overall Master Plan shows future development of a 326,450 square foot mixed-use development consisting of 178,850 square feet of retail, 59,500 square feet of office, 17,600 square feet of restaurant, and 70,500 square feet of residential (55 units) on the eastern portion of the site, and a 94 zero-lot line townhouse development on the western portion of the site. Public Comments Received No public comments were received SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #2 - NGUYEN File Number: Parcels: Address: Location: Size: Existing Land Use: Applicant: Owner: Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Requested Comprehensive Plan: Requested Zoning: 07-105968-UP 042104-9261 & 042104-9115 28801 & 28805 18th Avenue South South of South 288th Street and west of 18th Avenue South (Exhibit D) 13,210 square feet Vacant Trinh Nguyen Trinh Nguyen Multi-Family RM 3600 (Multi-Family, one unit per 3,600 square feet) Community Business Community Business (Be) Availability of Utilities Sanitary Sewer: Lakehaven Utility District Public Water: Lakehaven Utility District Solid Waste: Waste Management Availability of Public Services: Police: City of Federal Way Public Safety Fire/ Emergency Medical: South King Fire and Rescue Planning Connnission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 6 Schools: Federal Way Public Schools Background and Neighborhood Characteristics The subject property is vacant and consists of two lots. The property is flat, vegetated with grass and blackberry bushes, with some small trees and bushes along the west property line. The current multi- family designation and zoning would allow development of three multi-family dwelling units on the subject property. If the request for a change in the comprehensive designation and zoning from Multi-Family and RM 3600 to Community Business is granted, the applicant would like to construct a mixed use building with a mix of commercial uses on the ground floor and dwelling units on the next two levels. Community Business would allow up to six multi-family units; however, a limited analysis of the site shows that a more reasonable assumption is for three dwelling units when drainage, parking, and open space requirements are taken into account. Land use to the north across South 288th Street is a day care, to the south and to the east across 18th Avenue South are single family homes, and to the west is a mixed use building. Zoning to the north across South 288th Street and to the west is Community Business, to the south is Multi-Family (RM 3600, one unit per 3,600 square feet), and to the east across 18th Avenue South is Single Family (RS 7.2, one unit per 7,200 square feet). Critical Areas This site is located in an already developed area and the site is not affected by environmentally sensitive areas. Drainage The site is located within the Lower Puget Sound Basin The site is also located within a Levell Flow Control and Basic Water Quality Area. Development is not proposed in conjunction with the request for a change in comprehensive plan and zoning designation. Any future development of the site will be subject to City regulations, including flow control In addition, any water-related impacts will be mitigated in compliance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) in effect at that time. Access: Existing access is from 18th Avenue South. Regardless of zoning, when the site is developed a three- foot right-of-way dedication and half street frontage improvements will be required along 18th Avenue South. No dedication or improvement would be required along South 288th Street. Potential Traffic Impacts At the time that an application to develop the property is submitted, the Traffic Division will conduct a Concurrency Analysis, which will analyze peak hour impacts of the project and the pro-rata share contnbutions towards transportation projects in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) to assure that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Supplemental mitigation may be required if the proposed project creates an impact not anticipated in the TIP. The applicant has the option to have an independent traffic engineer licensed in the State of Washington prepare the concurrency analysis consistent with City procedures. Planning Commission Memorandmn 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 7 Projections for Population and Employment Ifrezoned to Community Business and developed as mixed-use, the number of multi-family units and people are expected to remain the same. It is expected that employment will increase; however, the number employed would depend on how the site is developed The BC zone allows a wide range of uses including retail, office, restaurant, and banking. Public Comments Received No public comments received SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #3 - PACIFIC HEIGHTS File Number: Parcels: Location: Size: Existing Land Use: Applicant: Owners: Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: 09-100948-00- UP 332204-9221 & 720540-0130 South of South 279th Street and west of Pacific Highway South Parce1332204-9221 is 2.66 acres in size and Parcel 720540-130 is 0.68 