LUTC PKT 06-01-2009
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
June 1, 2009
5:30 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBliC COMMENT (3 minutes)
3. COMMmEE BUSINESS
Topic
A.
B.
4. OTHER
c.
Title/Description
Approval of Minutes: May 18, 2009
20th Place SW - 100% Design and
Authorization to Bid
Setting Public Hearing for 2010-2015
Transportation Improvement Plan
SWM 20 Ton Heavy Equipment Tilt Bed
Trailer - Bid Award
Adoption of a Resolution to form North
Lake Management District Number Two;
Calling for a Vote by Affected Property
Owners on the Formation of the Proposed
District.
Approval of the Agreement between the
King County Flood Zone Control District and
the City of Federal Way for Opportunity
Fund Projects
2006 - 2031 Housing and Job Targets
Update
Presenter
LeMaster
Roberts
Action
or Info
Action
Action
D.
E.
F.
G.
Page
2
4
Perez
6
Action
Appleton
11
Action
Appleton
13
Action
Miller
302
Action
Clark
Information
320
5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS: Monday, June 15, 2009.
6. ADJOURN
Council
Date
N/A
6/16/09
Consent
6/16/09
Consent
6/16/09
Consent
6/16/09
Consent
6/16/09
Consent
6/16/09
Business
Time
5 min.
5 min.
5 min.
5 min.
5 min.
5 min.
10 min.
Committee Members
Unda Kachmar, Chair
Jim Ferrell
Dini Duclos
G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and SUmmaries 200916-01-09 LUTC Agenda. doc
City Staff
Cary M. Roe, P.E, Assistant aty Manager/Emergency Manager
Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II
253-835-2701
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land UselTransportation Committee
May 18, 2009
5:30 PM
City Hall
City Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Kochmar and Committee Members Ferrell and Duclos
Council Members in Attendance: Council Member Burbidge
Staff Members in Attendance: Interim City Manager Brian Wilson, Assistant City Manager Cary Roe, Public Works
Director Marwan Salloum, Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, Surface
Water Manager Will Appleton, Street Systems Project Engineer Brian Roberts, and Administrative Assistant II Tina Piety
1. CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Kochmar called the meeting to order at 5:36 PM.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Jerry Galland asked if this Committee is where he would start the discussion if the city begins the annexation process.
He wants to be sure the city hears his views against annexation and the recently changed annexation process. He was
referred to Interim City Manager Brian Wilson.
3. BUSINESS ITEMS
Topic TitlelDescription
Forward
to Council
A. Approval of the May 4, 2009, LUTC Minutes
N/A
Committee approved May 4, 2009 LUTC minutes as presented.
Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
B.
Community Center Building Generator Electrical Installation - Final Project Acceptance
and Retainage Release
6/2/2009
Consent
There was no public comment. Ken Miller presented information on this item. Chair Kochmar
asked how long will the generator run. Mr. Miller explained that with a full tank and the
Community Center fully running, the generator will last 72 hours. However, it is expected that
the Community Center will not be fully running during an emergency, with the pool and some
lights turned off, and that the generator will run for three to five days. Staff is developing the
specifics of the emergency plan in regards to how much of the Community Center would be kept
running during an emergency. Council Member Ferrell noted that diesel fuel degrades with time
and asked how much diesel fuel the city has. Mr. Miller responded that there are additives that
will slow the degradation of diesel. The city has 3,000 gallons for the Community Center, 1,000
gallons for City Hall, and 250 gallons for the Evidence Building. Council Member Ferrell asked
if the city is ready for an emergency in regards to generators. Mr. Miller replied that with the
larger building generators and smaller portable generators, with the addition of the Community
Center generator, the city will be ready.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell
Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2009\05-18-09-Minutes.doc
Land Useffransportation Committee
Page 2
May 18, 2009
C. Acceptance of Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects
There was no public comment. Brian Roberts presented information on this item. There was no
discussion by committee members.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell
Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
D.
