The URL can be used to link to this page

RES 23-840 - Reforming Steel Lake Management District Number 1RESOLUTION NO.23-840 A RESOLUTION of the City of Federal Way, Washington, to reform Steel Lake Management District Number 1 and call for a vote by affected property owners on the renewal of the proposed district. WHEREAS, the term of the current Steel Lake Management District Number 1 ("District") will expire at the end of 2023; and WHEREAS, the City completed the 2024-2033 Steel Lake Management District Plan ("Plan") attached as Exhibit A, which provides the basis for the annual work plan and management goals of the District; and WHEREAS, the Plan was initiated because of citizen interest in the long-term protection of Steel Lake; and WHEREAS, Steel 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 of lakes; and WHEREAS, the Steel Lake community has demonstrated continued support for the District through submittal of the petition calling for renewal of the District attached as Exhibit B, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 36.61 RCW; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a City resolution, a public hearing was conducted on June 6, 2023, on the renewal of the District after public notice of the hearing was provided to all affected property owners consistent with Chapter 36.61 RCW; and Resolution No. 23-840 Page I of 76 WHEREAS, after considering the testimony received at the public hearing, the City of Federal Way City Council declares that submitting the question of renewal of the District to a vote by the affected property owners is within the public's interest, and the proposed financing for the District is considered feasible. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds that it is in the public interest to renew the District and that the financing of the lake improvement and maintenance activities is feasible. Attached as Exhibit A and hereby incorporated by reference is the 2024-2033 Plan, which describes (1) the proposed improvement and maintenance activities that avoid adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and provide for appropriate measures to protect and enhance fish and wildlife; (2) the number of years the District will exist; (3) the amount, method, description, and frequency of special assessments or rates and charges, and the possibility of revenue bonds that are payable from the rates and charges; and (4) the estimated special assessment or rates and charges proposed to be imposed on each parcel included in the proposed lake management district. Section 2. Vote of Affected Property Owners. The renewal of the District shall be referred to a vote of the property owners within the proposed management district. The residents' Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Reform the Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2024- 2033 is attached hereto as Exhibit B and hereby incorporated herein by this reference. The City shall prepare the appropriate ballot, based upon criteria in RCW 36.61.080, calling for a vote on the formation of the District. The ballots shall be mailed to the affected residents no later than June 7, 2023, and shall be tabulated only if returned to the City of Federal Way by no later than five p. m. Resolution No. 23-840 Page 2 of 76 (5:00 p.m.) on June 28, 2023. All ballots must be signed by the owner or reputed owner of property according to the assessor' s tax rolls. Each property owner shall mark his or her ballot "for" or "against" the renewal of the proposed District, with the ballot weighted so that the property owner has one vote for each dollar of estimated special assessment or rate and charge proposed to be imposed on his or her property. The valid ballots shall be tabulated and a simple majority of the votes cast shall determine whether the proposed District shall be approved or rejected. If approved by the voters within the proposed District, an ordinance will be prepared to formally renew the District effective January 1, 2024 for a term of ten (10) years, expiring on December 31, 2033. Section 3. Severability, If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution. Section 4. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this resolution are authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section S. RatiFcation. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. Resolution No. 23-840 Page 3 of 76 RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON this 6th day of June, 2023. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY: ATTEST: &�W- STAPMNIE APPROVED AS TO FORM: clij J. R AN CALL, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 05/31/2023 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 06/06/2023 RESOLUTION NO.: 23-840 Resolution No. 23-840 Page 4 of 76 EXHIBIT A The 2024-2033 Steel Lake Management District Plan March 17, 2023 N CITY OF Federal Way Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division 33325 8' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 5 of 76 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 6 of 76 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................1 1.0 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOALS.............................................................................................I 2.0 BACKGROUND AND PAST LAKE MANAGEMENT EFFORTS.........................................................2 2.1 Early efforts..................................................................................................................................................2 2.2 2001- 2002...................................................................................................................................................2 2.3 2003.............................................................................................................................................................3 2.4 2004-2013....................................................................................................................................................3 2.5 2014-2023...............................................................................................................................3 3.0 LAKE AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS...................................................................................3 3.1 Land Use......................................................................................................................................................4 3.2 Shoreline Use...............................................................................................................................................6 3.3 Outlet, Stream and Wetland Locations........................................................................................................ 6 3.4 Non point Nutrient Source Locations.......................................................................................................... 7 3.5 Lake Bathymetry......................................................................................................................................... 7 3.6 Water Source................................................................................................................................................9 3.7 Water Quality...............................................................................................................................................9 3.7.1 Historic Water Quality Data..................................................................................................................................... 9 3.7.2 Water Quality Assessments.................................................................................................................................... 10 3.8 Water Rights...............................................................................................................................................11 3.9 Beneficial and Recreational Uses.............................................................................................................. II 4.0 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM..........................................................................................................14 5.0 AQUATIC PLANT CHARACTERISTICS...............................................................................................15 5.1 Native Aquatic Plants in Steel Lake...........................................................................................................15 5.1.1 Native Emergent Plants.......................................................................................................................................... 15 5.1.2 Native Rooted Floating -Leaved Plants................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.3 Native Submerged Macrophytes............................................................................................................................. 16 Small -leafed pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus)......................................................................................................... 16 Naiads(Naja flexilis)................................................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.4 Native Submerged Macroalgae............................................................................................................................... 16 Plant -like algae (Chara, spp)....................................................................................................................................... 16 Plant -like algae (Nitella, sp.)....................................................................................................................................... 17 5.2 Non -Native Aquatic Plants in Steel Lake...................................................................................................17 5.2.1 Non -Native Emergent Plants.................................................................................................................................. 17 Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus).............................................................................................................................. 17 Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)............................................................................................................. 18 5.2.2 Non -Native Rooted Floating -Leaved Plants........................................................................................................... 18 Fragrant water lily/ White water lily (Nymphaea odorata).......................................................................................... 18 5.2.3 Non -Native Submerged Macrophytes..................................................................................................................... 19 Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum).........................................................................................................19 6.0 AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................20 6.1 Aquatic Herbicides.....................................................................................................................................21 6.1.1 Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit........................................................................................... 21 6.1.2 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Milfoil..................................................................................................................... 22 6.1.3 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Fragrant Waterlily................................................................................................... 23 6.1.4 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Emergent Vegetation: Yellow Flag Iris and Japanese Knotweed ........................... 24 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 7 of 76 6.1.5 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Native Aquatic Plants.............................................................................................. 24 6.2 Manual Methods........................................................................................................................................25 6.2.1 Hand-Pulling.......................................................................................................................................................... 25 6.2.2 Cutting or Raking................................................................................................................................................... 26 6.2.3 Weed Rolling.......................................................................................................................................................... 26 ManualMethod Advantages........................................................................................................................................ 26 ManualMethod Disadvantages................................................................................................................................... 27 Manual Method Suitability for Steel Lake.................................................................................................................. 27 6.3 Diver Dredging..........................................................................................................................................27 DiverDredging Advantages........................................................................................................................................ 28 DiverDredging Disadvantages.................................................................................................................................... 28 Diver Dredging Permit Requirements......................................................................................................................... 28 Diver Dredging Suitability for Steel Lake................................................................................................................... 28 6.4 Bottom Barriers..........................................................................................................................................28 BottomBarrier Advantages......................................................................................................................................... 29 Bottom Barrier Disadvantages..................................................................................................................................... 29 Bottom Barrier Permit Requirements.......................................................................................................................... 29 Bottom Barrier Suitability for Steel Lake.................................................................................................................... 29 6.5 Biological Control......................................................................................................................................29 6.5.1 Grass Carp.............................................................................................................................................................. 30 6.5.2 Watermilfoil Weevil............................................................................................................................................... 31 6.6 Rotovation..................................................................................................................................................32 6.7 Harvesting..................................................................................................................................................32 6.8 Mechanical Cutting....................................................................................................................................32 6.9 Drawdown..................................................................................................................................................33 6.10 No Action Alternative.................................................................................................................................33 7.0 INTEGRATED AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT PLAN ...........................33 8.0 PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION AND AQUATIC HABITAT...................................34 9.0 ALGAE MANAGEMENT PLAN...............................................................................................................36 10.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM...................................................................................36 11.0 LAKE OUTLET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM......................................................................................37 12.0 CANADA GEESE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM....................................................................................37 13.0 COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM....................................................38 14.0 LMD ANNUAL COSTS AND COMMITTEE AUTHORIZATION......................................................38 14.1 Primary LMD Management Goal..............................................................................................................39 14.2 Optional LMD Management Goals............................................................................................................ 40 14.3 SLAC Responsibilities/Authority................................................................................................................41 14.4 Petition to Create LMD.............................................................................................................................41 15.