acres for a total of3.34 acres Vacant City of Federal Way Pacific West Development LLC Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential Parcel 332204-9221 has split zoning ofRS 7.2 (Single Family, one unit per 7,200 square feet) and RM 1800 (Multi-Family, one unit per 1800 square feet). Parcel 720540-0130 is zoned RM 1800 (Multi-Family, one unit per 1800 square feet). Requested Comprehensive Plan: Multi-Family Requested Zoning: RM 3600 (Multi-Family, one unit per 3,600 square feet) Availability of Utilities Sanitary Sewer: Lakehaven Utility District Public Water: Lakehaven Utility District Solid Waste: Waste Management Availability of Public Services Police: City of Federal Way Public Safety Fire/ Emergency Medical: Schools: South King Fire and Rescue Federal Way Public School District Background On August 13, 1998, the King County Boundary Review Board (BRB) issued a decision approving the annexation of property known as Redondo Riveria into the City of Des Moines. This included property owned by Donald and Marie Tavis, which Granville Southern Company had an option to buy. At the time of the annexation, Granville Southern Company had a vested application for a project known as Pacific Place under review by King County. Pacific Place consisted of 12.53 acres of which 9.19 acres were located within the City of Des Moines and 3.34 acres were located within the City of Federal Way Planning Corrnnission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 8 Potential Annexation Area (P AA). The Tavis' and Granville Southern Company brought suit against the City of Des Moines, the City of Federal Way, and the Boundary Review Board, asserting that the annexation should not have been approved because Granville and the Tavis' owned property on either side of the annexationlP AA boundary, and that Des Moines and Federal Way should be ordered to revise the P AA boundary. In order to settle the litigation, on July 18,2000, per Resolution 00-318, the City of Federal Way authorized the City Manager to execute a Settlement Agreement with the City of Des Moines and Granville Southern COIporation (Exhibit G). Also on July 18, 2000, per Resolution 00-319 (Exhibit H), the City of Federal Way approved amending the P AA BOlmdary Description and Map in order that the P AA boundary between Des Moines and Federal Way would follow the eastern right-of-way line of 15th Avenue South. The Settlement Agreement established the guidelines for future review of the Pacific Place development. It also committed Federal Way and Des Moines to adopt pre-annexation zoning and other land use controls in accordance with the "Illustrative Site Plan" attached as Exlnbit B to the Settlement Agreement. The "Illustrative Site Plan" limited development on the site to no more than 85 units constructed in the form of single-family dwellings, duplexes, and one triplex. The City of Federal Way comprehensive plan designation and zoning that is most consistent with development as shown in the "Illustrative Site Plan" is Multi-Family (RM 3600, one unit per 3,600 square feet). The Settlement Agreement also required that that King County transfer the Pacific Place Development to the City of Des Moines Pacific upon annexation for permit processing. On March 27, 2008, per Resolution 1069, the City of Des Moines approved the PUD of Pacific Heights (Exhibits I and J). On June 26,2008, per Ordinance 1431, the City of Des Moines rezoned that portion of Pacific Heights within its jurisdiction from RS-7200 to RA-3600 (Exhibit K). Critical Areas There are two wetlands on-site. The larger one (Wetland A, approximately 60,000 square feet'in size) is located in the middle of the site and is considered "significant" based on the City of Des Moines regulations. A smaller wetland (approximately 5,500 square feet in size) located along the western boundary is considered "important." The terms ofthe Settlement Agreement authorized a 70 foot buffer for the "significant" wetland and the smaller "important" wetland was authorized to be filled. As part of the preliminary plat approval process, the applicant mitigated for the filling of the smaller wetland by creating 7,578 square feet of wetland adjacent to Wetland A. Drainage Pursuant to the 2000 Settlement Agreement, the design of detention facilities for the Pacific Heights Planned Unit Development was subject to a Leve12 Flow Control Standard, as defmed in the 1998 King County SurJace Water Design Manual. No downstream analysis was required Access The main access to the Pacific Heights PUD will be provided per the extension to the north of the existing dead-end stub of 15th Avenue South, which is located within Federal Way. The extension will connect to South 279th to the north. There will also be a new stub to the west to provide connectivity (Exhibit J). Planning Corrnnission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 9 Potential Traffic Impacts Traffic mitigation for the Pacific Heights PUD is subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which provided for the voluntary payment by Granville Southern to the City of Federal Way of Granville Southern's pro rata share of the cost of two projects which would be