Easter Lake Flood Control Improvements and West Branch Joes Creek Culvert
Replacement Projects - Bid Award
There was no public comment. Will Appleton presented information on this item. The amount
is 53% below the available budget. Council Member Burbidge asked about the timeline. He
expects the work to start the later part of June.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell
Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
4. OTHER
There was no further discussion or additional topics addressed.
5. FUTURE MEETING
The next regular LUTC meeting will be Monday, June 1,2009, at 5:30 PM in City Council Chambers.
6. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:52 PM.
Attest:
Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant II
COMMITTEE APPROVAL:
6/2/2009
Consent
6/2/2009
Consent
Linda Kochmar, Chair
Dini Duclos, Member
Jim Ferrell, Member
G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2009\05-18-09-Minutes.doc
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009
ITEM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: 20th Place SW Emergency Slide Repair - 100% Design Report and Authorization to Bid
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to advertise the 20th Place SW Emergency Slide Repair
project and return to LUTC for authorization to award the bid?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Cornrnittee
MEETING DATE: June 1,2009
CATEGORY:
IZI Consent
D City Council Business
STAFF REpORT By: Brian Ro e
D Ordinance
D Resolution
D
D
Public Hearing
Other
.E., Street Systems Project Engineer
DEPT: Public Works
Attachments: Mernorandurn to the Land Use Transportation Cornmittee dated June 1,2009.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize staff to bid the 20th Place SW Emergency Slide Repair project and return to the LUTC Committee
to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder; and approve the transfer of additional
$150,000 from unappropriated transportation capital funds to the project.
2. Do not authorize staff to bid this project and provide direction to staff.
--.................-..-.----...-...-..................................--.......--.----...................---.--.......--......----.................----......................--..........-............-.----.............-.-.............--.--...-.............--.......-...........-......----......
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recornmends forwarding Option 1 to the June. 16, 2009 Council Consent
A enda for a roval.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Council
Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Cornrnittee recommends forwarding Option 1 to the June 16,2009 Council
Consent Agenda for approval.
Linda Kochmar, Chair
Jirn Ferrell, Member
Dini Duclos, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "1 move to authorize staff to bid the2dh Place SW Emergency Slide Repair Project,
and return to the LUTC Committee to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder; and approve the
transfer of additional $150,000 from unappropriated transportation capital funds to the project. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02106/2006
K:\council\agenda bills\2009\6-16-09 20th PI SW Emergency Slide Repair.doc
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 1, 2009
Land Use and Transportation Cornmittee
Brian Wilson, Interirn City Manager
Brian Roberts, P .E., Street Systems Project Engine~
2(/h Place Southwest Emergency Slide Repair Project
100% Design Report and Authorization to Bid
BACKGROUND:
On January 6, the embankment beneath the 30000 block of 20th Place SW slid. City street rnaintenance crews
stabilized the slide per the recommendation of a geotechnical engineer and closed the street to traffic. Today a
single lane is available for local and emergency vehicle traffic only. The project will construct a retaining wall to
stabilize the slide and reconstruct the roadbed. FEMA has ruled that only Schedule A, which is roadway
restoration only, is eligible for public assistance grant reimbursement.
PROJECT EXPENDITURES:
Planning and Design
Year 2009 Construction (Schedule A Roadway)
Year 2009 Construction (Schedule B Wall)
10% Construction Contingency
12.5% Construction Management
$52,039
$118,750
$124,345
$24,310
$30,387
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$349,831
AVAILABLE FUNDING:
Total Grant Funding
Budgeted City Fund (Year 2009 to date)
Budgeted City Fund (Year 2009 this request)
TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET
$109,055 (FEMA Public Assistance Grant)
$100,000 (transferred from unappropriated CIP)
$150,000
$359,055
PROJECT BUDGET BALANCE
$9,224
Staff is requesting an additional $150,000 to bring the project back in budget. We anticipate bidding the project in
June 2009 and awarding in July 2009. Construction will commence in August 2009 assuming availability of steel
for the retaining wall soldier piles. Project completion is expected by October 1, 2009.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009
ITEM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Setting Public Hearing for 20 I 0-20 15 Transportation Improvement Plan
POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council set a Public Hearing for adoption of the 2010-2015 Transportation
Improvement Plan on July 7th, 2009?