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................43 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 8 of 76 APPENDICES Appendix A ........................................................... Petition Signatures and SLMD Map Appendix B........................................................... Assessment Rate by Parcel LIST OF FIGURES Fig 1..................................................................... Steel Lake Waters hed/Storm water Conveyance Map Fig 2..................................................................... Steel Lake Land Use Map Fig 3.....................................................................2010 Steel Lake Bathymetry Map Fig 4..................................................................... Steel Lake TSI values, 1994-2004 LIST OF TABLES Table 1................................................................. Land Use Estimates for the Steel Lake Watershed Table 2................................................................. Shoreline Use Estimates for Steel Lake Table 3................................................................. Physical Characteristics of the Steel Lake Watershed Table 4..................................................... ............ Trophic State Index (TSI) Water Quality Parameters Table 5................................................................. List of Steel Lake Beneficial Uses Table 6.................................................................2002 WDFW Total Fish Counts Table 7................................................................. Kent/Auburn Rainer Audubon 2010 Bird Count Table 8................................................................. Primary LIVID Management Goals Table 9................................................................. Estimated Annual Cost for Contracted Aquatic Plant Management Program Table 10...............................................................Optional LIVID Management Goals Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 9 of 76 Page Intentionally Left Blank Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 10 of 76 INTRODUCTION In 2003, the City of Federal Way City Council, by Ordinance 03-452, created the inaugural ten-year Steel Lake Management District (LMD) Number 1 sun -setting on December 31, 2013. Ordinance 13-744 renewed Steel Lake Management District Number 1 for a second multi -year period sun -setting December 31, 2023. The process for a third multi -year renewal was established by Resolution 23-038, and this document, the 2024-2033 Steel Lake Management District Plan (SLMDP), outlines management goals established by the Steel Lake Advisory Committee (SLAC) to provide the basis for a renewed Steel Lake Management District, set to become effective at the beginning of 2024, and sun -setting December 31, 2033. Per SLAC direction, this SLMDP is based on prior SLMD plans. Only minor edits have been made for continuity. Per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.21.403, any city or town may establish lake management districts (LMD) within its boundaries as provided in chapter 36.61 RCW. The Washington State legislature finds that the environmental, recreational, and aesthetic values of many of the state's lakes are threatened by eutrophication and other deterioration and that existing governmental authorities are unable to adequately improve and maintain the quality of the state's lakes. It is through RCW 36.61 that a governmental mechanism may be established by which property owners can embark on a program of lake improvement and maintenance for their and the general public's benefit, health, and welfare. RCW 36.61.020 outlines the requirements for the creation of a lake management district, including the protocols for financing the LMD improvements and maintenance of a lake. RCW 36.61 also describes the set of activities permitted to be undertaken by an LMD: (1) The control or removal of aquatic plants and vegetation; (2) water quality; (3) the control of water levels; (4) storm water diversion and treatment; (5) agricultural waste control; (6) studying lake water quality problems and solutions; (7) cleaning and maintaining ditches and streams entering or leaving the lake; and (8) the related administrative, engineering, legal, and operational costs, including the costs of creating the lake management district. 1.0 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOALS Depending upon year-to-year fund balances, the renewed Steel Lake Management District Number 1 will allow for the implementation of all activities granted by RCW 36.61.020. However, a more reasonable set of management goals have been established for the 2024-2033 Steel Lake Management District Plan (SLMDP). These management goals are based upon lake improvement and maintenance activities that may be expected to be implemented over the LMD's ten-year period (2024-2033) per approval by the Steel Lake Advisory Committee (SLAC): 1. Management of non-native aquatic plants and vegetation 2. Preservation of native vegetation and aquatic habitat 3. Management of hazardous algae blooms 4. Water quality monitoring 5. Maintenance of lake outlet channel 6. Management of Canada geese CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 11 of 76 7. Community Education and Public Involvement 2.0 BACKGROUND AND PAST LAKE MANAGEMENT EFFORTS Past lake management work for Steel Lake has primarily been limited to aquatic plant management and public education and involvement. The following outlines these efforts. 2.1 Early efforts Until the incorporation of the City of Federal Way in 1990, the Steel Lake community was under the jurisdiction of King County. Early aquatic plant management efforts were spear -headed by the Steel Lake Residents Association to improve Steel Lake and the region around the lake. In the late 1980s, Steel Lake was reported to be infested by the non-native aquatic plant, Eurasian watermilfoil (see Section 5.2.3 for a description. The Eurasian watermilfoil (milfoil) infestation covered large littoral areas of Steel Lake up to the 15-foot depth interval, and was severe enough to result in the formation of dense beds that affected shallower near shore areas. The conditions caused restrictions to fishing, swimming, sailing, and other types of boating. In 1990, Federal Way was incorporated as a city and the Surface Water Management (SWM) division began actively engaging in the lake water quality issues. By 1994 the City of Federal Way and the Steel Lake Residents' Association agreed to equally fund a multi -year aquatic plant management program for Steel Lake to combat recurring milfoil infestations. In addition, the City was able to obtain a Department of Ecology Grant to augment costs. During a successive four-year period, a number of efforts were undertaken by the Residents' Association -City alliance including: a whole -lake Sonar® treatment in 1994 (Resource Management, Inc.); annual diver surveys (Herrera Environmental); and the preparation of a 1994 Lake Management Plan (Envirovision,1994). 2.2 2001- 2002 A lull followed the mid -to -late 1990's aquatic vegetation work, then Steel Lake became reinfested with milfoil in the summer of 2001. The City of Federal Way provided notification of the issue to all Steel Lake residents and immediately began to develop a strategy for future aquatic weed management. In early 2002, although the Steel Lake Residents' Association had dissolved, SWM began gathering support of lakefront residents to re-form the aquatic plant management program. SWM obtained a two-year Early Infestation Grant from the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) that funded a series of underwater surveys and provided permit -authorized and contractor -implemented 2,4-D herbicide treatments that were successful in eradicating a five -acre milfoil infestation. Concurrently, efforts also began that year to form a Steering Committee to initiate the process to create a Lake Management District (LMD) for Steel Lake. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 12 of 76 2.3 2003 In 2003, SWM staff completed an updated Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) required by the Ecology -issued Aquatic Noxious Weed Control National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge General Permit. The IAVMP was approved by Ecology and provided the basis for LMD development. That year, SWM coordinated a number of Steel Lake Steering Committee meetings that resulted in the formation of a long-term aquatic vegetation management work plan. Cost estimates from both the IAVMP and the work plan were used to calculate the necessary property assessment rates (based on parcel types) that would be required to fund a ten-year LMD. AquaTechnex continued to work under contract for the City in 2003. Two systematic aquatic plant diver surveys were performed that established populations of all submerged, floating and emergent aquatic plants (both native and non-native). Following the successful efforts taken under the Ecology Grant in 2002, milfoil populations were limited and scuba -diver hand -pulling was sufficient to control the infestation. After a public vote and action by Federal Way City Council, the process to form Steel Lake Management District Number One was completed toward the end of 2003. The ten-year LMD began in 2004. 2.4 2004-2013 Surface Water Management (SWM) has facilitated aquatic plant management activities on Steel Lake per the ten-year (2004-2013) Steel Lake Management District (LMD). In summary, the annual LMD programs have been administered through the implementation of work plans that included: quarterly Advisory Committee meetings, annual aquatic plant surveys, treatment and control methods as warranted, and effective public education. 2.5 2014-2023 Surface Water Management (SWM) has facilitated aquatic plant management activities on Steel Lake per the ten-year (2014-2023) Steel Lake Management District (LMD). In summary, the annual LMD programs have been administered through the implementation of work plans that included: quarterly Advisory Committee meetings, annual aquatic plant surveys, treatment and control methods as warranted, and effective public education. 3.0 LAKE AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS The Steel Lake watershed is located approximately twenty miles south of Seattle, in the City of Federal Way, King County, Washington. The watershed is 429 acres in size and drains a gently sloping topographic area with elevations ranging from 440 feet to 500 feet (Figure 1). The entire watershed of Steel Lake lies within the City of Federal Way. 3 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 13 of 76 3.1 Land Use Land use in the watershed is primarily comprised of single-family residences (Figure 2 and Table 1). Steel Lake Park, multi -family residences, and vacant land comprise most of the remaining land in the watershed. It should be noted that the sub -basin boundary in Figure I and land use estimates in Table I are for Redondo Creek sub -basin CPR3, which includes an additional acreage to the north and west of the lake outlet. MW 0— Awu 2Cis City of Figure 1: Federal Way Watershed Sbfmwafer Conveyance Map J Viatersned gtorrkiWateF C Qnveya noe --PIP K5 I, -- IF — CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 14 of 76 City of Figure 2: Federal Way watershed Land Use Map tP �s; 0000 xye�iMap a � 7 O y Jr p 3' ^ pS�nsT xAi e b r w w F ffi 4 t J M .T - z; � � ...�� L ter• xol Land Use Category aa� r- sx" b "8p^ �� L>�ar Drainage .�6t ST £ a R E 4 zm _+ tm�s� Industrial a R �3w cr - Instutiortal MukLFarnRfqs�r- _. ofca K Open hAF s y Parka�T; Rigttt Df Way -y -! sT co -• �.`> r & SWL- Family 3L� ITR LUibes W 7'2 ST yf7 ST L�rant 6m 2,7: _ Federal Way FEP' Table 1. Land Use Estimates for the Steel Lake Watershed (Subbasin CPR3) Land Use Classification Area (Acres) Percent (%) Commercial 12.34 2.88 Drainage 0.74 0.17 Industrial 0.6 0.14 Institutional 5.81 1.36 Multi -family 27.26 6.36 Office 5.84 1.36 Open Space 2.65 0.62 Park 28.70 6.70 Right of Way 65.23 15.22 Single family 172.27 40.19 Steel Lake 47.37 11.05 Utilities 2.29 0.54 Vacant 57.52 13.42 Watershed (Total) 428.63 100.00 Data Source: King County Parcel Assessor Information and City of Federal Way GIS, 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 15 of 76 3.2 Shoreline Use Steel Lake includes 7,129 feet of shoreline (Table 2). The majority of the shoreline includes lake frontage adjacent to single-family property (5,179 feet). Public access to the lake is from Steel Lake Park (parcel 092104 9026), owned and managed by the City of Federal Way. The Park is located on the south shore of the lake and includes a public beach area. A public boat launch (parcel 798440 0210), also located on the south shore near the park, is owned by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The largest undeveloped parcel (092104 9012) is located at the northwest corner, and has a shoreline measuring 542 feet, with a portion classified as a Category I Wetland (see Section 3.3). Table 2. Shoreline Use Estimates for Steel Lake Shoreline Use Total frontage (ft) Percent %) Single family 5,178.63 72.64 Steel Lake Park 872.67 12.24 Vacant 699.1 9.81 Multi family 314.13 4.41 Public boat launch 64.49 0.90 Total 7,129.03 100.00 Data Source: King County Parcel Assessor Information and City of Federal Way GIS, 2012 3.3 Outlet, Stream and Wetland Locations Steel Lake forms the headwaters of Redondo Creek. Outflow from the lake generally occurs only during the wet season (November through April). The lake outlet drains in a northwest direction from the west end of the lake, passing through wetlands to a culvert crossing at South 304th Street. The outlet continues to flow underneath Pacific Highway South to eventually discharge into Puget Sound at Redondo Beach in the City of Des Moines (approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the lake). The Steel Lake outlet channel has a history of flow congestion due to an accumulation of sediment, fallen trees, woody debris, invasive blackberry vegetation, and trash. In addition, there is a lack of a defined channel immediately downstream of the lake. SWM will continue to maintain the culvert crossing at S. 304' Street. In addition, it is envisioned that the Steel Lake LMD will maintain the wetland area upstream of the culvert crossing to minimize impacts to lake levels caused by identified causes and natural wetland processes. Steel Lake wetland areas were surveyed by Sheldon & Associates for the City of Federal Way in 1998, and this information is included in the July 1999 Final Wetland Inventory Report. The purpose of the wetlands inventory report was to identify and map the general location of the wetlands within the city limits of Federal Way. General wetland and buffer conditions and characteristics, wetland sizes, and wetland ratings based on the City's proposed rating system are provided in the report. Although all wetlands inventoried were mapped, the inventory process did not include delineation of wetland edges (only approximate boundaries and locations of wetlands were determined). CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 16 of 76 The 1999 Sheldon & Associates Final Wetland Inventory Report lists two separate categories of wetlands associated with Steel Lake: Category I wetland at the west end of Steel Lake (04-21-04-39) on parcels 092104 9196 and 092104 9124. Category I wetlands are defined as those greater than 2,500 square feet in area and those that meet one of the following criteria: 1. Contain the presence of species or documented habitat recognized by state or federal agencies as endangered, threatened or potentially extirpated plant, fish or animal species; or 2. Contain the presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological functions, or exceptional local significance including but not limited to estuarine systems, peat bogs and fens, mature forested wetlands, groundwater exchange areas, significant habitat or unique educational sites; or 3. Have three or more wetland classes one of which is open water. 2. Category III wetlands at the north shore (09-21-04-38) from approximately 2111 South 304' Street east to 2231 South 304' Street. These Category III wetlands are described as having an approximate cumulative size between 500 to 2,500 square feet. Category III wetlands do not exhibit characteristics of Category I or II wetlands. 3.4 Non -point Nutrient Source Locations The majority of surface water is conveyed to the lake through the City's stormwater system from the 429- acre watershed. (Figure 1). The largely urbanized nature of the watershed contributes typical urban area nutrient -related pollutants to the lake, in particular nitrogen and phosphorous. Pollutant sources in the watershed —including landscaping, gardening, domestic pets, flocks of resident and migratory Canada geese, and vehicle washing in upland areas of the watershed —all have the potential to contribute a loading of nutrients into the lake. Large concentrations of these non -point nutrients can increase the biological productivity of the lake and stimulate plant growth. It is worthy to note that all lakefront residences and most of the development in the watershed are connected to the Lakehaven Utility District sanitary sewer system. 3.5 Lake Bathymetry On March 11, 2010, AquaTechnex completed a bathymetry mapping effort for Steel Lake (Figure 3). A sonar unit accurate to a tenth of a foot was paired with a Trimble GPS data logger with sub -foot accuracy to record depth readings at two second intervals along pre -determined transects. There were a total of 20,674 points generated in the production of the mapping effort. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 17 of 76 Figure 3, 2010 Steel Lake Bathymetry Map Physical characteristics of Steel Lake are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Physical Characteristics of Steel Lake Watershed Characteristic Unit Surface area 48.6 acres Lake volume 607 acre-feet Maximum depth 29 feet Average depth 12.5 feet Lake altitude 440 feet Shoreline length 7,129 feet Data Source: AquaTechnex Bathymetry Mapping, 2010. Note that the lake surface area calculated by AquaTechnex reflects full lake pool conditions, and differs from the figure provided in Table 1. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 18 of 76 3.6 Water Source The majority of surface water enters the lake via stormwater outfalls located around the perimeter of the lake (Figure 1). No streams flow into the lake. 3.7 Water Quality Population growth, and specifically residential development, is associated with many environmental impacts, including nutrient pollution and subsequent eutrophication of lakes. Eutrophication of lakes refers to a group of symptoms that lakes generally display when they have been overloaded by nutrients, namely nitrogen and phosphorus. These symptoms include a disruption of the natural ecological state of the lake, including higher primary production, higher algae biomass, and a shifting of the algal community to a larger proportion of large blue-green algae that can be toxic to humans and pets. Thus, eutrophication often leads to lakes that are less economically beneficial and less aesthetically desirable to humans (2003, Moore, Schindler, Scheuerell, Smith and Frodge). Although the developed region surrounding Steel Lake has seen a reduction in point source nutrient pollution (i.e. hook up to public sanitary systems), there continues to be sources of nonpoint pollution in the watershed. 