affected by development of this site. Projections for Population and Employment There are six single-family lots and 24 town house lots located in that portion of the Pacific Heights PUD located in Federal Way. The remaining 47 lots are located in Des Moines. Public Comments Received No public comments received VII. COMPLIANCE WITH FWCC SECTIONS 22-529 AND 22-530 1. Section 22-529. Factors to be Considered in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment - The City may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors when considering a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan. (l) The effect upon the physical environment. Request Response Request #1 - The non-project action associated with shifting the boundaries Federal Way Village LLC between the Multi-Family and Community Business zones will not affect the physical environment. Request #2 - This site is located in an already developed area and there are no Nguyen mapped critical areas on the two parcels. Request #3 - In the Des Moines portion of the site, grades are primarily gently Pacific Heights sloping (0 to 6%) from the east to the west. In the Federal Way portion of the site (eastern portion), there is a moderate to steep hillside which slopes down from Pacific Highway South. As discussed above, there are two wetlands on the site. The smaller wetland was filled per the terms of the Settlement Agreement and mitigation for such:filling was creation ofa 7,578 square foot wetland adjacent to Wetland A. (2) The effect on open space, streams, and lakes. Please refer to responses under Section VII(l ) (i) above (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. Request Response Request #1 - The non-project action associated with shifting the boundaries Federal Way Village LLC between the Multi-Family and Community Business zones will not Planning Connnission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 10 Request Response impact adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. Impacts associated with the approval of the overall Master Plan for Federal Way Village have been evaluated as part of the February 16, 2008, Mitigated Determination of Non significance (#07-100346-SE) and the January 25,2008, Master Plan approval (#07-100345-UP). Request #2 - Any future development on this site would have to comply with city Nguyen regulations related to bulk and scale, landscaping and design standards, and such compliance should adequately mitigate any potential impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. Request #3- Impacts on adjacent land and surrounding neighborhoods were Pacific Heights considered as part of the Settlement Agreement, which attempted to balance the location ofmulti-fumily development in a predominantly residential area. As a result, the number of units changed from 120-unit condominiums to a mix of 14 single- fumily units and 63 townhouse style development lots. In addition, a landscape buffer has been provided along the southern boundary of the property where it abuts existing single fumily residential homes. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools. Request Response Request #1 - The non-project action associated with shifting the boundaries Federal Way Village LLC between the Multi-Family and Community Business zones will not impact community fucilities, including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools. Impacts associated with the approval of the overall Master Plan for Federal Way Village have been evaluated as part of the February 16, 2008, Mitigated Determination of Non significance (#07-100346-SE) and January 25, 2008, Master Plan approval (#07-100345-UP). Request #2 - All utilities, such as power and waste disposal, are available to the Nguyen site. The site is bordered by South 288th Street to the north and 18th Avenue to the south. Public transportation is available along South 288th Street. This site is served by all day transit service as well as peak hour transit service. There are a wide variety of recreational opportunities in the Federal Way area. Recreational opportunities in the City range from Dash Point State Park (a large state park on the west side of the city) and Celebration Park (an 84-acre urban park located approximately in the middle of the City with ball fields and walking trails), to recreation trails in the Bonneville Power Administration right-of-way. If the site is developed as a mixed-use development, the multifumilyportion of the development will be required to provide 300 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. Impacts on schools associated with the residential portion should be mitigated by the payment of a school impact fee ($1,819.50 as of 2009). Planning Commission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 11 Request Response Request #3 - Impacts on community facilities including utilities, roads, public Pacific Heights transportation, parks, recreation and schools were considered during the review process administered by Des Moines with input from Federal Way. Furthermore, redesignation is required by the terms of the 2000 Settlement Agreement, which is binding on the City (Exhibit