COMMITTEE: LAND USEffRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
MEETING DATE: June 15,2008
CATEGORY:
~ Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing
D City Council Business ~ Resolution D Other
~~~_~~o~_~Q!!!J~X:.~i.~~!>.~~?:.?!.>.~~~ q!YJ):~f.f.!~.J~:'!!gi.!1.~~~{___o_o_o_o_____~o~~~o='_o~~lic !?~~~_o___o_o____oo_ooo_o_
Attachments: Mernorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated June 1,2009.
Options Considered:
1. Set Public Hearing for adoption of the Transportation Improvement Plan on July 7, 2009.
2. Set Public Hearing on an alternative date recommended by the committee.
Ottee
Council
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecornrnends Option 1.
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: ~
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL'
Committee
Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation for Option 1 to the June 16, 2009 City
Council Consent Agenda.
Linda Kochmar, Chair
Jirn Ferrell, Member
Dini Duclos, Mernber
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval of the resolution setting the date of a Public Hearingfor the
2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Plan on July 7, 2009. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLEDffiEFERRED/NO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
1ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June I, 2009
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager
Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer Iff
Setting Public Hearingfor 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Plan
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with the requirements of Chapters 35.77 and 47.26 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the
City of Federal Way adopted its original Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement
Plan (A SIP) on July 23, 1991. The City is also required to adopt a revised TIP and ASIP on an annual basis to
reflect the City's current and future street and arterial needs.
The City is required to hold a rninimum of one public hearing on the revised plans. Staff proposes that this occur
at the July 7th, 2009 City Council rneeting. Once the revised plans have been adopted by Resolution, a copy of the
respective plans must be filed with the Washington State Secretary of Transportation and the Washington State
Transportation Improvement Board. The attached Resolution sets the public hearing date for the July 7th, 2009
City Council meeting. The TIP will be presented to the Land Use and Transportation Committee on June 1,2009.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Federal Way,
Washington, setting a Public Hearing date of Tuesday, July 7,2009 for
adoption of a revised Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
and Arterial Street Improvement Plan.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapters 35.77 and 47.26 RCW, the City
Council of the City of Federal Way must adopt a revised and extended Six-year Transportation
Improvement Program ("TIP") and Arterial Street Improvement Plan ("ASIP") annually; and
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way's SEPA Responsible Official reviewed the TIP and
ASIP under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C, and issued a Determination of
Nonsignificance on
; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held prior to the adoption of the revised and extended
Six-year Transportation Improvement Program and Arterial Street Improvement Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held on the 2010-2015 Federal Way
Transportation Improvement Plan and Arterial Street Improvement Plan at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
July 7,2009, at the Federal Way City Hall Council Chambers.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution.
Resolution No. 09-
Page I of3
Rev 3/09
Section 3. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this resolution are authorized to
make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of
scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any
references thereto.
Section 4. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date
of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 5. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by
the Federal Way City Council.
RESOL VED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON this
day of
, 2009.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR, JACK DOVEY
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC
Resolution No. 09-
Page 2 of3
Rev 3/09
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.:
Resolution No. 09-
Page 3 of3
Rev 3/09
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009
ITEM #:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Surface Water Maintenance 20 Ton Heavy Equipment Tilt Trailer - Bid Award
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the 20 Ton Heavy Equipment Tilt Bed Trailer Purchase
Contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Case Power and Equipment, in the amount of $20,040.69
(including sales tax and trade in ofthe SWM Butler 12 Ton Ramp Trailer)?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE: June 1,2009
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Ihwl
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
To Council
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends option 1.
to Committee
to Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Cornmittee recommends forwarding Option I to the June 16, 2009 City
Council Consent Agenda for approval.
