Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11-100904
FILE CITY OF CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityo fi ederalway.. com August 12, 2014 Gary Darcey Twin Lakes Homeowners' Association 3420 SW 320' Street, Suite B-3 Federal Way, WA 98023 RE: File 912-101766-00-AD; RESPONSE LETTER Lake Lorene Vegetation Maintenance, Federal Way Dear Mr. Darcey: The Community Development Department is in receipt of your August 5, 2014, request to perform vegetation maintenance in the setback of a regulated lake and within a category II wetland located along Lake Lorene. The proposal is to clear away the Typha X Glauca hybrid cattails and Yellow -flag iris that are an increasing problem in Lake Lorene. These particular species of cattail and iris are included on the state's noxious weed list as a `Class C' noxious weed. The Director of Community Development may permit rehabilitation of a regulated lake setback, and regulated wetland consisting of removal of detrimental materials such as debris, sediment and inappropriate vegetation, based on review of a written plan pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.170.050 and 19.175.030(3), "Rehabilitation." Your request demonstrates that as conditioned, the tasks proposed to remove and/or control the cattails and irises bordering Treasure Island Park (Phase 1) would meet the rehabilitation standards and would, in fact, result in improved lake and wetland conditions. The tasks listed above are considered repair, remodeling, or maintenance and are therefore exempt from environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11- 800(3). The vegetation maintenance work proposed will not adversely impact the regulated lake or wetland and is hereby conditionally approved as noted below: • Removal via hand digging or cutting. Chemicals causing potential harm to onsite wetland and/or wetland buffer are not allowed. The duration of approval is valid for three years, or until August 12, 2017. After three years a new written request for vegetation removal along Lake Lorene must be submitted to the city for review and approval. Please contact Becky Chapin, Associate Planner, at 253-835-2641 or becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com if you have any questions about this decision. Sincerely, Isaac Conlen Planning Division Manager for Larry Frazier, Interim Director c: Email Gary Darcey, maynard55@gmail.com Doc. I.D. 66444 As -- N t VO ►--- t Jw IL of d? .k r at AO CITY OF t Federal Way October 23, 2013 Mr. Gary Darcey Twin Lakes Homeowners Association 32205 40`h Place SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Re: File #12-101766-00-AD; LAKE LORENE RESPONSE LETTER Twin Lake HOA Tree Removal, Federal Way Dear Mr. Darcey: CITY HALL FILE 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com The city has received several inquiries regarding Lake Lorene and what maintenance actives.can occur on lakefront properties. Last month, I met with you and Sandy Duvall and we discussed some of the issues in more detail. I promised to write you a letter that would clarify the city's position with regard to these issues. As you know, Lake Lorene is a regulated lake and is surrounded by a category II regulated wetland, which has a 100-foot wetland buffer. Lakes and wetlands are regulated under Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.170, "Regulated Lakes," and 19.175, "Regulated Wetlands." Vegetation Removal Landward of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Generally, a request for vegetation removal in a critical area requires city approval (possibly issuance of a permit depending on the circumstances), following submittal of a report prepared by a qualified wetland biologist identifying the effect of the vegetation removal. This requirement; however, does not apply to the installation and maintenance of normal residential landscaping (mowing lawn, planting flowers, trimming hedges and trees, etc.) landward of the ordinary high water mark. We take the position that such activity is allowed as a legally nonconforming maintenance activity, which has been ongoing since prior to establishment of lake and wetland regulations. There are some instances where property owners have let the wetland return to its natural state and no longer maintain the property as lawn, in which case, any vegetation removal activity would have to be approved by the city, as referenced above. Aquatic Vegetation Control We also discussed the HOA's Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit, approved by Washington State Department of Ecology (WADOE), to allow the use of chemical products applied to manage aquatic nuisance plants, noxious weeds, quarantine -listed weeds, algae, and nutrients in Lake Lorene. As part of that permit, the HOA hired AquaTechnex, LLC, to apply Phoslock to the lake to remove excessive phosphorus concentrations in the lake to improve water quality. You mentioned that a Mr. Gary Darcey Page 2 October 23, 2013 property owner has brought legal action against the HOA and AquaTechnex to discontinue this practice. Until recently, the city's Planning Division was not aware of WADOE's approval of the Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit and never reviewed the proposal for compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance. The city is supportive of actions to control invasive and noxious weeds, provided the methods utilized are not detrimental to wetland/lake function. Per FWRC 19.170.050, the director may permit an applicant to rehabilitate or maintain a regulated wetland/lake by requiring the removal of detrimental materials, such as debris, sediments, and inappropriate vegetation. These actions may be permitted at any time that a condition detrimental to water quality or habitat exists. Upon resolution of the current legal dispute, if you wish to continue with future rounds of aquatic vegetation control, please instruct your contractor to submit a written request for aquatic plant management to the city for review prior to any future application/treatment. Please include a report by a qualified wetland biologist that evaluates the impact of the work on the wetland/lake, including any desired removal of native/non-invasive vegetation. The goal would be to develop a plan that accomplishes the HOA's goals of controlling undesirable vegetation, while at the same time maintaining wetland ecology and function. Ideally a plan could be developed that would allow treatment on a re -occurring basis without the need for a new approval for each event. Lastly, we also discussed the idea that you could hire a wetland biologist to evaluate the lake fringe, to determine if the city's preliminary designation of wetland status is accurate and prepare a report accordingly. To complete this exercise, we would need to engage the city's on -call wetland biologist to evaluate the report at HOA expense. Do nOt hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 253-835-2643, or isaac.conlen ci .offederalwa . Sincerely, Isaac Conlen Planning Manager c: Dan Smith, SW Quality Program Coordinator Rebecca Chapin, Assistant Planner Patrick Doherty, Director of Community & Economic Development File #12-101766-00-AD Doe. I.D. 64394 Twin Lakes HOA Joe's Creek Pestoration Plan General Goals 1. Clear away blackberry bushes, Japanese Knotweed, and other invasive species; 2. Install native plant species and trees along both sides of the stream; 3. Re -vegetate along the pathway to suppress re -growth of invasive species; and 4. Vegetation maintenance in the paved pedestrian pathway and public areas. The area known as Joe's Creek path is in the Twinlakes HOA neighborhood located on the west end of Lake Loreene between the lake and Hoyt Road. The Joe's Creek path connects SW 3251h St. and 44th PI SW. The pedestrian path is paved with asphalt approx. 6' wide. Joe's Creek itself flows through a culvert under the path near the SW 325th St. entrance. Another small unnamed water source also flows under Hoyt road and joins Joe's Creek. It appears that the area has never had any formal landscape planting following the original grading at the time the development and the lakes themselves were created in the 1970's. The area is overgrown with opportunistic plants including a few invasive species. The final goal is not to make the area park like. Rather, it is to alter it to provide a self sustaining area that discourages invasive species and represents a more natural setting to include keeping the existing path and the area directly adjacent to it clear enough to be a safe feeling environment for pedestrians. All plants used will be among those recommended on the website of the Washington Native Plant Society httg://www.wni?§.o_r_SZ Noxious weeds list: http://www.nwch-wa-gov/ Area overview images: http://gisma ps. kingcou nty.gov/parceiviewer2/?xm in=-13624505.159306979&ymin=5992843.958687155&xm ax==13624187.467908265&ym ax=5993036.245586375 t (A- �V� �) t �) I 1 �� E&jWdKWng'fodcrd,_ rr © UM 13rd P15W, hdrral.- I6ng County Partd Y _. x nU5,06 PIWm.Goadk«.x + IA-Gx;!= 7 4332340 ` 8732020580 '0 � * Al 4 * ! '—'2 r You re ri KCGISCenter, Pravci7:Re.aarai by: Address i . Search Find Intersection Za to Advanced tools - Ha;em:rp: -... Print P36 4 Q o 8: 32020590 f 3201WR9 9 >na 50 � 1 o 30 son Updated: Dec 5, 2013 lii Share V Tweet a Email $ Print https://www.google.com/maps/@47.3107826,-122.3900134,188m/data=!3m1! 1e3 I'Q k4i .4-ong'Fi igtr i� G..91eM.P. XjW_ F o y�,gk.co rt ro+nt Ca�.�ns: t�3R70E 1.sn.d.r,=r,lad ® c.��;E P '{ Treffi,,II, sn Riryy. ng,D—tc litt� :Ilwww. o Ie.com/ma sl 47.3I 82-122.3900134 19 873202TRCT - The Lake, Joe's Creak Trail area, the uphill part of the trail AND the cul-de-sac 44th PL SW 873201UNKN - Just the part SW 325th St. Between 32515 43RD PL SW 98023 and 32509 43RD PL SW 98023 �.' kGjIxnd:uping iedcr.!_. x �%3tiLi 43rsPoSSN•isdcra.,_ n ". c.uayPar Viewer.. r1G Jk Maps x •! �7 E G 90agk.cnm a-... :... •1_: a. 13: u:a . u:l= © P {} '% %ff�, Ir d D¢y�lug, D—b— F: https://www.google.com/maps/&47.3107826.-122.3900134.19z 873202TRCT - The Lake, Joe's Creak Trail area, the uphill part of the trail AND the cul-de-sac 44th PL SW 873201UNKN - Just the part SW 325th St. Between 32515 43RD PL SW 98023 and 32509 43RD PL SW 98023 Area 5: Hillside along Hoyt road. Going to leave alone for now. Plant: Would like to eventually add other types of trees to include native dogwood and Madrone. Area 6: Raised area with large evergreens. Generally healthy. Remove: Japanese Knotweed, english ivy, blackberries. Plant: Vine maple and big leaf maple. Additional evergreens including western red cedar and Western hemlock, Area 7: Generally healthy. Remove: Japanese Knotweed, english ivy, blackberries. Plant: Kinnikinnick, Twinflower, Cusick's Sedge, ferns, Oregongrape, Beaked Hazelnut Area 8: Lakeside. I can't get there from here. No work needed as far as I can tell. Area 9: Massive thicket of Himalayan blackberry in swamp. (Can we napalm this?) Remove: Blackberries and Japanese Knotweed Plant: Vine maple, Cusick's Sedge, Sawbeak Sedge, ferns, Slough Sedge, Oregongrape, Bog Birch. Area 10: Not so massive thicket of Himalayan blackberry be left) Remove: Blackberries and Japanese Knotweed (There are a couple of native blackberry plants that will Plant: Vine maple, Cusick's Sedge, Sawbeak Sedge, ferns, Slough Sedge, Oregongrape, Beaked Hazelnut Area 11: To trailhead at 44th Place SW. Images: Area 2: �-- �,� • 1�,�, . � _ .; ;:,�,..,�-ate '.�-... � - - ;;� - fir- _- • �,• -�� ����.ti� I3 Area 2a Area 2b looking south. Area 3: From area 1 at area 3 Area 4: 0 Looking south east back at area 2 Looking north. Area 6 in the background North and across trail from area 2 Area 7: Looking west about the center of the area (Holly). Area 9: North end of area 9 from the end of area 11 looking east. Overview of area 9, looking northeast over the lake. Area 10: ;.¢; -�'�n.� `�'�' - ,��. - _ .'ii.-•G��. _ :. _."tic - c"'.:_ _ . • =���4:.F;'L'� iC.-'t. ..��'d�• - �. ��:�• .R ., .: V^*�'S``�~4 �'d. - ` � cad •.. ]�"_�-c,�-_ .ty �y--� :,�• �; �+w. ..F' "� •}:: - .o�'k::;• Caw 'ft7•�' i. - ? Looking north over area 10. t �' t•. .. �.+" l _ �_ . . � - �, _ .. ' .. c .. I� - .. is y� � { _ --. �� 7 -_ S��ii• Y � f7,[ � � f'�' ~`[�, I 5 .r. ��.� =_ � '} I' ,�7 �?-.1r� ' 't � f�?; r ! ,-.: - Department of Ecology -- General Permit Application Page 1 of 2 .; Application for Coverage R w-' AQU§\TIC PESTICIDE GENEnI��aL PERMIT Notice of Intent W A S N I N G T 0 N S T A T E To comply with the terms of the statewide general permit for discharges of aquatic EPANTAENT OF � 0 � � � Y Pesticides to control aquatic vegetation and algae to surface waters oft e state i DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Permit # _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Lake Name: Lake Lorene JxN 03 2011 I. PERMITi'EE: Government entity/applicator: Business/company name: WATER QUALITY PROGIJAM AquaTechnex AquaTechnex Business owner name: McNabb II. MAILING AND CONTACT INFORMATION: contact name: Business contact name: Kyle Langan Kyle Langan Mailing address: Business mailing address: POB 118 POB 118 City: Centralia City: Centralia Zip + 4: WA Zip + 4: WA E-Mail address: kyle@aquatechnex.com E-Mail address: kyle@aquatechnex.com Daytime phone: 360-330-0152 Daytime phone: 360-330-0152 Cell phone: 360-239-5707 Cell phone: 360-239-5707 UBI Number: 602190833 (Must have be provided in degrees, minutes, and IV. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT SEPA For State Use SEPA requirements must be complied with prior to submittal to the pesticide permit application. If exempt, provide documentation that justifies SEPA exemption. 1. Has a SEPA review been completed? ❑ Yes ❑ No Date: 2. Lead agency issuing SEPA Determination: 3. Type of SEPA determination: ❑ DNS ❑ DS ❑ Mitigated DNS Department of Ecology -- General Permit Application - Department of Ecology -- General Permit Application Page 2 of 2 V. PLANT AND CHEMICAL INFORMATION: 1. Products planned for use: Chemical name Targeted plant(s) or algae name by genus and species if the plant or algae can be identified to species. (Chemical shall be appropriate for species listed.) Diquat dibromide Potamogeton spp., Elodea Canadensis, Ceratophyllum demersum Endothall (dipotassium salt) Potamogeton spp., Elodea Canadensis, Ceratophyllum demersum Endothall (mono -salt) Algae spp Glyphosate Typha, Iris, nymphaea Aluminum sulfate Algae spp Calcium hydrodxide / Carbon dioxide Algae spp Adjuvant(s) LI-700 Product Type Targeted plant(s) or algae name by genus and species if the plant or algae can be Identified to species. Biological water clarifiers Algae spp VI. REGULATORY STATUS: (Applicator Information Only) 1. Department of Agriculture Pesticide Applicator License number: 7973 2. Department of Agriculture Pesticide Applicator License expiration date: 12/31/2010 3. X License has an Aquatic Endorsement or will be supervised by someone with an Aquatic Endorsement. 4. X My renewal has been satisfied and wiii remain current. 5. Type of Activity: Eradication X Control Nutrient Inactivation VII. SPILL KIT Do you have a complete and up-to-date kit? X Yes No VIII. CERTIFICATION I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision. The information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. All label directions and requirements will be followed unless the Department of Ecology has further restrictions. Printed name of�-- Signature: Date: "I certify that I have hired the c t Gt r listed above to perform product applications. " r Printed name of Sponsor: Signature: Date: https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wgapgnoi/Prnt... Department of Ecology -- General Permit Application Twin Fakes (Lake Lorene) Public Notice Aquatechnex, LLC. phone # 1-360-330-0152 is seeking coverage under the NPDES Waste Discharge General Permit for aquatic plant and algae management. Aquatechnex will be aiding the Twin Lakes HOA in treatment of the five acre Lake Lorene in Federal Way. Lake Lorene may be treated to control aquatic weeds and algae growth between April 1, 2011 through December 31, 2016. The herbicide planned for use is: Glyphosate and LI-700 . The total treatment area will not exceed 3.5 acres. Any person desiring to present their views to the Department of Ecology regarding this application shall do so in writing within 30 days of the last date of publication of this notice. Comments can also be submitted on the SEPA documents for this project. Submit comments to: Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47696, Olympia, WA 98504-7696, Attn: Water Quality Program, Aquatic Pesticide Permit Coordinator. Any water use restrictions and or advisories will be posted near the treatment areas along the private shoreline and public access points. Copies of the application are available by calling the Water Quality Program, Aquatic Pesticide Permit Coordinator at # 1-360-407-6938. WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructionsfor applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonpruject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonpruject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FORNONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonpruject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lake Lorene Noxious Aquatic Weed Control Program 2. Name of applicant: Aquatechnex. LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Terry McNabb or Kyle Langan, PO Box 118, Centralia, WA 98531, 360-330-0152 4. Date checklist prepared: December 16, 2010. 5. Agency requesting checklist: Washington Department of Ecology 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): This program will commence on receipt of the NPDES permit this checklist is required for. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The NPDES permit is a five year permit. At this time we have no plans beyond the expiration date of the permit. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. This checklist is required as part of the permit application process for aquatic weed control. That document has been filed. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NO. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The NPDES permit that this checklist supports is the only government approval or permit that will be needed for our proposal. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.). This proposal is to use US EPA approved aquatic herbicides within the conditions of the NPDES for aquatic weed control issued by the Department of Ecology to manage aquatic weeds within the waters of Lake Lorene. There are about 3.5 acres of water within this proposed treatment area. The permit application that accompanies this document has a map and locations of the proposed treatments. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. This information is contained in the map and permit application that accompanies this checklist. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ...... This proposed activity will take place in Lake Lorene, see map b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Not applicable 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soil types within the treatment area are lake sediments. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not applicable e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable, no impervious surface created h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: not applicable a. Air EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? if any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. There will not be significant emissions created by this project. A boat with a four stroke engine will be utilized for approximately 4 hours on two to three occasions during the summer. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not applicable c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: use of four stroke engines on vessels TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 3. Water a. Surface: EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Is there anysurface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes, this proposal is to treat aquatic weeds in Lake Lorene. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? Ifyes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes this work will occur on Lake Lorene as described in the maps and permit application attached to this document. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not applicable 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The proposal involved the application of EPA approved aquatic herbicides under the guidelines of an NPDES permit issued by Ecology. These are not considered waste materials, they may be considered as pollutants under state law. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be. discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, ifknown). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Not applicable 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: not applicable 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullmsb, skunk cabbage, other X water plants: Elodea, Coontail, Yellow Flag Iris, Potamogeton sp., Chara, Cattail, algae other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? This proposal will control the aquatic weed species present within the project site waters. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Known d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: none considered. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: All mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Deer, fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: bass, trout, b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Know. R TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Migratory Waterfowl no doubt use Lake Lorene during migratory times of the year. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: reduction of aquatic weed species present in the treatment areas. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed projecVs energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. not applicable b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. no c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: none 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Aquatic herbicides that may be used are described in Ecology's Risk Assessment documents and the Agency has determined that those products permitted for use pose a minor to negligible risk to health when applied under the guidelines present in the Permit There are no risks of fire or explosion. There are no real risks of spill that could result from this, see below. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No emergency services should be required. Aquatechnex does provide telephone communication to all employees, we maintain information on the products used on site, we maintain the telephone number of local emergency service providers. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: a spill kit will be present with the crews. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None, not applicable 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term noise from a low horsepower outboard engine for 4 to 8 hours 3 or 4 times a year. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: use of four stroke engines, low speed settings 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? High use recreational waters and park b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not applicable c. Describe any structures on the site. Not applicable d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No, not applicable e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is Lake Lorene lake bottom, the adjacent properties are zone residential f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Lake g. If applicable, wbat is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Probably all of Lake Lorene is considered an environmentally sensitive area. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None, not applicable j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, not applicable k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None, not applicable 7 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None, not applicable 9. Rousing a. Approximately bow many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. None, not applicable b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None, not applicable c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None, not applicable 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? None, not applicable b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None, not applicable c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None, not applicable 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None, not applicable EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? None, not applicable c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None, not applicable d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None, not applicable TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 12. Recreation EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Boating, swimming, fishing b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No, this project will improve these activities. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op- portunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: none, not applicable 13. Mstoric and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preser- vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None, not applicable b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None, not applicable • C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None not applicable 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Not applicable b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, not applicable c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None, not applicable d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No, not applicable. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transporta- tion? If so, generally describe. No, not applicable f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Ifknown, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None, not applicable g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None, not applicable 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pro- tection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None, no impact 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse serv- ice, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. None, not applicable b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None, not applicable C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on the make its decision. Signature: _.. Date Submitted: 10 Issuance Date: Effective Date: Expiration Date: Modification Date: Modification Effective Date: February 16, 2011 March 18, 2011 March 18, 2016 April 4, 2012 May 4, 2012 AQUATIC PLANT AND ALGAE MANAGEMENT GENERAL PERMIT National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit State of Washington Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504 In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 90.48 Revised Code of Washington (State of Washington Water Pollution Control Act) and Title 33 United States Code, Section 1251 et seq. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (The Clean Water Act) Until this permit expires, is modified or revoked, Permittees that have properly obtained coverage under this general permit are authorized to discharge in accordance with the special and general conditions that follow. ly S , PR' P.G. W at � Quality Program Manager Washington State Department of Ecology TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF PERMIT REPORT SUBMITTALS......................................................... 5 SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITIONS.................................._................................................6 S1. PERMIT COVERAGE.................................................................................................................................6 A. Activities Covered Under This Permit............................................................................................................6 B. Geographic Area Covered...............................................................................................................................9 C. Activities Excluded from Coverage Under This Permit..................................................................................9 S2. APPLICATION FOR COVERAGE...........................................................................................................9 A. Who May Obtain Permit Coverage.................................................................................................................9 B. How to Apply for Coverage..........................................................................................................................10 C. How to Terminate Permit Coverage ........................ :.:...:................ :...... :.......:.............. :............. I .................. 12 S3. DISCHARGE LIMITS...............................................................................................................................12 A. Compliance with Standards...........................................................................................................................12 B. Temporary Exceedance of Water Quality Standards.....................................................................................12 C. Application Requirements.............................................................................................................................13 D. Discharge Management Plan............................................................ ,............................................................. 13 E. Impaired Water Bodies..................................................................................................................................14 F. Identified Wetlands....................................................................................................................................... IC G. Additional Requirements for Discharges to Water Bodies Where Sensitive, Threatened, or Endangered PlantsAre Present...................................................................................................................................................15 S4. THE APPLICATION OF PRODUCTS....................................................................................................15 A. Prohibited Discharges.............................................................................................................._.....................15 B. Authorized Discharges..................................................................................................................................15 C. Experimental Use..........................................................................................................................................18 D. General Application Restrictions..................................................................................................................19 S5. NOTIFICATION, INSPECTION, AND POSTING REQUIREMENTS...............................................27 A. Ecology Notification Requirements..............................................................................................................27 B. Ecology Inspection Coordination Requirements...........................................................................................27 C. Residential and Business Notification ........ ...... ................. ............. .......... ...................... .. .......... ,............