3.7.1 Historic Water Quality Data A King County Lake Stewardship Program Volunteer Monitoring Program for Steel Lake began in the 1980s and continued for several decades until budget cuts ended the program in 2004. The most recent data generated by this program indicates that Steel Lake is relatively low in primary productivity (borderline oligotrophic to mesotrophic) with very good water quality. The assessment of biological activity (or trophic state) can be classified into three general categories of lake water quality: oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic. A common measurement used to calculate a lake's water quality classification is the numerical trophic state index (illustrated in Table 4). Lakes with low concentrations of nutrients, low concentrations of algae, and high transparency (or clarity) are considered oligotrophic. A lake with high concentrations of nutrients and algae and low transparency is considered eutrophic. Lakes whose quality ranges between eutrophic and oligotrophic are considered mesotrophic. Table 4. Trophic State Index (TSI) Water Quality Parameters Trophic State/Biological Activity TSI Oligotrophic/Low <40 Mesotrophic/Moderate 40-50 Eutrophic/High >50 Data Source: Carlson, 1977 9 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 19 of 76 Historical water quality data for Steel Lake are represented graphically in Figure 4. The data indicate Steel Lake has been consistently trending toward lower primary productivity (borderline oligotrophic to mesotrophic) with very good water quality. Figure 4, Steel Lake TSI 1994-2004 a� 70 60 50 40 30 20 0— Secchi - - -• - - - Chlor I Tote un r— L10 0) C N cl) ";r co 6] OY M 6] 07 C C Q Ca C N CD N N O CV Data Source: King County Lake Stewardship Program 3.7.2 Water Quality Assessments The federal Clean Water Act, adopted in 1972, requires that all states restore their waters to be "fishable and swimmable." Washington's Water Quality Assessment —developed by the Department of Ecology —lists the water quality status for all water bodies in the state. This assessment meets the federal requirements for an integrated report under Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. The most up-to-date information, The 2018 Water Quality Assessment was reviewed for the 2024- 2033 Steel Lake Management District Plan, which includes three assessment listings for Steel Lake: 1. Fecal Coliform, Category 2, Waters of Concern: Waters where the data are not sufficient for listing a waterbody segment as impaired but may still raise a concern about water quality. • Department of Ecology lakes monitoring data shows 0 of 3 daily maximum samples exceeded the percentile criterion in 2003. Samples were collected near Steel Lake Park recreation area to reflect water quality conditions in this area only. • King County unpublished data from station A730 show a geometric mean of 134 cfu/100mL with 50% exceeding the percentile criterion during 1998. • King County unpublished data from station A730 show a geometric mean of 260 cfu/100mL with 100% exceeding the percentile criterion during 1999. • Remarks: Based on comments produced by the City of Federal Way, the assessment for this listing was changed from Category 5 (Polluted Waters that Require a TMDL) to Category 2 (Waters of Concern) on January 5, 2006. 10 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 20 of 76 2. Invasive Exotic Species, Category 4C, Impaired water that does not require a TMDL: Water impairment by causes that cannot be addressed through a TMDL plan. Impairments in these water bodies include low water flow, stream channelization, and dams. These problems, while not pollutants, require complex solutions to help restore water bodies to more natural conditions. • Ecology survey (Parsons and O'Neal, 2000) found Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). • Ecology surveys between 2006-2017 found Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). • Remarks: Based on comments produced by the City of Federal Way, the assessment for this listing was changed from Category 4C (Waters Impaired by a Non -Pollutant) to Category 2 (Waters of Concern) on January 31, 2005. However, it reverted back to Category 4C during the 2018 assessment cycle based on Ecology surveys between 2006-2017. 3. Total Phosphorus, Category 1, Meets tested standards for clean water: Water body meets the state water quality standards. • King County Volunteer Citizen Monitoring Program shows total phosphorus did not exceed the water quality standards nutrient criterion from samples collected between 1998-2002. 3.8 Water Rights In June 2012, the Department of Ecology Water Resources Program was accessed electronically to determine current water right certificates, water use permits, applications for water use, and claims of water use on Steel Lake (Ecology, 2012). Using Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, it was determined that only one Certificate of Water Right currently exists on Steel Lake: • 2605 South 304' Street (parcel 092104 9078). 3.9 Beneficial and Recreational Uses Table 5 contains a list of beneficial uses that Steel Lake provides to area residents, visitors, and wildlife. In particular, the lake supports a large public park, excellent wetland habitat, and a trout -stocking program. It is also important to note that motorized boats are prohibited on Steel Lake per City of Federal Way Ordinance Number 12-715. i`tl_C11f' Steel Lake is managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as a trout and warm -water fishery. Between 1947 and 1969, the lake was rehabilitated on five occasions by treating with rotenone to reduce populations of spiny -ray fish and was stocked each of those years with approximately 7,000 rainbow trout fry (Salmo gairdneri). Due to the mixed species character of the fish community and the poor survival of trout fry, the fish management program changed in the 1970s by eliminating rotenone treatments and by stocking with rainbow trout of catchable size (between 8 and 12 inches long) in the spring of each year (City of Federal Way, 2003). Since 1991 an average of 6,000 trout have been released into the lake each year. 11 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 21 of 76 Table 5. List of Beneficial Uses for Steel Lake Beneficial Use Location Swimming Public and private shorelines and docks Fishing Whole lake Sailing Whole lake Waterfowl habitat Concentrated along western shore Aesthetic enjoyment In lake and surrounding shoreline Bird watching Throughout the lake Wetland habitat Near the lake outlet (western end of the lake) Wildlife habitat Crayfish, turtles, and frogs primarily near shore Trout stocking Deep water habitat. No trout spawn in the lake City park Approximately 873 feet of shoreline Fish habitat Spawning (warmwater fish) occurs near docks and lilies in the west end. No salmon spawn in the lake Table 6. 2002 WDFW Total Fish Counts Species Yellow Perch Largemouth Bass Pumpkinseed Rainbow Trout Brown Bullhead Total Sampled 621 148 79 16 37 Percent 68.9% 16.4% 8% 4.1 % 1.8% Size, 1-4 inch 4 88 8 0 0 Size, 4-7 inch 46 49 51 0 2 Size, 7-11 inch 22 7 28 37 12 Size, 11-14 inch 0 1 0 0 2 Size, 14-17 inch 0 1 0 0 0 Size, 17-19 inch 0 2 0 0 0 The Kent/Auburn chapter of the Rainier Audubon Society 2010 Christmas Bird Count may be used as a gauge of bird species that may visit Steel Lake (Table 7). Birds, mammals and small amphibians are also known to use Steel Lake. Residents report seeing muskrats, bald eagles, skunks, raccoons, opossums, squirrels, turtles and frogs. 12 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 22 of 76 Table 7. Kent/Auburn Rainier Audubon 2010 Christmas Bird Count Cackling Goose 399 Spotted Sandier 1 American Robin 821 Canada Goose 1029 Black Turnstone 20 Varied Thrush 38 Trumpeter Swan 34 Wilson's Snipe 10 European Starling 2407 Wood Duck 2 Mew Gull 77 American Pipit 1 Gadwall 134 Ring -billed Gull 2 Yelow-rum ed Warbler 64 Eurasian Wi eon 7 California Gull 15 Townsend's Warbler 7 American Widgeon 1883 Herring Gull 3 Common Yellowthroat 0 Mallard 1674 Tha er's Gull 1 S otted Towhee 128 Green -winged Teal 1276 Western Gull 2 Savannah Sparrow 8 Eurasian GW Teal 1 Glaucous -winged Gull 645 Fox Sparrow 96 Northern Shoveler 285 Gull sp. 230 Sonf Sparrow 513 Northern Pintail 1955 Pigeon Guillemot 6 Lincoln's Sparrow 28 Canvasback 11 Rhinoceros Auklet 2 White -throated Sparrow 1 Redhead 21 Rock Pigeon 1159 White -crowned Sparrow 64 Ring -neck duck 604 Band -tailed Pigeon 13 Dark -eyed Junco 616 Greater Scaup 1 Mourning Dove 7 State -colored Junco 2 Harlequin Duck 79 Barn Owl 3 Red -winged Blackbird 628 Surf Scoter 4 Western Screech Owl 1 Brewer's Blackbird 500 White -winged Scoter 576 Great Horned Owl 4 Brown -headed Cowbird 21 Black Scoter 17 Barred Owl 1 Purple Finch 15 Bufflehead 7 Short -eared Owl 0 House Finch 202 Common Goldene a 478 Northern Saw -whet Owl 1 Pine Siskin 434 Barrow's Goldene a 92 Anna's Hummingbird 30 American Goldfinch 47 Hooded Merganser 71 Belted Kingfisher 16 Evening Grosbeak 125 Common Merganser 102 Downey Woodpecker 18 House Sparrow 108 Red -breasted Merganser 164 Hairy Woodpecker 10 Cooper's Hawk 9 Ruddy Duck 29 Northern Flicker 141 Red-tailed Hawk 89 California Quail 182 Pileated Woodpecker 14 Merlin 6 Red -throated Loon 10 Northern Shrike 1 Peregrine falcon 2 Pied -billed Grebe 46 Hutton's Vireo 5 Virginia Rail 12 Horned Grebe 73 Steller's Jay 91 American Coot 454 Red -necked Grebe 24 Western scrub Jay 10 Killdeer 6 Dble-crested Cormorant 105 1 American Crow 4749 Bewick's Wren 73 Pelagic Cormorant 1 Common Raven 8 Pacific Wren 104 American Bittern 2 Black -capped Chickadee 482 Marsh Wren 60 Great Blue Heron 33 Chestnut Chickadee 224 American Dipper 1 Green Heron 1 Bushtit 265 Golden Kinglet 388 Bald Eagle 36 Red -breasted Nuthatch 30 Ruby Kinglet 136 Sharp -shinned Hawk 10 Brown Creeper 16 Hermit Thrush 4 Available information on sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic animals (excluding fish) is county - specific, and little or no information is available on Steel Lake proper. Several non-native animal species are known to inhabit Steel Lake, including red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), Chinese mystery snails (Bellamya chinensis) and the red -eared slider turtle (Trachemys scripta elegans). These species were likely introduced to Steel Lake, and although the impact of these non-native species is unknown, most invasive aquatic animal species compete against native species for food sources, thereby presenting implications for the lake ecosystem if they multiply dramatically. 13 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 23 of 76 In 2012, AquaTechnex completed a Steel Lake Discharge Management Plan (DMP) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum per the requirements of the State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Aquatic Plant and Algae General Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit section S2.13. This requirement must be satisfied when the total proposed treated area in the water body is expected to be five or more acres. The SEPA Addendum includes an "environmental checklist" that examines the potential impacts of the project on the environment and answers questions regarding the current status of Steel Lake including but not limited to: presence of sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic plant species; sensitive habitats or wetlands; threatened or endangered fish species; aquatic animals using the water body; sensitive, threatened or endangered aquatic animals; and waterfowl and other types of birds. Historical observations of sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic plant species have been documented, but only reported for King County as a whole in the years prior to 1977. None listed have been reported or identified within Steel Lake (AquaTechnex, 2012). According to the Washington Department of Natural Resources database of high quality/rare ecological communities, there are no sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic plant species located in Steel Lake (2012 DMS, AquaTechnex). 4.0 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are generally of limited distribution, invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's water bodies if left unchecked. Because nonnative plants have few natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out - competing and effectively destroying native plant and animal habitats. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lakefront properties. The historical presence of aquatic plants in Steel Lake, (including non-native and noxious species), have been shown to impair the use and aesthetic value of the lake. Because of the lake's shallow characteristics, aquatic plants have the potential to restrict the available area for recreation activities such as fishing, swimming and boating. In addition, other regional lakes are in danger of becoming infested with noxious or invasive aquatic plants originating in Steel Lake. The 2024-2033 Steel Lake Management District Plan provides a long-term strategy for the control of aquatic plants in Steel Lake. Under the authority of Chapter 17.10 RCW, the King County Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on each species' stage of invasion. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un-infested areas of Washington. The following three major 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. 14 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 24 of 76 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. Between 2000 and 2012, the following five noxious weed species were detected in Steel Lake: Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum B Fragrant water lily Nymphaea odorata C Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus C Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum B 5.0 AQUATIC PLANT CHARACTERISTICS Steel Lake is a typical urban Western Washington naturally -formed glacial lake, and the aquatic plants (both native and non-native) that inhabit it are also typical. 5.1 Native Aquatic Plants in Steel Lake Through the LMD, annual systematic surveys have been performed on Steel Lake to identify and quantify the presence of native and non-native aquatic vegetation. This information has provided a continued baseline of lake plant communities. Overall, the Steel Lake native aquatic plant community has been rated as healthy. Native vegetation has covered most littoral areas and did not interfere with the water use designations for the lake community during the period (swimming, boating, and fishing). Based upon the information provided in the annual surveys, Steel Lake has been within the parameters calculated from WDFW and Ecology criteria and adopted by the SLMDP for native vegetation littoral zone coverage (See section 8.0). The following includes a summary of the types and characteristics of the dominant aquatic plant species found during Steel Lake Aquatic Plant Surveys that have been conducted during the last eight years. A portion of this information has been obtained from the Department of Ecology website (Ecology, 2012). 5.1.1 Native Emergent Plants There have been no dominant native emergent plant types noted in Steel Lake. Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches have been a number of emergent species, Typha spp. (Cattail), Eleocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush), that grow in shallow lake margins. 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 Steel Lake's native emergent vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and helps to stabilize shorelines. 15 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 25 of 76 5.1.2 Native Rooted Floating -Leaved Plants The most dominant native rooted floating -leaved plant type that has been noted in Steel Lake is Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily). This plant is a perennial water lily plant that has established a moderate -sized stand in the shallow waters of the lake near the public beach and swimming area. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and provides spawning habitat for fish. 5.1.3 Native Submerged Macrophytes The most dominant native submerged macrophyte communities noted in Steel Lake are as follows: Small -leafed pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus) These pondweeds have long, narrow leaves, and except for an occasional flower spike that briefly rises above the water, they remain underwater for their entire lives. Their stems are slender and profusely branched, and often have small, paired yellowish glands at the leaf base. The flower appears in 1-4 whorls on spikes measuring 3-15 mm long, not always above the water. The root is fibrous to form the base of the plant. The plant's seeds and winter buds form at the lateral branch tips and near the leaf bases. Its seeds and vegetation provide cover and food for aquatic animals. Naiads (Naja flexilis) Naiads (or slender water -nymph and common water -nymph) are completely submerged annual plants, although they are often found as floating fragments. They have opposite leaves that are often clustered near the tips of the stems. The leaf base is much wider than the rest of the leaf blade, which helps to distinguish the naiads from other underwater plants. These plants have inconspicuous flowers and fruits that are almost completely hidden by the leaf bases. Naiad pollination takes place underwater. The plants have glossy, green, and finely toothed leaves that are oppositely arranged, but appear to be whorled near ends of the stems. The leaves are long and narrow with broad bases that clasp the stem, and taper to a long point 1-3 cm long and 1-2 mm wide. The entire plant is eaten by waterfowl. Naiads are considered to be one of their most important food sources. They also provide shelter for small fish and insects. 