G). (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region. Request Response Request #1 - The Federal Way Village has been approved as a Master Plan for a Federal Way Village LLC 326,450 square foot mixed-use development consisting of 178,850 square feet ofretai1, 59,500 square feet of office, 17,600 square feet of restaurant, and 70,500 square feet of residential (55 units) on the eastern portion of the site, which is zoned Community Business (Be), and a 94 zero-lot line townhouse development on the western portion of the site, which is zoned RM 2400 (Multi- Family, one unit per 2,400 square feet). The dividing line follows the eastern buffer ofWet1and No.2 to a point approximately 351 feet north of the south property line of parcel 202104-9004, at which point said line follows the middle of the 13th Place South extended right -of-way to the south property line of parcel 202104- 9004 (Exhibit C). The applicant would like to move the southern portion of the dividing line to the west in order to continue following the eastern buffer of Wetland No.2 as they have found that this area works much better for commercial development rather than residential. Making changes to the site that would encourage development is a benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region as it would generate additional jobs in the City. Request #2 - Development of this site as mixed-use vertical development is a Nguyen benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region as it would generate additional jobs in the City. Request #3 - This site currently has a mix of single-family and residential zoning, Pacific Heights which makes it difficult to develop in a cohesive manner. In addition, there are steep slopes adjacent to Pacific Highway South. The requested RM 3600 zoning fucilitates the Pacific Heights Planned Unit Development, which would provide 30 additional housing units in Federal Way, thus assisting the City to meet the adopted household targets. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land. Request Response Request #1 - The Federal Way Village has been approved as a Master Plan for a Federal Way Village LLC 326,450 square foot mixed-use development consisting of 178,850 Planning Corrnnission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 12 Request Response square feet ofretai1, 59,500 square feet of office, 17,600 square feet of restaurant, and 70,500 square feet of residential (55 units) on the eastern portion of the site, which is zoned Community Business (Be), and a 94 zero-lot line townhouse development on the western of the site, which is zoned RM 2400 (Multi-Family, one unit per 2,400 square feet). Shifting the dividing line between the two zones should not have a significant effect on what is planned for this area. Request #2 - Development of this site as mixed-use vertical development should Nguyen result in the same amount of residential units and the addition of commercial space that could be accommodated on this site would not significantly affect the existing capacity of the Community Business zone. Request #3 - The approved Pacific Heights PUD is for 14 single family units and Pacific Heights 63 zero-lot line townhouses. It is anticipated that the townhouse units will satisfy a demand for more affordable housing for first- time home buyers. In addition, the development is in close proximity to Pacific Highway and 1-5. (7) The current and projected population density in the area. Request Response Request #1- The Federal Way Village has been approved as a Master Plan for a Federal Way Village LLC 326,450 square foot mixed-use development consisting of 178,850 square feet of retail, 59,500 square feet of office, 17,600 square feet of restaurant, and 70,500 square feet of residential (55 units) on the eastern portion of the site, which is zoned Community Business (BC), and a 94 zero-lot line townhouse development on the western portion of the site, which is zoned RM 2400 (Multi- Family, one unit per 2,400 square feet). Shifting the dividing line between the two zones should not have a significant effect on the projected population density in the area. Request #2 - Development of this site as mixed-use vertical development should Nguyen result in the same amount of residential units. Request #3 - This project had a vested King County application for 120 Pacific Heights condominium units. The approved Pacific Heights PUD is for 14 single fumilyunits and 63 zero-lot line townhouses. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. Granting a change in comprehensive plan designation and zoning for any of the three requests should not affect other aspects of the comprehensive plan. 2. Section 22-530, Criteria for Amending the Comprehensive Plan - The City may amend the comprehensive plan only if it finds that: Planning Corrnnission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 13 (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. Request Response Request #1 - Shifting the zoning line would create 1.5 3 additional acres of Federal Way Village LLC commercially-zoned land and should encourage development of this portion of the site. Therefore, the request complies with the goals of the comprehensive plan related to encouraging economic development and providing a wide variety of retail and services, and thus bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety and welfure. This is a benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region as it would generate additional jobs in the City. Request #2 - Development of this site as mixed-use vertical development is a Nguyen benefit to the City as it would generate additional jobs in the City and therefore would also benefit the public welfure. Request #3 - The approved Pacific Heights PUD is for 14 single fumily units Pacific Heights and 63 zero-lot line townhouses. It is anticipated that the townhouse units will satisfy a demand for more affordable housing for first-time home buyers and therefore would also benefit the public welfure. AND (2) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. Please see response lUlder (1), above. (3) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36. 70A and with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The proposed amendments are consistent with the following goals ofRCW Chapter 36.70A020(2) of the Growth Management Act: (i) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (ii) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion oflUldeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. (iii) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. (iv) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for lUlemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional Planning Corrnnission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 14 differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. The amendments are also consistent with goals and policies of the land use, housing and economic development chapters of the City's comprehensive plan. VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH FWCC SECTION 22-488(C) Site-specific requests are required to be evaluated for compliance with this section. 1) The city may approve the application only if it finds that: a. The proposed request is in the best interests of the residents of the city. Request Response Request #1 - The Federal Way Village has been approved as a Master Plan for a Federal Way Village LLC 326,450 square foot mixed-use development consisting of 178,850 square feet ofretai1, 59,500 square feet of office, 17,600 square feet of restaurant, and 70,500 square feet of residential (55 units) on the eastern portion of the site, which is zoned Community Business (BC), and a the 94 zero-lot line townhouse development on the western portion of the site, which is zoned RM 2400 (Multi- Family, one unit per 2,400 square feet). The applicant would like to move the southern portion of the dividing line between the BC and RM 2400 zones to provide additional BC-zoned land, as they have found that this area works much better for commercial development rather than residential. Making changes to the site that would encourage development is in the best interest of the residents City as it would generate additional jobs. Request #2 - Development of this site as mixed-use vertical development is in Nguyen the best interest of the residents City as it would generate additional jobs in the City. Request #3 - The amendment to the comprehensive plan and associated rezoning Pacific Heights of these parcels are in the best interest of the residents City because such redesignation is required by the terms of the 2000 Settlement Agreement, which is binding on the City (Exhibit G). b. The proposed request is appropriate because either: (i) Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have so significantly changed since the property was given its present zoning that, under those changed conditions, a change in designation is within the public interest; or (ii) The change in designation w;ill correct a designation that was inappropriate when established PlanningCormru~illnMemornndmn 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 15 Request Response Request #1 - The applicant has been trying to market the site for development Federal Way Village LLC since receiving the original comprehensive plan amendment and rezone per Ordinance 05-490 in June 2005. Through these marketing efforts, the applicant has learned that the 1.53 acres of land presently zoned RM 2400 is more appropriate for development as commercial land. Request #2 - The request does not meet any of the above criteria. Nguyen Request #3 - The request does not meet any of the above criteria; however, the Pacific Heights redesignation is required by the terms of the 2000 Settlement Agreement, which is binding on the City (Exhibit G). c. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Refer to responses to Section 22-530(1), criteria for amending the comprehensive plan (above). d. It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the chapter, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan. The request for comprehensive plan amendments and rezones are non-project actions. Any future development associated with Requests #1 and 2 would be required to comply with all City regulations, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan. The terms of the Settlement Agreement transferred the Pacific Heights application to Des Moines for processing. Furthermore, the Agreement limited Des Moines' review of the project to whether it complies with the terms and exhibits contained in the Agreement (Exhibit G). e. It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Refer to responses to Section 22-530(1), criteria for amending the comprehensive plan (above). 