_._.._.28 D. Children's Camp Notification Requirements................................................................................................29 E. Shoreline Posting Requirements....................................................................................................................29 S6. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................................................31 A. Application of Herbicides and Algaecides....................................................................................................31 B. Application of Phosphorus Inactivation Products ... .......... ....................................... ........... „........................ 32 S7. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES................................................................................................................33 S8. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS...............................................................33 A. Annual Treatment/Monitoring Reports.........................................................................................................33 B. Records Retention.................................................................................................................................:.......34 C. Recording of Results.....................................................................................................................................34 D. Noncompliance Notification......................................................................................................................... 34 S9. SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL.................................................................................................34 Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 2 A. Spill Prevention.............................................................................................................................................34 B. Spill Notification Requirements ........... --......................................................................._..........................35 C. Spill Cleanup Requirements ................. ................................................... ::........... ....................... :.................. 35 S10. MITIGATION FOR PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED PLANTS: AQUATICPLANT CONTROL PROJECTS.........................................................................................................35 A. Survey Requirements ............................................... —....—................ ....... .......... —..................................... .35 B. Mitigation .................................... . .......................................................................................................35 S11. APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................37 GENERALCONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................................38 GI. DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS....................................................................................................................38 G2. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE....................................................................................38 G3. RIGHT OF ENTRY....................................................................................................................................38 G4. PERMIT COVERAGE REVOCATION...................................................................................................38 G5. GENERAL PERMIT MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION...............................................................39 G6. REPORTING A CAUSE FOR MODIFICATION...................................................................................39 G7. TOXIC POLLUTANTS..............................................................................................................................40 G8. OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR..................................................................................................40 G9. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND STATUTES....................................................................40 G10. ADDITIONAL MONITORING.................................................................................................................40 GILPAYMENT OF FEES.................................................................................................................................40 G12. REQUESTS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER A GENERAL PERMIT................40 G13. TRANSFER OF PERMIT COVERAGE..................................................................................................41 G14. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING PERMIT CONDITIONS...................................................................41 G15. SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................................41 G16. APPEALS...................................................................................................................................I.................42 G17. SEVERABILITY.........................................................................................................................................43 G18. DUTY TO REAPPLY.................................................................................................................................43 APPENDIXA - DEFINITIONS...................................................................................... 44 APPENDIXB - PUBLIC NOTICE.................................................................................. 53 Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 3 APPENDIX C — ECOLOGY NOTIFICATION TEMPLATE ............................................ 54 APPENDIX D — BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL NOTICE TEMPLATE ...................... 56 APPENDIX E — POSTING TEMPLATES...................................................................... 57 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Required permit submittals........................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Listed Adjuvants............................................................................................................ 17 Table 3: Specific Restrictions on the Application of Herbicides and Algaecides for Control and EradicationProjects.............................................................................................................. 21 Table 4: Specific Restrictions on Application of Products for Inactivation of Phosphorus ........ 25 Table 5: Restrictions on Applications of Shading Products and Biological Water Clarifiers ..... 26 Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 4 SUMMARY OF PERMIT REPORT SUBMITTALS Refer to the Special and General Conditions of this permit for submittal requirements. Table 1. Required permit submittals Permit 11W Submittal Frequency Due Date(s) Section S2. Application for New Coverage As necessary At least 60 days prior to the start of discharge Discharge Management Plan (for New applicants: With projects where the total proposed treated Once per NOI; S3.D. area in the water body is five or more coverage Continuing Permittees: acres) By March 18, 2012 SIG & plant Survey and Mitigation Measures As necessary As necessary S10. Each week or By 8:00 a.m. Monday as necessary of the first week of S5.A. Ecology Pre -and Post -Treatment Notice during the treatment each treatment treatment season season No later than one S5.C. Business and Residential Notice As necessary business day following notification Dissolved Oxygen Data from 303(d) — Within 30 days for the S6.A.2 Listed Water Bodies for Dissolved As necessary post -treatment Oxygen When Using Contact monitoring date Herbicides S8.A Annual Monitoring Report Annually December 31 S8.D. Noncompliance Notification As necessary As necessary G5. Permit Modification and Revocation As necessary Within 14 days of request G6. Request for Modification As necessary As necessary G13. Request for Transfer of Coverage As necessary As necessary Once per At least 180 days prior G.18. Re -Application for Permit Coverage permit cycle to the permit expiration date Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 5 The text of this permit contains words or phrases in bold and italics. These words or phrases are the first usage in the permit and are defined in Appendix A. SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITIONS S1. PERMIT COVERAGE The Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General 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. A. Activities Covered Under This Permit This general permit covers aquatic plant and algae management activities that result in a discharge of herbicides, algaecides, adjuvants, marker dyes, shading products, biological water clarifiers, and nutrient inactivation products (referred to hereafter as chemicals) into fresh water bodies of the state of Washington. The permit also covers lake shoreline and roadside/ditch bank emergent vegetation management activities where chemicals may enter the water. Aquatic plant and algae management activities are organized into three categories: Eradication, Control, and Nutrient Management. The permit has different requirements for each category. Eradication 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 water body. As such, 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: a. All noxious weeds as identified in chapter 16-750 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). b. Plants listed on the quarantine list as identified in chapter 16-752 WAC. c. Non-native and potentially invasive plants not listed on the above lists, as determined by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA), or the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2. Control Ecology limits direct herbicide application to a percentage of the littoral zone for most control treatments to preserve native plant habitat. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 6 a. Aquatic plant control The goal is to maintain native aquatic vegetation for habitat while allowing partial plant removal for recreation and other beneficial uses. Permit requirements differ depending on plant growth forms and the legal status of the plant species. Minimal impact to non -target plants is acceptable to the extent needed to control the target plants. i. Aquatic noxious weed control Littoral zone limitations do not apply to control of noxious weeds or weeds on the quarantine list, but some treatment limitations may apply - see (2) below. The Permittee may intentionally apply herbicides to: (1) 100 percent of noxious weeds if they are Class A weeds, Class B weeds in areas where they are designated for control, as identified in chapter 16-750 WAC, and Class C weeds where they are selected for control by a county Noxious Weed Control Board (RCW 17.10.080). (2) 100 percent of any submersed noxious or quarantine -list weeds not covered under (1) if the Permittee conducts weed control using a selective herbicide. (3) 100 percent of any emergent or floating -leaved noxious weeds and quarantine listed weeds. ii. Aquatic nuisance plant control The Permittee may intentionally apply chemicals to: (1) No more than 25 feet on either side of a dock or no more than an area 50 feet wide per lot for individual treatments targeting submersed and floating -leaved plants. Treatment of the vegetated area may extend up to 25 feet beyond the end of the dock. On individual lots with no docks, treatment of the vegetated area can extend up to 50 feet from the shore. (2) No more than 40 percent of emergent shoreline plants such as cattails and bulrush on individual lots for individual treatments. (3) A percentage of a water body's littoral zone based on the littoral acres of the water body and the size of the water body. a. The geographic area where the Permittee intentionally applies chemicals must remain the same for the entire length of the permit coverage up to the maximum percentage of the littoral zone allowed for by water body size. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 7 b. All untreated littoral areas must include native vegetation from the shore to the edge of the littoral zone where the plants stop growing in deeper water. c. The cumulative percentage of the littoral zone where herbicides] may be intentionally applied must not exceed the amount allowed below: a) In water bodies up to 15 acres in size, the Permittee may intentionally apply herbicides to no more than 75 percent of the littoral zone. b) In water bodies over 15 acres and up to 50 acres in size, the Permittee may intentionally apply herbicides to no more than 60 percent of the littoral zone. c) In water bodies over 50 acres and up to 500 acres in size, the Permittee may intentionally apply herbicides to no more than 50 percent of the littoral zone. d) In water bodies over 500 acres in size, the Permittee may intentionally apply herbicides to no more than 30 percent of the littoral zone. iii. Roadside and ditch bank plant control (1) For activities conducted by state and local agencies, the Permittee may intentionally apply herbicides to 100 percent of the plants within the right of way. (2) The Permittee may intentionally apply herbicides to no more than 40 percent of native vegetation of roadsides and ditches on privately owned individual lots, but may intentionally apply herbicide to 100 percent of any noxious or quarantine -listed weeds. b. Algae control i. The Permittee may intentionally apply algaecides to the entire water body or sections of the water body, as needed, when cyanobacteria or other potentially toxic or environmentally harmful algae species are expected to form blooms in the water body. ii. The Permittee may intentionally apply algaecides to filamentous algae so long as the treated areas do not exceed the maximum amount of littoral zone allowed for treatment in S 1.A.2.adi. 1 Different littoral zone limitations apply to the herbicide fluridone. See Treatment Limitations in Table 3. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 8 c. Nutrient Inactivation The Permittee may intentionally apply approved buffering agents and alum and calcium hydroxide/oxide and calcium carbonate as phosphorus inactivation products to the entire water body or sections of the water body per permit sections S4.D.Table 4 and S6.13 and C. Limited use of other nutrient inactivation products is allowed under permit section S4.C. B. Geographic Area Covered This general permit covers the activities listed in S LA throughout surface freshwaters of the state of Washington, except for federal and tribal lands. C. Activities Excluded from Coverage Under This Permit Ecology will not require coverage under this permit for the use of chemicals on the following sites: 1. Constructed detention or retention ponds designed specifically for wastewater or stormwater treatment that do not discharge to other water bodies during and for two weeks after treatment, or where Ecology regulates the discharge under another permit that allows chemical treatment. 2. Any constructed water body five acres or less in surface area with no discharge to other surface waters of the state during and for two weeks after treatment. Any constructed water body ten acres or less in surface area under single ownership with no public access and no discharge to other surface waters of the state during and for two weeks after treatment. 4. Upland farm ponds with no discharge to other surface waters of the state during and for two weeks after treatment. 5. Treatment conducted on seasonally dry land surfaces (including seasonally dry wetlands) so long as the treatment occurs when the area is dry and the active ingredient is not biologically available when the water returns. 6. Research activities when applying chemicals or products to water bodies under a State Experimental Use Permit (See S4.C). S2. APPLICATION FOR COVERAGE A. Who May Obtain Permit Coverage 1. Pesticide applicators (WAC 16-228-1545) may apply for coverage. Applicators must be licensed in Washington State with an aquatic endorsement (WAC16-228- 1545 3(t)). Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 9 a. Applicators must obtain separate permit coverage for each water body that they plan to treat. Each coverage requires a sponsor. Applicators may obtain a single permit coverage for multiple water bodies where a single, non- governmental sponsor has authority to treat more than one water body. The water bodies need not be hydraulically connected, but must be part of the same distinct community (e.g., ABC Homeowners Association). b. In water bodies with multiple sponsors or multiple permit coverages, applicators must obtain separate permit coverages for each location within the water body (e.g., Lake Washington). 2. Dischargers are not required to be licensed to apply nutrient inactivation chemicals. For these projects, the discharger may apply for permit coverage. Applicants must have a sponsor for each nutrient inactivation coverage. 3. Any state or local government entity may apply for coverage. a. Government entities may obtain a single coverage that includes multiple water bodies under its jurisdiction. Government entities are considered sponsors. b. Government entities must keep Ecology updated with a current list of its licensed pesticide applicator(s), including license numbers and license expiration dates. B. How to Apply for Coverage Applicants that propose to begin aquatic plant or algae management activities that will result in a discharge to waters of the state on or after the effective date of this permit must: 1. Submit a complete permit application (Notice of Intent or NOI) to Ecology at least 60 days before starting the activity. 2. Complete the NOI for the proposed activity online. The applicant must access Ecology's online data management system SecureAccess Washington (haip:Hsecureaccess.wa. oy), fill out the NOI online, print it, and sign it. Applicators must ensure that their sponsor(s) also sign the document. a. The sponsor's signatory must certify to Ecology in the NOI that he or she has the authority to administer the treatment. Sponsors must also certify that they either represent an entity that has the authority to administer common areas of the water body or locations within the water body for the purposes of aquatic plant and algae management or that the sponsor intends to form an entity with that authority. New sponsors that do not represent such an entity may apply for and get coverage, but they must form an entity with authority to manage aquatic plants and algae in common areas of the water body within three years Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 10 from the date of the coverage letter. After that time, Ecology may terminate permit coverage. b. Sponsors continuing coverage from the previous permit that do not currently represent an entity that has the authority to administer common areas of the water body or locations within the water body for the purposes of aquatic plant and algae management have three years from the date of permit reissuance to form an entity for these purposes. After that time, Ecology may terminate permit coverage. c. The requirements in 2.a. and 2.b. above regarding sponsor entities do not apply to individual lot treatments or government entities. In such cases, the government entity or the sponsor of the individual lot treatment must certify to Ecology in the NOI that he or she has the authority to administer the treatment. 3. Applicants for projects where the total proposed treated area in the water body is less than five acres or when the project is for only ditch bank or roadside vegetation control must complete and submit a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist for the proposed activity. The applicant can access the SEPA checklist at h ://www.ec .wa. ov/ ro ams/sea/se a/forms.htm. 4. Applicants for projects where the total proposed treated area in the water body is five or more acres must complete, sign, and submit a Discharge Management Plan (DMP) and SEPA Addendum for the proposed activity (see S3.1)). The applicant can access the DMP/SEPA Addendum template at http://www.ecy.wa.2ov/proff—ams/wq/Testicides/final pesticide ermits/a uatic 1 ants/aquatic plant permit_index.html 5. Government applicants submitting a NOI for multiple water bodies under their jurisdiction must complete, sign, and submit a separate DMP/SEPA addendum for each water body where the proposed treatment area is five or more acres or a SEPA checklist for each water body where the proposed treatment area is less than five acres. 6. If the treatment affects potable water use on water bodies with municipal or community drinking water intakes, the applicant must obtain and submit written consent to the treatment from the municipality or community. 7. Mail the complete NOI to: Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Attn: Aquatic Pesticide Permit Manager P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 11 8. After the applicant has submitted the completed NOI to Ecology, fill out the Public Notice Template provided in Appendix B. Publish the public notice twice, one week apart, in a local newspaper of general circulation (or a regional newspaper if a local newspaper is not available) that an application for permit coverage has been made. At the time the second notice is published, a 30-day comment period begins. Mail or deliver the public notice to all potentially affected waterfront residents (those within one -quarter mile in each direction along the shoreline or across the water from proposed treatment areas) within one week of publishing the first newspaper notice. At the end of the required 30-day public comment period, Ecology will consider comments about the applicability of this permit to the proposed aquatic plant or algae management activity before issuing a decision on permit coverage. If the applicant does not receive notification of a coverage decision from Ecology, coverage under this permit will begin automatically on the 61" day following Ecology's acceptance of a completed NOI. C. How to Terminate Permit Coverage A Permittee may request termination of permit coverage by submitting a Notice of I ern_____tt___ r_�_ (NOT) to Ecology. Tlie Pel-mlttee will continue to incur an annual 1 G1111111Q.L1V11 1V1111 permit fee unless it submits a NOT. S3. DISCHARGE LIMITS A. Compliance with Standards The application of pesticides must 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). Ecology prohibits discharges that do not comply with these standards. 2. Permittees must use all known, available, and reasonable methods ofpollution control, prevention, and treatment (AKAR7) 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. B. Temporary Exceedance of Water Quality Standards Short and long-term exceedance of water quality standards are allowed under this permit provided the Permittee complies with the provisions of WAC 173-201A-410. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 12 C. Application Requirements The Permittee must comply with the FIFRA label when using pesticides. Permit requirements do not reduce the requirements on the FIFRA label. The Permittee must ensure that: A licensed pesticide applicator, with the appropriate Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) license and certification, has direct supervision responsibilities for the use of pesticides during application. 2. All applicators (either under the direct supervision of the licensed applicator for pesticides or under the supervision of the discharger for non -pesticides) have current training in the use of the equipment necessary to apply chemicals correctly and that they use approved application techniques. Appropriately trained personnel calibrate the application equipment for the chemical used. D. Discharge Management Plan New applicants and Permittees continuing coverage do not need to develop a DMP when: a. The total treatment area for each coverage is less than five acres. b. Treating only for ditchbank or roadside vegetation. c. Treating under experimental use permits where the sole purpose is for research and development. 2. New applicants and Permittees continuing coverages where the total treatment area for each coverage is equal to or greater than five acres must develop a DMP for each coverage using the appropriate template ht!p://www.L-ey.wa.govl ro mslw 1 esticides/final pesticide ermitsla uatic 1 antsla uatic plant permit index.html a. New applicants must submit their DMP with their NOI. The DMP template for new applicants is also a SEPA addendum. b. Permittees that continued coverage from the previous permit must submit their DMPs to Ecology by March 18, 2012. 3. Applicators must develop their DMPs jointly with each sponsor. 4. Government Permittees with single permit coverages for multiple water bodies must develop a separate DMP for each water body where the treatment area is Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 13 equal to or greater than five acres. Permittees must make these DMPs available to the water body residents on request. If a water body plan exists that is equivalent to the DMP, the applicant/Permittee may submit this plan in lieu of developing a DMP. However, the applicant/Permittee must certify to Ecology that the equivalent plan contains all the elements included in the DMP template. If the equivalent plan lacks some elements of the DMP template, the applicant/Permittee may attach an addendum with the additional information to the equivalent plan. 6. After the effective date of this permit, the Permittee must keep the DMP updated. The Permittee should update the plan when significant project changes occur. The Permittee must keep an updated copy of the DMP at its business office and make it available upon request to Ecology. E. Impaired Water Bodies The Permittee must not cause further permanent impairment of any 303(d)-listed water body for any listed parameter. 2. The Permittee must prevent further permanent impairment of water bodies listed on the 303(d) list for dissolved oxygen as a result of treatment. It may do so by choosing appropriate chemicals such as a systemic herbicide instead of a contact herbicide and must implement one or more of the following mitigation measures: a. Do not treat in the summer or when water temperatures are warm enough to contribute to low dissolved oxygen concentrations after treatment. b. Limit the area treated each time that treatment occurs. c. Remove decaying plants following treatment. d. Aerate the water following treatments. 3. The Permittee must prevent further permanent impairment of water bodies listed on the 303(d) list for phosphorus as a result of treatment. It may do so by choosing appropriate chemicals to minimize release of phosphorus from non -target plants or algae and must implement at least one or more of the following mitigation measures. a. When treating for a floating plant such as duckweed or for algae blooms ensure that a healthy population of native emergent, submersed, or floating - leaved plants remain in the water body after treatment. b. Time treatment so that plant nutrients are not released during summer months. c. Limit the area treated at any one time. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 14 d. Remove decaying plants following treatment F. Identified Wetlands l The Permittee may treat only high use areas to provide for safe recreation (e.g., defined swimming corridors) and boating (e.g., defined navigation channels) in identified and/or emer it wetlands. The Permittee must limit the treated area to protect native wetland vegetation. For eradication projects, the Permittee must make every effort to protect native wetland vegetation while removing noxious weeds. G. Additional Requirements for Discharges to Water Bodies Where Sensitive, Threatened, or Endangered Plants Are Present Before issuing permit coverage, Ecology will determine whether sensitive, threatened, or endangered (rare) plants are present in the proposed treatment area. If present: For eradication projects, Ecology will consult with the Washington Natural Heritage Program and may condition the permit coverage based on the consultation. 2. For aquatic plant control projects, the Permittee must submit a detailed plant survey and if a rare plant is present in the treatment area, implement one or more mitigation measures (see S 10.). S4. THE APPLICATION OF PRODUCTS A. Prohibited Discharges Ecology prohibits treatment that causes oxygen depletion to the point of stress or lethality to aquatic biota from plant or algae die -off, the mortality of aquatic vertebrates, or unintended impacts to water quality or biota. B. Authorized Discharges Beginning on the effective date of this permit and until Ecology modifies, reissues, or revokes this permit; this permit authorizes the Permittee to discharge the chemicals listed in the permit into freshwaters of the state. 2. This permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights. 3. The Permittee must comply with the specific restrictions/limitations on the use of each chemical listed in Tables 3-5. 4. The Permittee may apply the following listed active ingredients that are labeled for use on aquatic sites: Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 15 a. 2,4-D: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, butoxyethyl ester b. 2,4-D: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, dimethylamine salt Bispyribac-sodium: Sodium, 2,6-bis [(4,6-dimethoxy-pyrimidin-2-yl)oxy] benzoate d. Carfentrazone-ethyl: Ethyl a,2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-oxo-1 H-1,2,4-triazol-l-yl]-4-fluorobenzenepropanoate e. Diquat: Dibromide salt of 6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2',1"-c) pyrazinediium f. Endothall: Dipotassium salt of 7-oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2,3dicarboxylic acid g. Endothall: mono(N,N-dimethylalkyalmine) salt of 7- oxabicyclo[2.2. 1 ]heptane-2,3 -dicarboxylic acid h. Flumioxazin: 2-[7-fluro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4- benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-lH-isoindole-1,3 (2H)-dione i. Fluridone:l-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4(1H)-pyridinone Glyphosate: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, isopropylamine salt k. Imazamox: 2-[4,5 -dihydro-4-methyl-(1-methylethyl)-5 -oxo-1 H-imidazol- 2yl]-5-(methoxymethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid 1. Imazapyr: 2-(4, 5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methyleth7yl)-5-oxo-1 H-imidazol-2- yl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid m. Penoxsulam:2-(2,2-difluoroethoxy)--6-(trifluoromethyl-N-(5,8- dimethoxy[1,2,4] triazolo[1,5-c]pyrimidin-2-yl)) benzenesulfonamide n. Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate: 2Na2CO3 311202 o. Triclopyr TEA: Triethylamme salt of 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyloxyacetic acid 5. The Permittee may apply the adjuvants listed in Table 2. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 16 Table 2: Listed Adjuvants Adjuvant (Trade Name) Product use Agri-DexTM Crop Oil Concentrate AquaSurf m Surfactant Spreader, Sticker, and Deposition BondTM Aid Bronc MaxTM Water Conditioning Agent Water Conditioning Agent, Bronc Plus Dry-EDTTM Surfactant, Deposition Aid, and Anti -foam Agent Water Conditioning Agent and Class Act NGTM Surfactant Modified Vegetable Oil and CompetitorTM Surfactant Cut-RateTM Water Conditioning Agent Surfactant and Modified Vegetable Cygnet P1usTM Oil Modified Vegetable Oil and DestinyHCTM Surfactant Modified Vegetable Oil and Dyne-AmicTM Surfactant Water Conditioning Agent and ExciterTM Surfactant FractionTM Water Conditioning Agent Deposition Aid and Drift Control InterlockTM Agent KineticTM Surfactant Surfactant, Water Conditioning Level 7TM Agent, and Acidifier Surfactant, Acidifier, Deposition LI-700TM Aid, and Drift Control Agent Surfactant, Deposition Aid, and LiberateTM Drift Control Agent Water Conditioning Agent and MagnifyTM Surfactant Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 17 Adjuvant (Trade Name) Product use Water Conditioning Agent, One-Ap XLTM Surfactant, Deposition Aid, and Antifoaming Agent Pro AMS P1usTM Water Conditioning Agent and Surfactant SinkerTM Carrier, Drift Control Agent, and Deposition Aid Spray-RiteTM Water Conditioning Agent Superb HCTM High Surfactant Oil Concentrate TacticTM Spreader/sticker and Deposition Aid TronicTM Surfactant The Permittee may apply nutrient inactivation products, including aluminum sulfate, sodium aluminate, calcium hydroxide/oxide, and calcium carbonate and the approved buffering agents. See Table 4 for specific restrictions on nutrient inactivation products. 7. The Permittee may apply marker dyes, shading products, and water clarification products (including bacterial products). See Table 5 for specific restrictions on these products. C. Experimental Use The Permittee may apply chemicals not listed in this permit on a limited basis in the context of a research and development effort under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the issuance of a federal experimental use permit (40 CFR 172) and the WSDA through the issuance of a state experimental use permit (EUP). Discharges for the sole purpose of research and development are not required to be covered under a DMP (S3.D.l.c.). a. Project proponents must obtain coverage under this general permit for any in - water projects conducted under a federal EUP (projects over one acre or more in size), unless the project is conducted at a site excluded from coverage under this permit. b. Ecology does not require coverage under this general permit for research and development projects of one acre or less in size where the project proponent operates under a state EUP (issued by WSDA). Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 18 2. The Permittee may apply nutrient inactivation products not listed in this permit on a limited basis in the context of a research and development effort so long as the Permittee develops a plan that is approved by Ecology for this activity. The plan must undergo a public review process. D. General Application Restrictions The Permittee must avoid treatments that restrict public water use during the opening week of fishing season or during tribal fisheries, Memorial Day weekend, Independence Day weekend, and Labor Day weekend and must minimize treatments that restrict public water use during weekends. 2, When there are potable water restrictions on the label and the treatment is within the setback distance listed on the product label, the Permittee must not apply any chemical until it has notified people who withdraw potable water from the water body. If requested by the affected water user(s), the Permittee must provide an alternative potable water supply until the intake water tests at or below the concentration specified for that chemical in Table 3, or until the time period specified in Table 3 for that chemical has elapsed. If there is no potable water restriction listed in Table 3, the Permittee must follow all label conditions for potable water supply. If requested by an affected water user, the Permittee must provide at least two weeks advance notice of pending treatments. 3. People withdrawing water under a legal water right or claim for irrigation or livestock watering purposes may request an alternate water supply during the treatment if the label has restrictions for those uses and the treatment is inside the setback distance listed on the product label. The Permittee must provide an alternative water supply until the intake water tests at or below the irrigation restriction concentration or livestock drinking water concentration on the label or until the time interval specified on the label has elapsed. If requested by an affected water user, the Permittee must provide at least two weeks advance notice of pending treatments. 4. The Permittee must avoid treatments that adversely affect salmon or steelhead in hatcheries when applying treatments to areas upstream of a hatchery water intake. Ecology will coordinate with the Permittee, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and affected tribes to ensure treatments proposed upstream of a hatchery intake do not adversely affect hatchery fish or hatchery operations. 5. The Permittee must ensure that there is adequate contact time between the targeted vegetation and the selected herbicide when treating in reservoirs or in flowing water to avoid non -target downstream impacts. 6. The Permittee must comply with WDFW timing windows referenced in Tables 3 and 4 to protect salmon, steelhead, and bull trout populations and WDFW priority Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 19 habitats and species. WDFW may periodically update this table as new information becomes available or on request from Ecology. The timing table is available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/final pesticide permits/aquatic pl antslaguatic 121ant_perirtit index.html. a. Timing windows do not apply to nonnative fish such as bass. At their discretion, Permittees may choose to comply with the bass timing windows noted in the WDFW timing table. b. Permittees may consult with Ecology and WDFW to develop alternate timing windows if necessary so long as the new treatment windows do not adversely impact priority species and habitats. 7. The Permittee must follow the specific restrictions and advisories identified in Tables 3 and 4. Swimming restrictions/advisories apply to primary contact activities such as swimming, wading, and water skiing. Drinking water restrictions apply to residents drinking lake water as their sole source of potable water or where they hold a water right for potable water. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 20 20� / ��o c2� g Ems®% /�0a �_ . 7 k _ CO \ ° a / $ G % -0 CD Z3o / f / ± ■ a3w�Re4E oEo-0w$b_ o 0 m5:— — > m -0022�mm0ma= / 2£ g°± E£ 2/ -0 M 0 co C ® \�� k //E`(D0 f}§22ffR�7E _�0\%$2±/% // E cm0 U)&f3Ro7 0 o wR=a« 2 � \ca U) ƒ$ o «/ \ C. E 3 % o E ©5 4. m Q 2 a% CD o k oe @ E vto k k o o 0mcu /\\a) 2 , §� ■ m 'yf% - 2C �k �E\7 �E\7 �k /�@ 20 0 k2jk E a) §\\ k§4= 0 CO) =0 __N 0 �+( v= 555-0 a S ° �' /CL 0 0) $�$k//k y2tt=o(n �E �±\0 CD 0 M m t/%}{±�0)" $k�$\/k//k mweym—" =om 5k/ ui 40 0(D CU \a) ztaaE k ( z ( 2 o �'0 0 co # $\e �= c /$Rk:2ay o U� \k \ka)Z§ k\}\�c%�k m= i° a E-c o e4—_D0 #� # 0m"«=Rcm £EE>3R°±E -M__F cnCj 2220c2$/0 m - ca d 322}kf�/2 / � CD \\ �E E e&0 k2 _- �, o n» t b e�E= oe 0# 2 E \ f § \ 2 a o 6 § « ao�� UI §/�� 0 o _ = =en CD �k{ƒ 0-g 3\/\ `\\ mot �\R * * }? /£ 2_ c �uu o »\\cu o- a")C° $ C cu f� G� U) oM =� -o o��M k�§ k�§) 2 E77/ \70 o $§ 4 c k§ 4 z m=C*4 m=ate o c. m -0 b co_ (D }£a)o��U) o=1c": a) 0 E k »nm�=ow 75 0� m 5 b �_ �� k 0 f i 8L $\/kk/k »�Mt=oU) 0 cu \- / 0-C a) m/25¥�§° a)Fu 0 cu E y���ua&cn c k �3 gA �■ 2 =e �c 2� �k� 0 27 ? 0 w S § m m e 3 72 =� =0 § \e /f7mCUca ' \ \/%<f—;- ■ 0- k D0-0=\0 0o =\E�gmcn $ a o kk §E(\CL\ 'D % 2 � Eg�#�®#Ea)>,b3» CL C°2£$��o»�e�c E a) 0-0 lu 0) -0 70RW(=#oba8q= _ _ocd_a—_mC—) e�RwCU��/cuRo:= E 2 2 * * k 2 2 En 6� x-LO \° \ 2 E E c 0 0 s% 0 7 f\\\U£e g� § o ®�230 c=m :\ / f k n//\ c-o k � � ca 0)C e= 0 \§\2qƒ\ £ C: c I c cl) / -��/J /ke�0§� 16� � a /k�Se cm �efdEy k«/EaEQ °M\oc o. �\�°> ����7§ G\$k? ECD �m o �2mcctj = u m o w 0 �_ =o k\ a) 0 C& t 0 0 0 * * z q--nco� z �\ a)• §2 b g f� 0 % q 2 k E -0 � � 0 ca a) y E7�@ � 2 E ' §/? n=cac o z 0 2 0 z 0 � �� —0 .0— ,oƒ =�2 I =�2 $c a) 22�—� (D -0 CD Ea)0 (n //� w //� �2 k0 o }o==/� nE2 :�/ff§¥ ka®D : a(E�s cD2oE£E 0 ow ^ ®ea0E£C 7=Q \ zo—=cn o=) co rn zo—nm D 22 g\ 2 0 5e �t = 2c 0 0 0 k w ELL U 3 \ m O CD ±off 0 0 =§ �2RR ƒ1 2 k a) _ /CDCL y/� § 3 E§? E k 2£ $ ? ; = R m o R ___ v E/7�&�®�/7ui » �- � m % J\J[/\0E0 § � # 0 % E± 2 ®@ S f £EEcuZE3: §� o c m m m D�( co c 2 cm f\ 2 cu =�� �. . n c c 0 0 c c 0 0= cna"�ca%� oar o m e= ®m I z 2 z w3:c2<-=£=mU) 0 \ k \ k 0 \ E 0 0 (D � e e k \co k u R )CL co c c c c 2 k k 3 < 40 / £ 2_ ±m »\\� c e °0 o# a) Mn ¥f o e r ¥3 �■ o > 2f0$ �k E§22 y�@f s2 y� c c E E-0 m E�/a 0 0 0 _ z z z (0-0 &7- � U)-0 7- 0) a) _a) m b \ ,_(D _�\ _�\ t . /�t a ■ E m E w» E a» @ E w» E £ �- o> �® : o> a® � o> �222 o> ®g gir-o o cn �®:2 ku�r-o ko�co kum=u }o� }omEo om�2a oa)s/® 0®5= ®f2® ®�2a) z0 co a-w z53=E zta&E 25a&E 253&E LU 0) § x k e� LU kCL E E 0. 2 N 0 o x 5 m 0 o m m a $§C _ _ B � > � j \ Q \ 2 CD 72 E C O f6 m E � y 2 m N cc6 .� > 'cc 7 U) i O N (n > N ate.., a--• NL c O L O p O 7 L a) p p w-0 aUa o N +' L aU+ O 0 C p C E O N L O) D U a) Cr N U 7 L aJ N -O "� i r+ ,`� C m a) 7 N a) p o' N 0 C '� -o 'O u) N O c ?i U o) a)_ C)a- 6 a u) (0 O O a) D- mCL of a�i CL o w 0 7 L o E 0� a� o) C 7 p p-o-� rn U TU a -a c U) U C a) p a) -o rnC: o Uw �- 'i �_ aD o N u a) o 0-a� o in c o �.5-0 �oE�Ev)�a)� E O0�sw E a) N a) 0 O O E O> to a) O O O 3 p m N C p a�-a m O (6 (6 C D >i .0 C O d) � E 1 0 3 r C a) O O O O a) L> O Q N u) mNQ+La E ao_LL QbF- O ULL A A A A A L 7 0 a) O O 0)C (n 4- a) a) O L C a) Z d1 cQ3Q @`n m 3 -0 O_ m 00 ar M c m O c a) N m "L-' u) "O m a) — x a) rn@ cn a) a) O m sEEoO _0U)- c =' a)�-0� o D (n (n E ao) J a) m 7 O O E cu Ut a) u) 0 E aj 3 3 v E 7 m m Y ra j a) cQ E f6 E N m fD C L C E m E d O rn-a o L�-•m > E io N O L H CoO� a) a) m a) �' (0 = L (6 L 3 Q u))d u3 H E 50 3m p- a) A A A A A H CN C y O r, v O M a) c a) co Q Z Z C •� U En a) .N f0 U) L O m —_ 1 m a) U 0 L C a -a a) O CT a) m m ' O Q L f15 E � O � �� m L V O a) W .. 0 a) LP L O N m` m p L V O C a) E a) :� E O •7 rn E t N c — O a) U m N N �O p N:5 .O E ca N N O N L (n O Z p n A A C +� O U) >a E� 7 j O 7 Zia` �o 0 Q w P. 0 0 .d U N Co b 0 a) 7-. 0 G N LZ 0 O Q) a) U 0 0 Q) 0 o 4 3 N N b' c ƒ 0 f � \ \ � \ � � £ 2 � 2 / ■ \ �t . k E _ f r § 0\ o � � E £$ o2 ¢o e o a) \ k� �2 L � f ®\ \ \k ar 0 � OG 2k 2 e .§ 7 ƒ 3 < % / \ \ � � ƒ � e @ \ ') J ° � § : \ o ¥ ] \ � § 7 � � z B ■ + ƒ ± k � S5. NOTIFICATION, INSPECTION, AND POSTING REQUIREMENTS A. Ecology Notification Requirements Pre- and post -treatment notification The Permittee must email pre -and post -treatment information to Ecology each week that treatment occurs using the form in Appendix C. Ecology headquarters and appropriate regional staff must receive the form no later than 8:00 am on each Monday (see the contact list below). For unforeseen events, the Permittee may occasionally provide Ecology with less notice so long as pre-treatment notification occurs at least two days prior to the treatment. Contact Information Telephone Central Regional Office, Yakima (509) 457-7107 Eastern Regional Office, Spokane (509) 329-3610 Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue (425) 649-7000 Southwest Regional Office, Lacey (360) 690-4796 Ecology Headquarters, Lacey (360) 407-6283 2. Adverse incidents or spills Email Qhar1ie.McKinney&cy-wa.gov Jerezn .R@ecy.wa.go- Tricia.Shoblom0ecy.wa.gov Rod.Thysel l0.ecv. wa.gov Jonathan.Jennin ec .wa. o� The Permittee must immediately call the appropriate Ecology regional contact and Ecology headquarters or 1-800-6457-911 when they are made aware of any of the following conditions occurring during or after a treatment: a. Any person(s) exhibiting or indicating any toxic and/or allergic response as a result of the treatment. b. Any fish or fauna exhibiting stress or dying inside or outside of the treatment area. c. Any spill of chemicals covered under this permit that occurs into the water or onto land with a potential for entry into waters of the state. B. Ecology Inspection Coordination Requirements At Ecology's request, each Permittee must coordinate and schedule inspections with Ecology staff. The location and starting time for the scheduled inspection must be on record in writing at Ecology. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 27 2. For scheduled inspections, the Permittee must not apply chemicals until Ecology staff is present, unless they do not arrive within 30 minutes of the scheduled start tiIrie. C. Residential and Business Notification Using the template in Appendix E, the Permittee must provide Residential and Business Notice (notice) to all waterfront residences and businesses within one - quarter mile in each direction along the water body shoreline or across the water from proposed treatment areas. 2. The Permittee may provide the notice by mail, newsletter, or handbills delivered directly to the residences or businesses. If using handbills, the Permittee must secure the notice to the door in a fashion that will hold it in place but will not damage property. If the residence or business is gated or guarded by dogs, the Permittee may secure the notice in clear view on the outside of the gateway or may attach the notice to the outside of the residence or business in a fashion that will hold it in place but will not damage property. Businesses and residents must receive the notice at least 10 days in advance and at most 42 days before the first treatment of each year. If the notice explains the application schedule for the entire treatment season and there is no deviation from that schedule (with an exception for cyanobacteria treatment), Ecology requires no further notice for the rest of the treatment season. On water bodies with a history of cyanobacterial blooms, the Permittee may explain in the notice that algae treatment may occasionally occur outside of the scheduled time periods without prior notice depending on bloom conditions. The Permittee must provide additional notification to any resident or business that specifically requests further notification of treatment dates. 4. The Permittee must provide a copy of the notice including the date of distribution to the appropriate Ecology regional office contact and to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) contact (todd.palzer(@dnr.wa.goy) no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately -owned lakes with no public access. 5. Ecology does not require notice for applications made to limited access highways, fenced wetland mitigation sites, or other facilities where no reasonable public access exists. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 28 D. Children's Camp Notification Requirements Permittees must coordinate with camp managers to ensure that the manager notifies the parents or guardians of campers if a pesticide application is expected to occur in or within 400 feet of a camp swimming area or a camp recreational area during or up to one week before their child attends camp. 2. Camp notification must include the name of the product being applied, the time period during which treatment will occur, any swimming or recreational advisories or restrictions, and camp and Permittee contact information. E. Shoreline Posting Requirements Ecology does not require shoreline posting in areas where public access is limited to boat only access and there are no private residents or for continuous alum treatments. 1. General Requirements for Posting Shorelines The Permittee must: a. Use templates provided in Appendix E. b. Post signs no more than 48 hours prior to treatment. c. Post signs so that they are secure from the normal effects of weather and water currents, but cause minimal damage to property. d. Make best efforts to ensure that the signs remain in place and are legible until the end of the period of water use restrictions. e. Remove all old signs before a new treatment begins or before the end of the treatment season, whichever comes first. If applying more than one chemical in an area, the Permittee may list all chemicals on the sign, but must use the template and restrictions for the chemical with the most stringent water use restrictions. If the majority of the affected community speaks a language other than English, the Permittee may use online translation websites to make signs for these communities. For continuous injection treatments for nutrient inactivation projects, the Permittee does not need to post the lake. 2. Posting Privately or Publicly -Owned Shoreline Areas (excluding public access areas) with 8 % by 11 Inch Signs Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 29 a. The Permittee must post signs at each waterfront private residence or business property that is within 400 feet of a treated area. b. The Permittee must post the signs to face both the water and the shore and site them where they are most visible to residents (within approximately ten feet of the shoreline). The Permittee must post one sign for approximately every 100 feet of shoreline. c. If the shoreline is only accessible by entering through a gate, the Permittee may post a sign at each gate that allows access to, or is within 400 feet of a treated area. The Permittee does not need to post additional signs. Posting Shoreline Public Access Areas with Two Foot by Three Foot Signs a. The Permittee must post signs at all public access areas on the water body that are within 400 feet of a treated area and at all public boat launches on the water body within one quarter mile of a treated area. b. The Permittee must site the signs so that they are clearly visible to people using the public access area, spacing the signs approximately every 100 feet of shoreline and within approximately 25 feet of the shoreline. Signs must face both the water and the shore. At public boat launches, signs need only face the shore. c. If a public shoreline is only accessible by entering through a gate, the Permittee may post a sign at each gate that allows access to, or is within 400 feet of a treated area. The Permittee does not need to post additional signs. d. Signs must be a minimum size of two feet by three feet and constructed of durable weather -resistant material. The Permittee must attach an 8 % by 11 inch weather resistant map detailing the treatment areas for each chemical used. The map must identify the location(s) of the treatment site(s) and mark the reader's location. If the Permittee applies more than one chemical, it must mark each treated area and appropriate chemical on the map. Signs must: i. Include the word "CAUTION" in bold black type at least two inches high. ii. Use a font at least'/z inches high for all other words. 4. Posting Public Pathways Along a Treated Water body a. The Permittee must post two foot by three foot signs at public entrances to public pathways that allow reasonable direct access to the water body and that Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 30 are within 400 feet of a treated area. b. The Permittee must post 8 % by 11 inch signs at approximately 100 foot intervals along the pathway along any treated areas and within 400 feet of any treated areas. Posting for Roadside/Ditch Bank Aquatic Applications a. The Permittee does not need to post signs for roadside applications or applications to areas with no reasonable public access. b. For those sites with public access areas, the Permittee must: i. Post signs no more than 48 hours before an application. ii. Place signs at any boat launch within 1/4 mile of any treated area. Signs must be within 25 feet of the shoreline, facing both the water and shore. The Permittee is responsible for the removal of all signs at the end of each treatment season, but may use biodegradable sign material so that removal is not necessary. S6. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS A. Application of Herbicides and Algaecides Eradication Projects Under the Aquatic Weeds Management Fund, Ecology requires monitoring for herbicide residues for herbicide treatments funded by Ecology grants. Grant - funded monitoring is in lieu of additional monitoring under this permit. 2. Control Projects The Permittee must monitor dissolved oxygen levels pre- and post -treatment when contact herbicides are used in water bodies on the 303(d)-list for dissolved oxygen. a. Immediately before treating, the Permittee must monitor surface and bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations at a sampling location in the center and at the edge of the proposed treatment area(s). The Permittee must select at least one representative treatment area to monitor each time the water body is treated. b. The Permittee must monitor post -treatment surface and bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations no earlier than seven days and no later than 14 days after the treatment, at the same time of day that the pre-treatment monitoring Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 31 occurred and at the same sites and depths. c. The Permittee must submit these data to the Ecology permit manager no later than 30 days after the post -treatment monitoring date. B. Application of Phosphorus Inactivation Products 1. Aluminum sulfate or sodium aluminate (alum). a. The minimum monitoring requirement for whole or partial lake treatments is one surface water pH measurement in the morning prior to any alum addition and one surface water pH measurement one hour after alum addition has stopped for that day. The Permittee must monitor pH for the duration of the treatment and for 24 hours following treatment completion. The monitoring location must be representative of water body -wide conditions. If the pH decreases to less than 6.2, the Permittee must stop treatment, analyze for alkalinity, and must take immediate steps to increase the pH. b. For continuous injection treatments, the Permittee must measure pH at a minimum once every two weeks during the first month of continuous injection and thereafter once a month for the duration of the injection process. The P— 11iiPP m„st ensure that nH measurements represent water body -wide conditions, unless the injection system is in an isolated area in relation to the main water body (e.g., in a bay with a narrow channel to the main water body). For isolated areas of water bodies, the Permittee must measure pH at the end of the bay and in the main water body. 2. Calcium hydroxide/oxide or calcium carbonate treatment a. The Permittee must measure pH once on the day before treatment, and once in the morning and once in the afternoon for the duration of the treatment and for 24 hours following treatment. If the pH is above 9.0 due to the effects of the treatment (rather than through photosynthesis), the Permittee must stop treatment. b. For continuous injection systems, the Permittee must measure pH at a minimum once every two weeks during the first month of continuous injection and thereafter once a month for the duration of the injection process. The Permittee must ensure that pH measurements represent water body -wide conditions, unless the injection system is in an isolated area in relation to the main water body (e.g., in a bay with a narrow channel to the main water body). For isolated areas of water bodies, the Permittee must measure pH at the end of the bay and in the main water body. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 32 S7. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES A. The Permittee must use either an EPA method or one of the methods specified in section STC. or STD. to fulfill the analytical requirements of this permit. B. The Permittee must ensure that all monitoring data are analyzed by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of chapter 173-50 WAC, Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories. C. Ecology does not require the use of an accredited laboratory for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, alkalinity titration, or Secchi disk measurement. All dissolved oxygen and pH monitoring must follow the protocols in A Citizens Guide to Understanding and Monitoring Lakes and Streams which may be accessed at www. ecy. wa. gov/pro gram s/wq/plants/management/j o ysmanual/index. html. D. Analyses conducted using enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methods may substitute for the requirements in STA. S8. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS The Permittee must submit pesticide/product application information in accordance with the following conditions. A. Annual Treatment/Monitoring Reports 1. By December 31 of each year, the Permittee must submit its report electronically through Ecology's online data management system (SecureAccess Washington at https://secureaccess.wa.gov_). A signed and dated copy of the report must be mailed to: Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Attn: Aquatic Pesticide Permit Manager P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 2. The Permittee must submit an annual treatment/monitoring report regardless of whether treatment or monitoring occurred and this report must include: Water body name, dates treatment occurred, chemicals used, amount of active ingredient applied, acreage treated, monitoring results, and the plant species targeted. The Permittee must submit any dissolved oxygen monitoring data to the Aquatic Pesticide Permit Manager and the appropriate regional contact, no later than 30 days after the post -treatment monitoring date. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 33 B. Records Retention The Permittee must retain records of all permitting and monitoring information for a minimum of five (5) years. Such information must include copies of all reports required by this permit, plant surveys, and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit. 2. The Permittee must keep records longer in the event of any unresolved litigation regarding the discharge of pollutants by the Permittee or when requested by Ecology. 3. The Permittee must make the records, reports, surveys, plans, public notices (including a list of locations or addresses to which they were delivered), and other information required by this permit available to Ecology upon request. C. Recording of Results For each measurement or sample taken, the Permittee must follow the recording provisions outlined in WAC 173-226-090 (2). D. Noncompliance Notification If the Permittee is unable to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this permit for any cause, the Permittee must immediately stop the activity causing the noncompliance, correct the problem, notify Ecology of the failure to comply, and return to compliance as quickly as possible. S9. SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL A. Spill Prevention The Permittee must: Handle, store, and use all oil, fuel, chemicals, or products authorized under this permit in a manner that prevents spills. 2. Ensure that it maintains all mobile equipment to prevent leaks or spills of petroleum products. Have absorbent materials available for cleanup or the spill containment materials recommended in the Material Safety Data Sheet for that product, including appropriate cleanup materials for a spill of the products being applied. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 34 B. Spill Notification Requirements The Permittee must immediately report spills to Ecology by calling 1-800-6457-911. See hqp://www.egy.wa.gov/progLams/spills/other/repor!gEpiLh!M for more environmental reporting information. C. Spill Cleanup Requirements In the event of a spill, the Permittee must begin immediate containment and cleanup using appropriate materials. Cleanup takes precedent over normal work. 2. Cleanup includes proper disposal of any spilled materials and used cleanup materials. 510. MITIGATION FOR PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED PLANTS: AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROJECTS A. Survey Requirements If Ecology notifies the Permittee that a rare plant species (rare plant) is reported to be present in a proposed treatment area, the Permittee must conduct a detailed plant survey (unless Ecology waives this requirement). 1. The survey must be performed by a professional aquatic botanist or wetland specialist. The person conducting the survey must not have a financial or personal interest in the treatment. 2. The botanist or wetland specialist must survey when plants are present and can be positively identified, but no earlier than three months before treatment. Ecology may waive the three month requirement if the plant cannot be positively identified during that time frame. 3. The Permittee must survey each year before treatment for rare submersed, floating, or floating -leaved plants and once every five years for rare emergent shoreline plants. 4. The Permittee must submit the survey data to Ecology no later than thirty days before treatment. Ecology may modify or suspend the annual survey requirement if it determines that the treatment(s) have had no adverse effect on the rare plant population. B. Mitigation 1. When a rare plant is in the treatment area, the Permittee must apply prescribed buffers (where required) and select one or more mitigation choices listed below to Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 35 minimize treatment impacts to the rare plant. Monitoring the vitality of rare plant populations after treatment may be required by Ecology. The Permittee must not allow treatment to affect the viability of the rare plant population. 2. Mitigation measures for: a. Submersed, floating, or floating -leaved plants: If the rare plant is submersed, floating, or floating -leaved and the herbicide application is intended to control submersed species, the Permittee must maintain a no -treatment buffer around the rare plants. The Permittee must maintain a 100-foot buffer when using contact herbicides and must consult with Ecology when using systemic herbicides to determine appropriate buffer distances. If the Permittee has difficulty maintaining a buffer from the majority of the rare plant population, it must consult with Ecology for other options (e.g., physically relocating the plants). In addition to the buffer, the Permittee must choose one or more mitigation measures below: Use a selective herbicide (if applicable) or an herbicide demonstrated to have little effect on the rare plant. ii. Use the lowest effective concentration of herbicide for the target plant if the Permittee can demonstrate that the rare plant is tolerant to the herbicide at that concentration. iii. Use barriers or containment structures (e.g. silt curtains) to protect the rare plant. iv. For floating rare plants, temporarily relocate the plants to an untreated area. V. Time the treatment. b. Emergent plants: If the rare plant is emergent or floating -leaved and the targeted plants are being treated above the water (i.e., target plants are emergent), the Permittee must maintain a no treatment buffer of 10 feet from the rare plant and choose one or more of the following mitigation measures: i. Use a selective herbicide (if applicable) or an herbicide demonstrated to have little effect on the rare plant. ii. Select an application technique designed to cause less non -target damage (e.g., low -drift nozzle heads, wiper applications, sponge bars, temporarily covering the rare species, etc.). Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 36 iii. Time the treatment during the growing season to prevent impacts to the rare plant. 511. APPENDICES The attached appendices are incorporated by reference into this permit. APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS APPENDIX B - PUBLIC NOTICE APPENDIX C - ECOLOGY NOTIFICATION TEMPLATE APPENDIX D - BUSINESS AND RESIDENTUAL NOTICE TEMPLATE APPENDIX E - POSTING TEMPLATES Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 37 GENERAL CONDITIONS G1. DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS All discharges and activities authorized by this general permit must be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant more frequently than, or at a concentration in excess authorized by this permit, constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit. G2. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The Permittee must at all times properly operate and maintain all systems of treatment and control to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary systems which are installed by a Permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. The Permittee must not allow concentrations of the product(s) to exceed FIFRA label or permit conditions. G3. RIGHT OF ENTRY The Pemiittee n7ast allow an authorized representative of Ecology, upon the presentation of credentials and such other documents as may be required by law, at reasonable times: A. To enter upon the premises where a discharge is located or where any records must be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; B. To have access to and to copy any records that must be kept under the terms of the permit; C. To inspect any postings, monitoring equipment, or method of monitoring required in this permit; D. To inspect any collection, treatment, pollution management, or discharge facilities; and E. To sample any discharge of pollutants. G4. PERMIT COVERAGE REVOCATION Pursuant to chapter 43.21B RCW and chapter 173-226 WAC, the Director may require any discharger authorized by this general permit to apply for and obtain coverage under an individual permit or another more specific and appropriate general permit. Cases where revocation of coverage may be required include, but are not limited to the following: A. Violation of any term or condition of this general permit. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 38 B. Obtaining coverage under this general permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts. C. Failure or refusal of the Permittee to allow entry as required in RCW 90.48.090. D. A determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the environment, or significantly contributes to water quality standards violations. E. Nonpayment of permit fees or penalties assessed pursuant to chapter 90.48.465 RCW and chapter 173-224 WAC. F. Failure of the Permittee to satisfy the public notice requirements of WAC 173-226- 130(5), when applicable; or Permittees who have their coverage revoked for cause according to WAC 173-226-240, may request temporary coverage under this permit during the time an individual permit is being developed, provided the request is made within ninety (90) days from the time of revocation and is submitted along with a complete individual permit application form G5. GENERAL PERMIT MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated in accordance with the provisions of chapter 173-226 WAC. Grounds for modification or revocation and reissuance include, but are not limited to, the following: A. When a change that occurs in the technology or practices for control or abatement of pollutants applicable to the category of dischargers covered under this permit. B. When effluent limitation guidelines or standards are promulgated pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or chapter 90.48 RCW for the category of dischargers covered under this general permit. C. When a water quality management plan containing requirements applicable to the category of dischargers covered under this general permit is approved. D. When information is obtained which indicates that cumulative effects on the environment from dischargers covered under this general permit are unacceptable. G6. REPORTING A CAUSE FOR MODIFICATION A Permittee who knows or has reason to believe that any activity has occurred or will occur which would constitute cause for revocation under condition G5 above or 40 CFR 122.62 must report such information to Ecology so that a decision can be made on whether action to modify or revoke coverage under this general permit will be required. Ecology may then require submission of a new application for coverage under this, or another general permit, or an application for an individual permit. Submission of a new application does not relieve the Permittee of the duty to comply with all the terms and conditions of the existing general Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 39 permit until the new application for coverage has been approved and corresponding permit has been issued. G7. TOXIC POLLUTANTS The Permittee must comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish those standards or prohibitions, even if this permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement. G8. OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR All other applicable requirements of 40 CFR 122.41 and 122.42 are incorporated in this general permit by reference. G9. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND STATUTES Nothing in this permit excuses the Permittee from compliance with any applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations. G10.ADDITIONAL MONITORING Ecology may establish specific monitoring requirements in addition to those contained in this general permit by administrative order or permit modification. G11.PAYMENT OF FEES The Permittee must submit payment of fees associated with this permit as assessed by Ecology. Ecology may revoke this permit coverage or take enforcement, collection, or other actions, if the permit fees established under chapter 173-224 WAC are not paid. G12. REQUESTS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER A GENERAL PERMIT Any discharger authorized by this general permit may request to be excluded from coverage under this general permit by applying for an individual permit. The discharger must submit to the Director an application as described in WAC 173-220-040 or WAC 173-216-070, whichever is applicable, with reasons supporting the request. These reasons must fully document how an individual permit will apply to the applicant in a way that the general permit cannot. Ecology may make specific requests for information to support the request The Director may either issue an individual permit or deny the request with a statement explaining the reason for the denial. When an individual permit is issued to a discharger otherwise subject to this general permit, the applicability of this general permit to that Permittee is automatically terminated on the effective date of the individual permit. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 40 G13.TRANSFER OF PERMIT COVERAGE This permit coverage may be automatically transferred to a new Permittee if - A. The Permittee notifies Ecology at least 30 days in advance of the proposed transfer date. B. The notice includes a written signed agreement between the existing and the new Permittee containing a specific date for transfer of permit responsibility, coverage, and liability between them. C. The Department does not notify the existing Permittee and the proposed new Penmittee of its intent to modify or revoke permit coverage. G14.PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING PERMIT CONDITIONS Any person who is found guilty of willfully violating the terms and conditions of this permit is deemed guilty of a crime, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Each day upon which a willful violation occurs may be deemed a separate and additional violation. Any person who violates the terms and conditions of a waste discharge permit will incur, in addition to any other penalty as provided by law, a civil penalty in the amount of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for every such violation. Each and every violation is a separate and distinct offense, and in case of a continuing violation, every day's continuance shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct violation. G15. SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS All applications, reports, or information submitted to Ecology must be signed and certified. A. In the case of a municipal, state, or public facility, all permit applications must be signed by a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. In the case of a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship, all permit applications must be signed by either a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice president of a corporation, a general partner of a partnership, or the proprietor of a sole proprietorship. B. All reports required by this permit and other information requested by Ecology must be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: The authorization is made in writing by a person described above and submitted to Ecology. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 41 2. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of a regulated facility, such as the position of plant manager, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.) C. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under paragraph 13.2 above is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for environmental matter, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph 13.2 must be submitted to Ecology prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative. D. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section must make the following certification: I certify under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiries of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and bel� � true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations. G16. APPEALS The terms and conditions of the Aquatic Plant and Algae Management general permit are subject to appeal. There are two different appeal categories. A. The permit terms and conditions as they apply to the appropriate class of dischargers are subject to appeal within thirty (30) days of issuance of this general permit in accordance with chapter 43.21(B) RCW and chapter 173-226 WAC; and B. The applicability of the permit terms and conditions to an individual discharger are subject to appeal in accordance with chapter 43.21(B) RCW within thirty (30) days of effective date of coverage of that discharger. An appeal of the coverage of this permit to an individual discharger is limited to the applicability or non -applicability of this permit to that same discharger. Appeal of this permit coverage of an individual discharger will not affect any other individual dischargers. If the terms and conditions of this general permit are found to be inapplicable to any discharger(s), the matter must be remanded to Ecology for consideration of issuance of an individual permit or permits. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 42 GM SEVERABILITY The provisions of this general permit are severable, and if any provision of this general permit, or application of any provision of this general permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances and the remainder of this general permit shall not be affected thereby. G18.DUTY TO REAPPLY The Permittee must reapply for coverage under this general permit at least one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to the specified expiration date of this general permit. An expired general permit and coverage under the permit continues in force and effect until Ecology issues a new general permit or until Ecology cancels it. Only those Permittees that reapply for coverage are covered under the continued permit. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 43 APPENDIX A — DEFINITIONS All definitions listed below are for use in the context of this permit only. 303(d): Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to develop a list of polluted water bodies every two years. For each of those water bodies, the law requires states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). A TMDL is the amount of pollutant loading that can occur in a given water body (river, marine water, wetland, stream, or lake) and still meet water quality standards. Adjuvant: An additive, such as a surfactant, that enhances the effectiveness of the primary chemical (active ingredient). Algae: Primitive, chiefly aquatic, one -celled, or multicellular plant -like organisms that lack true stems, roots, and leaves but usually contain chlorophyll. Algaecide: A chemical compound that kills or reduces the growth of algae or cyanobacteria. Algae control: Applying algaecides to kill or suppress the growth of cyanobacteria, filamentous algae, or any algal species that have the potential to affect human or environmental health. All known, available, and reasonable methods of pollution control, prevention, and treatment (AKAR7): A technology -based approach to limiting pollutants from discharges. Described in chapters 90.48 and 90.54 RCW and chapters 173-201A, 173-204, 173-216 and 173- 220 WAC. Applicant: The licensed pesticide applicator or state or local government entity choosing to get coverage under this permit. For nutrient inactivation projects the applicant does not need to be a licensed applicator but may be a government entity or the person that discharges the product. Application schedule: The proposed treatment date(s) for a specific water body or specific area within a water body during one treatment season. Applicator: The person that discharges the chemical to a water body. Applicators are required to be licensed to apply registered pesticides. Some chemicals such as alum are not registered or used as pesticides and therefore the applicator does not, by state law, have to be licensed. Aquatic nuisance plants: Any non -noxious aquatic plants that are at a density and location so as to substantially interfere with or eliminate some beneficial uses of the water body. Typically these beneficial uses include activities such as boating, swimming, fishing, or waterskiing. Aquatic plant control: The partial removal of aquatic plants within a water body or along a shoreline to allow for the protection of beneficial uses of the water body. Beneficial uses: See WAC 173-201A-200. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 44 Biological water clarifiers: Microbial or bacterial products sold for the purpose of water clarification, removal of organic materials from sediment, and reduction of nutrients (as claimed by manufacturers). Blooms: A high density or rapid increase in abundance of algae (cyanobacteria). Children's camps: A site located along a water body that provides water contact recreation and other activities for children particularly during the summer months and includes day camps as well as residential camps. Constructed water body: A man-made water body created in an area that was not part of a previously existing watercourse, such as a pond, stream, wetland, etc. Contact herbicide: An herbicide that typically affects only the part of the plant that the herbicide is applied to. Contact herbicides often act as chemical mowers, leaving roots available for re- growth. Contact herbicides are fast -acting, but tend to result in temporary removal of the targeted plants. Control: The partial removal of native plants, non-native non -noxious plants, algae, and noxious or quarantine -list weeds (that are not being eradicated lake -wide) from a water body. The purpose of control activities is to protect some of the beneficial uses of a water body such as swimming, boating, water skiing, fishing access, etc. The goal is to maintain some native aquatic vegetation for habitat while allowing some removal for beneficial use protection. Cyanobacteria: A group of usually unicellular photosynthetic organisms without a well-defined nucleus; sometimes called "blue-green algae" although they are not actually algae. Some genera of cyanobacteria produce potent liver or nerve toxins. Defined navigation channels: Clearly delineated areas that are intended to provide safe access to different sections of the water body by boat. Defined swimming channels: Clearly delineated areas intended for safe passage of swimmer between swimming areas on a water body. Detention or retention ponds: Man-made water bodies specifically constructed to manage stormwater. Detention ponds are generally dry until a significant storm event. Retention (wet) ponds are designed to have a permanent pool of water and gradually release stormwater through an outlet. Direct supervision responsibilities: Licensed certified applicators may directly supervise unlicensed applicators. Direct supervision by aquatic certified applicators means direct on-the- job supervision and requires that the certified applicator be physically present at the application site and that the person making the application be in voice and visual contact with the certified applicator at all times during the application. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 45 Discharge Management Plan: A site -specific water body plan that incorporates elements of integrated pest management. For new applicants with projects five or more acres, the Discharge Management Plan also serves as a SEPA addendum. Emergent vegetation: Aquatic plants that generally have their roots in the water, but the rest of the plant is above water (e.g., cattails, bulrush). Eradication: Eradication is the permanent removal of all non-native, invasive aquatic plants of one or more species within a water body or along a shoreline. The goal of eradication projects is to allow a diverse native plant community to flourish once the invasive species is eliminated. It may take years to achieve eradication of a target species. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA): A set of EPA regulations that establishes uniform pesticide product labeling, use restrictions, and review and labeling of new pesticides. Filamentous algae: Typically green algae species that grow in long strings or form cloud -like mats in water. Filamentous algae do not produce toxins. Floating plants: Plants that are not rooted in the sediment (e.g., duckweed). These plants freely float in or on tiic water suave, but are most often observed in shallow water. Floating -leaved plants: Plants that are rooted in the sediment but have leaves floating on the water's surface (e.g., water lilies). Herbicide: Any substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any weed or other higher plant (see chapter 17.21.020 RCW). High use areas: Any areas that get a high level of human use. Examples include community and public boat launches, marinas, public or community swim beaches, and canals. Identified and/or emergent wetlands: Identified wetlands are those identified by either local, state, or federal agencies as being important wetlands. Emergent wetlands (marshes) are characterized by plants growing with their roots underwater and leaves extending above the water (emergent plants). Impact to non -target plants: Plants inadvertently affected by an herbicide treatment that was intended to treat other plants. Impacts to the non -target plants may include death or affected growth or vigor. Individual treatments: Treatments done at the request of an individual owner under a permit coverage specific to that property only. Intentionally apply: The permit allows the applicator to directly discharge an herbicide, algaecide, or other product identified in this permit into areas designated for treatment (e.g., via Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 46 hoses, granular pellets, etc.). Note that products applied directly to the water may disperse outside of the boundaries of the treated area. Invasive: Tending to spread and then dominate the area by outcompeting other plants. Some non- native species can become invasive when introduced outside of their native range. Some native plants can be invasive too (e.g., cattails). Legal oversight: Having authority under the law to manage aquatic plants or algae in a water body. See also the sponsor definition. Legal water right: A water right is a legal authorization to use a predefined quantity of public water for a designated use. The purpose must qualify as a beneficial use such as irrigation, domestic water supply, etc. Any use of surface water which began after the state water code was enacted in 1917 requires a water -right permit or certificate. Legal water right claim: A water right claim is statement of beneficial use of water that began prior to 1917 for surface water. Claims remain valid until such time that adjudication occurs, whereby the validity of the claim must be proven before a court of law. During adjudication, claimants are required to prove that water has been in constant beneficial use prior to 1917 for surface water. Five or more consecutive years of non-use may invalidate a claim. Licensed pesticide applicator: Any individual who is licensed as a commercial pesticide applicator, commercial pesticide operator, public operator, private -commercial applicator, demonstration and research applicator, or certified private applicator, or any other individual who is certified by the director of WSDA to use or supervise the use of any pesticide which is classified by the EPA as a restricted use pesticide or by the state as restricted to use by certified applicators only. WSDA classifies aquatic herbicides as restricted use pesticides. Littoral zone: The vegetated area from the water body's edge to the maximum water depth where plant growth occurs. The littoral zone varies between water bodies depending on bathometry, water clarity, water quality, and other environmental conditions. Lot: A parcel of land having fixed boundaries. Marker dyes: Colorants that are sprayed onto the targeted weed along with the herbicide. Marker dyes allow better targeting of herbicide sprays since treated and untreated areas are more clearly seen by the applicator. Municipal or community drinking water intakes: A drinking water intake that supplies water to a city, town, or a community. Native and non-native plants: Native plants are plants that are indigenous to the region; non- native plants are not indigenous to the region, but are not on Washington's quarantine list or noxious weed list. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 47 New applicants: An applicator or government entity that proposes to discharge pesticide into waters of the state, but does not already have coverage under the Aquatic Plant and Algae Management Permit for the proposed treatment site. Non-native: A plant living outside of its natural or historical range of distribution. Plants considered to be non-native were not present in Washington prior to European settlement. Most non-native plants are not considered to be noxious weeds. Notice oflntent (NOI): An application to obtain coverage under an NPDES permit. Noxious weed: A legal term defined in chapter 17.10 RCW that means a non-native plant that when established is highly destructive, competitive, or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices. The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board maintains a legal list of noxious weeds (see chapter 16.750 WAC for the current list of noxious weeds). Nutrient management: The use of chemical precipitants to bind soluble reactive phosphorus into an insoluble form that is unavailable to aquatic organisms, to clarify the water column, and to reduce the release of phosphorus from sediments. Nutrient inactivation is typically used to prevent algae blooms by inhibiting phosphorus release from sediments. Nutrient inactivation products: Products used to inactivate nutrients in the sediments include aluminum sulfate or sodium aiunluiate (alulll) and calcl'.'.i:: hydroxide. Occasionally: No more than a few times (1-3) per treatment season and only for unforeseen events (e.g., disruption with product deliveries or severe adverse weather conditions). Permittee: The licensed applicator or government entities that have obtained coverage under the permit. For nutrient inactivation projects, the Permittee may be the discharger that most closely resembles a licensed applicator. Pesticide: WAC 15.58.030 (31) "Pesticide" means, but is not limited to: a) Any substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, control, repel, or mitigate any insect, rodent, snail, slug, fungus, weed, and any other form of plant or animal life or virus, except virus on or in a living person or other animal which is normally considered to be a pest or which the director may declare to be a pest; b) Any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used as a plant regulator, defoliant or desiccant; and c) Any spray adjuvant. Plant growth forms: The growth characteristics (morphology) of aquatic plants such as emergent plants (cattails), submersed plants (Eurasian watermilfoil), and floating -leaved plants (water lilies). Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 48 Potentially invasive plants: Species that are not indigenous to the region, have been shown to have invasive tendencies, and have a probability of becoming listed as a noxious weed. Private property: Any property owned by a single person or multiple persons or business that provides no public access to a water body. Priority habitats and species: Habitats and species that WDFW considers priorities for conservation and management in Washington. Priority species require protective measures for their survival due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alternation, and/or recreational, commercial or tribal importance. Priority habitats are habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. Privately or publicly -owned shoreline: Any shoreline area without public access, owned by an individual, business, or a public entity. Professional aquatic botanist: A scientist that specializes in the study and identification of aquatic plants. Public access: Identified legal passage to any of the public waters of the State, assuring that members of the public have access to and use of public waters for recreational purposes. Public access areas include public- or community -provided swimming beaches, picnic areas, docks, marinas, and boat launches at state or local parks and private resorts. Public access areas: These areas include public- or community -provided swimming beaches, picnic areas, docks, marinas, and boat launches at state or local parks and private resorts. Public boat launch: A public- or community -provided location on a water body that is designated for the purpose of launching or placing a boat in the water, usually for recreational purposes. Boat launches also include sites used as put -ins and take-outs for small watercraft such as canoes or kayaks. Public entrance: A location where people typically access a public pathway. Public pathway: A trail along a water body that allows access to the water body by the public. Quarantine -listed weeds: Plants listed on the WSDA Quarantine list as identified in chapter 16.750 WAC. Reasonable public access: Identified legal passage to any of the public waters of the State, or areas where it is apparent that the public have been accessing the water (well worn pathways or other indications of recent human usage of the site). Recreation: Water skiing, boating, swimming, wading, fishing, and other such water -related activities. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 49 Right of way: A strip of land that is granted, through an easement or other mechanism, for transportation or other typically public uses. Right of way locations may include roadsides and/or highways, railroads, power lines and irrigation ditches. Same time of day: The same two-hour time window for pre- and post -treatment monitoring on any given day (applies to pH and dissolved oxygen monitoring). Selective herbicide: An herbicide that kills or affects specific plant species, sparing other less - susceptible species. Selectivity occurs through different types of toxic action or by the manner in which the material is used (its formulation, dosage, timing, placement, etc.). Sensitive, threatened, or endangered plants: Sensitive: Any species that is vulnerable or declining and could become endangered or threatened in the state without active management or removal of threats. Threatened: Any species likely to become endangered in Washington within the foreseeable future if factors contributing to its population decline or habitat degradation or loss continue. Endangered: Any species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Washington within the foreseeable future if factors contributing to its decline continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. SEPA addendum: See also the definition for the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). "Addendum" means an environmental document used to provide additional information or analysis that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. The term does not include supplemental EISs. An addendum may be used at any time during the SEPA process (WAC 197-11-706)." A SEPA addendum provides additional site -specific information about a project. Shading products: These compounds are usually non -toxic dyes and are designed to reduce the amount of light penetrating the surface of a water body, thereby reducing plant and algae growth. Shoreline: The area where water and land meet. Shoreline emergent vegetation: Plants growing along the edges of lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams that have at least part of their stems, leaves, and flowers emerging above the water surface and are rooted in the sediment (e.g., cattails, bulrush, bogbean). Sponsor: A private or public entity or a private individual with a vested or financial interest in the treatment. Typically the sponsor contracts with a licensed applicator to apply pesticides for aquatic plant or algae management. A sponsor is an individual or an entity that has authority to administer common areas of the water body or locations within the water body for the purposes of aquatic plant and algae management. Entities with this authority include Lake Management Districts formed under chapter 36.61 RCW, Special Purpose Districts formed under Title 57 RCW, Homeowners Associations formed under chapter 64.38 RCW, and groups operating under Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 50 the provisions of chapter 90.24 RCW. There may be other entities with the authority to manage common areas in public or private water bodies. For treatment on individual lots, the sponsor must have the authority to contract for aquatic plant and algae management within the lot boundaries. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): A state policy that requires state and local agencies to consider the likely environmental consequences of a proposal before approving or denying the proposal (See chapter 43.21C RCW and chapter 197 -11 WAC). State experimental use permit: A permit issued by WSDA allowing use of pesticides that are not registered, or for experiments involving uses not allowed by the pesticide label. Aquatic applications are limited to one acre or less in size. Submersed: Underwater. Submersed plants generally always remain under water, although many submersed species produce above -water flowers (e.g., pondweeds, milfoil). Surface waters of the state of Washington: All waters defined as "waters of the United States" in 40 CRF 122.2 within the geographic boundaries of the state of Washington. All waters defined in RCW 90.48.020. This includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, and all other fresh or brackish surface waters and water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. Also includes drainages to surface waters. Swimming advisory: Information required to be posted on all public signs advising people not to swim in the treated area for a number of hours after treatment. An advisory is a recommendation rather than a restriction. Swimming restriction: Information required to be posted on all public signs stating that no swimming must occur in the treatment area for a number of hours after treatment. Systemic herbicide: A chemical that moves (translocates) throughout the plant and kills both the roots and the top part of the plant. Systemic herbicides are generally slower -acting than contact herbicides, but tend to result in permanent removal of the targeted plants. Treatment: The application of an aquatic herbicide, algaecide, or control product to the water or directly to vegetation to control vegetation, algae, or remove or inactivate phosphorus. Treated area: The area where pesticide is applied and where the concentration of the pesticide is sufficient to cause the intended effect on aquatic plants or algae. Upland farm pond: Private farm ponds created from upland sites that did not incorporate natural water bodies (WAC 173-201A-260(3)(f)). Washington Pesticide Control Act: Chapter 15.58 RCW. Wetland: Any area inundated with water sometime during the growing season, and identified as a Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 51 wetland by a local, state, or federal agency. Wetland Specialist: A biologist who specializcs in the study and identification of wetland plant species. In the absence of other definitions set forth herein, the definitions set forth in 40 CFR Part 403.3 or in chapter 90.48 RCW apply. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 52 APPENDIX B — PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice must be published at least once each week for two consecutive weeks, in a single newspaper of general circulation in the county or counties where the treatment will take place. The applicant must mail or deliver this notice to all potentially affected waterfront residents (those within one -quarter mile in each direction along the shoreline or across the water from proposed treatment areas) within one week of publishing the first newspaper notice. The applicant may add additional project information to this template, but must not remove or change any bolded language (other than changing fonts or removing bolding). PUBLIC NOTICE TEMPLATE Applicant name and contact information (e.g., phone number, Email address, website) is seeking coverage under the NPDES Waste Discharge General Permit for aquatic plant and algae management. The proposed coverage applies to list water body name, acres proposed for treatment, and their location within the water body. Water body name may be treated to control aquatic plants and algae. The chemicals planned for use are: list all active ingredients anticipated for use. Any person desiring to present their views to the Department of Ecology regarding this application must do so in writing within 30 days of the last date of publication of this notice. Comments must be submitted to the Department of Ecology. Any person interested in the Department's action on the application may notify the Department of their interest within 30 days of the last date of publication of this notice. Submit comments to: Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47696 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Attn: Water Quality Program, Aquatic Pesticide Permit Manager Email: jonathan.jennings@ecy.wa.gov Telephone: 360-407-6283 The chemicals planned for use have (name water use restrictions — such as drinking water or irrigation water use restrictions) for up to (number of days or other information about use restrictions). Persons with legal water rights should contact the applicant if this coverage will result in a restriction of these rights. Permittees are required to provide an alternative water supply during treatment. Copies of the application are available by contacting the Aquatic Pesticide Permit Manager. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit — April 4, 2012 Page 53 N N C (u L y_ U L U a Q m ca a) U � N L O LL (D L U E -a m cuE 1 U � CU M O v c N Q U Z O O a) a) c Z C o m O _s � �a av +�+ L C W Ui a � d O *+ E N O O O EL L c d ad �+ N E) _ H a 3 d O 3 L a L O o _u y O a m .c i t� a s 3 c= O d + E O �_ O d J � � A *+ _ 3 O v o o = ai .. 3 c a ii 0 E w _c ea 'C V 4 z U *+ c d E L {p w O 3 3 d O =O 0 '0 as 0 a CL0=00 � u a� as as �+ d , N H a V L O O N N 3 u u V v a c 3 O V A V O O ad c w0 W Ew, 3 A a c e 0 -a € 'a w � �. as d a 3 O y L M c O o }, E P. M M ON w M E e �' O C M E _ a d :C N D O E O aY a N O N APPENDIX D — BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL NOTICE TEMPLATE The applicant may add project information to this template but must not remove or change any bolded language (other than changing fonts or removing bolding). Business and Residential Notice Distribution Date: Date notices mailed or delivered Water body will be treated with name type of product (e.g., aquatic herbicides, algaecides, bacterial products, etc) on or between treatment dates. Product(s) planned for use: list product names Active ingredient(s): list the active ingredients Plants/Algae targeted: describe what will be treated and why i.ocatlon of tr eat:; ent(s): deScril,o locatinn.s or include a map The applicator will post signs in the treated and potentially affected areas no more than 48 hours prior to treatment. The signs will describe any water use restrictions or advisories. If you are withdrawing water for potable or domestic water use, livestock watering, or irrigation, and have no alternate water source, please contact name of applicator at phone number or e-mail to arrange an alternate water supply. Note: Business and residential notification only goes 1/ mile from each treatment site. Check the product label to ensure that treatment does not impact potable water users more than 1/ mile from treatment area. If you want additional notification prior to treatment, or have further questions, please contact me using the information above. Optional: include contact information for the sponsor here. This herbicide treatment is regulated under a permit issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Permit No. applicator to enter the permit coverage number Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit —April 4, 2012 Page 56 APPLICATION OF ZERO VALENT IRON TO LAKE LORENE Project Overview Location: Federal Way, Washington Lake: 8.3 surface areas, 53 acre feet of water to be treated Management Objective: Preventing toxic cyanobacteria blooms by reducing in -lake soluble reactive phosphorus concentration. Proposed Solution: Application of granulated zero valent iron and a dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide (as an oxidizing agent) to form an iron oxyhydroxide floc that will adsorb and inactive soluble reactive phosphorus. Desired Result: No toxic cyanobacteria bloom in Lake Lorene during the summer and fall of 2015' The Problem Past lake management practices include periodic assessment of water quality conditions and reactive algaecide treatments as needed. An aeration system was also installed in Lake Lorene within the last decade. In recent years, there has been a growing frequency of complaints from the community about poor water quality, green color, surface algae (cyanobacteria) blooms, foul odor and potential decline in waterfront property value. The primary concern here is the hyper-eutrophic status (phosphorus pollution) of Lake Lorene and the potential for adverse human health impacts (due to cyanotoxins) and the death of pets, fish and wildlife if cyanobacteria blooms continue to persist in the lake. Laboratory analysis of samples collected by City of Federal Way personnel from Lake Lorene have historically documented extremely high microcystin toxin levels (up to 2,160 ug/L, 8/12/09) which is a thousand fold above the drinking water and recreational threshold levels in the State (Washington State Recreation Guidance for Mycrocystins and Anatoxin-a, 2008). Whereas there are numerous sources of the soluble reactive phosphorus that contribute to Lake Lorene's water quality problems Northwest Aquatic Ecosystems and the Twin Lake HOA have determined that the primary source of soluble reactive phosphorus in Lake Lorene is on -going external loading of the lake with soluble reactive phosphorus from inflowing Joes Creek's water. Joes Creek water contains high very high concentrations of soluble reactive phosphorus (-35 ppb during the wet season to —75 ppb during the dry season). The Proposed Solution Northwest Aquatic Ecosystems and the Twin Lake HOA have concluded that the excessive phosphorus concentration in Lake Lorene needs to be addressed in order to prevent recurring toxic cyanobacteria blooms that pose a health hazard to lake shore residents and their pets and recreational users of Lake Lorene. The project objective is to mitigate the hyper-eutrophic conditions in Lake Lorene by binding and inactivate the soluble reactive phosphorus in the water column. The proposed in -situ approach to accomplish this objective is the simultaneous application of granulated zero valent iron and a dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide to form an iron oxyhydroxide floc that will adsorb and inactivate soluble reactive phosphorus. Specifically this experimental nutrient inactivation application of granulated zero valent iron and a dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide will involve the following materials, application techniques and water quality monitoring protocol. An initial application of 10 gallons of 35% food grade hydrogen peroxide (diluted 1 part 35% H2O2 to 10 parts lake water) and 50 pounds of granulated iron (in a slurry form) to be distribute on the 8.3 acre surface of Lake Lorene and subsequently mixed by the in -lake aerator, and wind induced and convection currents throughout Lake Lorene's 53 acre feet of water. If monitoring results (after thorough mixing) indicate a failure to reach the goal of achieving a lake water hydrogen peroxide concentration to 0.3 ppm*, a total iron concentration of 0.3 mg/L and a soluble reactive phosphorus concentration that is less than 10 mg/L, then a follow on second similar addition will be made. * US ,EPA guidelines indicate that there is no adverse impact on aquatic life of hydrogen peroxide as long as its concentration does not exceed 0.7 mg/L in water so treated. Monitoring protocol will involve prior and post application determination of total and soluble phosphorus concentration, total and soluble iron concentration, hydrogen peroxide concentration; pH, and algae (i.e., green algae and cyanobacteria) species and cell counts. Rationale for this Zero Valent Iron Treatment The rationale for the proposed granulated zero valent iron and dilute hydrogen peroxide solution treatment is provide by the following excerpt from the text Ecology of Shallow Lakes, by Marten Scheffer, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, pages 56 and 57. "Einsele (1936; 1938) and Mortimer (1941; 1942) showed that iron is very important in immobilizing phosphorus.., but that this binding only works under aerobic conditions. In shallow lakes, however, mixing usually supplies enough oxygen to the sediment surface to maintain a superficial aerobic layer. Inlet of water that is rich in calcium and carbonate may buffer the pH in such situations leading to a decrease in phosphorus.... In addition, aluminum and calcium carbonate can play a role in immobilizing phosphorus in some lakes. However, it seems that iron remains the dominant factor for phoMhorus immobilization in virtual all cases. " A 1993 study of phosphorus induced winter cyanobacteria blooms in American Lake concluded: "The iron content of American Lake is very low and may not be sufficient to remove phosphorus from the water column following re -aeration of the hypolimnion during lake mixing. " Why not use Aluminum Sulfate (or Iron Chloride or Sulfate)? The problem with aluminum (or iron) salt solutions to inactivate phosphorus is the introduction of high concentrations of chloride, sodium and sulfate ions that raise the levels of these ions far beyond those concentrations encountered under natural conditions. It has been the reduction of sulfate ions to sulfide ions in anoxic bottom sediments that has resulted in the diminishment of iron as the dominant factor or phosphorus immobilization since sulfide ions combine with ferrous ions to form insoluble ferric sulfide, thus removing iron's dominant role as a natural phosphorus inactivation agent. What is the Function of Hydrogen Peroxide? Whereas the work horse in the proposed treatment is granulated:zero valent iron and its dissolution to form iron hydroxide and iron oxyhydroxide to adsorb and inactivate soluble reactive phosphorus, the dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide does play two important roles in this process. The first role that hydrogen peroxide plays is to facilitate the oxidation of soluble iron (Fe++) ions into the insoluble form of iron (Fe +++). It is the ferric form (Fe+++) of iron that combines with hydroxyl ions from disassociated water molecules to form iron hydroxide and dissolved oxygen to form iron oxyhydroxide. It is this transformation of iron from its soluble to insoluble state that results in the absorption of soluble phosphate ions thus.rendering them insoluble and thereby unavailable for assimilation by cyanobacteria. The second role that hydrogen peroxide plays is to break (by oxidation) the bond between soluble and bioavailable organic bound iron and organic bound phosphorus contained in' Joes Creeks and in Lake Lorene's water. This oxidation reaction is an important step in facilitating the desired adsorption reaction between insoluble iron hydroxide and oxyhydroxide and soluble and bioavailable inorganic phosphate ions. In Conclusion The experimental application of granulated zero valent iron and a dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide to cyanobacteria infested Lake Lorene holds the promise of providing a much "greener" method of preventing cyanobacteria blooms in shallow lakes than does the application of aluminum sulfate (alum) and sodium aluminate (as a buffer). Therefore it is hoped that the Department of Ecology will, in a timely fashion, issue a permit for the proposed experimental application of granulated zero valent iron and a dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide in Lake Lorene in the late spring of 2015. 704f Homeowners Association, Inc. 3420 S.W. 320th, Suite B-3 • Federal Way, WA 98023-2209 Phone: (253) 838-0464 • Facsimile: (253) 838-1784 www.twiniakeshoa.com Email: Maynard55@gmaii.com Lake Lorene Invasive Weed Removal Plan - Phase 1 Cattails are increasing becoming a problem on Lake Lorene. Recently, these plants were analyzed by the States Department of Ecology and determined to be the species Typha X glauca, a hybrid of the Typha latifolia (native cattail) with Typha angustifolia (narrow -leaf cattail). This hybrid is included on the state noxious weed list as a Class C noxious weed. Twin Lakes Homeowners Association (TLHA) proposes to remove and or control this species as discussed further in this document and annotated on the included map. TLHA anticipates several phases of removal will occur to get the emergent vegetation on Lake Lorene under control. This letter only deals with Phase 1 which is cattail removal bordering Treasure Island Park. The removal will be via hand digging or cutting. No chemicals will be used. Personnel conducting the removal will be equipped with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife pamphlet. This document is guide for removal of Aquatic Noxious Weeds. No native plants will be removed. I will ensure this occurs by, marking the noxious plants with yellow ribbon. Removal sites are depicted on the map by used of pink color and black lines. Gary Darcey Twin Lakes Homeowners Assoc. 4- v QL) 4)11 (1) -8 0 0 u '�. 5i.rE` 0 Ur a�3c�a'°� 000�,o°y°� oba on U Q" L4 O �"' R. C3 Cyi a. O O bA x U �••. Ol C U cd E -0 Gn 0 •� .1 ,. .,V,� ;ON %) 't D, C ' p •O i+ �, 'n C3 t► OQ o y O p O C3 vC-M t o C3 c O a) y Q Q •v toaci `� °? a� � �- �., �L. tq ,° p �7 v, .2 CO `�0 O cci � C � ?' � O o� v cd coo G c C3 '� o> o0i � Obi ,�; � L. Eli 7Zt i �a� •v n,o of Ln XU c0 b•° '�-r o�'O`ti� o � X cd t 0 w v 4 y „L" r N QJ es G ca " m �" 0� O O i' � s; p p r. Y O r Q e4 3 0 0 o y °� �, ul 0 v � eo ' o '' "° C p m cd cS r OQ ,C N y N �, c cl U O S' .. O y COi ? y �d 0 U m O ti v 16. C 'Ct aw a o 3 U A 4 a 3 ., 3 � 0 LO a) c Y O O a) cd o Cd b i t C to x 0 o a) v �t E s > 0 � C ° _ 6 C +U Y � ° m0 to to c � 0'y = x 3 a � n cci _c - en Cd 3 U �" 4— 0 o y c O o Cd 4, E a. 3 '. . _ a �Q•3°G� s Gvi - = Q a 'O — Y f In O ai Cl j3 cd c +� .0 Cts U b 'O •i. F. .0 Z7 � � Cd 3 c D ate+ N N toK y Z O ° a� a o O QJ y� N U N " booA3 ° w R. to 3 79. p m73 a) U O U $- s En o o 0 C4 cz U o 0 3 3 r o m cn >°, u ca �_ •� cs N �O b U cco p cn v L v N N �• y cd by cn -0 'O U �+ U U 04 O to 4r 3 w O n C o ai o w 4. O u o .� (1) o 0 co > cz N v 0 3COD 3 4- U i Ln coo U U bA 3 U CA C)4 cd O m U cd C cz U U U cd el) ncwi 3 cnctl U cC U �, U cn CZ a4� o CZ a h ��cd �4 � N N ° 0 to-d a� � 3 ° . -0 OO o do`s cz bA = cd = cC U yU U � U U >, 0 M >' W O• to 1-4 cd y U 3 'y cn c� U 0 0 0 0 N 'A Q. v� U N _O x E'' coo •N N U c� dj N co � 3 N en > rC - V) ° o R cd o co m OrU Es -7: �=S bo 1-1)0cu ¢ .b v� r c� ,a F � bD W N 9 cd O >1 0 O cd U U o �y w O 0 N O to 0 V] .04 ^� 0 o v tJy 0 N�, w 0 �qj —� r 0 � D a, � qj qj p r%ry 0 0 Z� �JZ,- -rp' Z? to v i z7z Imo- _� '� �• Q �1 N psi 0 i vqj ci CV3 tz O N q6) ° COn v %) V qJ 01 o� C3 U of O O 61 5 i ti ut 4w, Aam idtsk S �� � ,��,� � fry �__ - " � '� 1 - ,� 4. �� '. r � !. ��: � . _�_;�_ � ,: �. , , ti `r. 7�: � - � � �� *'r ,. V •y: ,. w � May 9, 2013 Dear Lake Lorene Lakeside Home Owners: I hope this letter finds all of you happy with the improved conditions of our Lake Lorene. We have made major progress in the last 3 years in restoring our once very beautiful lake. The second installment of Phoslock was introduced in the last month. In general, this treatment removes phosphorus which is the major contributor to algae growth. If you need additional information on this treatment, visit the web site at http://www.set)ro.com/phoslock/. These treatments should reduce algae growth and prevent any future occurrence of the toxic blue-green algae we were experiencing. The next step in our restoration is to rid the lakeoT the other sources of nutrients that promote algae & weed growth. Fertilizer use, pet wastes, storm -water runoff, waterfowl and agriculture contribute nutrients to a lake The majority of these nutrients are introduced with water entering the lake from the storm drains and Joe's creek. You can assist in this reduction by use of organic fertilizers, using the proper detergents when washing your cars and trucks and by not feeding the birds. Also, if you see leaves are building up at the storm drain grate, clean them up.... We will attempt to determine the amount of this introduction by sampling. Agriculture control is where I'm heading next in this letter. We need to reduce the amount of leaves, tree limbs, grasses, dead cattails and anything else that is grown on your property that enters the lake. The introductions of these components ultimately decay and add nutrients to the water, thereby promoting algae growth. I need ALL of you to tour your waterfronts and take action to eliminate this introduction. Trim back your trees so the leaves don't fall in the lake, remove the dead cattails, cut back any growth that enters the lake and keep your waterfront cleaned of anything that may blow into the lake. Secondly, Cattails and Yellow Flag Iris, are becoming a significant nuisance. Cattails - Some cattails are fine; we just have to make sure we don't allow them to take over the lake. You want more info on Cattails; check out this web site www.cattails.info/. Removal by hand is very difficult but can be done. Be aware that they will probably grow back, maybe not as prevalent. They can be chemically treated also. Check out that option at the end of this letter. Yellow`F1ag Iris (YFI) - A fast spreading invasive weed that forms dense thickets which can out compete native plants. These thickets can currently be found along the shorelines of Lake Lorene. We need to rid our lake of these invasive plants. ?"w >t( ZaZea Homeowners Association, Inc. 3420 S.W. 320th, Suite B 3 Federal Way, WA 98023-2209 Phone: (263) 838-0464 ' Facsimile: (253) 8384784 www.twinlakeshoa.com Email:OfficeManager@TwinLakesHOA.com ESTHETICS REMINDER TO HOMEOWNER LETTER #1 June 12, 2013 Tom & Crystal Moehlman 32322 44th PL SW Federal Way WA 98023 Address of Property: 32322 44th PL SW Account # (8061) Regarding: Compliance with Article \All of covenants/exterior maintenance Deadline for Compliance: June 262013 Dear Tom & Crystal Moehlman: The Association would like to thank you for taking the time to keep your home and yard looking nice. We did note, however, the following minor infraction(s) that are out of compliance with our Association's exterior maintenance standards and covenant requirements: LAKESIDE: 1. Please consider rerroving_cattail stalks from water, thank you. 2. Please remove bush from the water If the items listed on your letter have been resolved WE THANK YnUI Please address the above item(s) within 14 dan of receipt of this letter. Your cooperation will be most appreciated and does directly benefit you by enhancing the value of your home, the biggest investment most people make in their lives. If you have circumstances that prevent you from meeting this time frame, we ask you to respond in writing or in email to the Architecture Control Committee and give us a proposed timeline for completion and/or any additional information you would like to present to the Architecture Control .Committee for consideration. You may also fax your letter at any time or drop it off during normal business hours Monday through Friday, 10:00 am to 3:00 pm or through our mail slot after hours. Please remember: The office staff are unable to answer any questions regarding your letter and all questions/concerns pertaining to it must be directed to the ACC in writing or in email. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 3420 S.W. 32e, Suite B-3 • Federal Way, WA 98023-2209 Phone: (253) 838-0464 ' Facsimile: (253) 838-1784 uvww.twi n l a ke s h oa. co rn 6/13/2013 Dear Lakeside Home Owners, Divisions 7 & 8- an attempt on you ou were recently sent letters regarding shoreline growth on Lake Lorene. Itas and the spread my part to get the homeowners to take responsibility for minimizing alga growth of invasive weeds. some "push -back" from one homeowner which forced me to investigat oaef tunatelythe I receivedp regarding the shoreline. I was relying on the covenants pertaining at°o a'"�� �o any inconvenience 9 covenants for 7 & 8 are different than those for Division 4 an p g those first letters may have caused. I've cut & p asted the words from the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. They are as follows for Division 7: 2. Riparian Rights Excluded. The fee title to the lots extend beyond in the plat of thein platted lot Lakes Number 7, to the extent applicable, shall ' es into or upon any body of water abutting such lots. A!1 rights, Ve'Q and � �Wf� Lakes, t to lines any such body of water is reserved by the D ve owper5 Association, Inc., its successors Division 7 for conveyance to the Twin La and assigns. The requirements for Division 8 are almost word for word. are This is interpreted to mean that the HOA is responsible for the water;i t omeow ei rs please note responsible for the shoreline to the water's edge. As a result of this p the below important items'. Following actions will be taken: correspondence to Division 7 & 8 homeowners regarding shoreline growth should be 1. All previous p disregarded. 2. A review of all waterfront properties will be conducted with these subsequent actions: If you have Yellow Flag Iris's in the water abutting your lot, the HOA will take action to a. y chemically eradicate. If you have Yellow Flag Iris's on your property adjacent to water edge, you will be. Tc take action to eradicate. If you choose to have these chemically treated while the waterb,_ _ rises are treated, notify the HOA office or contact me at hoalakesguy@gmail.com. There will be . charge t you between $50 -$200, depending on amount of surface area needing treatment. I expect this treatment to take place later in the summer. c. If there are excessive cattails in the water abutting your lot, the HOA may take action to chemically eradicate. Some cattails on our lake are a good thing; however, they must keep in check. d. If you have unwanted cattails on your lot, you have the option to remove them yourself or have them chemically eradicated using the HOA's contracted biologist, Aquatech. If you wish to have these chemically treated, notify the HOA office or contact me at hoalakesQuy@gmail.com. There may be a minimal charge depending on amount needing treatment. - -- --- e If you have vegetation ihc�t-or-igina t es —from yo�tt p►raper y-and penetrates-th&water-- — -- - — surface, you will be required to remove unless you are in a designated wetland. r 3) In all cases listed above where the HOA is taking an action, you will be notified beforehand. If you have an action, please notify the HOA of your intentions prior to July 15 2013. You can call the HOA office at 253-838-0464 or email at off icemana er@twinlakeshoa.com or hoc lakes u @ mail com. The preceding words were from the HOA to the lakeside homeowners. The following is from a fellow lakeside homeowner to lakeside homeowner; neighbor to neighbor. "All of us could do a better job in doing our part to maintain this beautiful lake. When I circumnavigate the lake I see all kind of examples of things leading to the growth of algae. Two weeks ago, I saw a homeowner using a leaf blower to blow leaves & debris into the lake to get them off of his yard." - Here are two simple and extremely inexpensive things each homeowner can do, property by property: 1) Start by cleaning up our own water "back yards." Each owner can dredge, with a garden rake, their own beach, as far out as can be done safely with hip or chest waders. Remove all leaves, branches, limbs, algae scum and even a certain amount of rotten, yucky muck which has built up over years and decades. 2) Stop using fertilizers on your properties. Phosphates in the fertilizers run off the land and into the lake, feeding the algae blooms. If you must use fertilizers, use natural time -release products. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Gary Darcey hoalakesguv@&rna'il.com June 17, 2013 Lake Lorene Homeowner, This communication is to correct information given by Gary Darcey and the Twin Lakes Homeowner's Association. Lake Lorene is a City of Federal Way wetland. Gary Darcey and the TLHOA do not have the authority to unilaterally decide what vegetation must be removed from Lake Lorene. Any vegetation removal in the Lake, and/or along the wetland buffer setback onto property around the lake; must be approved by the City of Federal Way. The City's authority supersedes any TLHOA Esthetic review. The TLHOA cannot demand you remove any vegetation without City approval. At this time, Gary Darcey or the TLHOA has not presented a plan of vegetation removal to the City of Federal Way. Any removal of vegetation in this area by the TLHOA or property owners without City of Federal Way approval could lead to a citation from the City for code violations. Last year TLHOA received a violation for one of their contractors who violated City and State codes. The violation was for allowing a large amount of top soil to wash down the stormwater drains by Treasure Island Park. Before removing any vegetation around Lake Lorene, I urge you to make certain removal is approved by the City of Federal Way. If you would like to discuss this further please contact me. T.J. Moehlman tjmoehiman@comcast.net City of Federal Way Wetlands and Associated Suffers Map Date: 05/31/2011 City of Federal Way Federal Way, Wa. 98003 (P) 253-835-7000 (VV) www.cityoffederalway.com .: 873202TRC 67 6732020' 1 10 4218 "a732M 422 IOA 4219 & 7 �' ems[ -�• -: - �-�.- j - 873 - i32 •. 3218020 _ 32616 326 CO �Y " 01 873201 ,AO - T � Legend r - Federal Way Stream Classification Points I i Streams 100' Stream Setback �.. ; Associated Wetland Buffer • . _ Wetlands (1998 City Survey) i This map is intended for use 0 50 100 as a graphical representation_ \ The City of Federal Way makes —� —, Feet N no warranty as to its accuracy. F �._� � .anti _�.�' ��. �-+ ,-•� - � � - � .�.. NOW �rx �• - � -� r• rr� .. or NAV 44., rr ''- �■►s.:r Q R el 1 � VI, y ~ - -Raw- _ • � � ter. `� �.J i 0" OF '. Federal Way March 29, 2011 Ginelle Holyoak Twin Lakes Homeowners Association 3420 SW 3201 Street, Unit B3 Federal Way, WA 98023 CirY HALL =5 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9798 Federal way, WA 98DBM718 (253) 83&70Da www coo#ederalvmXcom RE: File #11-100904-00-AD; CRITICAL AREA VEGETATION MAENTENANCE APPROVAL Twin Lakes HOA Pedestrian Pathway, Hoyt Road SW, Federal Way Dear Ms. Holyoak: The Community and Economic Development Department is in receipt of your February 28, 2011, proposal to perform routine vegetation maintenance in the setback of a regulated lake and major stream and within a category H wetland buffer located along the Twin Lakes HOA open space property. The work proposed is to clear away blackberry bushes, and Japanese Knotweed, and other invasive species adjacent to a paved pedestrian pathway. Your request is conditionally approved as noted below. Your email proposed several actions to eliminate invasive plant species presently located in the stream buffer of Joe's Creek and associated wetlands of Lake Lorene. A subsequent site visit by city staff confirms the invasive species are overgrown and must be maintained. Proposed tasks include: - Hand removal of blackberry, Japanese Knotweed, and other invasive weeds. ■ Install native plant species and trees along both sides of the stream. • Re -vegetate along the pathway to suppress re -growth of invasive species. • Vegetation maintenance of pedestrian pathway and public areas. The Director of Community and Economic Development may permit rehabilitation of a stream, regulated lake setback, and regulated wetland buffer by requiring removal of non-native vegetation, based on review of the plan, proposed corrective actions, performance standards, monitoring schedule, and planting native vegetation as necessary pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (1= WRC) 19.165.060, 19.170.050, and 19.175.030(3), "Rehabilitation." Your request demonstrates that as conditioned, the tasks proposed to remove the invasive weeds and install native vegetation would meet the rehabilitation standards. The tasks listed above are considered repair, remodeling, or maintenance and are therefore exempt from environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11- 800(3). The vegetation maintenance work proposed will not adversely impact the regulated lake, wetland, or stream, and is hereby conditionally approved as noted below: 1. A landscape/rehabilkation plan that depicts the quantity, size, and location of proposed vegetation shall be submitted prior to re -planting. A landscape inspection shall be Ms. Holyoak March 29, 2011 Page 2 scheduled once the vegetation is installed. Please contact Becky Chapin, Assistant Planner, at 253-835-264I to schedule the inspection. 