5.1.4 Native Submerged Macroalgae The most dominant native submerged macroalgae communities noted in Steel Lake are as follows (information obtained in part from the Department of Ecology website): Plant -like algae (Chara, spp) Although these common lake inhabitants look similar to many underwater plants, they are actually algae. Chara are green or gray -green colored algae that grow completely submersed in shallow (4 cm) to deep (20 m) water. Individuals can vary greatly in size, ranging from 5 cm to 1 m in length. These algae are identifiable by their strong skunk -like or garlic odor, especially evident when crushed. Chara, like other algae, do not produce flowers. Instead, microscopic, one -celled sex organs called oogonia are formed. These tiny organs and patterns in the cases that surround them are 16 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 26 of 76 used to distinguish between species. Tiny spores are produced in fruiting bodies. In some species the fruiting bodies are orange and very conspicuous. In addition, Chara may be attached to the bottom by root -like structures called holdfasts. Plant -like algae (Nitella, sp.) Nitellas are bright green algae that often are mistaken for higher plants because they appear to have leaves and stems. These long, slender, delicate, smooth -textured algae lie on the bottom of a lake or pond and are seldom found in the water column. They often grow in deeper water than flowering plants and frequently form a thick carpet or grow in clumps along the bottom. Whorls of forked branches are attached at regularly spaced intervals along the "stems". Nitellas sometime grow together with muskgrasses (Chara spp.), another plant -like algae, to form underwater meadows. The plant has no true leaves. Six -eight evenly forked branchlets grow in whorls at regularly spaced intervals along the "stem". Unlike the rough branchlets of most muskgrasses (Chara spp.), Nitella branchlets have a smooth texture. Nitellas have no true stems, but have hollow, stem -like structures that have whorls of forked branches along their entire length. The largest Nitella species have "stems" up to 2 m long. The plant does not bear flowers; instead they have microscopic spore -producing organs. The plants may be attached to the bottom by root -like structures called holdfasts or be floating free above the sediment. Nitellas provide cover for fish, food for fish and waterfowl, and stabilize the sediment. Because they have no roots, they remove nutrients directly from the water. Nitellas are considered desirable species in Washington. 5.2 Non -Native Aquatic Plants in Steel Lake As with native aquatic plants, annual systematic surveys performed on Steel Lake have identified and located non-native aquatic vegetation. From this information, control strategies have been developed. Steel Lake non-native aquatic plant community has been limited to four noxious species: Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Class B; Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata) Class C; Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) Class C; and Japanese knotweed (Polygonum spidatum) Class B. The following sections describe these non-native plant species in greater detail. 5.2.1 Non -Native Emergent Plants The non-native emergent plants noted in Steel Lake are as follows: Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) Yellow flag iris is a Class C Noxious Weed. Yellow flag iris is native to mainland Europe, the British Isles, and the Mediterranean region of North Africa and was introduced widely in western Washington as a garden ornamental, the earliest from Lake McMurray in Skagit County in 1948. The yellow flowers are a distinguishing characteristic, and when not in flower, it may be confused with cattail (Typha sp.) or broad -fruited bur -reed (Sparganium eurycarpum).Yellow flag iris is considered an obligate wetland species, with a >99% probability of occurring in wetlands as opposed to upland areas. The plants produce large fruit capsules and corky seeds in the late summer. Yellow flag iris can spread by both seeds and by rhizome growth, where it can 17 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 27 of 76 form dense stands that can exclude even the toughest native wetland species, such as Typha latifolia (cattail). In addition to threatening plant diversity, this noxious weed can also alter hydrologic dynamics through sediment accretion along the shoreline. This species produces prolific seeds that may easily transport downstream to invade other valuable resource areas. Yellow flag iris continues to populate shoreline areas of Steel Lake, but its numbers are decreasing as it has been effectively targeted for treatment through the LMD aquatic plant management program. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) is a Class B Noxious Weed. It is an escaped ornamental that is becoming increasingly common along stream corridors and rights -of -way in Washington. The plant has spreading rhizomes and numerous reddish -brown, freely branched stems. It can reach four to eight feet in height and is often shrubby. Although not formally listed as an aquatic plant by the Department of Ecology, Japanese knotweed can form dense stands that crowd out all other vegetation, degrading native plant and animal habitat. It is difficult to control because it has an extremely vigorous deep and dense rhizomes mat system. In addition, the plant can re -sprout from fragments to create new shoreline infestations. Japanese knotweed (JK) was documented to be colonizing a very small area on one single property shoreline along South 308t' Street. After two successive glyphosate treatments ending in 2009, it has been successfully eradicated. 5.2.2 Non -Native Rooted Floating -Leaved Plants The only non-native rooted floating -leaved plant noted in Steel Lake is: Fragrant water lily/ White water lily (Nymphaea odorata) Fragrant water lily is a Class C Noxious Weed. Fragrant waterlilies are water plants with floating leaves and large, many -petaled fragrant blossoms. Requests for waterlily control represent a high percentage of the herbicide permit requests received by the Department of Ecology. The hardy white and (sometimes) pink lilies have become naturalized in Washington lakes and rivers. These plants are native to the eastern United States and it is believed that the waterlily was introduced to Washington in the late 1800s. Water lilies have been intentionally planted in many Washington lakes, especially those lakes in western Washington. Lake residents are strongly discouraged from planting fragrant waterlilies in lakes or natural waterbodies because they are aggressive plants. Oftentimes "hitchhiker" plants such as hydrilla can also be introduced to our lakes when water lilies are planted. Shallow lakes like Steel Lake are particularly vulnerable to becoming completely covered by fragrant waterlilies. Left unmanaged, waterlilies will restrict lake -front access and eliminate swimming opportunities. Waterlilies grow in dense patches, excluding native species and even creating stagnant areas with low oxygen levels underneath the floating mats. These mats make it difficult to fish, water ski, swim, or even paddle a canoe through. Although relatively slow -spreading, waterlilies will 18 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 28 of 76 eventually colonize shallow water depths to six feet deep and can dominate the shorelines of shallow lakes. Waterlilies reproduce by seed and also by new plants sprouting from the large spreading roots (underground stems called rhizomes). A planted rhizome will cover about a 15-foot diameter in about five years. Each spring (April) new shoots appear from the rhizomes and grow up through the water until they reach the surface. The flowers appear from June to September. Root systems are tenacious, and if pieces of the rhizome are broken off during control efforts, they will drift to other locations and establish a new patch of lilies. Fragrant waterlily continues to populate sporadic areas of Steel Lake, but their numbers are decreasing as they have been effectively targeted for treatment through the LMD aquatic plant management program. 5.2.3 Non -Native Submerged Macrophytes The only non-native submerged macrophyte noted in Steel Lake is as follows: Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Eurasian watermilfoil (milfoil) is a Class B Noxious Weed. Because it is widely distributed and difficult to control, milfoil is considered to be the most problematic aquatic plant in Washington. The introduction of milfoil can drastically alter a waterbody's ecology. Milfoil forms very dense mats of vegetation on the surface of the water. These mats interfere with recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, water skiing, and boating. Milfoil is an attractive plant with feathery underwater foliage. Once commonly sold as an aquarium plant, milfoil originated from Europe and Asia. It was introduced to North America fifty to one -hundred years ago. The first known specimen of milfoil in Washington was collected from Lake Meridian near Seattle in 1965. By the mid-1970s it was also found in Lake Washington. Now milfoil is found throughout the Northwest; and in western Washington, has spread up and down the Interstate 5 corridor. Some tips to identify milfoil: Count the pairs of leaflets. Milfoil usually has twelve or more pairs on each leaf. Milfoil leaves tend to collapse around the stem when removed from the water. Other milfoil species have thicker stems and are usually more robust. The mature leaves are typically arranged in whorls of four around the stem. Milfoil is an extremely adaptable plant, able to tolerate and even thrive in a variety of environmental conditions. It grows in still to flowing waters, roots in water depths from one to ten meters (regularly reaching the surface while growing in water three to five meters deep), and can survive under ice. Relative to other submersed plants, milfoil requires high light, has a high photosynthetic rate, and can grow over a broad temperature range. Milfoil grows best on fine - textured, inorganic sediments and relatively poorly on highly organic sediments. The sheer mass of milfoil plants can interfere with water flow to cause flooding. Stagnant mats can create good habitat for mosquitoes. Milfoil mats can rob oxygen from the water by 19 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 29 of 76 preventing the wind from mixing the oxygenated surface waters to deeper water. The dense mats of vegetation can also increase the sedimentation rate by trapping sediments. Milfoil also starts spring growth sooner than native aquatic plants and can shade out these beneficial plants. When milfoil invades new territory, the species diversity of nearby aquatic plants typically declines. While some species of waterfowl will eat milfoil, it is not considered to be a good food source. Mono -specific stands of milfoil provide poor habitat for waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife. Significant rates of plant sloughing and leaf turnover, as well as the decomposition of high biomass at the end of the growing season, increase the internal loading of phosphorus and nitrogen to the water column. Dense milfoil mats alter water quality by raising pH, decreasing oxygen under the mats, and increasing temperature. Milfoil exhibits an annual pattern of growth. In the spring, shoots begin to grow rapidly as water temperatures approach 15 degrees centigrade. When they near the surface, shoots branch profusely, forming a dense canopy. The leaves below one -meter senesce in response to self - shading. Typically, plants flower upon reaching the surface (usually in mid- to late -July). After flowering, plant biomass declines as the result of the fragmentation of stems. Where flowering occurs early, plant biomass may increase again later in the growing season and a second flowering may occur. During fall, plants die back to the root crowns, which sprout again in the spring. Milfoil frequently over -winters in an evergreen form and may maintain considerable winter biomass. Although Milfoil can potentially spread by both sexual and vegetative means, vegetative spread is considered the major method of reproduction. During the growing season, the plant undergoes auto -fragmentation. The abscising fragments often develop roots at the nodes before separation from the parent plants. Fragments are also produced by wind and wave action and boating activities, with each fragment having the potential to develop into a new plant. Milfoil can easily be transported from lake to lake on boat trailers or fishing gear. Milfoil continues to re -infest areas of Steel Lake as it is transported into the waterbody via boats, trailers or waterfowl. But its densities have been held mostly in -check as it has been effectively targeted for early identification and treatment through the LMD aquatic plant management program. 6.0 AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES The aquatic plant management control goals outlined in the 2024-2033 Steel Lake Management District Plan (SLMDP) are based on, at a minimum, controlling three identified non-native plant communities: milfoil, fragrant water lily, and yellow flag iris. To some extent, native submerged plants may be also controlled if they are determined to impact the beneficial uses of the lake. The feasibility of the different plant control techniques will depend on the specific aquatic plant and the degree of control desired. This section outlines common methods used to control aquatic vegetation including their advantages and disadvantages, and their suitability for Steel Lake. 20 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 30 of 76 6.1 Aquatic Herbicides Aquatic herbicides are often required to manage freshwater noxious vegetation as the effects of the weeds may be significant and pervasive, having a serious potential to profoundly impact species diversity, habitat, water quality, recreation, water supply, drinking water, flood control, safety, and health. Aquatic herbicides are often the most effective tools to remove these invasive plants and restore the ecosystem (Ecology, 2012). Aquatic herbicides are chemicals specifically formulated for use in water to kill or control aquatic plants. Herbicides approved for aquatic use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been thoroughly reviewed and are considered compatible with the aquatic environment when used according to label directions. Note that the state of Washington imposes additional constraints on their use above and beyond federal guidelines. 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. Contact herbicides cause the parts of the plant in contact with the herbicide to die back, leaving the roots alive and able to regrow. Non -selective, broad spectrum herbicides will generally affect all plants that they come in contact with. Selective herbicides will affect only some plants. Dicots, broad leafed plants such as Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), will be affected by selective herbicides whereas monocots like Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa) may not be affected. The Integrated Aquatic Plant Management and Treatment Plan (Section 7) contains detailed information concerning the selected herbicide control measures used to prevent and/or halt the spread of aquatic plant species infestations to prevent potential lake degradation and to provide the opportunity for the reintroduction of native aquatic plants to Steel Lake. Because of environmental risks due to improper application practices, aquatic herbicide treatment in Washington state waters is regulated by the following restrictions: • Applicators must be licensed by the Washington State Department of Agriculture. Applicants must obtain coverage under a National Pollutant Elimination System Discharge (NPDES) permit before they can legally apply aquatic herbicides to the waters of the state. The Washington Department of Ecology requires notification and posting before treatment. Mitigation to protect rare plants or threatened and endangered species is also required. 6.1.1 Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit Aquatic herbicide applications on Steel Lake are covered under a State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Aquatic Plant and Algae General Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit). The current permit regulates the use of pesticides and other products applied to manage aquatic nuisance plants, noxious weeds, quarantine listed weeds, algae, and nutrients in fresh surface waters of the state of Washington. Permit requirements differ depending on plant growth forms and the legal status of the plant species. Impact to non -target plants is acceptable only to the extent needed to control the target plants. Ecology limits direct herbicide application to a percentage of the littoral zone for most control treatments to preserve native plant habitat. As such, one of the goals of the SLMDP will be to 21 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 31 of 76 maintain native aquatic vegetation for habitat while allowing partial plant removal to maintain recreation and other beneficial uses (see Section 8). Compliance with the permit ensures the following: 1. That the application of pesticides will not cause or contribute to a violation of the Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington (chapter 173-201A WAC), Ground Water Quality Standards (chapter 173-200 WAC), Sediment Management Standards (chapter 173-204 WAC), and human health -based criteria in the National Toxics Rule (40 CRF 131.36). 2. That all known, available, and reasonable methods of pollution control, prevention, and treatment (AKART) will be used when applying pesticides. Compliance with this permit, the Washington Pesticide Control Act and the requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) label constitute AKART. Additionally, Federal and state regulations require that effluent limits in an NPDES permit must be either technology or water quality -based: • Technology -based limitations are based upon the methods available to treat specific pollutants. Technology -based limits are set by EPA and published as a regulation or Ecology develops the limit on a case -by -case basis (40 CFR 125.3, and chapter 173-220 WAC). • Water quality -based limits are calculated so that the effluent will comply with the Surface Water Quality Standards (chapter 173-201A WAC), Ground Water Standards (chapter 173- 200 WAC), Sediment Quality Standards (chapter 173-204 WAC) or the National Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.36). • Ecology must apply the more stringent of these limits to each parameter of concern. Eradication projects target only state -listed noxious weeds or quarantine -list weeds. The goal is the complete and permanent removal of these species from the entire waterbody. Therefore, littoral zone limitations do not apply to eradication of noxious weeds or weeds on the quarantine list. Impacts to non -target plants are acceptable to the extent needed to eradicate the target plants. Eradication is allowed only for all noxious weeds as identified in chapter 16-750 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) including those targeted under the SLMDP: Eurasian water milfoil, fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris, and Japanese knotweed. 