Linda Kochmar, Chair
Jirn Ferrell, Mernber
Dini Dulcos, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "] move to award the SWM 20 Ton Heavy Equipment Tilt Bed Trailer
purchase contract to Case Power and Equipment, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of
$20,040.69, including sales tax and trade in of the SWM Butler 12 Ton Ramp Trailer."
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02106/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
1ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 1, 2009
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager
Will Appleton, P.E., Public Works Surface Water Manager ~
Surface Water Maintenance 20 TonHeavy Equipment Tilt Bed Trailer- Bid Award
BACKGROUND:
Four bids were received and opened on May 21, 2009 for the Surface Water Maintenance 20-Ton Heavy
Equipment Tilt Bed Trailer (please see bid tabulation summary below). The lowest responsive, responsible bidder
is Case Power and Equipment; with a total bid of $20,040.69 and is within the allowable $25,000 cash budget
approved by Council on April 21 , 2009. The Surface Water Maintenance Butler 12 Ton Equipment Ramp Trailer
will also be traded in to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, as part ofthe funding for its replacement.
VOLVO
J&K CONSTRUCTION OLYMPIC TRAILER CASE POWER &
ASSOCIATES EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT
Trailer $ 21,727.00 $ 22,394.00 $ 23,575.00 $ 20,613.00
Trade In Value <1,100.00> <3,000.00> <3,000.00> <2,311.00>
9.5% Sales Tax $1,959.56 $1,842.45 $1,954.62 $1,738.69
TOTAL $ 22,586.56 $ 21,236.45 $ 22,529.62 $ 20,040.69
cc: Project File
k:\Iutc\2009\06-01-09 SWM 20 Ton Heavy EquipmentTilt Bed Trailel' bid award. doc
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009
ITEM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution calling for a vote on the Formation of the North Lake Management District
Number Two.
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council adopt a Resolution calling for a vote on the Formation of the North
Lake Management District Number Two?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE: May 4,2009
CATEGORY:
D Consent
[gJ City Council Business
D Ordinance
D Resolution
D
D
Public Hearing
Other
~!~!!..~~Q~!Jl.x:_.~Y.I!n~.b-pp!~!g~?.J>'_:.~_:1.._~~!.f.~~.~_.~ater ~~na
Attachments: 1. April 6, 2009 LUTC Memo
2. April 21, 2009 Council Agenda Bill (Item # S.b)
3. Resolution No.
EPT: Public Works
4. May 4, 2009 LUTC Memo
Options Considered:
I.Adoption of a Resolution calling for a vote on the Formation of the North Lake Management District
Number Two.
2. Do not adopt a resolution to create North Lake Management District Number 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: t1A16'\
C~':i~ee ,
DIRECTOR APPROVAL'
Council
Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation for Option 1 to the June 2nd, 2009 City
Council Business Agenda.
Linda Kochmar, Chair
Jim Ferrell, Member
Dini Duclos, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "] move to adopt a Resolution calling for a vote on the Formation of the North
Lake Management District Number Two. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
June 1, 2009
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager
Will Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager
Dan Smith, Water Quality Program Coordinator
Adoption of a Resolution to call for a vote by affected property owners on the formation of
the North Lake Management DistrictNumber Two.
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
BACKGROUND
At its April 6, 2009 meeting, the Land Use/Transportation Committe recommended adopting a resolution of
intention to initiate the North Lake Management District formation process and set a public hearing date for
the June 2, 2009 regular City Council meeting. The City Council approved the resolution of intention at its
April 21, 2009 meeting.