2. Removal via hand tools or hand powered tools only. Earth moving equipment causing potential harm to onsite stream or wetland buffer is not allowed. Please contact Becky Chapin, Assistant Planner, at 253-835-2641 or rebecca.chapin@cityoffederalway if you have any questions about this decision. Sincerely, Isaac Conlen Planning Division Manager r for Patrick Doherty, Director c: Jeff Wolf SWM Engineer Ginelle Holyoak_ officemanager@twinlakeshoacom Gary Darcey: maynard55(a@gmail.com Bob Hill: Playtime4bob@aol.com II - GUM non i n. sns] ciTr or CITY HALL � Feder 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Federal ra may (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. com August 12, 2014 Gary Darcey Twin Lakes Homeowners' Association 3420 SW 320'' Street, Suite B-3 Federal Way, WA 98023 RE: File #12-101766-00-AD; RESPONSE LETTER Lake Lorene Vegetation Maintenance, Federal Way Dear Mr. Darcey: The Community Development Department is in receipt of your August 5, 2014, request to perform vegetation maintenance in the setback of a regulated lake and within a category II wetland located along Lake Lorene. The proposal is to clear away the Typha X Glauca hybrid cattails and Yellow -flag iris that are an increasing problem in Lake Lorene. These particular species of cattail and iris are included on the state's noxious weed list as a `Class C' noxious weed. The Director of Community Development may permit rehabilitation of a regulated lake setback, and regulated wetland consisting of removal of detrimental materials such as debris, sediment and inappropriate vegetation, based on review of a written plan pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.170.050 and 19.175.030(3), "Rehabilitation." Your request demonstrates that as conditioned, the tasks proposed to remove and/or control the cattails and irises bordering Treasure Island Park (Phase 1) would meet the rehabilitation standards and would, in fact, result in improved lake and wetland conditions. The tasks listed above are considered repair, remodeling, or maintenance and are therefore exempt from environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11- 800(3). The vegetation maintenance work proposed will not adversely impact the regulated lake or wetland and is hereby conditionally approved as noted below: • Removal via hand digging or cutting. Chemicals causing potential harm to onsite wetland and/or wetland buffer are not allowed. The duration of approval is valid for three years, or until August 12, 2017. After three years a new written request for vegetation removal along Lake Lorene must be submitted to the city for review and approval. Please contact Becky Chapin, Associate Planner, at,253-835-2641 or becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com if you have any questions about this decision. Sincerely, Isaac Conlen Planning Division Manager for Larry Frazier, Interim Director e: Email Gary Darcey, maynard55@gmail.com Doc, l,D, 66444 CITY OF Federal Way December 20, 2011 rq LJ CITY HALL I 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www cityoffederalway. com Ginelle Holyoak via email: officemanager@twinlakeshoa.com Twin Lakes Homeowners' Association 3420 SW 320`h Street, Unit B3 Federal Way, WA 98023 RE: File #11-100904-00-AD; REVISED TREE REMOVAL AND MAINTENANCE APPROVAL Twin Lakes HOA Pedestrian Pathway, Hoyt Road SW, Federal Way Dear Ms. Holyoak: On November 4, 2011, the Department of Community and Economic Development reviewed and approved your request to remove dead and/or diseased trees in the setback of a regulated lake and major stream and within a category II wetland buffer located along Twin Lakes HOA Track A. Since then, the city received an email on November 30, 2011, from a property owner that expressed concern about an alder tree located behind his property, within the HOA Tract A, noting that the tree could potentially fall on children that play near the property. The city hereby approves the request to trim down the tree behind 32503 43`d Place SW, as revised below under Recommendation #13. Removal does not qualify as an exempt action listed in Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.120.030. The department issued Interpretation #10-01 on January 28, 2010, which provides clarification of the proper procedure, application materials, and decisional criteria for vegetation removal within identified critical areas. An arborist report dated September 9, 2011, received October 19, 2011, prepared by Thundering Oak Enterprises' reviewed the condition of several trees in the area along the pedestrian pathway and adjacent to homeowners' property. On October 31, 2011, a neighboring property owner submitted an arborist report to the city, in which Tree Resources reviewed the Thundering Oak arborist report and provided comments. Discussed below are the recommended actions, which are hereby conditionally approved with this letter. The report submitted by Thundering Oak consists of 13 recommendations for trees that may present significant risk to both users of the pedestrian walkway and homes nearby. City staff conducted a site visit on November 2, 2011, with the Thundering Oak arborist to clarify which trees are hazardous. The following are the recommendations paraphrased with the city's response (italicized). Recommendation #1: 2 alders painted numbers 14 & 15. These trees will not reach the main path and are not considered hazardous. There are no recommendations to do anything to these trees. City concurs; no hazards exist; trees to remain. Recommendation #2: 26" alder east of path. This tree has a very large (70% of tree) dead top and will fail; it is recommended to remove the dead part of the tree back to live growth, leaving the tree at approximately 25' tall. The city concurs with removing dead top. 1 ISA Certified Arborist #PN0232 2 BCMA #PN-5840B Ms. Holyoak December 20, 2011 Page 2 Recommendation #3: 23" alder adjacent to asphalt trail (west side). The tree has 2 large failure -prone limbs. These fail often due to their origination as sprouts rather than true branches. This tree should be removed. This tree has already been removed; however, based on city maps, this hazardous tree appears to be outside of the wetland buffer area and is exempt from tree preservation regulations per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.120.030(12). No further action necessary. Recommendation #4: 24" alder, numbered 18. Remove dead top, large dead limbs, and large adventitious limb 4' above ground. It is recommended that a pruning cut be done to remove dead limbs. The city concurs. Recommendation #5: 3 alders in the wooded area east of trail. Lots of dead tops and dying branches in the trees that have a trail underneath. Remove all dead and dying material to `make safe.' These trees are not authorized to be pruned or removed. There is no evidence that these trees are hazardous to the pedestrian walkway, and there are no evident trails leading to these trees. These trees are in the middle of the wetland buffer and should remain as -is. Recommendation #6: 10" alder west of path. Remove dead tops that have potential to fall on the pedestrian walkway. The city concurs with the recommendation. Recommendation #7: Dead snag, number 8, west of path. Fall decaying dead log. This tree is also outside of the wetland buffer area and may be removed. City approves removal of dead log. Recommendation #8: 2-stemmed alder east of path numbered 20 & 21. This tree splits into two stems near ground level. This type of split often leads to one of the stems splitting off. Such failure in this case would put one of the stems on the path, remove stem leaning over path. The city approves the removal of the larger stem leaning over the pedestrian walkway. Recommendation #9: Dead snag numbered 23 leaning over path. Take down dead snag leaning over path. The city concurs. Recommendation #10: Leaning alder west of path. The tree is leaning towards road, no risk of damage to path/people. This tree was not identified as it is not a potential hazard. Non -issue, the tree is to remain in place. 11-100904 Doc. CD. 59932 M Ms. Holyoak December 20, 2011 Page 3 Recommendation #11: Maple stump, near the creek on the west side of path. The stump is living, but has several dead or dying saplings growing from it. These should be removed prior to them breaking off. The dead or dying saplings have already been removed. No recommendation. Recommendation #12: Dead catalpa tree numbered 26. Take down the small dead tree leaning towards path. The city agrees this tree poses a hazard to the pedestrian walkway and is approved to be removed. Recommendation #13: 3 alders located in wooded area behind 32509 & 32503 43'd Place SW. These three trees all have one or more significant defects that are elevating failure potential. Defects vary from twisted stem formation to nearly dead and severe stem decay. The trees are in areas with several trails and back yards frequented by neighborhood children. All trees must be removed or cut back heavily to eliminate the danger of tree parts falling. The city approves the alder with the spiral rotting to be cut down to live growth. The he?, Ave .V... 90 REVISED Recommendation #13 The e LQ g= roves the removal gL the abler with deco y directly behind 32503 43' Place SW. Sta ffconducted a site visit and concluded that there is evidence QL a large amount ofdeeav at the to o the tree with some open exposed pockets that are scienti icall deea ed There is also evidence of prior failures and woodpecker holes were observed. This tree has a potential of failure and is therefore approved to be cut down to live growth. Conditions of Approval 1. Only handheld tools may be used (including, but not limited to, handheld chainsaws). Use of heavy machinery shall not be permitted. 2. The removed portions of the trees shall be left in the wetland buffer to decompose. Any tree material that falls on the pedestrian walkway may be removed. 3. A tree inspection shall be required once all the trees have been removed and/or pruned. Please contact Becky Chapin, Assistant Planner, at 253-835-2641 to schedule an inspection. Please contact Becky Chapin, Assistant Planner, at 253-835-2641 or rebecca.chapin@cityoffederalway if you have any questions about this decision. Sincerely,_ Isaac Conlen Planning Division Manager for Patrick Doherty, Director c: Carl Spencer: carlkimber@hotmail.com Bob Hill: Playtime4bob@aol.com I1-100904 Doc. LD. 59932 CITY OF t Federal Way November 4, 2011 - i F L _ r CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Ginelle Holyoak via email: officemanager@twinlakeshoa.com Twin Lakes Homeowners' Association 3420 SW 320'h Street, Unit 133 Federal Way, WA 98023 RE: File #11-100904-00-AD; HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL AND MAINTENANCE APPROVAL Twin Lakes HOA Pedestrian Pathway, Hoyt Road SW, Federal Way Dear Ms. Holyoak: The Department of Community and Economic Development has reviewed your request to remove dead and/or diseased trees in the setback of a regulated lake and major stream and within a category 11 wetland buffer located along Twin Lakes HOA Track A. Removal does not qualify as an exempt action listed in Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.120.030. The department issued Interpretation #10-01 on January 28, 2010, which provides clarification of the proper procedure, application materials, and decisional criteria for vegetation removal within identified critical areas. An arborist report dated September 9, 2011, received October 19, 2011, prepared by Thundering Oak Enterprises' reviewed the condition of several trees in the area along the pedestrian pathway and adjacent to homeowners' property. On October 31, 2011, a neighboring property owner submitted an arborist report to the city, in which Tree Resource2 reviewed the Thundering Oak arborist report and provided comments. Discussed below are the recommended actions, which are hereby conditionally approved with this letter. The report submitted by Thundering Oak consists of 13 recommendations for trees that may present significant risk to both users of the pedestrian walkway and homes nearby. City staff conducted a site visit on November 2, 2011, with the Thundering Oak arborist to clarify which trees are hazardous_ The following are the recommendations paraphrased with the city's response (italicized). Recommendation #1: 2 alders painted numbers 14 & 15. These trees will not reach the main path and are not considered hazardous. There are no recommendations to do anything to these trees. City concurs; no hazards exist; trees to remain. Recommendation #2: 26" alder east of path. This tree has a very large (70% of tree) dead top and will fail; it is recommended to remove the dead part of the tree back to live growth, leaving the tree at approximately 25' tall. The city concurs with removing dead top. ' ISA Certified Arborist #PN0232 2 BCMA #PN-5840B Ms. Holyoak November 4, 2011 Page 2 Recommendation #3: 23" alder adjacent to asphalt trail (wcst side). The tree has 2 large failure -prone limbs. These fail often due to their origination as sprouts rather than true branches. This tree should be removed. This tree has already been removed- however, based on city maps, this hazardous tree appears to be outside of the wetland buffer area and is exempt from tree preservation regulations per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.120.030(12). No further action necessary. Recommendation #4: 24" alder, numbered 18. Remove dead top, large dead limbs, and large adventitious limb 4' above ground. It is recommended that a pruning cut be done to remove dead limbs. The city concurs. Recommendation #5: 3 alders in the wooded area east of trail. Lots of dead tops and dying branches in the trees that have a trail underneath. Remove all dead and dying material to `make safe.' These trees are not authorized to be pruned or removed. There is no evidence that these trees are hazardous to the pedestrian walkway, and there are no evident trails leading to these trees. These trees are in the middle of the wetland buffer and should remain as -is. Recommendation #6: 10" alder west of path. Remove dead tops that have potential to fall on the pedestrian walkway. The city concurs with the recommendation. Recommendation #7: Dead snag, number 8, west of path. Fall decaying dead log. This tree is also outside of the wetland buffer area and may be removed. City approves removal of dead log. Recommendation #8: 2-stemmed alder east of path numbered 20 & 21. This tree splits into two stems near ground level. This type of split often leads to one of the stems splitting off. Such failure in this case would put one of the stems on the path, remove stem leaning over path. The city approves the removal of the larger stem leaning over the pedestrian walkway. Recommendation #9: Dead snag numbered 23 leaning over path. Take down dead snag leaning over path. The city concurs. Recommendation #10: Leaning alder west of path. The tree is leaning towards road, no risk of damage to path/people. This tree was not identified as it is not a potential hazard. Non -issue, the tree is to remain in place. 11-100904 Doc. LD. 59257 Ms. Holyoak November 4, 2011 Page 3 Recommendation #11: Maple stump, near the creek on the west side of path. The stump is living, but has several dead or dying saplings growing from it. These should be removed prior to them breaking off. The dead or dying saplings have already been removed. No recommendation. Recommendation #12: Dead catalpa tree numbered 26. Take down the small dead tree leaning towards path. The city agrees this tree poses a hazard to the pedestrian walkway and is approved to be removed. Recommendation #13: 3 alders located in wooded area behind 32509 & 32503 43rd Place SW. These three trees all have one or more significant defects that are elevating failure potential. Defects vary from twisted stem formation to nearly dead and severe stem decay. The trees are in areas with several trails and back yards frequented by neighborhood children. All trees must be removed or cut back heavily to eliminate the danger of tree parts falling. The city approves the alder with the spiral rotting to be cut down to live growth. The other two trees are far enough away from the property that they do not pose a hazard to the house or any trails. Conditions of Approval 1. Only handheld tools may be used (including, but not limited to, handheld chainsaws). Use of heavy machinery shall not be permitted. 2. The removed portions of the trees shall be left in the wetland buffer to decompose. Any tree material that falls on the pedestrian walkway may be removed. 3. A tree inspection shall be required once all the trees have been removed and/or pruned. Please contact Becky Chapin, Assistant Planner, at 253-835-2641 to schedule an inspection. Please contact Becky Chapin, Assistant Planner, at 253-835-2641 or rebecca.chapin@cityoffederalway if you have any questions about this decision. Sincerely, Isaac Conlen Planning Division Manager for Patrick Doherty, Director c: Bryce Landrud: bryce@thunderingoak.com Gary Darcey: maynard55@gmail.com Bob Hill: Playtime4bob@aol.com Tom Moehlman: tjmoehlman@comcast.net 11-100904 Doc. I.D. 59257 Becky Chapin From: Becky Chapin Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 11:47 AM To: 'duanerivab@comcast.net' Cc: Anna Garner Subject: RE: Lake Lorene Mr. and Mrs. Bjorkiund, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I did receive your request for work approval. The removal of noxious weeds within any city mapped critical area, Lake Lorene is regulated lake with a regulated wetland depicted in the city's critical area map, typically requires Community Development Director's approval before any vegetation is removed. The Director may permit rehabilitation of a regulated lake setback, and regulated wetland consisting of removal of detrimental materials such as debris, sediment and inappropriate vegetation, based on review of a written plan pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC)19.170.050 and 19.175.030(3), "Rehabilitation." Your summary of actions below demonstrate that the removal of the noxious weed, Yellow -Flag Iris (water iris) , by hand in accordance with "Aquatic Plants & Fish" handbook guidelines would meet the rehabilitation standards and improve lake and wetland conditions. The work is approved this one time. Any future vegetation maintenance or plans for on -going maintenance in the lake/wetland area will require Director's review and approval prior to removal. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 Beck .Cha in ci offederalwa .com From: duanerivab [mailto:duanerivab comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 1:05 PM To: Anna Garner Subject: Lake Lorene Regarding your request for more information: 1) Rivas father & maintenance man planted some water iris on our shoreline he got from the lake he lived on 30-35 years ago & it just grew out of control. The out of control growth was not only taking away our shoreline but growing up the bank and moving to our yard. 2) All work was done by hand (shovel, pick, pitchfork & wheelbarrow) with extra care taken to get all (as much as possible) roots/bulbs of each weed in accordance with "Aquatic Plants & Fish" handbook guidelines. Extra care was also given to keep both lake and our yard clean. 3) Since these weeds are considered a noxious weed we did not see a problem removing them, especially with the care we took. Regards, Duane & Riva Bjorklund Bec Chapin From: Becky Chapin Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 7:50 AM To: 'Gary Darcey (maynard55@gmail.com)' Cc: 'officemanager@twinlakeshoa.com'; Isaac Conlen Subject: Twin Lake HOA Vegetation Removal Attachments: 20141030133205.pdf Hi Gary, On March 29, 2011, the City granted conditional approval for Twin Lakes HOA to perform the following tasks in the area adjacent to the paved pedestrian pathway and HOA open space property: 1. Clear away blackberry bushes, ,Japanese Knotweed, and other invasive species; 2. Install native plant species and trees along both sides of the stream; 3. Re -vegetate along the pathway to suppress re -growth of invasive species; and 4. Vegetation maintenance in the paved pedestrian pathway and public areas. All of which are activities within 200 feet of a major stream, regulated lake, and/or regulated wetland/buffer area, and is regulated by the city's Critical Area Ordinance. Per the approval letter attached, the HOA was to provide the city with a landscape/rehabilitation plan that depicts the quantity, size, and location of proposed vegetation to be replanted. As of this date, the city has not received a plan and no planting has taken place to re - vegetate the areas where invasive species have been removed. It is recommended that native species that allow for stream shading, such as cedars, vine maple and willows, be planted near the stream. Here is a link that Public Work SWM provided that may be helpful in developing a rehabilitation plan http://www.ecy.wa.goylprograms/wq/plants/lakesliandscaping.htmI. Please submit a landscape/rehabilitation plan to the city within 45 days for review and approval. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 Becky. Ch api nfcityoffed a ralway. com Becky Chapin From: Daniel Smith Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 3:46 PM To: Isaac Conlen Cc: 'tjmoehlman@comcast.net'; William Appleton; Becky Chapin; Hollie Shilley Subject: FW: Federal Way Critical Area Vegetation Maintenance Approval Attachments: FW Critical Area Vegetation Maintenance Approval 03 29 2014.pdf; IMG_0208.JPG; IMG_ 0210.JPG; IMG_0211.JPG Hi Isaac, FYI. See email below and a copy of a letter dated March 29, 2011 which I received today from Tom Moehlman, Lake Lorene resident. Also attached are a few photos I took this past Tuesday along the pathway at the inlet (Joe's Creek) to Lake Lorene while we were conducting water quality monitoring, areas that appear in need of re -vegetation per the letter. As you may know, hazardous algae blooms (HABs) are critical issues that SWM is currently working on with the Twin Lake communities. Implementation of practices described in the publications Mr. Moehlman refer to (i.e. maintenance and restoration of native plants around lake shorelines and feeder streams) are important components in the preservation of water quality and the prevention of HABs. As such, SWM will begin a stormwater pollution prevention public education effort in the watershed that will be combined with a focused lake stewardship campaign targeting Lake Lorene and Lake Jeane residents. Any assistance that Community Development can offer toward these efforts is appreciated — specifically those related to compliance with FWRC rehabilitation standards mentioned in the March 29 letter. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks for your help. Dan Smith SURFACE WATER QUALITY PROGRAM COORDINATOR City of Federal Way, WA 33325 8`" Avenue South 98003 office: (253) 835-2756 cell: (253) 261-3752 fax: (253) 835-2709 From: Tom Moehlman [mailto: moehlman0comcast.net] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 2:02 PM To: Daniel Smith Subject: Federal Way Critical Area Vegetation Maintenance Approval Dan, Here is the document I referred to regarding vegetation at Joe's Creek between the pedestrian path and Hoyt Road. I do not know if the city inspections were ever completed. Also included is a request from our attorney for information regarding this area. We are not allowed to disclose the HOA response because it is protected by attorney client privilege. They certainly do not seem very interested in treating the lake as a wetland. The HOA delivered the Federal Way Blueprint ForA Lake Friendly Landscape and the Washington Dept. of Health TOXIC BLUE-GREEN algae BLOOMS brochures to homeowners on Lake Lorene; one delivered by Gary Darcey, the other by Mrs. Spencer on behalf of the HOA. We question if the HOA bothered to read them. If they did, they seem to be ignoring the message delivered. We have seen many documents that have been received by the HOA regarding the importance of maintaining an area of native plants bordering the lake. Their emphasis seems to be making the lawns and park bordering the lake look like putting greens. Short native plantings would not detract from views of the lake; and would help keep geese away, stabilize the shore and filter runoff. Down at the jungle and swamp (as Mr. Darcey likes to call our lakefront) the cattails, rhododendrons and other hedges keep the geese away. We are hopeful the USDA will require substantiating evidence of the goose problem before they allow any euthanasia of the geese. A phosphorus loading study was suggested by Herrera Environmental at least ten to fifteen years ago. No one seems willing to pay for the study, but not completing it will lead to a haphazard approach to resolving the blue-green algae problem. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns. We appreciate your environmental approach to the surface water problems in Federal Way. If you have any suggestions for us please feel free to call or email. Tom and Crystal 704f A 'Wa zal Jl< tNot Homeowners Association, Inc. 3420 S.W. 320th, Suite B-3 • Federal Way, WA 98023-2209 Phone: (253) 838-0464 • Facsimile: (253) 838-1784 www.twirilakeshoa.com Email: Maynard55@gmail.com Lake Lorene Invasive Weed Removal Plan - Phase 1 Cattails are increasing becoming a problem on Lake Lorene. Recently, these plants were analyzed by the States Department of Ecology and determined to be the species Typha X glauca, a hybrid of the Typha latifolia (native cattail) with Typha angustifolia (narrow -leaf cattail). This hybrid is included on the state noxious weed list as a Class C noxious weed. Twin Lakes Homeowners Association (TLHA) proposes to remove and or control this species as discussed further in this document and annotated on the included map. TLHA anticipates several phases of removal will occur to get the emergent vegetation on Lake Lorene under control. This letter only deals with Phase 1 which is cattail removal bordering Treasure Island Park. The removal will be via hand digging or cutting. No chemicals will be used. Personnel conducting the removal will be equipped with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife pamphlet. This document is guide for removal of Aquatic Noxious Weeds. No native plants will be removed. I will ensure this occurs by marking the noxious plants with yellow ribbon. Removal sites are depicted on the map by used of pink color and black lines. Gary Darcey Twin Lakes Homeowners Assoc. Becky Chapin From: Isaac Conlen Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 10:52 AM To: 'Gary Darcey' (maynard55@gmail.com) Cc: Larry Frazier; Becky Chapin Subject: Invasive Weed Removal Follow -Up Hi Gary, As discussed in the meeting you attended with Larry and I today, please submit an invasive weed removal plan to the City. The plan should contain a written component that describes the proposal — species desired for removal, method of removal, geographic scope of removal, methods to ensure desirable native plants are not targeted, etc. Additionally, please include a plan view drawing that shows the location of the invasive weed clumps and the portion of those clumps proposed to be removed. Upon review of your plan, assuming it is in keeping with our discussion today, we will write you a letter authorizing the work. Please do not commence until you receive our written approval. Best, Isaac 253 835 2643 Becky Chapin From: Isaac Conlen Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 8:26 AM To: 'Gary Darcey'; Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Invasive plants Hi Gary, Here's our position. 1. Outside the wetland/buffer: We don't care what you tell anyone— it's not a city issue. 2. Within the wetland/buffer: City code allows removal of invasive species from wetlands/buffers. For that reason we would not object to the HOA asking homeowners to remove such vegetation by hand (meaning without the use of heavy equipment). With regard to hedges and other ornamental landscaping — like I said, if it's outside the buffer then no issues. If it's within the buffer that type of work would generally also be OK, as long as it is on -going maintenance of ornamental landscaping. What would not be allowed by code is significant trimming cutting of native vegetation within the wetland/buffer. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Isaac From: Gary Darcey [mailto:ma nard55 mail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 8:12 AM To: Becky Chapin Cc: Isaac Conlen Subject: Re: Invasive plants You guys gonna be able to help me with this? On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Gary Darcey <rnaynard550 Ldgmailxom> wrote: Good morning The Twin Lakes HOA will commence it's annual review of properties on May 1st, 2014. This review which we call an "Esthetics review", ensures all homeowners remain in compliance with our covenants and our Rules & Regulation regarding the appearance of their property. These requirements span from painting your house all the way to removing the grass & weeds in your sidewalk cracks. 1 The majority of the homes are only viewed from the street. The homes that back to the golf course or to one of our three lakes are also viewed. If a resident is not in compliance, a series of letters are sent until they are in compliance. If they ultimately fail to do so, fines are levied which could result in a lien or other legal issues. Just one of the aspects of living in an HOA. Based on our recent issues with one of the homeowners on Lake Lorene, I want to make sure we are on solid ground when we attempt to enforce appearance requirements. A few of our homeowners have allowed their waterfront property to fall out of compliance... they have allowed excessive vegetation to exist, some of which are the invasive type like blackberries and yellow flag irises. Others have allowed shrubs/bushes/hedges to obtain size that is not allowed. This would include fronts of some properties. Are we OK with requesting they remove invasive plants? Are we OK with asking them to trim back an overgrown hedge? If specific words need to be added to our esthetics letter to accomplish this, please advise. If you need me to drop by city hall to discuss, just say the word. gary 2 Becky Chapin From: Kyle Langan <kyle@aquatechnex.com> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 5:20 PM To: Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Lake Lorene Becky, Thank you for your reply. To answer your question, yes. Removal of emergent plants may take place if that method of control is the best available option. Section VII of this DMP covers all control options. The goal for the Twin Lakes HOA is control all State Listed noxious weed species and manage native species when needed such that they are kept in - check so they do not expand beyond conservation areas into high use areas. The native cattails are an important part of the Lake's ecosystem and only small specific sites within high use areas would be selected for control if or when needed. Our goal is to have the ability to take action if and or when action is deemed necessary. Please let me know if you have questions - Regards, Kyle Langan, CLM Aquatic Specialist/Certified Lake Manager AquaTechnex LLC. P.O. Box 118 Centralia, WA 98531 Office: 360-330-0152 Cell: 360-239-5707 Fax: 360-330-0174 Email: kyle a uatechnex.com Web: www.aguatechnex.com CA muppinfttwA ire t I NVAI-1 ti From: Becky Chapin [ma ilto: Becky. Chapin @cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:49 PM To: 'Kyle Langan' Subject: RE: Lake Lorene Hi Kyle, Thanks for the reminder. I did asked Isaac if he has reviewed the DMP and he said we should have a response next week. I'll make sure to send an email sometime next week with any additional requirements that may be necessary for a maintenance plan for Lake Lorene. Just to be clear, does your scope of work with the maintenance plan include removing nuisance vegetation (such as cattail, yellow iris, etc.) along the fringe of the lake? Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Becky. Chapinfcitvoffederalway.com From: Kyle Langan [mailto:kyle aquatechnex.