6.1.2 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Milfoil Steel Lake has experienced localized Eurasian watermilfoil (milfoil) infestations that have been controlled manually through diver hand -pulling. Infestations have reacted well to partial lake herbicide spot applications using 2,4-D AquaKleen® (2002), 2,4-D DMA*fVM (2005), and Triclopyr Renovate OTF (2009 and 2010). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WAC Chapter 16-750) lists milfoil as a Class B Weed: a non-native species that is designated for control in regions where it is not yet wide- spread, and where preventing new infestations is a high priority (as is the case with Steel Lake). 22 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 32 of 76 Milfoil, when detected in Steel Lake, shall be treated with aquatic herbicide only under State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Aquatic Plant and Algae General Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit coverage. When the aquatic plant surveys have detected milfoil in densities that require herbicide treatment, the contracted aquatic biologist will consult with SWM staff in the selection of the most appropriate product to be used (based on location of plants, product effectiveness, swimming restrictions, and cost). The current permit authorizes the Permittee to discharge the following herbicide products designated for milfoil control into freshwaters of the state: • 2,4-D: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, butoxyethyl ester • 2,4-D: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, dimethylamine salt (DMA*IVM) • Triclopyr TEA: Triethylamine salt of 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyloxyacetic acid 6.1.3 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Fragrant Waterlily Fragrant waterlily has historically infested Steel Lake, inhabiting near shore areas around the lake. Per the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WAC Chapter 16-750), fragrant water lily is a Class C Weed: a non-native weed that requires a long-term program of suppression and control. Under permit coverage, Steel Lake has seen progressive eradication of fragrant waterlily through implementation of selective herbicide treatments. The current permit authorizes the Permittee to discharge the following herbicide into freshwaters of the state: • Glyphosate: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, isopropylamine salt Glyphosate (trade names include Rodeo, AquaMaster, and AquaPro) is a systemic, broad spectrum herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic applications to floating -leaved plants and shoreline plants; it has no water use restrictions. It is generally applied as a liquid to the leaves. Plants treated with glyphosate can take several weeks to die and a repeat application is often necessary to remove plants that were missed during the first application. 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 or 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 can 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. Glyphosate has been very effective for treatment of fragrant waterlily colonies on Steel Lake because it can be applied directly to the floating leaves) making it easier to kill the targeted vegetation (unlike fluridone or endothall which must be applied to the water). Generally two applications of glyphosate have been required (second applications are made later in the summer to control plants missed during the first herbicide application). The control effectiveness of fragrant waterlily is easy to measure through visual surveys of the impact to floating leaves. 23 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 33 of 76 6.1.4 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Emergent Vegetation: Yellow Flag Iris and Japanese Knotweed Yellow flag iris and Japanese knotweed have historically infested Steel Lake. Under permit coverage, Steel Lake has seen the gradual eradication of yellow flag iris and Japanese knotweed through the application of selective herbicides. Per the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WAC Chapter 16-750), Yellow flag iris is a Class C Weed (a non-native weed that requires a long-term program of suppression and control); and Japanese knotweed is a Class B Weed (a non- native species that is designated for control in regions where it is not yet wide -spread and where preventing new infestations is a high priority, as is the case with Steel Lake). The current permit authorizes the Permittee to discharge the following herbicide into freshwaters of the state: • Glyphosate: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, isopropylamine salt These emergent species have abundant leaf surface areas that absorb the chemical for translocation. As Japanese knotweed is resistant to foliar application, stem injection of glyphosate has been accomplished. The use of glyphosate herbicide has enabled the elimination of mature plants without the destructive disturbance of the shoreline by excavation. Future applications will ensure that experienced herbicide applicators will selectively target individual weed species to limit collateral damage to other native plant species. The application of glyphosate to emergent plants (Yellow flag iris, and Japanese knotweed) has also allowed specific areas to be targeted for removal by manual spot applications on private property, which requires Temporary Rights of Entry granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds. 6.1.5 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Native Aquatic Plants The permit covers aquatic plant management activities including partial plant removal for recreation and other beneficial uses. Permit requirements differ depending on plant growth and the legal status of the plant species. Following aquatic plant surveys, or when lake residents report native plant growth in densities that may be impacting the beneficial uses of the lake (i.e. swimming, boating, fishing), the contracted aquatic biologist will be asked to provide their professional judgment regarding the need for control of native aquatic plants via herbicide treatment. The Steel Lake Advisory Committee (SLAG) will have the authority to approve or disapprove of contractor recommendations for native plant control. When required, the contracted aquatic biologist will consult with both SWM staff and the SLAC in the selection of the most appropriate herbicide product to be used (based on targeted plant species, location of plants, product effectiveness, swimming restrictions, and cost). The permit has vetted all permit -covered herbicide applications through the Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant Management Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The current permit authorizes the Permittee to discharge the following herbicides (expected products for native submerged vegetation control, i.e. Chara, spp. and Nitella, sp.) into freshwaters of the state: • Diquat: Dibromide salt of 6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2',1"-c) pyrazinediium • Endothall: Dipotassium salt of 7-oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2,3dicarboxylic acid 24 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 34 of 76 Endothall: mono(N,N-dimethylalkyalmine) salt of 7- oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2,3- dicarboxylic acid Imazamox:2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1 H-imidazol-2y1]-5- (methoxymethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid Aquatic Herbicide Control Advantages Aquatic herbicides are easily applied around docks and underwater obstructions. Aquatic herbicide application can be less expensive than other aquatic plant control methods, especially when used in controlling wide -spread infestations of state -listed noxious aquatic weeds. Aquatic Herbicide Control Disadvantages • Some herbicides have swimming, drinking, fishing, irrigation, and water use restrictions. • 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 targeted plants. • Rapid -acting herbicides may cause low oxygen conditions to develop as plants decompose. Low oxygen may cause fish kills. • To be most effective, herbicides must be applied to rapidly -growing plants during the growing season only. • Some expertise in using herbicides is necessary in order to be successful and to avoid unwanted impacts. • Public perception to the application of chemicals to water can be unfavorable. Aquatic Herbicide Control Suitability for Steel Lake The application of aquatic herbicides, in combination with other aquatic plant control methods, substantially increases the likelihood of eradicating all targeted noxious aquatic plants (and native aquatic plants when warranted) from Steel Lake. In situations where eradication is the goal, the application of aquatic herbicides is the most aggressive and prudent method to rapidly reduce vegetation coverage and readily allows for other methods such as bottom barrier installations and diver hand pulling. 6.2 Manual Methods A number of manual methods for both non-native and native vegetation control in Steel Lake have been implemented. The following describes commonly used manual methods: 6.2.1 Hand -Pulling Diver hand -pulling of aquatic plants in Steel Lake (specifically Eurasian watermilfoil) has been successfully implemented when the number of plants has been small. The process 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 spade, trowel, or long knife may be 25 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 35 of 76 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 in Steel Lake may not be suitable for hand pulling such as areas where there are deep flocculent sediments. 6.2.2 Cutting or Raking 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 (weed rake) out into the water. Weed rakes may only be used on Steel Lake to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet. The Steel Lake LMD has implemented a weed rake loan program that provides Steel Lake residents an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. Rakes may be checked out once the Lake Management District determines that the targeted area does not contain milfoil or other submerged non-native vegetation. Each year on September 15, the program is shut down pursuant to WDFW pamphlet requirements. Weed rakes have been used as necessary by lake residents to maintain the beneficial uses of the shoreline for fishing, boating and swimming. In addition, the City of Federal Way Parks and Recreation staff has also utilized aquatic weed rakes to remove unwanted native plants from the public swimming area prior to the opening of swimming season. Lake residents and City staff have been 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. 6.2.3 Weed Rolling Several automatic plant control products are commercially available that mechanically disturb the lake bottom to remove aquatic plants and prevent their re -growth within a well-defined area. They sweep, roll, or drag repetitively over the plants and sediments to keep the area free of aquatic plant growth. These devices must be attached to a dock or post to work properly and each product requires electricity to operate. Depending on the equipment used, up to a 42-foot radius around the dock or post can be controlled. Manual Method 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 and will not harm aquatic wildlife. 26 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 36 of 76 • Manual methods do not require expensive permits, and can be performed on aquatic noxious weeds with Hydraulic Project Approval obtained by reading and following the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet. Manual Method 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. • Some plants, like waterlilies which have massive rhizomes, are difficult to remove by hand pulling. • Pulling weeds and raking stirs up the sediment and may make it difficult to see remaining plants. • Sediment re -suspension can also increase nutrient levels in lake water. Hand pulling and raking may impact bottom -dwelling animals. • The V-shaped cutting tool is extremely sharp and can be dangerous to use. Manual Method Suitability for Steel Lake • Annual diver hand -pulling (when appropriate), should be sufficient to remove small quantities of re-emerging milfoil plants. In combination with herbicide treatments (when warranted), manual methods used to contain and control can effectively combat milfoil re -infestations in subsequent years. • Due to the success of herbicide (glyphosate) treatments, manual efforts for the control of fragrant water lily and yellow flag iris is not necessary. • The weed rake load program for Steel Lake has proven to be successful. The LMD ensures that the rakes should only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet. 6.3 Diver Dredging Diver dredging (suction dredging) is a method whereby SCUBA divers use hoses attached to small dredges to suck plant material from the sediment. The purpose of diver dredging is to remove all parts of the plant including the roots. 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 is less effective on plants where seeds, turions, or tubers remain in the sediments to sprout the next growing 27 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 37 of 76 season. For that reason, Eurasian watermilfoil is generally the target plant for removal during diver dredging operations. Diver Dredging 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. Diver Dredging 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. • Acquisition of permits may take more than a year. Diver Dredging Permit Requirements Diver dredging requires Hydraulic Approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Temporary Modification of Water Quality Standards from Ecology. Also, diver dredging may require a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Diver Dredging Suitability for Steel Lake Although diver dredging could be used after the initial herbicide applications to remove plants that were missed or unaffected by the herbicide, the method greatly disturbs sediments and can affect nutrient concentrations and algal production in the lake. Therefore, because other removal and control techniques have proven to be successful, diver dredging is not considered suitable for Steel Lake. 6.4 Bottom Barriers 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. Bottom barriers will control most aquatic plants however freely -floating species will not be controlled by bottom screens. In addition to controlling nuisance weeds around docks and in swimming beaches, bottom barriers have 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 the bottom barrier material. When using this technique for 28 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 38 of 76 Eurasian watermilfoil eradication projects, divers should recheck the barrier within a few weeks to make sure that all milfoil plants remain covered and that no new fragments have taken root nearby. The less plant material that is present before installation, the more successful the barrier will be in staying in place. Bottom Barrier Advantages • Installation of a bottom barrier creates an immediate open area of water. • Bottom barriers are easily installed around docks and in swimming areas. • Properly installed bottom barriers can control up to 100 percent of aquatic plants. • Barrier materials are readily available. Bottom Barrier Disadvantages • Bottom barriers are only suitable for localized control. • For safety and performance reasons, bottom barriers must be regularly inspected and maintained. • Harvesters, rotovators, fishing gear, propeller backwash, or boat anchors may damage or dislodge bottom barriers. • Improperly anchored bottom barriers may create safety hazards for boaters and swimmers. • Swimmers may be injured by poorly maintained anchors used to pin bottom barriers to the sediment. • Some bottom barriers are difficult to anchor on deep muck sediments. • Bottom barriers interfere with fish spawning and bottom -dwelling animals. • Without regular maintenance aquatic plants may quickly colonize the bottom barrier. Bottom Barrier Permit Requirements Bottom barrier installation in Washington requires an hydraulic approval obtained from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. In addition, the City of Federal Way Community Development must review each installation to determine whether a shoreline permit is required. Bottom Barrier Suitability for Steel Lake Several bottom barriers have been installed by individual lakefront homeowners. LMD-funded and/or contractor -installed bottom barriers have not been required. They will only be used to eradicate localized infestations, or when dense milfoil areas show resistance to herbicide applications. 6.5 Biological Control Many problematic aquatic plants in the western United States that are non -indigenous species (i.e Eurasian watermilfoil) may be controlled biologically by organisms from their native ranges. Classic 29 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 39 of 76 biological control agents are host -specific and attack the growth or reproduction of only the species that are targeted for control. Theoretically, by stocking an infested waterbody or wetland with these organisms, the target plant can be controlled, allowing native plants to recover. The following list outlines a number of approved biological control agents that are available for release in the United States: 6.5.1 Grass Carp 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. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife determines the appropriate stocking rate for each waterbody when issuing a grass carp -stocking permit. 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). Grass carp should be stocked only in waterbodies where complete elimination of all submersed plant species can be tolerated. Grass Carp Advantages • Grass carp are inexpensive compared to some other control methods and offer long-term control. • Grass carp offer a biological alternative to aquatic plant control. Grass Carp 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. • Fish may need to be restocked at intervals • If not enough fish are stocked, less -favored plants, such as Eurasian watermilfoil, may take over the lake. • Stocking grass carp may lead to algae blooms due to a sudden loading of fecal -related nutrients. • All inlets and outlets to the lake or pond must be screened to prevent grass carp from escaping into streams, rivers, or other lakes. 30 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 40 of 76 Grass Carp Permit Requirements Stocking grass carp requires a fish -stocking permit from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Also, if inlets or outlets need to be screened, a Hydraulic Project Approval application must be completed for the screening project. Grass Carp Suitability for Steel Lake Grass carp are not suitable for aquatic plant control in Steel Lake. Infestations of milfoil have not reached levels where a bio-control such as grass carp would be necessary. The lake also has an outlet stream that eventually flows into Puget Sound, making it much more difficult to obtain the permits necessary to stock grass carp. 6.5.2 Watermilfoil Weevil 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). 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. 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. Watermilfoil Weevil 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. Watermilfoil Weevil 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. • Bio-controls often do not eradicate the target plant species. Watermilfoil Weevil Permit Requirements The milfoil weevil is native to Washington and is present in a number of lakes and rivers. It is found associated with both native northern milfoil and Eurasian watermilfoil. However, importing out-of- state weevils into Washington requires a permit from the Washington Department of Agriculture. 31 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 41 of 76 Watermilfoil Weevil Suitability for Steel 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, therefore 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. Milfoil infestations in Steel Lake have not been severe enough to warrant bio-control introduction of watermilfoil weevil as other methods are readily available and more suitable. 6.6 Rotovation Rotovators are underwater rototiller-like blades that are used to uproot submerged aquatic plants. The rotating blades churn seven to nine inches deep into the lake 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. 6.7 Harvesting Mechanical harvesters are large machines which both cuts and collects 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. 6.8 Mechanical 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. Rotovation, Harvesting or Mechanical Cutting Suitability for Steel Lake None of these options (rotovation, harvesting or mechanical cutting) are suitable for the level of non- native aquatic plant infestations expected in Steel Lake. These are not considered eradication tools but rather are used to manage and control heavy, widespread infestations of aquatic weeds. Because the process creates plant fragments, these methods may serve to spread and expand any existing infestations. According to Ecology, "There is little or no reduction in plant density with mechanical harvesting." Since the aim of the SLMDP is to eliminate non-native aquatic plants milfoil from Steel Lake, rotovation, harvesting or mechanical cutting are not compatible control strategies (harvesting and cutting do not remove root systems; and rotovation would cause damage to the lake sediments and associated animals in a system that does not already receive dredging for navigability). 32 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 42 of 76 6.9 Drawdown Lowering the water level of a lake or reservoir can have a dramatic impact on some aquatic weed problems. Water level drawdown can be used where there is a water control structure that allows the managers of lakes or reservoirs to drop the water level in the waterbody for extended periods of time to control 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. Drawdown Suitability for Steel Lake Drawdown is not a viable control strategy for Steel Lake. The outlet from Steel Lake flows through a wetland to a natural stream system, and does not have a control structure installed. 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 both the lake and the adjacent wetland 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. 6.10 No Action Alternative The no action alternative acknowledges the presence of invasive aquatic plants in Steel Lake but does not call for any control or planning activities. No Action Advantages There are few advantages to "doing nothing" to control or prevent the further spread of invasive aquatic plants; however, there may be a perception of saving money by not investing in activities such as herbicide application or mechanical control methods. No Action Disadvantages The no action alternative may result in long-term deleterious effects on the ecology, recreational uses and aesthetics of Steel Lake. Invasive aquatic plants disrupt dissolved oxygen patterns, displace native plant species, and impair navigation. While changes to water quality may be less obvious, their seasonal and long-term impacts can seriously threaten features that attract homeowners, outdoor enthusiasts, anglers, and boaters to Steel Lake. No Action Suitability for Steel Lake Based upon the recurrent milfoil infestations of Steel Lake, the "no action" alternative is not appropriate for Steel Lake. 7.0 INTEGRATED AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT PLAN 33 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 43 of 76 The following Integrated Aquatic Plant Management and Treatment Plan for Steel Lake provides information regarding the selected aquatic plant management control measures designed to halt the spread of aquatic plant species infestations, to prevent potential lake degradation, and to provide the best opportunity for the reintroduction of native aquatic plants: • Annual diver surveys will be performed by a contracted aquatic plant management firm to monitor changes in the aquatic plant community. • An aquatic biologist will develop a management plan for all identified non-native aquatic plants to target them for control at as low a density as environmentally and economically feasible and at levels that do not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. • All aquatic herbicides will be applied per a State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Aquatic Plant and Algae General Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit). • All identified species of noxious weeds as listed in WAC 16-750 shall be reduced to levels that do not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. • All appropriate aquatic plant control and treatment methods shall be used as needed for all other problematic aquatic weeds and native aquatic plants, using the best available science to identify and understand their effects on human, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems prior to their implementation. The SLAC will review the findings of diver surveys and (in consultation with the contracted aquatic biologist) determine the direction of the annual plant management and treatment plan. The aquatic plant species in Steel Lake targeted for eradication are expected to be: Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus). In addition, native aquatic weeds (i.e., thin -leafed pondweed and submerged macro algae) may also be controlled when warranted. Manual methods will be implemented by lake residents per stipulations outlined in Section 6.2.2. Aquatic herbicides may also be used to control native vegetation to levels that do not impact fish and wildlife habitat when the contracted aquatic biologist has documented that their densities are impairing public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake (Section 6.1.6), and when the SLAC concurs with this determination. 8.0 PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION AND AQUATIC HABITAT Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds, if left unchecked, pose a serious threat to our State's water bodies. The historical presence of non-native aquatic plants in Steel Lake has been shown to impair the use and aesthetic value of the lake. Because of Steel Lake's shallow characteristics, aquatic plants have the potential to restrict the available area for recreation activities such as fishing, swimming and boating. In addition, other regional lakes are in danger of becoming infested with noxious or invasive aquatic plants that are transported from Steel Lake via boat, boat trailer or waterfowl. Eradication of noxious aquatic plant species in Steel Lake has allowed for the re -introduction of desirable native aquatic plants. In theory, the integrated approach implemented via the Steel Lake LMD has improved fish and wildlife habitat and the overall ecological health of Steel Lake by assuring that the 34 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 44 of 76 native aquatic vegetation propagates and that habitat is preserved. The text below, adapted from the Department of Fish & Wildlife Aquatic Plants and Fish Publication, illustrates the importance of aquatic habitat preservation: Aquatic noxious weeds can adversely affect ecological functions by crowding out native vegetation and creating single species stands. While it is recognized that native aquatic plants can become a nuisance to swimmers and boaters due to excessive growth, it is important to recognize the value of native plant species for fish and wildlife. These native plants provide habitat for fish and wildlife, help stabilize shorelines, produce oxygen, trap beneficial nutrients, and keep sediment in place. For example, pondweed is a critical food source for waterfowl and marsh birds. Pondweed also provides cover from predators for warmwater fish such as perch and bass. Aquatic beneficial plants are defined as native plants (such as pondweeds, bladderwort, or coontail) or non-native plants not included on the noxious weed list. Warmwater gamefish often utilize vegetation in the shallow waters of lakes for spawning, early rearing, and feeding. Largemouth and smallmouth bass generally prefer ponds and reservoirs with abundant aquatic vegetation. Bluegill, sunfish and crappie also inhabit vegetated quiet or slow -moving waters for protection from predators. Too much vegetation can result in overpopulation if predators that access prey species, while too little vegetation can adversely affect the predator prey balance and result in a decline in the fishery. Aquatic plants provide important living space for insects, snails and crustaceans, which in turn become food for fish and waterfowl. Vegetated areas support many times more of these tiny creatures than to do non -vegetated areas. The plants make important nurseries for young fish, frogs, salamanders, and other amphibians. Several species of reptiles, including turtles, garter snakes and water snakes use these areas for cover and forage (WDFW, 1998). In 2003, AquaTechnex reported that submersed native aquatic plants were scattered in moderate to dense patches around the shoreline of the lake, and that floating leaf and submerged native aquatic plants covered approximately 55 percent of the lake littoral zone. In successive years, the native plant populations in the lake were reported to be healthy as mapped. In 2010 and 2011, it was noted that the native plant community had remained healthy and relatively unchanged (however plant densities were down from the same period of time in previous years due to a multi -year pattern of summertime cooler weather). The removal of non-native plant species during the early years of the Steel Lake LMD program may have had a short-term negative impact on warmwater fish populations due to a loss of habitat cover, but as mentioned above, the removal of invasive vegetation has promoted growth of native plants and has allowed native plant species to re -seed over the long-term. Although the need to re -vegetate is not likely at this time, the goal of the SLMDP will be to continue maintaining at least 35% native aquatic vegetative cover. This level is based upon the following targets: • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife recommended extent of native vegetative cover for fish habitat needs of 20% to 60% of the lake acreage (Jackson, 2003, WDFW, personal communication). 35 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 45 of 76 • The Department of Ecology recommended warmwater fishery needs for native vegetative cover of 25% to 40% of the lake acreage (Hamel, 2003, Ecology, personal communication). Based on a lake surface area of 48.6 acres (AquaTechnex, 2010), the acreage needed for adequate native vegetation coverage will be calculated from the results of the annual plant survey. If there are less than 17 acres (35% coverage of the lake) of native aquatic vegetation cover, the Steel Lake Advisory Committee will determine whether mitigation measures are necessary to support wildlife species. If mitigation efforts are deemed necessary, native aquatic vegetation may be planted in the lake to supplement natural recovery efforts. Native vegetation may include floating leaved rooted plants such as Brasenia schreberi (water -shield); submerged plants such as Ceratophyllum demersum (coontail), Utricularia vulgaris (common bladderwort), and Potamogeton spp. (pondweeds); and submerged macroalgae such as Chara spp. (muskgrass) and Nitella sp. 9.0 ALGAE MANAGEMENT PLAN Washington State Department of Ecology developed a WA State Freshwater Algae Control Program to target blue-green algae as they pose a health risk to humans, pets, and livestock. Local jurisdictions, lake managers, and Washington residents can report an algae bloom and sample it to test for potential toxins produced by algae under the program. The Washington Department of Health (DOH) has statewide recreational guidelines for blue-green algae toxins (Washington State Recreational Guidance for Microcystin and Anatoxin-A) that SWM uses as a decision -making document concerning public notification and the posting of health advisories. The SLMDP, depending on the annual budget and work plan developed by the Steel Lake Advisory Committee (SLAC), will ensure that blue-green algae blooms will be competently identified when they occur, and (DOH) guidelines regarding public notifications, health advisories and recreational waters closure will continue to be implemented. Upon receiving notice of potential blue-green algae, SWM staff will investigate and confirm. Once confirmed, a grab sample will be collected, and submitted to King County Environmental Labs. The sample kit and lab analysis are provided by the WA State Freshwater algae bloom monitoring program. Depending on the results, SWM will post necessary notices based on DOH guidelines mentioned above. 10.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM The objective of the Steel Lake Management District Water Quality Monitoring Program includes: (1) continuation of the gathering of baseline data with the intent of assessing long-term trends; (2) defining seasonal and water column variability; (3) identifying potential problems, proposing possible management solutions when feasible, or pinpointing additional studies to be made; and (4) educating lake residents, lake users, and policy makers regarding lake water quality. Water chemistry and physical characteristics in lakes vary seasonally as well as by depth over the course of a year. The most dynamic period for lakes is during the "growing season" of mid -spring through early 36 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 46 of 76 autumn when lake dwelling organisms are most active. To maximize information obtained for this effort, the Steel Lake Water Quality Monitoring Program will involve collection of data from May through October on water clarity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature. If included in the annual work plan approved by the SLAC, Surface Water Management staff will collect, analyze and manage water quality data. Water chemistry and temperature vary with depth in Steel Lake. On each sampling trip, samples will be collected from a depth of one meter and six meters or as close to the bottom of the lake as possible. Surface and deep samples will allow us to define changes found in the vertical profiles of the parameters. Ideally, lake level and precipitation will be recorded daily by lake volunteers, however, the actual scope of the water quality monitoring program will be developed and authorized by the SLAC on an annual basis. 11.0 LAKE OUTLET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM If part of an annual work plan approved by the SLAC, the following action items will be implemented to prevent future lake outlet blockages: Perform periodic maintenance to relieve flow congestion due to fallen trees, woody debris, invasive vegetation, and trash (large appliances, shopping carts, plastic, etc.) between the lake outlet and the South 3041}i Street culvert crossing. Perform hand work to better define outlet channel at northwest corner of lake. City staff has discussed establishing a long term maintenance agreement with various outlet channel property owners to ensure that this drainage system continues to be properly maintained in the future. Most of the outlet channel owners have indicated that they are willing to allow volunteers or city staff to access their property to perform channel maintenance activities as long as the work is sponsored and administered by either the City or Lake Management District and evidence of liability insurance is provided. All outlet maintenance activity will comply with all required and appropriate permitting requirements. 