The public hearing is required under RCW 36.61.0 SO. After the public hearing, the City Council may adopt a
resolution submitting the question of creating the lake management district (Under RCW 36.61.060) to the
owners of land within the proposed lake management district, including publicly owned land, if the City
Council finds it is in the public interest to create the lake management district and the financing of the lake
improvement and maintenance activities is feasible. The qutstion shall be addressed by a public vote of
parties within the proposed lake management district.
The City Council may make changes in the boundaries of the lake management district or such modification in
plans for the proposed lake improvement or maintenance activities as it deems necessary. The City Council
may not change the boundaries of the lake management district to include property that was not included
previously without first passing an amended resolution of intention and giving new notice tothe owners or
reputed owners of the property newly included in the proposed lake management district in the manner and
form and within the time provided by the original notice. The City Council may not alter the plans for the
proposed lake improvement or mantenance activities to result in an increase in the amount of money
proposed to be raised, and may not increase the amount of money proposed to be raised, without first passing
an amended resolution of intention and giving new notice to the property owners in the manner and form
and within the time provided for the original notice.
cc: Project File
Day File
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Federal Way,
Washington, to form North Lake Management District number 2, calling
for a vote by affected property owners on the formation of the proposed
district,
WHEREAS, the City completed the attached 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan (IA VMP) and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2008) (together the "Plan")
(Exhibit A) which includes the basis for the annual LMD work plan and LMD management goals.;
and
WHEREAS, the Plan was initiated because of citizen interest in the long term protection of
North Lake; and
WHEREAS, North Lake contains significant natural resources including wetlands, and
supports many beneficial public purposes including recreation, water quality, stormwater
protection, aesthetics, and property value support; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 35.21 RCW and chapter 36.61 RCW a lake management
district may be formed to provide funding to support the maintenance and improvement of lakes;
and
WHEREAS, the North Lake community has demonstrated support for the NLMD
through submittal of a petition calling for the formation ~ of the NLMD (Exhibit B) pursuant
to the requirements of chapter 36.61 RCW; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a City resolution, a public hearing was conducted on June 2nd,
2009, on the formation of a lake management district after public notice of the hearing was
provided to all affected property consistent with Chapter 36.61 RCW; and
RES #
, Page I
WHEREAS, after considering the testimony received at the public hearing, the City of
Federal Way City Council declares that submitting the question of formation of a lake
management district to a vote by the affected property owners is within the public's interest; and
the proposed financing for a lake management district is considered feasible;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. . Findings. the City of Federal Way City Council finds that it is in the public
interest to create the lake management district and the fmancing of the lake improvement and
maintenance activities is feasible. Attached and hereby incorporated is the 2004 North Lake
Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) and subsequent Annual Reports
(2005-2008) (together the "Plan") (Exhibit A). The plan describes (1) the proposed lake
improvement and maintenance activities which avoid adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and
provide for appropriate measures to protect and enhance fish and wildlife; (2) the number afyears
the lake or beach management district will exist; (3) the amount, method, description, and
frequency of special assessments or rates and charges, and the possibility of revenue bonds that
are payable from the rates and charges; and (4) the estimated special assessment or rate and
charge proposed to be imposed on each parcel included in the proposed lake management district.
Section 2. Vote of Affected Property Owners. The formation of the North Lake
Management District Number Two (the "District") shall be referred to a vote of the property
owners within the proposed management district. The residents' Petition to the Federal Way City
Council to Create a Lake Management District for North Lake is attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein by this reference. The City Clerk of Federal Way shall prepare the
RES #
, Page 2
appropriate ba1lot, based upon criteria in Chapter 36.61.080 RCW, calling for a vote on the
fonnation of the District. The ballots shall be submitted to the affected residents no later than June
5th, 2009, and shall be returned to the City of Federal Way by no later than five o'clock p.m.