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:51 AM To: Becky Chapin Cc: 'Gary Darcey' Subject: RE: Lake Lorene Hi Becky, Checking back in to see if the Lake Lorene Discharge Management Plan (DMP) document will meet the City's requirements as a maintenance plan. I realize Isaac has been out of the office and may need time to get caught up from his absence, but want to send a quick reminder. Thank you. Regards, Kyle Langan, CLM Aquatic Specialist/Certified Lake Manager AquaTechnex LLC. P.O. Box 118 Centralia, WA 98531 Office: 360-330-0152 Cell: 360-239-5707 Fax: 360-330-0174 Email: kvle(c-Daguatechnex.com Web: www.acuatechnex.com 4-9 N, I" MappiagNetwork.: err• From: Becky Chapin [mailt�.Cha in ci offederalwa .com] Sent: Wednesday, April '02, 2014 8:29 AM To: 'Kyle Langan' Subject: RE: Lake Lorene Hi Kyle, N Isaac was supposed to look over the DMP but I have not had a chance to meet with him about it. He is out and will not be back in the office until April 141h. When he gets back in I will make sure to discuss the project and if additional information will be necessary and get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 Beck .Cha in cif offedgralwa .corn From: Kyle Langan Fmailto:k le a uatechnex.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 2:25 PM To: Becky Chapin Subject: Lake Lorene Hello Becky, Following up to see if the City has had an opportunity to review the Lake Lorene Discharge Management Plan (DMP) and determine if this document would meet the City's requirements as a maintenance plan. Please provide me with an update at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Regards, Kyle Langan, CLM Aquatic Specialist/Certified Lake Manager AquaTechnex LLC. P.O. Box 118 Centralia, WA 98531 Office: 360-330-0152 Cell: 360-239-5707 Fax: 360-330-0174 Email: k le a uatechnex_com Web: www.a uatechnex.corn �s '�' the � - _�•- ' 1w.� i MuppirgNefWA, : r I;t L ;;NVAVFit Becky Chapin From: Jennings, Jonathan (ECY) <joje461@ECY.WA.GOV> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 1:49 PM To: Rebecca Chapin Cc: Powell, Becky (ECY) Subject: RE: Lake Lorene, Federal Way Attachments: Lake Lorene Map.pdf; Lake Lorene NOI and SEPA.pdf; wag994199 ds.pdf, wag994199 letter.pdf; WAG994199 DMP.pdf Hi Rebecca, I've cc'd our public disclosure officer (Becky Powell) so that she aware of your request, but I've attached the documents you requested that I have. I do not have a distribution list for the public notice. I do not have an actual SEPA checklist for this permit coverage. For permits that propose to treat areas that are 5 acres or greater, we require the submittal of a Discharge Management Plan (DMP), which is attached. This is treated as a SEPA addendum to our programmatic Environmental Impact Statements, and is in place of a SEPA checklist. The DMP contains much of the same information as a SEPA checklist, as well as information that is more directly related to treatment of lakes than a checklist. The actual permit text for this general permit is available here: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/progra isw esticides final pesticide permits/aquatic lants errnitdocs Modification20l2 /aPamRPerrnit04O412.Pdf This contains the permit conditions that all Permittees covered under the permit must follow. The web page with supporting documents for the permit is here: htt www.ec .wa. ov ra rams w esticides final pesticide permits/aquatic plantslaquatic plant -permit index.h tml Lake Lorene has also had a Phoslock treatment the past two years. This is to bind excess phosphorus in the lake system to reduce algae growth. Are you interested in those documents as well? Jon Jennings Aquatic Pesticides and CAFOs Water Quality Program WA State Dept. of Ecology Phone: (360) 407-6283 Fax: (360) 407-6426 Email: 'anathan. ennin s ec .wa. ov From: Rebecca Chapin [mailto:Rebecca.Cha in ci ofifede[alwa .cam] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:26 AM To: Jennings, Jonathan (ECY) Subject: Lake Lorene, Federal Way Hi John, We spoke a couple weeks ago regarding Lake Lorene here in Federal Way and the NPDES permit. I believe it was applied for by Aquatech and issued May 2011. I'm not sure who would be the appropriate contact, but the city would like a copy of the approved permit, SEPA checklist that was filled out, SEPA Determination, public notice, and possibly the notice distribution list. We are trying to find out what exactly they are allowed to do and who was notified. If there is a form/process to receive these records I will be happy to fill out and submit an application. Thanks for your help, Becky Chapin Assistant Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 Rebecca. ChapinAcib offederalway.corn STATg P� STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 o Olympia, WA 98504-7600 o 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service c Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 May 3, 2012 Mr. Kyle Langan Aquatechnex, LLC PO Box 118 Centralia, WA 98531 RE: Approval of Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit Section S4.C.2 Request to Use Phoslock in Lake Lorene Dear Mr. Langan: The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) received your request and use plan for treating Lake Lorene with Phoslock on March 28, 2012 as required by Section S4.C.2 of the Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit (permit). Ecology has reviewed your plan and determined it is acceptable with the following condition: The current turbidity monitoring schedule must be continued until the water clarity at Lake Lorene is back to pre-Phoslock application levels, whether this is shorter or longer than the proposed 7-day monitoring period. Ecology looks forward to reviewing the results of the planned monitoring. If you have questions about this letter, please contact Jon Jennings at (360) 407-6283 or at jonathanjennings@ecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, Bill Moore, P.E. Program Development Services Section Manager Water Quality Program cc. Jon Jennings PDS, Water Quality e .fi - b 09 .. t STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 m Olympia, WA 98504-7600 0 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service o Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 May 3, 2011 Mr. Kyle Langan Aquatechnex LLC PO Box 118 Centralia, WA 98531 RE: Coverage under the Aquatic Plant and Algae Management, General Permit Permit Number: WAG994199 Lake Name: Lake Lorene Location: King County Dear Mr. Langan: The Department of Ecology (Ecology) received your application for coverage under the Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General NPDES Permit (permit) on January 3, 2011. Ecology is issuing you permit coverage,beginning on May 3, 2011. Retain this letter with your permit. It is part of the official record of permit coverage for your operations. Please read the permit carefully, a copy is included with this letter. As a Permittee, you are legally obligated to comply with its terms and conditions. Please refer to the permit number above when contacting Ecology Treatment Timing Windows Ecology conditions each permit coverage to mitigate impacts to salmon, steelhead, dolly varden/bull trout and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitats and species using Treatment Windows. The Treatment Window dates are inclusive. For this permit coverage, your required Timing Window is: Timing Window: Year around as needed. Reason: n/a In addition to your required Timing Window, there may also be Timing Windows that are voluntary and should be considered if work schedules allow. For reference, the complete set of Treatment Windows may be accessed here: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/ final_pesticide_permits/aquatic_plants/permitdocs/wdfwtiming.pdf. — gd Kyle Langan May 3, 2011 Page 2 Permit Fees State law (RCW 90.48.465) requires that all permit holders pay an annual fee based upon the state fiscal year. The state fiscal year begins each year on July 1, and ends on June 30 the following year. Ecology will mail permit fee bills to all permit holders annually each August. Pem-ittees that have permit coverage on July 1 are billed for annual fees. If you would like more information on the fee process, contact Bev Poston, Permit Fee Administrator at (360) 407-6425 or at Beverly.Poston@ecy.wa.gov. Appeal You or a third parry have a right to appeal this permit coverage to the Pollution Control Hearing Board (PCHB) within 30 days of the date of receipt of this letter. This appeal is limited to the general permit's applicability or non -applicability to a individual discharger (WAC 173-226- 190(2)). The appeal process is governed by chapter 43.21B RCW and chapter 371-08 WAC. "Date of receipt" is defined in RCW 43.21B.001(2). To appeal, you must do the following within 30 days of the date of receipt of this letter: • File your appeal and a copy of the permit cover page with the PCHB (see addresses below). Filing means actual receipt by the PCHB during regular business hours. • Serve a copy of your appeal and the permit cover page on Ecology in paper form -,by mail or in person (see addresses below). E-mail is not accepted. You must also comply with other applicable requirements in chapter 43.21B RCW and chapter 371-08 WAC. Address and Location Information: Street Addresses: Department of Ecology Attn: Appeals Processing Desk 300 Desmond Drive SE Lacey, WA 98503 Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) 1111 Israel Road SW, Suite 301 Tumwater, WA 98501 Mailing Addresses: Department of Ecology Attu: Appeals Processing Desk PO Box 47608 Olympia, WA 98504-7608 Pollution Control Hearings Board PO Box 40903 Olympia, WA 98504-0903 Kyle Langan May 3, 2011 Page 3 Ecolomy Technical Assistance If, after reviewing your permit, you have questions or need more information about permit requirements, please contact Jon Jennings at (360) 407-6283 or jonathan.jen-nings@ecy.wa.gov. Sincerel , Bill Moore, P.E. Program Development Services Section Manager Water Quality Program cc: Bev Poston, WQP, FMS Jon Jennings, WQP, PDS Becky Chapin From: Rebecca Chapin Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:52 PM To: 'Tc Woods' Cc: Patrick Doherty; tjmoehlman@comcast.net Subject: RE: Requirements at Lake Lorene Attachments: Lake Lorene Wetlands.pdf; Temporary Intrusions in a Critical Area.DOC Good Afternoon, Thanks for your inquiry. At this time I have been receiving quite a few emails regarding Lake Lorene. This issue is coming up because Lake Lorene is surrounded by a type 11 Regulated Wetland with a 100' wetland buffer. The Twin Lakes HOA approached the city and asked if they can require homeowners to remove all debris (tree limbs, bushes, leave, etc.) that originates from their property which appears is within the "wetland boundary". So in response I said: The City's critical area regulations, which generally do not allow vegetation removal in a wetland/buffer, are applicable regardless of HOA covenants and rules. The HOA cannot outright require the homeowner to remove the vegetation. (Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC)19.175,030, regulates activities in a wetland buffer,) The city's critical area regulations generally do not allow vegetation removal from the wetlandlbuffer. The only way the city could allow removal of the vegetation is if we find that such removal would either be beneficial or not harmful to the wetland and lake (or if we find the vegetation to be hazardous, but I didn't hear that as the reason for the request). In order to evaluate such a request, we would need a report prepared by a qualified wetland biologist identifying the effect of the vegetation removal and maintenance plan. The City may decide to send the submitted report, at applicant expense, to a third party for their review and comments. (The city has an inter�retation (attached) that regulates the process for vegetation maintenance/removal in a critical area.) There have been lots of Ietterslemails generated from the HOA and homeowners. At this time, I need to re -group with my Director, Patrick Doherty, and discuss the issues that have been coming up, what maintenance activities are allowed, process, etc. before any decisions can be made. i will get back to you next week with answers to your questions. Thanks, Becky Chapin Assistant Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Rebecca. Cha in cit offederalwa .cam From: Tc Woods [mai1to:tcwoods32@qmaH.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:02 PM To: Rebecca Chapin Subject: Requirements at Lake Lorene Ms Chapin Received your email address from a TJ Moehlman. He stated you should be contacted regarding requirements and obtaining permission to conduct yard maintenance on properties fronting Lake Lorene. He delivered a memo stating that if we remove any vegetation without approval from the city, we would be issued a citation for violating city code. Myself along with several of my neighbors are very confused on this issue. Seems a little ridiculous that I would need permission to trim my hedge or relocate a rhododendron from the lakeside yard to my front yard. Those two items along with dozens more we could come up with also fit in the ridiculous category. What are the rules? Do you have something you can send to me? I will educate these confused neighbors. ' • hre J tip .1 s 1 Ile -� - -A - I p w rSP rREE RESOURCE - Prepared By: Zeb Haney BCMA #PN-5840B Tom Moehlman 32322 44th PI SW Federal Way WA 98023 RE: Joe's Creek Walking Path Arborist Report Review Date: October 281, 2011 Attn: Tom Moehlman Dear Mr. Moehlman RESUBMITTED CITY OF L= ERAL WAY 5 Assignment and Scope of Report You had me review a report detailing trees and tree work proposed along the asphalt walking path just west of Joe's Creek between 441h Pl SW and 43rd PI SW in the Twin Lakes neighborhood. This review discusses the report from ISA Cerified Arborist, Bryce Landrud, dated October 19th, 2011. You may use this document to decide on a next course of action concerning your involvement with the maintenance of the path and the wetland area surrounding Joe's Creek. Observations and Discussion Mr. Landrud's report consists of 13 recommendations for trees to be removed or pruned. Most of the trees addressed in his report had been painted with numbers by someone prior to his review of the site. The painted numbers are in many cases difficult to read. The numbered recommendations in the report for the most part follow the earlier numbers, but several are difficult or impossible to match with the trees on site. There is no site map to clearly identify which trees in the report refer to actual trees on site. The following list contains each item as listed in Mr. Landrud's report with my comments following each: 1. Alders painted #'s 14 and 15. His recommendation is to leave the trees with no work since they will not reach the path. a. I am fine with this recommendation. 2. A 26 inch alder east of path with a large dead top. His recommendation is to remove the dead top down to live growth. a. I am fine with this recommendation for the tree, however, the tree is solidly in a heavily brushed area, and thus has very little target potential. Its value as vertical dead habitat should be considered. It is also not clearly identified. 3. A 23 inch alder adjacent to the trail with two adventitious limbs designated as failure prone. a. This tree was already removed when I visited the site. However, it would have been very easy to simply remove or reduce the two limbs rather than cutting down the entire tree. The tree itself was very healthy with no evident negative conditions. 4. A 24" alder (numbered 18). His recommendation is for removal of the dead top, large dead limbs, and a large adventitious limb 4 feet from the ground. a. It was not readily discernable which tree is tree #18. None of the trees matched the description of this tree. PO Box 25413 Federal Way WA 98093 21Pabe Arborist Report Review 5. Three alders in wooded area east of the trail with dead tops and branches over a trail through the brush. The recommendation is to "make safe" by removing dead and dying material. a. It is not readily apparent which three trees are indicated since none are marked clearly and there are more than three trees in the area described. It is also very subjective to describe a treatment as "make safe." 6. A ten s n& alder west of'path with a recommendation to remove the dead top to make safe. "a. I was not able to positively identify this tree. 7. Dead snag (numbered 8) west side of path. The recommendation is to fall decaying dead log. a. '•I would be fine with this recommendation but am confused as to why other trees with lean were considered safe whereas this snag is to be removed. It is leaning away from the trail and has value as vertical habitat. 8. A two -stem alder just east of path (#23). The recommendation is to remove the stem leaning over the path. a. There are actually two separate trees originating very close to each other. There is no visual indication that either tree is structurally deficient. 9. A dead snag (also labeled #23 in the report) leaning over the path. His recommendation is to take down the dead snag. a. I agree with a recommendation to remove a dead snag that is leaning directly over a path. However, there is not a clear indication of which dead snag this is as there are others in the area. 10. A leaning alder west of path (#1?). Leaning towards road. There were no recommendations for this tree. a. I was not able to identify which tree was indicated. 11. A live maple stump near the creek on the west side of the path. The recommendation is to remove dead and dying saplings growing from it. a This tree ha^ ' '- - si���s o� rece.�t pruiung, were are no dead or dying branches left on it. 12. A dead catalpa tree. His recommendation is for removal of dead tree leaning towards the path. a. I saw no catalpa tree on the site. 13. Three alders (16-20 inches in diameter) on the east side of Joe's Creek and bordering the lawn areas behind two residences are recommended for removal or to be cut back heavily. a. There are at least ten trees in this area, so I was not able to positively identify which trees are indicated. None of the trees in this portion of the wetland are leaning towards homes and private property, so it would be difficult to say that they are at high risk to any of the properties nearby. Conclusion and Recommendation I found it very difficult to accurately identify which trees were indicated for specific treatments in the report. Since no site map was created and any numbers painted on the trees were not legible, I had to make educated guesses as to which trees were which. I also disagree with many of the recommendations. Trees in wetlands, dead or alive and in all stages of health and structural condition are generally considered to be left entirely alone to preserve native habitats and stream quality. My recommendations are as follows: 1. Reassess the trees in the wetland for risk to the walking trail and to private property. a. The assessment should follow the TRACE (Tree Risk Assessment Course and Exam) protocols developed by the (Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture.) b. The assessment should be performed by an ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor. 2. If trees are deemed to be of sufficient risk to warrant a treatment, the treatment should be with a goal of preserving stable structures in order to promote a vital ecosystem surrounding Joe's Creek. Tree Resource I Practicing Consulting Arborists I www.TreeResource.com Prepared by Zeb Haney 31Page Additional assumptions and Limiting Conditions Arborist Report Review 1. Consultant assumes that any legal description provided to Consultant is correct and that title to property is good and marketable. Consultant assumes no responsibility for legal matters. Consultant assumes all property appraised or evaluated is free and clear, and is under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. Consultant assumes that the property and its use do not violate applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or regulations. 3.Although Consultant has taken care to obtain all information from reliable sources and to verify the data insofar as possible, Consultant does not guarantee and is not responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. Client may not require Consultant to testify or attend court by reason of any report unless mutually satisfactory contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such Services. 5. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of this report does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior express written consent of the Consultant. 6. Unless otherwise required by law, no part of this report shall be conveyed by any person, including the Client, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the Consultant's prior express written consent. 7. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Consultant, and the Consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event or upon any finding to be reported. 8. Sketches, drawings and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the information. 9. Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in this report covers only the items examined and reflects the condition of the those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, or coring. Consultant makes no warranty or guarantee, express or implied that the problems or deficiencies of the plans or property in question may not arise in the future. 10. Loss or alteration of any part of this Agreement invalidates the entire report. Thank you for calling on Tree Resource to review your project. Zeb aney BCM PN-5840B CTRA #859 Tree Resource I Practicing Consulting Arborists I www.TreeResource.cozn Prepared by Zeb Haney rREE RESOURCE - Prepared By: Zeb Haney BCMA #PN-5840B Tom Moehlman 32322 441h Pl SW Federal Way WA 98023 RE: Joe's Creek Walking Path Arborist Report Review Date: July 15, 2011 Attn: Tom Moehlman Dear Mr. Moehlman RECEIVED OCT 3 12011 CM OF FEDERAL WAY CDs Assignment and Scope of Report You had me review a report detailing trees and tree work proposed along the asphalt walking path just west of Joe's Creek between 441h PI SW and 431d PI SW in the Twin Lakes neighborhood. This review discusses the report from ISA Cerified Arborist, Bryce Landrud, dated October 191h, 2011. You may use this document to decide on a next course of action concerning your involvement with the maintenance of the path and the wetland area surrounding Joe's Creek. Observations and Discussion Mr. Landrud's report consists of 13 recommendations for trees to be removed or pruned. Most of the trees addressed in his report had been painted with numbers by someone prior to his review of the site. The painted numbers are in many cases difficult to read. The numbered recommendations in the report for the most part follow the earlier numbers, but several are difficult or impossible to match with the trees on site. There is no site map to clearly identify which trees in the report refer to actual trees on site. The following list contains each item as listed in Mr. Landrud's report with my comments following each: 1. Alders painted #'s 14 and 15. His recommendation is to leave the trees with no work since they will not reach the path. a. I am fine with this recommendation. 2. A 26 inch alder east of path with a large dead top. His recommendation is to remove the dead top down to live growth. a. I am fine with this recommendation for the tree, however, the tree is solidly in a heavily brushed area, and thus has very little target potential. Its value as vertical dead habitat should be considered. It is also not clearly identified. 3. A 23 inch alder adjacent to the trail with two adventitious limbs designated as failure prone. a. This tree was already removed when I visited the site. However, it would have been very easy to simply remove or reduce the two limbs rather than cutting down the entire tree. The tree itself was very healthy with no evident negative conditions. 4. A 24" alder (numbered 18). His recommendation is for removal of the dead top, large dead limbs, and a large adventitious limb 4 feet from the ground. a. It was not readily discernable which tree is tree #18. None of the trees matched the description of this tree. PO Box 25413 Federal Way WA 98093 2 1 P a a e Arborist Report Review 5. Three alders in wooded area east of the trail with dead tops and branches over a trail through the brush. The recommendation is to "make safe" by removing dead and dying material. a. Itis not readily apparent which three trees are indicated since none are marked clearly and there are more than three trees in the area described. It is also very subjective to describe a treatment as "make safe."- . 6. A ten inch alder west of path with a recommendation to remove the dead top to make safe. a. I was not able to positively identify this tree. 7. Dead snag (numbered 8) west side of path. The recommendation is to fall decaying dead log. a. I would be fine with this recommendation but am confused as to why other trees with lean were considered safe whereas this snag is to be removed. It is leaning away from the trail and has value as vertical habitat. 8. A two -stem alder just east of path (#23). The recommendation is to remove the stem leaning over the path. a. There are actually two separate trees originating very close to each other. There is no visual indication that either tree is structurally deficient. 9. A dead snag (also labeled #23 in the report) leaning over the path. His recommendation is to take down the dead snag. a. I agree with a recommendation to remove a dead snag that is leaning directly over a path. However, there is not a clear indication of which dead snag this is as there are others in the area. 10. A leaning alder west of path (M). Leaning towards road. There were no recommendations for this tree. a. I was not able to identify which tree was indicated. 11. A live maple stump near the creek on the west side of the path. The recommendation is to remove dead and dying saplings growing from it. a Th4c +rne hag cio- c of rarnnf "ninina 141 ro ara nn tioatJdead nr rlirinQ hranrhac laff nn if 12. A dead catalpa tree. His recommendation is for removal of dead tree leaning towards the path. a. I saw no catalpa tree on the site. 13. Three alders (16-20 inches in diameter) on the east side of Joe's Creek and bordering the lawn areas behind two residences are recommended for removal or to be cut back heavily. a. There are at least ten trees in this area, so I was not able to positively identify which trees are indicated. None of the trees in this portion of the wetland are leaning towards homes and private property, so it would be difficult to say that they are at high risk to any of the properties nearby. Conclusion and Recommendation I found it very difficult to accurately identify which trees were indicated for specific treatments in the report. Since no site map was created and any numbers painted on the trees were not legible, I had to make educated guesses as to which trees were which. I also disagree with many of the recommendations. Trees in wetlands, dead or alive and in all stages of health and structural condition are generally considered to be left entirely alone to preserve native habitats and stream quality. My recommendations are as follows: 1. Reassess the trees in the wetland for risk to the walking trail and to private property. a. The assessment should follow the TRACE (Tree Risk Assessment Course and Exam) protocols developed by the (Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture.) b. The assessment should be performed by an ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor. 2. If trees are deemed to be of sufficient risk to warrant a treatment, the treatment should be with a goal of preserving stable structures in order to promote a vital ecosystem surrounding Joe's Creek. Tree Resource I Practicing Consulting Arborists I www.TreeResource.com Prepared by Zeb Haney 31psge Arborist Report Review Additional assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Consultant assumes that any legal description provided to Consultant is correct and that title to property is good and marketable. Consultant assumes no responsibility for legal matters. Consultant assumes all property appraised or evaluated is free and clear, and is under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. Consultant assumes that the property and its use do not violate applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or regulations. 3. Although Consultant has taken care to obtain all information from reliable sources and to verify the data insofar as possible, Consultant does not guarantee and is not responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. Client may not require Consultant to testify or attend court by reason of any report unless mutually satisfactory contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such Services. 5. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of this report does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior express written consent of the Consultant. 6. Unless otherwise required by law, no part of this report shall be conveyed by any person, including the Client, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the Consultant's prior express written consent. 7. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Consultant, and the Consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event or upon any finding to be reported. 8. Sketches, drawings and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the information. 9. Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in this report covers only the items examined and reflects the condition of the those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, or coring. Consultant makes no warranty or guarantee, express or implied that the problems or deficiencies of the plans or property in question may not arise in the future. 10. Loss or alteration of any part of this Agreement invalidates the entire report. Thank you for calling on Tree Resource to review your project. I Zeb aney B PN-5840B CTRA #859 Tree Resource I Practicing Consulting Arborists I www.TreeResource.com Prepared by Zeb Haney -I, 1 Thundering Oak EiNTERPRISE: , September 9, 2011 Twin Lakes HOA Bob Hill & Gary Darcy Re: Joe's Creek walking path — hazard trees. P.O. BOX 1 847 AUBURN, WA 98071-1847 OFFICE 253-288TREE (8733) FAX: 253.939.51 26 OOAK. COM l/tP_ �� ► C. Incite t�u-ljc)aK- cL F-cvI -1�� J Dear Bob and Gary, Thanks for walking the pathway with me several weeks ago. During my visit I noted several trees that are presenting significant risk to both users of this park area and several homes nearby. Though dead trees or trees with dead tops are not automatically hazardous (depending on targets), and it is desirable to maintain as many natural features as possible, it is the duty of the HOA to minimize any preventable failure risks that endanger life or property. The trees (mostly red alder, Alnus rubra) listed below are often referred to by numerals spray painted on them sometime earlier. Others are indicated by location references. 1. 2 alders painted #'s 14 and 15. Though exhibiting significant lean and decay columns, both of these lean over a large blackberry thicket that currently has no trails through it. They will 4npt reach the main path and are not considered hazardous. d,,26" alder east of path. This tree has a very large (70% of tree) dead top. Dead alder tops f i C WILL fail; this one should be removed back to live. growth, leaving the tree approximately fry 25' tall. a f ����'J 23" alder adjacent to asphalt trail (west side). 2 very large, failure — prone adventitious limbs form the primary living part of this tree. These fail often due to their origination as sprouts rather than true branches. This tree should be removed. - 4. 24"' alder numbered 18). Remove dead top, large dead limbs, and large adventitious limb 4' 0 A above ground. - h�1 5. 