12.0 CANADA GEESE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Canada geese (Branta canadensis) can impact shoreline and lake conditions, especially when there are larger flocks and nesting areas. The SLMD does not directly manage Canada geese and as such doesn't determine if controls are employed. Annually, the SLAC will decide during one of their meetings if they want geese management based on their observations, then the City will notify United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services (USDA). USDA will then conduct their own survey to determine if geese will be managed and method(s) of management. All actions regarding control of Canada geese are under the purview of the USDA since Canada geese are a protected by federal law. The Steel Lake LMD, through public education efforts, has attempted to reduce the impact of waterfowl through the implementation of a public education campaign. "Stop Feeding the Geese" signs have been 37 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 47 of 76 posted at the public swimming beach. Lake residents have been informed regarding waterfowl control practices and physical installations that may be established on their property including, plant barriers and fences. Information regarding residential harassment and scare tactics (flags, streamers and scarecrows) has also been disseminated by the LMD. The objectives of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), geese management program may include: Technical assistance, including on -site evaluation. Periodic surveys of Canada geese populations and nesting areas. Direct controls such as egg addling and bird removal if needed. 13.0 COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Since 2004, SWM has implemented public education and involvement programs associated with the Steel Lake Management District. The community education and involvement program designed per the 2024-2033 Steel Lake Management District Plan (SLMDP) will include the following elements: • Quarterly SLAC meetings (or as needed) to discuss annual work plan and budget. • Production of SLAC written minutes. • Annual Steel Lake LMD Report. • Distribution of notifications to lake resident subscribers concerning lake management activities, events and public health notices. • Production and distribution of educational materials concerning the prevention/introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake; nutrient reduction and impacts of toxic blue-green algae; lake watershed stewardship and stormwater pollution prevention; natural yard care; and efforts to control non-native animal species and Canada geese. 14.0 LMD ANNUAL COSTS AND COMMITTEE AUTHORIZATION The following priorities have been established for the 2024-2033 Steel Lake Management District Plan (SLMDP). These are based upon lake improvement and maintenance activities which may be implemented over the LMD's ten-year period: 1. Management of non-native aquatic plants and vegetation 2. Preservation of native vegetation and aquatic habitat 3. Management of hazardous algae blooms 4. Water quality monitoring 5. Maintenance of lake outlet channel 38 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 48 of 76 6. Management of Canada geese 14.1 Primary LMD Management Goal It is projected that each annual work plan will include the primary LMD goal of controlling or removing non-native aquatic plants and vegetation through contracted aquatic plant management activities. The scope, RCW reference, description and estimated annual cost for this effort is described below in Table 8: Table 8, Primary LMD Management Goal: Description and Costs for Management of Non -Native Aquatic Plants and Vegetation Estimated RCW Scope Item Description Annual Reference Cost Development of 36.61.020 (8) Estimated 30 SWM hours at $50/hour. One time cost of $1,500 $150.00 LMD spread out over ten-year LMD. Based upon AquaTechnex 2022-2027 contract and expected Contracted scope, including public education materials, annual permitting, Aquatic Plant 36.61.020 (1) and King County assessment collection fees (see Table 9 for $27,922.00 Management detail). Expenditures will be limited to available budget and will pre -approved by SLAC during quarterly meetings. SWM Estimate 50 SWM hours per year at $50/hour. Includes: Implemented 36.61.020 (1) development of annual work plan, management and oversight of $2,500.00 Aquatic Plant contractor(s), finance budgeting, public education, coordination Management of SLAC meetings, notifications, and final report. PRIMARY LMD MANAGEMENT GOAL -TOTAL ANNUAL COST $30,572.00 The estimated annual cost for implementing a contracted aquatic plant management program was derived from a review of recent Steel Lake Work Plans, including the 2022 LMD budget. See Table 9 for a 39 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 49 of 76 detailed itemization of the expected tasks and associated costs for this effort. Expenditures will be limited to available budget and will pre -approved by SLAC during quarterly meetings. Table 9, Estimated Annual Cost for Contracted Aquatic Plant Management Program TASK ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST Annual permit fee $722 Initial systematic survey $2,750 Second systematic survey $2,750 Diver Hand Removal $3,500 Manual Removal $2,000 Milfoil treatments $2,700 Aquatic Herbicide Application — Native Nuisance Aquatic Weeds $2,000 Aquatic Herbicide Application — Loosestrife, Water Lily, Yellow Flag Iris, Japanese Knotweed $2,000 Annual Report $2,550 Treatment notifications $1,400 Participation in SLMD Meetings $550 TOTAL $27,922 14.2 Optional LIVID Management Goals The balance of the lake improvement and maintenance activities that may also be performed over the LMD's ten-year period (2024-2033) are considered optional and will be implemented on an as -needed basis when funds are available based upon Steel Lake Advisory Committee (SLAC) review and approval. The SLAC must formally authorize the implementation of these optional activities (see section 14.3). The scope, RCW reference, description and estimated annual cost of these goals are described below in Table 10: Table 10. Optional LIVID Management Goals RCW Estimated Scope Item Description Reference Annual Cost Preservation of Native 36.61.020 (1) Introduction of native plantings when warranted by $300.00 Vegetation and Aquatic SLAC. (One time cost of $3,000.00). Habitat 40 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 50 of 76 Hazardous Algae Bloom (HAB) inspections and investigations. Estimates based on two (2) blooms per Management of 36.61.020 (2), year sampling, delivery, notifications, and follow-up. $500 Hazardous Algae Blooms (6) Estimate ten (10) SWM man hours at $50/hour annually. Estimate that lab costs are covered through Ecology Freshwater Algae Control Program. Estimate based on existing North Lake LMD WQ volunteer program. Estimate six (6) annual on -lake SWM Implemented Water Quality Monitoring 36.61.020 (6) monitoring events and travel time: 14 SWM man hours $3,540 Program at $50/hour. Estimate six (6) rounds of lab sample analysis per year. Estimate six (6) man hours of data management per year at $50/hour. Annually remove sediment in channel. Annually Maintenance of Lake 36.61.020 (7) perform periodic maintenance (remove vegetation and $480 Outlet Channel trash). Annual hand work to define channel. Estimate 16 SWM man hours per year at $30/hour Contract with USDA/Wildlife Services to implement Management of Canada 36.61.020 (6) annual Canada geese control activities (technical $10,347.47 Geese assistance, population monitoring, and population control) 14.3 SLAC Responsibilities/Authority The Steel Lake Advisory Committee (SLAC) will be created to represent the property owners of Steel Lake and to advise City Council during the renewed Steel Lake LMD, set to become effective the beginning of 2024. Members of the SLAC shall be appointed by the City Council following an open recruitment process approved by the City Council. Members of the SLAC shall be selected from individuals who own property or represent government bodies that own property within the LMD. Intent of the selection process shall be to proportionally represent the various property types identified in the district assessment roll. Related City Council resolutions and ordinances will clearly establish the duties and authority of the Committee. 14.4 Petition to Create LMD Per RCW 36.61.030, a lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by a legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater. A petition or resolution of intention shall set forth: (1) The nature of the lake improvement or maintenance activities proposed to be financed; (2) the amount of money proposed to be raised by special assessments or rates and charges; (3) if special assessments are to be imposed, whether the special assessments will be imposed annually for the duration of the lake management district, or 41 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 51 of 76 the full special assessments will be imposed at one time, with the possibility of installments being made to finance the issuance of lake management district bonds, or both methods; (4) if rates and charges are to be imposed, the annual amount of revenue proposed to be collected and whether revenue bonds payable from the rates and charges are proposed to be issued; (5) the number of years proposed for the duration of the lake management district; and (6) the proposed boundaries of the lake management district. In early 2023, the SLAC voted to proceed with SLMD reformation for 2024-2033, setting in motion the official petition process and related public hearings and City Council actions to achieve SLMD renewal. 42 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 52 of 76 15.0 REFERENCES AquaTechnex, LLC. 2010. Steel Lake Bathymetry Mapping Report. AquaTechnex, LLC. 2012. Steel Lake Discharge Management Plan. Carlson, Robert. E. 1977. A Trophic State Index for Lakes, Limnological Research Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. City of Federal Way, Washington. 2003. An Ordinance (03-452) of the City Council of the City of Federal Way, Washington, creating Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake and setting a public hearing on the assessment roll for the district. City of Federal Way, Washington. 2003. A Resolution (03-397) of the City Council of the City of Federal Way, Washington, creating a Lake Management District Advisory Committee for Steel Lake and establishing the duties thereof. City of Federal Way, Washington. 2003. Steel Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. City of Federal Way, Washington. 2012. An Ordinance (12-715) of the City Council of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to boats and watercraft; amending FWRC 7.03.010 and FWRC 7.03.040. Envirovision, Inc. 1994. Steel Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Hamel, Kathy. 2012. Washington Department of Ecology, Aquatic Plants, Algae & Lakes Program. Personal communication. Moore, Schindler, Scheuerell, Smith and Frodge. 2003. Lake Eutrophication at the Urban Fringe, Seattle Region. Vol. 32 No. 1, Feb. 20030 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Sheldon and Associates. 1999. City of Federal Way Wetland Inventory Report. Tobissen, P. and E. Wheat. 2000. Long and Short -Term Effects on Waterfowl on Collins Lake, An Urban Lake in Upstate New York. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2000. Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant Management Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2011. Aquatic Plant and Algae General Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit. 43 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 53 of 76 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. On -Line Aquatic Plant and Algae Identification. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/plantalgaeid.html Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. Fact Sheet for the State of Washington Aquatic Noxious Weed Management General Permit. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. On -Line Statewide water rights web map. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/info/webmap.html Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. Aquatic Plants and Fish. Publication #APF- 1-98. Washington State Department of Health (DOH). 2010. Washington State Recreational Guidance for Microcystin and Anatoxin-A. 44 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2024-2033 STEEL LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 54 of 76 APPENDIX A Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Create a Lake Management District for Steel Lake We, the undersigned Steel Lake property owners, request that the Federal Way City Council approve the creation of a Lake Management District (LMD) for Steel Lake pursuant to RCW 36.61. The LMD funds will finance efforts to protect and enhance Steel Lake in terms of water quality, recreational and aesthetic value. Purpose of the Lake Management District: • Form a Lake Management District that creates a funding source for all future aquatic plant management activities, and continue to seek grant opportunities. • Perform annual diver surveys to monitor changes in the aquatic plant community. • Control and contain both milfoil populations and fragrant water lily populations at as low a density as is environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that will not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. • Reduce all other identified species of noxious weeds as listed in WAC 16-750 to levels that do not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. • Use appropriate aquatic plant control and treatment methods as needed for all other problematic aquatic weeds, using the best available science to identify and understand their effects on human, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems prior to implementation. • Provide for adequate native vegetation for fish and, if necessary, mitigate for any negative impacts to fish habitat due to non-native plant removal activities. • Continue public education to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake; and to aid in the early detection of aquatic weed re -infestations. • Continue to involve the Steel Lake Community in the aquatic plant management process. • Conduct public education to reduce the amounts of non -point source pollutants entering the lake, which can result in an increase in aquatic algae. 2. Boundary The proposed boundary of the LMD would include all the property with lakefront on Steel Lake. See attached map 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. Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 55 of 76 The following is the formula of rates and charges proposed for establishment of the assessment role for the LMD: Property assessed on dollar per unit Type # of Units Rate/Unit Total ($) Percentage Vacant parcel 9 $33 $279 2% Developed parcel (1 single-family dwelling) 89 $95 $8,455 56% Parcel with multifamily dwelling 1 $306 $306 2% City Park 1 $2,279 $2,279 15% Public Boat Launch 1 $3,895 $3,895 25.% Annual Total $15,232 The estimated maximum annual amount that is proposed for the LMD is $15, 232. Total maximum LMD rate revenue for the ten year LMD is $152,320. Issuance of revenue bonds is not proposed. The attached Steel Lake Management District Plan includes an estimated itemization of the use of these funds for the ten-year period. The LMD budget and rates will be approved through a public hearing and a public vote after the city council adopts a resolution to form the LMD. Once approved by the public and city council, the annual rates and charges may not be altered without another public vote and city council approval. 5. Steel Lake Management District Advisory Committee The volunteer Steel Lake Management District Advisory Committee is proposed to represent the interests of LMD property owners in the various neighborhoods around the lake. City staff will work with the Advisory Committee to develop the annual work plan. The annual LMD work plan and budget will be forwarded by the Advisory Committee for implementation by the City's Environmental Services Division. The Advisory Committee will track and review activities and expenditures by the City as well as outside Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 56 of 76 contractors. City staff will provide Advisory Committee support including quarterly financial reports. Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 57 of 76 Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2024-2033 RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner(s) Printed Name Full Address Parcel Number (if known) 1 �� i� Lr Ot (e y'2� �_ 30'1� na: A 4 a a� YI S , 30.14 5 1-'r I r Z45 1 S 6,�'1 7 O S ZI 8 G I L26z5,L�'-s 9 VVt/ 10 V�t�C2L)OP2que 3a LI 1 Ww- Q 6003 12 �p Mtn p,� ��,►vt� �OC�� C"1 v �Lc CI n� 2427 J 2 y t f'ed e�ct 1 u%R eT�O 13 J 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Steel Lake LMD 2024-2033 Petition Paize 3 of 4 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 5-8 of 76 Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2024-2033 RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner(s) Printed Name Full Address Parcel Number (if known) 29.2 W 3 C/ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Steel Lake LMD 2024-2033 Petition Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit Page of6f Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2024-2033 RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner(s) Printed Name Full Address Parcel Number (if known) 21 3pn� o,'r e32-t S, :&ov n S�. 05370001(� 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Steel Lake LMD 2024-2033 Petition Page 4 of 4 Page 60 of 76 Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2024-2033 RCW 36.61.030 - A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner(s) Printed Name Full Address Parcel Number (if known) -. 1 �,��-, � C]� ��.,,�.,.