2) The city may approve an application for a quasi-judicial project related rezone only if it finds that: a. The criteria in subsection (1) above are met. b. The proposed project complies with this chapter in all respect. c. The site plan of the proposed project is designed to minimize all adverse impacts on the developed properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. d. The site plan is designed to minimize impacts upon the public services and utilities. The three site-specific requests are proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan, and not project-related rezones, and therefore, the criteria under this section do not apply. Planning Corrnnission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 16 IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Site-Specific Request #1 - Request by Federal Way Village, LLC to shift the dividing line between the western portion of the site designated Multi- Family and RM 2400 (one unit per 2,400 square feet) and eastern portion of the site designated Community Business (Be) to add 1.53 acres to the BC zoned parcels. The site is located south of South 336th Street and west of Pacific Highway South. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Federal Way Village request be approved with conditions as outlined in Ordinance 95-490 as amended by Ordinances 07-556 and 08-581. 2. Site-Specific Request #2 - Request by Trinh Nguyen to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of two lots, approximately 13,210 square feet in size, located at the southwest comer of the intersection of South 288th Street and 18th Avenue South from Multi- Family and RM 3600 (one unit per 3,600 square feet) to Community Business and BC. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Nguyen request be approved 3. Site-Specific Request #3 - City-initiated proposal to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of two lots, approximately 3.34 acres in size, located south of South 279th Street and west of Pacific Highway South from Single-Family Residential and RS 7.2, and Multi-Family and RM 1800 to Multi-Family andRM 3600, per a Settlement Agreement authorized per Federal Way Resolution 00-318. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that this request be approved x. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions ofFWCC Section 22-539, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding each proposed comprehensive plan amendment: 1 Recommend to City Council adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment as proposed; 2. Recommend to City COlUlcil that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment not be adopted; 3. Forward the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to City COlUlcil without a recommendation; or 4. Modify the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and recommend to City Council adoption of the amendment as modified Planning Commission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments April 15, 2009 Page 17 LIST OF EXIllBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exlnbit E Exlnbit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Proposed Amendments to Chapters and Maps of the Comprehensive Plan Composite Map - Location of Site-Specific Requests Vicinity Map - Site-Specific Request #1 - Federal Way Village (Citizen-Initiated) Vicinity Map - Site-Specific Request #2 - Nguyen (Citizen-Initiated) Vicinity Map - Site-Specific Request #3 - Pacific Heights (City-Initiated) Approved Master Plan - Federal Way Village City of Federal Way Resolution 00-318 with Exhibit A, Settlement Agreement, Waiver and Release By and Between Granville Southern COIporation, Donald and Marie Tavis, and the Cities of Des Moines and Federal Way City of Federal Way Resolution 00-319 Amending an Agreement between the Cities of Des Moines and Federal Way Relating to Potential Annexation Area BOlUldaries City of Des Moines Resolution 1069 approving the PUD of Pacific Heights (March 27,2008) Approved Pacific Heights Planned Unit Development City of Des Moines Ordinance 1431 Rezoning a Portion of Pacific Heights (June 26,2008) April 15, 2009 Page 18 Planning Commission Memorandum 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Exhibit C Vicinity Map Site-specific Request #1, Federal Way Village I .-1 III ';a/ /00 ....:~ -I I~;:; ~Z00%/'..1 ~~ ~. . .~ ~ ~~~ ~ ,g t~,;- ~.~~~ n '~ ~~l~~~~ CI) . ~ 7/.% 'l/. .s:: 0> Q) 1\I r-... .f! 0> C ~.<//~ /"/.. =<Lv ii ~ ~ C:1\I "" E 0", '" ",- 0 urn r- ~ucu Q..__@ Ii;::; U :a CD:t: !~ ."" ""8-g E'f3.E ~~~__ ~" CCII E ~ ~ u i5 - '" 0,., Q).... '" Q) ftS s::: -!u." :!l CD oil~ eel S 0 0>_ ~ c.., !2 '" C C\1 iii .., ~~ ~ s & 0 ~ '" 0>>0.: U) g> Q)al\laic..,~~_ ._- S AMH :>1.:II:>Vd ~ 8. ~ ~ ~ -al a: ~ = ~ oc:o~e't-_ 0 g '" 1\I ~ Q) 1\I 0 1\I 'Ci) r- ~1 .... - 0.. c: "::; "t) o..