3 alders in wooded area east oaf ail § of dead tops/branches in these trees that have a ' d d ' t 'al io ` ake safe' �} D f1_11' azI du'ectly underneath. Remove all dead an yang ma en m _ 10" alder west of path. Remove dead top to make safe. ►•� 7. ead snag (numbered 8) wesM93C th. Fall decaying dead log ' �� 2-stern alder just east of path tree splits into two stems ve n gro eve . The union between the stems mmon and is known as `included bark'. This area is very compressed from the expansion of the stems as they grow, which results in dead bark and cambium, which in turn often leads to one of the stems splitting off. Such a failure in this case would put one of the stems on the path. Remove stem leaning over path. _ 7er111__ Dead snag (#23) leaning over path. Take down dead snag. RECEIVED r .. 1 Leaniag-a i� _ f pad(# 1 ?). Leaning towards road, no risk of damage to path/people. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS 11. Maple stump - large stump near creek west side of path. This stump, though living, has several dead or dying saplings owing from it. These should be removed prior to them breaking off.--1�'jc�J> �ad � 12. Dead catalpa tree - #26. Ta4ke down small detree leaning towar s path. -7 13. 3 alders (16 - 20" diameter) located in wooded area north of 32509 & 32503 43" Pl. SW. These three trees all have one or more significant defects that are elevating failure potential. These defects vary from one tree with a twisted stem formation to one that is nearly dead and another with severe stem decay. All three are right above an area with several trails and back yards frequented by neighborhood children. All three of these trees must be removed or cut back heavily to eliminate the danger of tree parts falling. �; [) VYl P�V Please feel free to call or email should you have any questions regarding this report. Respectfully submitted, Bryce Landrud I.S.A. Certified Arborist #PN0232 x 5 �6y�w 0�� Cary Roe From: Skip Priest Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:25 AM To: 'Carl Spencer' Cc: Patrick Doherty; Cary Roe Subject: RE: TWIN LAKES CHILD HAZARDOUS ROTTING ALDER TREES Hi Carl. Thanks for the follow-up. I'll have staff take a look at the issue and get back to you. Hopefully, we can get this resolved in a positive way for all concerned. Skip From: Carl Spencer [mailto:carlkimber@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:41 PM To: Skip Priest; Ginelle Holyoak Subject: TWIN LAKES CHILD HAZARDOUS ROTTING ALDER TREES DEAR SKIP PRIEST, MAYOR, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WA. THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING OUR CONCERNS. FOLLOWING INFO WAS REQUESTED BY YOUR PHONE CALL JULY.11, 2011 A GREEN BELT WETLANDS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFER AREA IN TWIN LAKES CONTAINS 20 PLUS OLD ROTTING ALDERS WHICH ARE A THREAT TO CHILDREN. PLEASE PROVIDE AUTHORITY TO TWIN LAKES HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION AND HOMEOWNERS TO REMOVE THESE TREES. MAJORITY OF WETLAND AREA IS SOUTHWEST OF LAKE LORENE, BORDERS NE SIDE OF HOYT ROAD SW, BEHIND HOMES LOCATED ON 43RD PLACE SW AND 44TH PLACE SW. GREENBELT IS ROUGHLY 100 BY 100 YARDS WITH A PAVED PATH FOR WALKERS AND CHILDREN GOING TO SCHOOL. ALDERS FLOURISHED IN THIS AREA WHEN BUILDERS CREATED LAKE LORENE BY DAMMING JOE'S CREEK YEARS AGO. NOW THE ALDERS HAVE REACHED THEIR LIFE SPAN. MANY ROT 6 FEET FROM THEIR TOP, BREAK AND FALL 30 FEET. WOODPECKERS HELP THE PROCESS BY PECKING ROTTED AREAS. YOUR PERSPECTIVE OF POTENTIAL RISK WOULD BE ENHANCED IF YOU LOOKED AT THE AREA. OUR HOME CAN BE REACHED BY DRIVING WEST ON 320TH PASSED THE GOLF COURSE WHERE 320TH ENDS, TURN LEFT ONTO HOYT ROAD, TURN LEFT ON 326TH. WE ARE THIRD HOUSE ON THE LEFT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PICK YOU UP AT YOUR OFFICE AND CONVENIENCE AND GIVE YOU THE TOUR. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ADDRESSING OUR PROBLEM. SINCERELY, CARL SPENCER, 32503 43RD PLACE SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA. 98023. CELL 253 951 9886. Rebecca Chapin From: McGraner, Patrick [patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:19 AM To: Rebecca Chapin Subject: FW: Twin Lakes HOA intrusion into wetland buffer Attachments: Cut Within Buffer.JPG; Snag Nesting Habitat.JPG Good Morning Rebecca, I left you a voice -mail a few minutes ago as a way of introduction and to inquire about this issue. As you read through the chain you will see how this came to me in a round -about fashion. Erik Stockdale is my supervisor. Since I will be unavailable later today and don't work on Fridays, I thought that I would send this e-mail to give you my full contact info and to allow you to comment via e-mail if so desired before we talk next week. Sincerely, Patrick McGraner Wetlands Specialist Department of Ecology/NWRO 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 425-649-4447 patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov From: Stockdale, Erik (ECY) Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 9:25 AM To: McGraner, Patrick Subject: FW: Twin Lakes HOA intrusion into wetland buffer This is from the neighbor of Owen Shiozaki who I spoke with yesterday. Can you follow up with the City of Federal Way and find out what their story is, and then email or call this person? Many thanks, Erik From: T.J. Moehlman [mailto:tjmoehlman@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 8:39 PM To: Stockdale, Erik (ECY) Cc: Owen.T.Shiozaki@aphis. usda.gov; 'Crystal Moehlman' Subject: Twin Lakes HOA intrusion into wetland buffer Erik, We have been in contact with the City of Federal Way to prevent the Twin Lakes Homeowners' Association intrusion into a wetlands buffer at the west -end of Lake Lorene. We received your name from Owen Shiozaki, our next door neighbor. Our contact at the city of Federal Way is Rebecca Chapin Rebecca.Chapin@ciiyoffederalway.com , Assistant Planner, Community and Economic Development. We filed a complaint with the City of Federal Way to stop HOA cutting in the wetland buffer. We would appreciate any help that you could provide; stopping what we believe; has a huge negative impact on the designated wetland. The HOA has been clearing the biomass in the wetland buffer. They have been trimming trees and opening up the path, even after we filed our complaint with the city. If it would be of help, we can forward additional correspondence from the city. We are concerned that, if this is permitted, there will be permanent damage to the wetland habitat. There are numerous species of birds using this habitat that are listed as protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, (Bald Eagles, Osprey, Flickers, Downey Woodpeckers, Pileated Woodpeckers, Anna's Humming Birds, Kingfishers, Swallows and Heron to name some that have been identified). In addition to the bird species, this wetland is in the headwaters of a salmon -bearing stream in the City of Federal Way, Joe's Creek. Also, the habitat is used by bats and other species that may be protected under other Fish and Wildlife regulations. If you have any questions please free to contact us. Tom and Crystal Moehlman 253 924 0580 - 253 632 0785 `Please consider the environment before printing this email From: T.J. Moehlman [mailto:gmoehlman@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 10:04 AM To: 'Rebecca Chapin' Subject: RE: Twin Lakes HOA Pedestrian Pathway Becky, Thank you for your response to my inquiry. I would like to see a copy of the arborist report when it is submitted. 1 agree with much of what the HUA is trying to accomplish. The removal of invasive species such as the blackberry and knottwood and replacement with native species is a good idea. However, after speaking with the board president, I think that there is a greater agenda here than just the removal and restoration of these native species. He told me the HOA's intention was to "Open up the path because people felt intimidated by the density of the vegetation." Additionally he is concerned about a fire hazard created by brush illegally dumped onto the wetland by a homeowner bordering the stream. He wants to create a pathway through the wetland to remove the dumped brush. It cannot be said of the overall project that — "It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area"; Code Section 19.165.070 Intrusion into Setbacks. (2) (b) Based upon my experience on the board, I know that the removal what they consider "dangerous" trees is just a means to make the area look like Treasure Island Park. While I was on the board, we had a proposal from an Arborist to leave a stable dead tree in one of our parks as a habitat for wild life. He suggested leaving the tree and planting native species around the tree to improve the appearance of the snag. The board voted in favor of removing the tree. If that occurs here, the standing snags with active nests will be destroyed. I have observed Flickers, Downey Woodpeckers and Pileated Woodpecker in this protected area. Also, observed in the wetland area have been Bald Eagles, Osprey and Herons. With the destruction of nesting habitat that is planned, I don't think the present project meets the criteria of Code Section 19.165.070 (2) (b). Additionally, I do not believe the HOA has the knowledge or experience needed to meet your suggestion — "A restoration plan is required to make sure the appropriate vegetation is getting planted. If you feel you have the knowledge of proper plant species and planting schedules to create (emphasis added) your own replacement plan, the city might be able to accept it. Just want to make sure that if you are removing habitat vegetation, proper native species that thrive in the area will be re-plantea.' While listening to their discussions with the arborist on the pathway this morning, I heard no mention of protecting the habitat. The first step in this process should have been an accurate definition of the location of the one hundred foot buffer, normally done by a surveyor. My initial look at Google satellite images indicate that most of the area east of the path is in the one hundred foot buffer. I have attached photos of vegetation cut that occurred last week. It is east of the path; within one hundred feet of the stream and likely within one hundred feet of the designated wetland. Also, meeting minutes of the TLHOA, indicate the boards overall view of wild life in general. I believe it was Mr. Gary Darcey who has had otters on his property trapped and removed from Lake Lorene. I personal enjoy the otters and believe they represent the quality of the protected wetland area. (Twin Lakes Board Meeting Minutes, November 17, 2010) "Lakes - Gary Darcey reported that he will contact the (Twin Lakes) Golf and Country Club to see if it is interested in dividing the costs associated with the removal of the burrowing rodents. Critter Control will be contacted for a bid to remove the animals." I would appreciate a City or Washington State Department of Ecology review of the Twin Lakes Homeowners Association proposal in this sensitive wetlands area. I do not believe it meets the criteria or intent of - Code Section 19.165.070 Intrusion into Setbacks. Please forward this email to Mr. Conlen and Mr. Doherty. Thank you for all of your assistance. I appreciate your help and look forward to your responses. Tom Moehlman From: Rebecca Chapin(mailto:Rebecca.Chaapin@cityoffederallw y.mm Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:16 AM To: 'gmoehlman@comcast.net' Subject: Twin Lakes HOA Pedestrian Pathway Hi Mr. Moehlman, I have attached the recent emails to the Twin Lakes HOA regarding the Twin Lakes Pedestrian Pathway. I have not asked the City's Code Enforcement to step in yet. 1 will give them a chance to respond and stop the action before turning this into a violation. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Becky Chapin Assistant Planner Community and Economic Development City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 Rebecca Chapin From: Anderson, Christopher D (DFW) [Christopher.Anderson@dfw.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:09 PM To: Rebecca Chapin Subject: Pileated woodpecker activity examples Attachments: pileated woodpecker excavations photos (C Raley).pdf Hi Rebecca, Nice to chat. Attached is the picture guide I mentioned. Below is the Priority Habitats and Species Program (PHS) webpage — note the Priority Species List subpage (see "woodpeckers" on the list and note Pileated Woodpeckers are documented by WDFW for "breeding areas") and also the Recommendations section (See Birds and then the Pileated Woodpecker subsection for specific management considerations recommended). Again, these are the species and habitats WDFW recommends for management consideration. httr)://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/` Pileated Woodpecker is a WDFW Species of Concern (SOC) and is considered a State Candidate based on population status and associated criteria: http:/Iwdfw.wa.govlconservation endan ered Note legal definitions associated with the SOC list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/status definitions.html State Candidate species, including Pileated Woodpecker, are found here: htt wdfw.wa. ov conservation endan ered lists search. h ?searchb=StateStatus&search=SC&orderb=AnimalT e,%20CommonName Let me know if I can be of further assistance in the event any Pileated Woodpecker management consideration is felt necessary and applicable under FW Municipal Code and further work is needed to establish any woodpecker use or lack thereof within Federal Way based on current or future proposed land use projects. Outside of specific projects - WDFW greatly appreciates sharing of observations or documentation of Priority Species and Habitats — we are always trying to get such instances formally accounted for in our database. I appreciate any such observations, leads, actual documentation information being passed along so that I can work to get anything appropriately documented in state data. Thanks again! Cheers, Chris Chris Anderson Wildlife Biologist District 12, King County WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife - Region 4 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Mill Creek, WA 98012 425.775.1311, ext 111 Christopher.Anderson@dfw.wa.gov http-/iwdfw.wa.gov Want to attract more wildlife to your property? Check out the WDFW Backyard Wildlife Sanctuary Program- htti)://wdfw.wa.gov/living/backyard/` Incubation exchange (left). Entrance to nest cavity is dome or egg -shaped (above and right). Roost trees typically have multiple openings that access hollows created by heartwood decay (left and right). Figure 1. Pileated woodpecker nest and roost cavities (Catherine M. Raley and Keith B. Aubry, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA). KW �. -�-�- gig � � � - : �: • �. " • . �-�: fir. .M •• �- '` - -�:.�,�� � a:�;.. Figure 3. Pileated woodpecker foraging excavations are variable (above), but are easily distinguished from cavity excavations. Pileated woodpeckers are the only woodpecker species that make large foraging excavations (Catherine M. Raley and Keith B. Aubry, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA). January 15, 2010 Deb Barker, Senior Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South, PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 RE: Pileated Woodpecker Consideration - Proposed rezone at 51 st Avenue SW and SW 316th Place, Parcel #s 1021-03-9040, 1021-03-9032, 1021-03-9016, and 1021-03-9001. Please accept this letter as Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) management interests regarding pileated woodpecker presence and use of the subject site proposed for rezone located in Federal Way, WA on tax parcels 1021-03-9040, 1021-03-9032, 1021-03-9016, and 1021-03-9001. Pileated woodpeckers are considered a Priority Species by WDFW due to their function as a keystone habitat modifier. This species plays a critical role in the creation of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for other wildlife species. The pileated woodpecker is categorized as a State Candidate species. State Candidate species are those fish and wildlife that will be reviewed by the Department (POL-M-6001) for possible listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive as outlined in Washington Administrative Code 232-12-297. Pileated woodpeckers and their nests are protected under Revised Code of Washington 77.15.130, Protected Fish or Wildlife. WDFW recommends consideration of forest patch size as well as retention of large trees and snags in order to address the habitat limiting factors of this species. Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14 Environmental Policy addresses "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas", which include habitats and species of local importance. More information on Priority Habitats and Species can be found at: h :rlwdfw.wa. ovlhab hs a e.htm WDFW visited the subject site on January 8, 2010 to examine available habitat in reference to pileated woodpecker limiting factors. Multiple snags and live trees with partial dead portions indicated recent and past pileated woodpecker foraging use throughout the site. A few of these trees or snags showed potential use as a roost or nest tree, albeit not recent. The subject parcels and surrounding wooded parks and residential areas essentially function as a habitat matrix for use by pileated woodpecker. Any proposed treasures by the applicant will need to do a good job of balancing changes in the built and natural environment while providing opportunity for continued use of the subject site by this priority species. WDFW recommends the following measure be taken to assist in the persistence and management of the pileated woodpecker at the subject site: Prior to approval by the City of Federal Way, the applicant shall prepare a pileated woodpecker management plan for review by WDFW. The plan shall be based on an evaluation of trees, including snags, remaining following the clearing and grading phase of infrastructure construction. The plan shall be developed by a qualified professional, and shall be reviewed and approved by WDFW prior to implementation by the developer. WDFW is available for consultation in the development of the above pileated woodpecker management plan. Russell Link District Wildlife Biologist 425-775-1311 ext. 110 Russell.Lin dfw.wa. ov Doc. I.D. From e-mail: Deb, Please the attached document regarding pileated woodpecker presence and use of the subject site proposed for rezone located in Federal Way, WA on tax parcels 1021-03-9040, 1021-03-9032, 1021-03-9016, and 1021-03-9001. Thanks for this opportunity to respond. Russell Russell Link Wildlife Biologist, District 12 (King County) WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Mill Creek, WA 98012 (425) 775-1311 ext. 110 russe! 1.1 ink@d fw. wa. p Doc. I.D. Rebecca Chapin From: T.J. Moehlman [tjmoehlman@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 10:48 AM To: Rebecca Chapin Subject: Lake Lorene Wetlands Attachments: image001.gif; pileated woodpecker.JPG; leaning tree.JPG Becky, Attached are two photographs taken this last weekend (24/25 April). The first is of a pileated woodpecker that uses this wetland. The second is a picture of a tree that was being discussed by the TLHOA and the arborist they are using for this project. I have additional concerns about the about the impartial judgment of the arborist. He will be the person hired to remove the trees. He will not get paid unless the trees are removed. Seems a real conflict of interest. The tree I have in the attached photo was targeted for removal by the TLHOA representatives because it was leaning and could fall. As you can see from the photo it could only fall into the protected wetland area and presents no danger to people using the path. When I was trying to discuss this with the arborist the TLHOA representatives interrupted and encouraged him to walk away from my discussion. The removal of this tree is unnecessary under any circumstance and will harm the wetlands. The following is from a neighbor. "If we had nesting migratory birds .... it would be good, and can become an issue with US Fish and Wildlife. We have mating Kingfishers in the area. Last year there were 2 pairs. The city will have to address all migratory birds in their environmental impact statement. That should be filed and processed before anything is touched. Demand to see the final copy. Request a cost analysis of this study, so it can be brought up during the HOA meetings.... US Fish and Wildlife will be interested in the outcome. I have contacted them today. If we get an unfavorable statement, I will send it up to US F&W for processing. I will contact the Dept of Ecology tomorrow. I am trying to get a contact." Also there was a discussion of the disadvantages of removing invasive species in a Seattle Times article in yesterday's paper. I would again request that the City of Federal Way move slowly in any authorization to allow the Twin Lakes Homeowners Association to commence any more work in the wetland. Thank you for your assistance. Tom Moehlman Rebecca Chapin From: Twin Lakes HOA [officemanager@twinlakeshoa.com] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 1:42 PM To: Rebecca Chapin Cc: Ginelle Holyoak Subject: Trees Joe's Creek pathway Attachments: image001.gif; image002.png; Plot map Joe's pathway.pdf Becky, If you are unable to read the "dots" and "numbers" associated with the trees on this map, please let me know and I will have the original delivered to you at your office. All 22 trees are marked on the plot map. Please note that in the pictures I e-mailed you of the trees on Joe's Creek Pathway, it was difficult to get the entire tree in the picture. All of the trees are dead on the top, rotting at the base and pose a threat to a house or the pathway. Picture 22 may not fall onto the pathway, but is in serious distress of falling soon — possibly into the water or onto someone. If approved, the trees will be removed with a chainsaw, cut up and removed from the area. Smaller debris and branches will be mulched and left in the area. After the trees are removed, we would like to use the 20 trees that have been set aside for us by the City, to replant in this area. Please let me know if you need any further information and I will be happy to provide it to you. Thank you again for all of your time. GineCCe HoCyoafe Office Manager - Twin Lakes HOA 253-838-0464 (0) 1253-838-1784 (F) www.twinlakeshoa.com #a Follow us on Facebook! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this ELECTRONIC MAIL transmission is confidential. It may also be proprietary information, be subject to the attomey-client privilege or be privileged work product. This information is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s), particularly when the addressee is a current Board member, employee or agent of the Twin Lakes Homeowners' Association, Inc. if you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, copying, forwarding, of other torm of dissemination or distribution (other than to the addressee{s)) of any part of this e-mail, and the taking of any action because of in formation contained herein, are strictly prohibited and may be actionable. If you are not the intended recipient or addressee of this particular emailfinformation, please call 253-838-0464 and let the Association know you have received this. Uwarmi'. ;'41 IF i LWK 7 WW.r I wF, OAIIIJ 7 11 KAY AM" 1h IV Oki �4fj FA Id rf f .,�•,f ' � :�� Yry *, '� b,.'• � , �h+ - ��� Pik 7 �• �"��' , � r'°9 �#'ix ✓� �ti •� ._'r+�• � i� - +?�'�' 'ter`+" IwIVA i - . � ' � �•r � - ' S_ - � , •. 'T�i` g t if • ifs] iy; y v . L u * �� • Ls r ' + r r^'IF} r�4•f�` .ej Ilk 4 �. • r rr +s�Nw- .ti..�.n.:. yE �,%' • •• ,;f Y n 40 .� 7 yd. Lw .r1y � �� 1 1. ► -y°ti r r��y, �• �� �.�y�+W ��1 � ' S �, �.} �� �, ice• Zr� r�� � y h r :�r.i*`.\q•F �.�� �'' r�u Y�lri`rf• � y\:. S�� 't0Aff � 141 Pik40 �- ✓.�� n Ott VY 1� { � ari � + �'� '' ► i' �aYy r t `:. r y r�. { s� S1'Nal 'tf ;f y�.. .^ems; .:'� t � =�. .ti,. :� r•,�a7��,0•y �� idAl ILA Frig . j Rebecca Chapin From: T.J. Moehlman [tjmoehlman@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 10:04 AM To: Rebecca Chapin Subject: RE: Twin Lakes HOA Pedestrian Pathway Attachments: Cut Within Buffer.JPG; TapeMeasure to Stream.JPG; Asphalt Maintenance Dump.JPG; Snag Nesting Habitat.JPG Becky, Thank you for your response to my inquiry. I would like to see a copy of the arborist report when it is submitted. I agree with much of what the HOA is trying to accomplish. The removal of invasive species such as the blackberry and knottwood and replacement with native species is a good idea. However, after speaking with the board president, I think that there is a greater agenda here than just the removal and restoration of these native species. He told me the HOA's intention was to "Open up the path because people felt intimidated by the density of the vegetation." Additionally he is concerned about a fire hazard created by brush illegally dumped onto the wetland by a homeowner bordering the stream. He wants to create a pathway through the wetland to remove the dumped brush. It cannot be said of the overall project that — "It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area"; Code Section 19.165.070 Intrusion into Setbacks. (2) (b) Based upon my experience on the board, I know that the removal what they consider "dangerous" trees is just a means to make the area look like Treasure Island Park. While I was on the board, we had a proposal from an Arborist to leave a stable dead tree in one of our parks as a habitat for wild life. He suggested leaving the tree and planting native species around the tree to improve the appearance of the snag. The board voted in favor of removing the tree. If that occurs here, the standing snags with active nests will be destroyed. I have observed Flickers, Downey Woodpeckers and Pileated Woodpecker in this protected area. Also, observed in the wetland area have been Bald Eagles, Osprey and Herons. With the destruction of nesting habitat that is planned, I don't think the present project meets the criteria of Code Section 19.165.070 (2) (b). Additionally, I do not believe the HOA has the knowledge or experience needed to meet your suggestion — "A restoration plan is required to make sure the appropriate vegetation is getting planted. If you feel you have the knowledge of proper plant species and planting schedules to create (emphasis added) your own replacement plan, the city might be able to accept it. Just want to make sure that if you are removing habitat vegetation, proper native species that thrive in the area will be re -planted." While listening to their discussions with the arborist on the pathway this morning, I heard no mention of protecting the habitat. The first step in this process should have been an accurate definition of the location of the one hundred foot buffer, normally done by a surveyor. My initial look at Google satellite images indicate that most of the area east of the path is in the one hundred foot buffer. I have attached photos of vegetation cut that occurred last week. It is east of the path; within one hundred feet of the stream and likely within one hundred feet of the designated wetland. Also, meeting minutes of the TLHOA, indicate the boards overall view of wild life in general. I believe it was Mr. Gary Darcey who has had otters on his property trapped and removed from Lake Lorene. I personal enjoy the otters and believe they represent the quality of the protected wetland area. (Twin Lakes Board Meeting Minutes, November 17, 2010) "Lakes - Gary Darcey reported that he will contact the (Twin Lakes) Golf and Country Club to see if it is interested in dividing the costs associated with the removal of the burrowing rodents. Critter Control will be contacted for a bid to remove the animals." I would appreciate a City or Washington State Department of Ecology review of the Twin Lakes Homeowners Association proposal in this sensitive wetlands area. I do not believe it meets the criteria or intent of - Code Section 19.165.070 Intrusion into Setbacks. Please forward this email to Mr. Conlen and Mr. Doherty. Thank you for all of your assistance. I appreciate your help and look forward to your responses. Tom Moehlman From: Rebecca Chapin LmaiIto Rebecca.Chapin@ cityoffederalway.comI Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:16 AM To: 'Imoehlman@comcast.net' Subject: Twin Lakes HOA Pedestrian Pathway Hi Mr. Moehlman, 1 have attached the recent emails to the Twin Lakes HOA regarding the Twin Lakes Pedestrian Pathway. I have not asked the City's Code Enforcement to step in yet. 1 will give them a chance to respond and stop the action before turning this into a violation. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Becky Chapin Assistant Planner Community and Economic Development City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 CITY OF �. Federal Way March 29, 2011 Gmelle Holyoak Twin Lakes Homeowners Association 3420 SW 320' Street, Unit 133 Federal Way, WA 98023 t 1 CITY HALL FILE 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: File #11-100904-00-AD; CRITICAL AREA VEGETATION MAINTENANCE APPROVAL Twin Lakes HOA Pedestrian Pathway, Hoyt Road SW, Federal Way Dear Ms. Holyoak: The Community and Economic Development Department is in receipt of your February 28, 2011, proposal to perform routine vegetation maintenance in the setback of a regulated lake and major stream and within a category II wetland buffer located along the Twin Lakes HOA open space property. The work proposed is to clear away blackberry bushes, and Japanese Knotweed, and other invasive species adjacent to a paved pedestrian pathway. Your request is conditionally approved as noted below. Your email proposed several actions to eliminate invasive plant species presently located in the stream buffer of Joe's Creek and associated wetlands of Lake Lorene. A subsequent site visit by city staff confirms the invasive species are overgrown and must be maintained. Proposed tasks include: • Hand removal of blackberry, Japanese Knotweed, and other invasive weeds. • Install native plant species and trees along both sides of the stream. ■ Re -vegetate along the pathway to suppress re -growth of invasive species. ■ Vegetation maintenance of pedestrian pathway and public areas. The Director of Community and Economic Development may permit rehabilitation of a stream, regulated lake setback, and regulated wetland buffer by requiring removal of non-native vegetation, based on review of the plan, proposed corrective actions, performance standards, monitoring schedule, and planting native vegetation as necessary pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.165.060, 19.170.050, and 19.175.030(3), "Rehabilitation." Your request demonstrates that as conditioned, the tasks proposed to remove the invasive weeds and install native vegetation would meet the rehabilitation standards. The tasks listed above are considered repair, remodeling, or maintenance and are therefore exempt from environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11- 800(3). The vegetation maintenance work proposed will not adversely impact the regulated lake, wetland, or stream, and is hereby conditionally approved as noted below: 1. A landscape/rehabilitation plan that depicts the quantity, size, and location of proposed vegetation shall be submitted prior to re -planting. A landscape inspection shall be Ms. Holyoak Y March 29, 2011 Page 2 scheduled once the vegetation is installed. Please contact Becky Chapin, Assistant Planner, at 253-835-2641 to schedule the inspection. 2. Removal via hand tools or hand powered tools only. Earth moving equipment causing potential harm to onsite stream or wetland buffer is not allowed. Please contact Becky Chapin, Assistant Planner, at 253-835-2641 or rebecca.chapin@cityoffederalway if you have any questions about this decision. Sincerely, Isaac Conlen Planning Division Manager for Patrick Doherty, Director c: Jeff Wolf, SWM Engineer Ginelle Holyoak: officemanager@twinlakeshoa.com Gary Darcey: maynard55@gmail.com Bob Hill: Playtime4bob@aol.com 11-100904 Doc. I.D. 57291