� �► Z.zz-sue 3 c7 �4 �- 2 �\ ex,• 2 -19 Soy 3 C/ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Steel Lake LMD 2024-2033 Petition Pa e 3 of 4 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 61 of 76 Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2024-2033 RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner(s) Printed Name Full Address Parcel Number (if known) 1 s b� 7, 9z! o V92�.3 2 #Oil � �0A7 - l / ✓ - �92lv�( `Z Z 3X> ` 3� 7d o l S `I,S� v9z �o Y 91 0 4 &Ylt (c 3 0'7 2-0 1 S d 92 !o 91 ` V 5 G�TO � �G1/U� �/ G F Y I G ��3 7o d o 33 S- 6 s i �43 7e�o c) 3 2� 7 i ►yIli Z.d/ COF003 0 5 3-700 d0a "5 b- o sT- 9 5Ar� i� Z.d z.G 5 30sTK s ` goo 0s'3 70o v � 10 U v 11 12 13 14 Steel Lake LMD 2024-2033 Petition Page 1 of 4 Mar _.: 2023 CitY of Steel Lake 33325 Or Ave_ Federal Wa Existin Land Use Ma Federal Way. K=2 ?03 ]r 9 P IPlfzsssa3��o�� r�-lil3"T" IX; WO Flo Pubim Boat - 40 Vicinity Map s Land Use Category open Space- Single Family a zso 520-;' A Feiieral Way Multi -Family Park Vacant 006iiiiiii@ Feet •�i�•n�o� �,, Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 63 of 76 APPENDIX B — Assessment Rate by Parcel Steel Lake Management District - Parcel Information and Annual Assessment Rates ADDRESS ADDRESS LAND TAXPAYER NAME LINE 1 LINE 2 ADDRESS LINE 3 PARCEL NO. USE RATE/YR Single LAZDINS ELIZABETH 2515 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049301 Family $95 BARRETT MARK Single STEVEN+KELLY R 2529 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049071 Family $95 MADDEN GLENN Single C+SANDRA L 2605 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049078 Family $95 THOMPSON MARC Single W+SANDY L 2609 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049077 Family $95 Single TISDEL GERALD C 2613 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049079 Family $95 Single MAIER TROY M 2619 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049076 Family $95 BEMILLER ELIZABETH Single R+STEPHE 2623 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049073 Family $95 DOMINGO PEDRO 0921049061 Single B+CHIN C 2629 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 Family $95 Single MAIER JACK G 2633 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049064 Family $95 STARK KENNETH Single DALE+NANCY LE 2637 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049081 Family $95 Single NGUYEN KATHY H 2649 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049082 Family $95 Single NGUYEN KATHY 29828 18th Ave S. Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049058 Family $95 DE ALBUQUERQUE Single CYNTHIA N 30415 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049070 Family $95 Single BUI TAM 30419 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049237 Family $95 Single NEAU LT DARRYL A 30421 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049063 Family $95 Single DUONG HAI VIET 30511 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049080 Family $95 Single SMITH GARY 30445 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049184 Family $95 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 64 of 76 LACKEY FAMILY ESTATES 15202 135th Ave E Puyallup, WA 98374 0921049092 Vacant $33 Single SCHAFFER SUZANNE R 30527 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049072 Family $95 LAWTON DEVIN Single T+JENNIFER A 30535 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049275 Family $95 Single JOHNSON TERHI K 30605 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049202 Family $95 Single VOGTALAN & WENDY 30609 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049244 Family $95 GONZALES DINO Single JOSEPH+KELLEY 30617 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049263 Family $95 MYERS BRUCE Single E+DEBBIE J -TTE 30619 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049264 Family $95 NASH MICHAEL J+ROBIN S 30623 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049246 Vacant $33 NASH MICHAEL Single J+ROBIN S 30623 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049195 Family $95 BARTENETTI GLENN Single D+JULIE M 30637 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049181 Family $95 Single DOBSON JOHN 30643 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049229 Family $95 LASKE JEREMY+NACK Single JUNAE' 30803 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049188 Family $95 Single BEMIS JEANETTE L 30807 28th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049178 Family $95 State of Washington Dept of Fish and Capitol Way Open Wildlife 600 N Olympia, WA 98501 7984400210 Space $3,895 City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049026 Park $2,279 HAMILTON CORY Single N+MELISSA B 2256 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000175 Family $95 CERVANTEZ Single MANUEL+SHERELL 2250 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000180 Family $95 TOWNSEND Single DAVID+KATHRYN 2246 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000185 Family $95 ARMSTRONG ROBERT Single M 2240 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000190 Family $95 Single NGUYEN MICHELLE 2238 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000195 Family $95 Single HAFIZ MOHSEN 2230 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000200 Family $95 Single ANDREWS JESSICA A 2226 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000205 Family $95 BRAZEL MICHAEL Single SHANE+LORI L 2222 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000210 Family $95 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 65 of 76 EGAWA Single MASAHIRO+CHUI L 2218 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000225 Family $95 Single IGIELSKI TIMOTHY J 2214 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000230 Family $95 CONDER Single KENNEDY+ROSEMARY 2210 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000240 Family $95 MCDONNELL PATRICK Single D 2206 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000245 Family $95 LONG JOHN Single C+DEBORAH L 2204 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000250 Family $95 Single WALMSLEYJAMES D 2200 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000255 Family $95 Single SEATTLE OZ LLC 2058 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000260 Family $95 CHAU HUONG & Single TODD MARCUS 2054 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000270 Family $95 Single O'NEALJR JOHN K 2050 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000275 Family $95 Single MASSEY PHYLLIS 2046 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000280 Family $95 Single SMITH TABATHA 2042 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000285 Family $95 ABAD BENJAMINE C+TABITHA 2042 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000291 Vacant $33 PINKHAM ED+SUE 2034 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000290 Vacant $33 PINKHAM EDWARD W Single III+SUSAN 2034 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000295 Family $95 PINKHAM ED+SUE 2034 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000300 Vacant $33 SANTO JOHN L+KERRI Single L 2026 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000305 Family $95 Single ZAHIR BEVERLY COBB 2022 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000310 Family $95 MONROE ASS & Single MARTESE 2018 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000315 Family $95 DANG HOANG MINH Single & CHAU TAMM 2014 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000320 Family $95 MARKERT Single DENNIS+RUTH 2O10 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000325 Family $95 Single STOKES DEBORAH L 2006 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000335 Family $95 Single WILBURN ERIC D 2000 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000340 Family $95 WILBURN ERIC D 2000 S 308th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049175 Vacant $33 MILOSCIA MARK Single A+MESCHELL M 30720 19th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049144 Family $95 DEZUTTER THOMAS 30716 19th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049283 Single $95 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 66 of 76 W+ELAINE R Family Single BERNARD GARY D 30714 19th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049282 Family $95 JENKINS TIMOTHY Single A+DIANE L 30706 19th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049281 Family $95 CANNON ROBERT L Single III+MELANIE 30700 19th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049104 Family $95 View at the Lakes LLC, PO Box Multi C/O Fast Danny 50408 Bellevue WA, 98015 0921049124 Family $306 Green View PO Box Single Apartments LLC 821 Kirkland WA, 98083 0921049124 Family $95 Aurora Ave KIM IN SIL 3926 S #400 Seattle, WA 98103 0921049012 Vacant $33 STEEL LAKE HOMES Single INC 1931 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049199 Family $95 COLLIER RACHEL Single M AND AARON 2007 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000006 Family $95 SARTISON GRANT Single W+PATRICIA R 2013 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000021 Family $95 Single PAN MINGJIA 2015 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000020 Family $95 THRASHER ARLINE M & COOK Single AR 2017 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000030 Family $95 GALLIANO MARIO Single L 2021 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000035 Family $95 HOLT GARY Single L+BRENDA L 2027 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000040 Family $95 WALTNER JOHN & Single SARAH 2O33 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000049 Family $95 GNOINSKY Single MICHAEL S 2039 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000055 Family $95 Single LEWIS JAYNE M 2047 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000065 Family $95 Single HICKS ROBERT S 2103 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000075 Family $95 KUBICEK MICHAEL Single D 2107 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000080 Family $95 SOUNTHALA NOPHADON+YOKO Single UCH 2111 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000085 Family $95 Single SCANNELL ERIN 2115 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000090 Family $95 Single SMITH CHERYL L 2203 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000095 Family $95 KOCH DANIEL Single L+ELIZABETH A 2209 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000096 Family $95 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 67 of 76 KOCH JEROME Single F+KATHLEEN A 2207 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000100 Family $95 Single MERKEL PHILLIP 2215 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000110 Family $95 SABOL MARK Single A+SUSAN E 2219 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000115 Family $95 OSTERHOUT Single MARVIN J 2225 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000120 Family $95 JANSSEN CRAIG Single R+NANCY R 2231 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000130 Family $95 SPURGEON Single DEBORAH K 2301 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000135 Family $95 SPURGEON DEBORAH K 2301 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000141 Vacant $33 WOJNICZ BODGAN Single H+DEBORAH K 2309 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000145 Family $95 PURDOM CHARLES Single T+BARBARA J 2313 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000150 Family $95 TACKETT FAIRREL Single W+PHYLLIS A 2317 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000155 Family $95 BENSON JEREMY Single & VANESSA 2321 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000160 Family $95 NGUYEN LISA Single T+DANG VAN Q 2325 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000165 Family $95 Single VO TYSON 2329 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0537000170 Family $95 LAM CHI I+MATHIASON Single DONALD 2403 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049074 Family $95 PO Box GAITHER DAVID N 94071 Seattle, WA 98124 0921049060 Vacant $33 Single LINEHAN WILLIAM 2417 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049002 Family $95 Single CAISSE PETER R 2423 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049066 Family $95 RODRIGO JACINTO JR & Single MARIA 2427 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049069 Family $95 BAKLUND RICHARD Single I+CORINNE A 2433 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049108 Family $95 REYHNER Single THEODORE A 2435 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049059 Family $95 Single HEIDER LEO M 2451 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049062 Family $95 SURENDRAN SUSHITHA / 2509 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049300 Vacant $33 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 68 of 76 PULLAT RILEY MARK K 2519 S 304th St Federal Way, WA 98003 0921049067 Single Family $95 Data accessed May 2023 - Data Source: King County Department of Assessments records Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit A Page 69 of 76 EXHIBIT B Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Create a Lake Management District for Steel Lake We, the undersigned Steel Lake property owners, request that the Federal Way City Council approve the creation of a Lake Management District (LMD) for Steel Lake pursuant to RCW 36.61. The LMD funds will finance efforts to protect and enhance Steel Lake in terms of water quality, recreational and aesthetic value. Purpose of the Lake Management District: • Form a Lake Management District that creates a funding source for all future aquatic plant management activities, and continue to seek grant opportunities. • Perform annual diver surveys to monitor changes in the aquatic plant community. • Control and contain both milfoil populations and fragrant water lily populations at as low a density as is environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that will not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. • Reduce all other identified species of noxious weeds as listed in WAC 16-750 to levels that do not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake. • Use appropriate aquatic plant control and treatment methods as needed for all other problematic aquatic weeds, using the best available science to identify and understand their effects on human, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems prior to implementation. • Provide for adequate native vegetation for fish and, if necessary, mitigate for any negative impacts to fish habitat due to non-native plant removal activities. • Continue public education to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake; and to aid in the early detection of aquatic weed re -infestations. • Continue to involve the Steel Lake Community in the aquatic plant management process. • Conduct public education to reduce the amounts of non -point source pollutants entering the lake, which can result in an increase in aquatic algae. 2. Boundary The proposed boundary of the LMD would include all the property with lakefront on Steel Lake. See attached map 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 formula of rates and charges proposed for establishment of the assessment role for the LMD: Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit B Page 70 of 76 Property assessed on dollar per unit Type # of Units Rate/Unit Total $ Percentage Vacant parcel 9 $33 $279 2% Developed parcel (1 single-family dwelling) 89 $95 $8,455 56% Parcel with multi- family dwelling 1 $306 $306 2% City Park 1 $2,279 $2,279 15% Public Boat Launch 1 $3,895 $3,895 25.% Annual Total $15,232 The estimated maximum annual amount that is proposed for the LMD is $15, 232. Total maximum LMD rate revenue for the ten year LMD is $152,320. Issuance of revenue bonds is not proposed. The attached Steel Lake Management District Plan includes an estimated itemization of the use of these funds for the ten-year period. The LMD budget and rates will be approved through a public hearing and a public vote after the city council adopts a resolution to form the LMD. Once approved by the public and city council, the annual rates and charges may not be altered without another public vote and city council approval. 5. Steel Lake Management District Advisory Committee The volunteer Steel Lake Management District Advisory Committee is proposed to represent the interests of LMD property owners in the various neighborhoods around the lake. City staff will work with the Advisory Committee to develop the annual work plan. The annual LMD work plan and budget will be forwarded by the Advisory Committee for implementation by the City's Environmental Services Division. The Advisory Committee will track and review activities and expenditures by the City as well as outside contractors. City staff will provide Advisory Committee support including quarterly financial reports. Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit B Page 71 of 76 Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2024-2033 RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner(s) Printed Name Full Address Parcel Number (if known) ,,�� ``-- j n,, 2 S� 2 3��., 4 a a� 41 a�36 S , 30y 5 1-'r I r Z�� tvD 7 C Su mn 43'e-. d S G� siz- 8 GiL26z s, — s 9 ` InmtC_ OA N� ✓ to Ll y 11 C-1 ti[rHt V�Q00�2Que-I _40LI 1 WA- Q6003 12 4� p ��',►� I � �U(I� C"I v JLl CI n 1 U 2427 J 2 y �- /"ed Cr4 13 J 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Steel Lake LMD 2024-2033 Petition Page 3 of 4 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit B Page 72 of 76 Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2024-2033 RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner(s) Printed Name Full Address Parcel Number (if known) 2 � qv � F� w ZZ1 Soy ✓ 3 LIZ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Steel Lake LMD 2024-2033 Petition Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit B Page 03f6f Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2024-2033 RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner(s) Printed Name Full Address Parcel Number (if known) 21 o.T370001C0 22 !� S '3a� SY Q 0 S3-Moa1 laS 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit B Steel Lake LMD 2024-2033 Petition Page 4 of 4 Page 74 of 76 Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2024-2033 RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner(s) Printed Name Full Address Parcel Number (if known) 2 ci,• � Fc�w✓ 2Z19 S 3oy 3 C/ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Steel Lake LMD 2024-2033 Petition Pa e 3 of 4 Resolution No. 23-840, Exhibit B Page 73 of 76 W Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2024-2033 RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater. Signature of Property Owner(s) Printed Name Full Address Parcel Number (if known) 1 307/ 2� 3 -30700 l 5 ' S Ind v9z /D W O 4"7 1 /O91`V 5S- 6 4 � � w� s :50 k-T—` s i C� MT 7vo c) 3 2 i i ►y1liS �SSe 2d�� j. �$ �f 4?;JFov3 0 5 3�ov dOa"5 s bloew ( v 5_ 8f`` S 3' Oa3 b - o S - 9 5Ar� i0 Z.d z 30s'TK s ` goo 0s'3 6a 10 U v 11 12 1 13 14 Steel Lake LMD 2024-2033 Petition Page 1 of 4