~ .!i ,... r---' ~ ~....,.., Ql 1\I ~ 1\I Ql (:) .\::'......... "0 as ~1 ~.s::a: i3S~ !~ 0, g> .......... ~Q.. s::: '- ~ ~ ggc.)~U ~ ~ ~ I 3 Co) 0:: t:> CO N CO 1o...-f.1t~ \'-~r~!- --- ......::..,'" ~ r::-~ .' ~ S ~ ~ ~ r-~j '~IrAJ /./ ,;; I~..,... ...... ~ ~ ; ,,-""~ ~ ~~~, ~ , ~ ~g ii yn.~dfo~~~g~ ~ ?a & ,,) , ~ ..~ . x# .' ;;%~.l t-) '7 * g> :"(~ . ~, V- <? g ~ * ~ ~ 0 N 0 Q ::!: C1< .'lJII;Jr .. j ~~~V ;!,.$ ~ ~ CO ~ Q) "'C Q) I.L. '+- o ~ :!::: 't:J0 C Q) tI)<<sg>> -C<<s tI)<<s.c Q)-O ::::s~ C"Q)C Q) > 0 CC) I:::t::: .- .- OUtl)1a Oi.;:CC N'- Q) C) U .c ._ Q) ! tI) Q,Q,Q) enec Q)OC) ~OC en .- ... C ~~ u ::!: ce. ~ .. Ii '" '" '" .. 19 E CD Om ullJ 19_ CD:: en.>. ~ :~ i~1 ~:Hl ~~?;. - /,;Ifi ~. . ( /{.'./'m. ~~~"I'- ~/~. ;~;; /.0; ~r/' ";:':'~"MZt;;':; ~ >- .1:11I 6' ~E e.. IIllD .. il~e ~,g <'i. :.."" .Ii fit, T .5 eft ~ .~~ ~ 'II d ~i tJ~ S AMH :>1.:II:>Vd .. ~ ~ S ld HUI - ,.~ :& =~c "'.... ::l!U)O - = S ld H.lOI :c t; ~ ~u s ^V HJ.6 CI) C '. Os::: .- C\1 1Ga: c .~~ CI)'- CDCI> o ~.~ C)..t:: E 0 c e ~ 0,0 .- Q..... s::: """ Ui ~ :.;::l '- N .- 5"3 s:::~ ~()~~o:: "'l"'"" =t:I: ~ t\l '0 c: ~ o CO Q) C) ~ :> >- ~ II) C) .5 :2 '3 CO .. - III Q) ~ cr Q) e::: (,) I;::: '0 ~ (ij CJ) Q) Q) '0 ij5 af II) - Q) Q) .... U5 >: Q) ~ ~ --- CJ) >- >- Q) - ~ C3 ~ (/) co t\l ~ ~ -g C3 ~ ~ - II) 0 II) '0 CO E c: 0) t\l ~ .5 ~ ~ a U5 > N 110 ~ ~ ..... CJ) Q) ::J (l)C'" C)Q) co~ - () it: '0 Q) 0- en Q) ~ en ~ ~ - co '- - (1)"- "0> (I) LL "0 C CD 0>> CD ..J ~i I h Q ;! S ~s lc l~ ~ U) :t: ~ co ... ... II) c.., eel - ::! 'S: 1: ~s C)(,) ~ III :t: ~ co ... .., III CI CI ~ N ::!: cc .~ o ..~ I E ~ I :S I :. ~~ . \ . . Q . u \ 4::. "" m .. .. . ~s' ci \ I i \ .. . Ii ill ---" i iU ~ V "'ff/ "g i"~ %;" Ie '~ '/ i t: II: V -E al g>.!a E .- >. al 5~ ~ NQ.g> coo.... .9 C. 5i -alE ~.sQ. CII).Q ~alCD ~~ 6i .~ '0 -C alclIJ U;.~ ~ lIJo <(c:.;::; i ~ C Qj .'21 :0 <5(1)> z~ & - Q) Q) au.. a LO a LO N - ~ QJ "'C If ~ a <1z - I 1'1 r--- ""\ .\ 1\ I I Y.I c." L&.I (.) 1 ::-~ H. S^v,.,~~ ~ uj'ia- a,:::E- ,Ii:!!: '5 >. ~ <Ii <Il 'E. lIJ C ... 0 (ij:.;:; ;:S o C C ~ >.~ ..co. i~ .- 0 C._ lIJ-C 0.0. E e! 001 8l1J lIJ>. II)Q. .- E g.'ijj Ell) .!!! :; -cc I-lIJ I - -s ..... Co) ~ ,~ E; - ... '" !!J 00 o o !::l jg .. Gl ::I : Exhibit D Vicinity Map Site-specific Request #2, Nguyen ~ co S "OU) C Q) U)caC) -CC U)caca Q)_..c :::::In.O O"'Q)C Q) > 0 CO [t:: .- .- O(JU)1G Oij:CC ("11.- Q) C) (J .c ._ Q)!U) Q.c.Q) Cl)SC Q)oC) == 0 C CI) .- ... C ~~ Q) Q) ou. o ..., >. ~ <Ii .~ C. 101: c.2 ~1ii 01: I: ~ >.~ 'co. '0<1) <I)'" 'c.2 IO~ 0.0. E ~ 001 810 10>. .!!? 0.. a..~ 10 rJl E.!!? .!!? '0 ~I: 1-10 >: 0> Ci ~ C :J t; en 'x ~!:!:!.. () ~ co as 0) "0 0) C ::::. :J f/) 0 "0 III C 0) 2 .5 ~ ~ 10 N ::tt - en Q) C:S- Cl)Q) >.0::: ~ .0 C)~ Z~ c.. en Q) - en - f/) Q) :J c- O> 0::: o '+= '0 f/) 0> 0) Q, C ~ eno> ~ 0> - :J ~ i:i5 III U5 co ~ Q) "'C Q) U. '+- o ~ :!:: o o N - l2 CV "C Lf ~ I -0 '"-' ~ 7- ~ ;~~ co" '. = 0> e (Q i 0)0 IiiIiii , fn .!~ , C"":>> :IA / ".$'_ (j :;;& :E ~ ...... e SAV"'~ ..' ~.. \ li ........ cos::: e~ Q. SAY .2>> Q.. <C I t; =~ -- ~o N ~ C '(is 0>" , , O)e . 'Os::: co 0 ........ ~ Q)Q> _..t:: -" ~~ fl)Q) '. =0> ,I N >0:: Q) lo;;. 0> J(/J ::so.. s::: l:T E u 't:; U :i A'" H.18~ S AY HJ.8~ &8a:l~a:l - aT "!r : . .J* "'.'" - co I- ~" ~... to. ..f -. ~~ Q) rn ~ ~" "0 co J: ::Eli I- " ",:J'C cZoo coQ. co .. uu ...J<C co " : N ca I " .C - (.) en ~: \ c.,) ~ ~ =.J " = S AMH Ol:llOVd "" S AMH Ol:llOVd o. ...., / 'kl ~ ~i,~ /c,.) ) (.) ~ (.) = fI) = = e.. os::: - 16TH AV 5 - .- C1J nia: ~ -........ g. e ~ Q) .~~ '> ~OllZ WH 't1 -~JC1' fI)'(iS C Q)s:::>- :s CQ>= 0 .' O)..t:: E 0 10.. rn e ~ of! ~o en C'" ;:; 0.. I co a:: - fI) E ~ .S; CO') ,;\ .~ - t t::) ;H8~~~ <- CD ~. s AY HJ.S~ 'I ~~ .... ~)\ J \\ ~\ I I (1)1 I I '.. --- "\ / " e Q) 0) Q) ...J o <1z () '0 X E ~ '" !!J ClO o o ~ '" u; Q) ::l c:r Q) c:: ~ en c: nI a: a. E o y '0 ~ .>< j Ii Exhibit E Vicinity Map Site-specific Request #3, Pacific Heights ~ m S m '- Q) "'C Q) LL '+- o ~ ... .- "at/) C (I) C) t/) ca C -cca t/)ca.c (1)-0 ::IQ. C"(I)C (I) > 0 t:t:: --._ co(.)t/)'1iS 0._ C C 0'1-(1) N .- .c C) (.) .- (I) (I) t/) c.'" (I) en c.c (l)EC) _oc '-0 en .- ... C ~~ ('f) tn::rt .... ..... .c~ C)::J -- C" CI)(I) :I: 0::: o CJ~ -- 0 '--(I) -- a. CJen ca(l) D.:=: en .2- (I) .~ c '. I.L .2 ~:b aiQ"3 Q c<l,)~ 0 Q .2>>:::. ~ ~CO (I) 'Ci) - T"" CCD e::'E ~ ... <l)cu -== C).c:: I.L '. c:::: Ill::: C@IO)- ClC .- Q. ~ e:: <"! U; t::' 0)'- l"- .- l;;; c e:: en ~8cn~c:::: (I) C o ;: '. cue:: c~ .2>>0.: lB~ C'- (1)>- -e::_ ... <1)'- S.c::E 0 U)Q)cu..o CD a I.L 0) <0 ::I t::' .J. .S M l:T l;;; +"' e:: CD8"3o:2 a:: ~NC:::: s ^" H.l&~ DDDl WH "" "I "I en ;,I: o ""N "I . "I,... I") en a:: (J = = co .... :E a:: H J':J'J'tfd c:.,) CCl ~O = 101") = 0""= NO _ ,... ~ a:: Aluno:) 6u!)l t/) " C CD C) CD ...J ... UJ (I) ::l 'CT (I) 0:: o tl::: '0 UJ (I) C) UJ a. c: en =0_- Q) ,,, (I).... .:: '5 ... U5 en en Ci c: +:; UJ 'x W - - Q) Q) oLL o ~ ~ ttI '0 c: ::l o en C) c: 'c ~ o o o N - l2 CD II."C ~.f o ~ <:jz = = = .- :E ClC (66 ~S) S AMH ~1:lI~Vd DDDl INH >- ~ Ul .!!! C lU c: ... 0 ~E o c: c: ~ >.~ ..co. ~~ .- 0 C:._ lU.r: 0.0. E ~ 001 8 lU lU>. Ul'Q. '0..5 lUUl E.!!! .!!! '0 .r:c: I-lU Ill,!!! ~ 'f.; E ._ ::;..J >\~ ~o III >. ~~ '0 - :E E III Q) Q)"C oaf '0 )( E cj '" JJ CX) o o ~ '" (j) Q) ::l C' Q) 0::: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION April 15,2009 7:00 p.rn. City Hall COlUlcil Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Sarady Long, and Tim O'Neil. Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, Planner Manager Isaac Conlen and Administrative Assistant Darlene LeMaster. Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.rn. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of March 4,2009, were approved as written. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Margaret Clark delivered the staffreport. Ms. Clark summarized the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments as including housekeeping changes to Chapter 6, "Capital Facilities" and Chapter 10, "Private Utilities," as well as two citizen-initiated site specific requests for Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones and one City-initiated site-specific request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone. Ms. Clark also noted in her procedural summary that staff received no comments for these Comprehensive Plan amendments. Ms. Clark reviewed all of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan amendments with the commissioners, stating that the amendments to Chapters 6 and 10 were housekeeping amendments being made in compliance with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A070). Site-specific request #1 is for Federal Way Village, requesting to shift a dividing line between RM 2400 and BC zoned parcels to add 1.53 acres to the BC-zoned parcels. This request will have no significant impacts. Site-specific request #2 is for Trinh Nguyen, requesting to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 13,210 sq. ft. located south of S 288th St and west of 18th Ave S from Multi-family (RM 3600) to CommlUlity Business (Be). Should this request be granted, the applicant wishes to construct a mixed use building on this site. Any proposed development would be subject to Concurrency Review and other City regulations. K:\PJanning Conunission\2009\Meeting Summary 04.15-09.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 15, 2009 Site-specific request #3 is a City initiated request to change comprehensive plan designation from Single Family (RS 7.2) and Multi-family (RM 1800) to Multi-family (RM 3600) to comply with a Settlement Agreement between the City of Federal Way, City of Des Moines, Granville Southern COIporation and Mr. and Mrs. Tavis that set out terms of how this property will be developed Pacific Heights plat covers land in both Federal Way and Des Moines. There was one public comment: Jon Potter, Federal Way Village - Mr. Potter did not have comment but was present to answer any questions from the Planning Committee. Regarding site-specific request #3 (Pacific Heights), Commissioner O'Neil asked if this zoning modification had been approved through the Settlement Agreement between the Cities of Federal Way and Des Moines, why is this issue before the Planning Commission? Regarding site-specific request #1 (Federal Way Village), Chair Pfeifer asked for confirmation of where roads are planned Ms. Clark stated that there will be two points of access from S 336th Street and one from SR 99. The plans for roads stay as-is, the zoning within the parcels is the only change. Chair Pfeifer also inquired if there were any leads on tenants for this property. Mr. Potter responded, saying there is one potential anchor for the development. The market will need to recover before development takes place. Mr. Potter was hopeful that both residential and retail markets will improve soon. Commissioner O'Neil asked if the seven-year updates can be cumulative, so that Planning Commission is able to make one major change, rather that reviewing changes so frequently. Ms. Clark commented that staff returns to the Planning Commission annually with requests for Comprehensive plat amendments as the code allows for public requests annually. Regarding site-specific request #2 (Nguyen), Chair Pfeifer wanted to make sure that the applicant understands the language in the staff recommendation. Also, he asked whether anyone had spoken with surrounding neighbors and had they been notified Ms. Clark answered that neighbors were notified twice and the no comment was received The applicant stated that they understand the verbiage in the staff recommendation. Commissioner Long asked if there was any mixed use tenants west of Nguyen' s property. Ms. Clark responded that she did not know. Commissioner Carlson made a motion to accept the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments as recommended by staff Commissioner Elder seconded There was no further discussion. Motion passed, 6-1; Commissioner Long abstaining. Commissioner Long has been a project engineer for Federal Village and wished to recuse himself Chair Pfeifer asked is there was any objection to closing the hearing. Hearing none, the hearing was closed ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:39 p.rn. K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 04-15-09 .doc