(5:00 p.m) on June 26th, 2009. All ballots must be signed by the owner or reputed owner of
property according to the assessor's tax rolls. Each property owner shall mark his or her ballot for
or against the creation of the proposed lake management district, with the ballot weighted so that
the property owner has one vote for each dollar of estimated special assessment or rate and
charge proposed to be imposed on his or her property. The valid ballots shall be tabulated and a
simple majority of the votes cast shall determine whether the proposed lake management district
shall be approved or rejected. If approved by the voters within the proposed district, the
implementation of the District will be effective January I, 20 I 0 and shall remain in effect for a
term of ten (10) years, said term to expire on December 31, 2020
Section _3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invahdity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution.
Section _4. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this resolution are authorized to
make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of
scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any
references thereto.
Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date
of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
RES #
, Page 3
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by
the Federal Way City CounciL
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON this
day of
,2009.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR, JACK DOVEY
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.:
RES #
, Page 4
EXHIBIT A
8 King County
North Lake
Integrated Aquatic
Vegetation
Management Plan
October 2004
North Lake
Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan
@ King County
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Water and Land Resources Division
Lake Stewardship Program
Noxious Weed Control Program
King Street Center
201 South Jackson, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 296-6519 TTY Relay: 711
www.metrokc.gov/dnr
October 2004
King County Executive
Ron Sirns
Director of Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Pam Bissonnette
Division Manager of Water and Land Resources Division
Daryl Grigsby
Water and Land Resources Division Staff
Sally Abella
Beth Cullen
Drew Kerr
Michael Murphy
Washington State Department of Ecology Staff
Kathy Hamel
North Lake Community Steering Committee
Mark Braverman
Julie Cleary
Beth Cullen
Chuck Gibson
Cover Photos: North Lake Improvement Club
Debra Hansen
Wendy Honey
Tom Jovanovich
North Lake IA VMP
12/21/2004
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The King County Lake Stewardship Program and the Noxious Weed Control Program
wish to thank the members ofthe Steering Committee for the North Lake Integrated
Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Members include Mark Braverman, Julie Cleary,
Beth Cullen, Chuck Gibson, Debra Hansen, Wendy Honey, and Tom Jovanovich.
King County staff were instrumental in developing the IA VMP. Key staff included Drew
Kerr and Monica Walker ofthe Noxious Weed Control Program, as well as Sally Abella,
Michael Murphy (Murph), and Beth Cullen from the Lake Stewardship Program.
Washington Department of Ecology staff provided invaluable technical guidance during
development ofthe IA VMP. Special thanks to Kathy Hamel ofthe Aquatic Weeds
Management Fund for her prompt, thoughtful and thorough response to all questions.
Finally, special thanks to the North Lake community. Their enthusiasm and dedication to
preserving the aesthetic beauty, recreational opportunities, and ecological integrity of
North Lake is inspiring.
North Lake IA VMP
12/21/2004
iii
EXE CUTIVE SUMMARy........................ .... ......... ....... .............. ....... ... ......... ........ ..... ..... ........ 1
PROBLEM STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 2
MANAGE MENT GOAL S....... ............ ......... ............ ........ ............ .......... ......... ........ ..... ..... ...... 2
COMMUNITY INV 0 L VEMENT .......................................................................................... 2
Community History................................................................................................................ 2
Community Commitment...................................................................................................... 2
Steering Committee, Outreach, and Education Process......................................................... 2
Public comment...................................................................................................................... 2
Public consensus.................................................................................................................... 2
Continuing Community Education........................................................................................ 2
WATERSHED AND W A TERBODY CHARACTERISTICS ............................................ 2
Waterbody Characteristics..................................................................................................... 2
Water Quality......................................................................................................................... 2
Fish and Wildlife Communities .............................................................................................2
Beneficial and Recreational Uses........................................................................................... 2
Characterization of Aquatic Plants in North Lake ................................................................. 2
Noxious Aquatic Weeds in North Lake ................................................................................. 2
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL AL TERNA TIVES ............................................................. 2
Aquatic Herbicides................................................................................................................. 2
Manual Methods .................................................................................................................... 2
Diver Dredging....................................................................................................................... 2
Bottom Screens...................................................................................................................... 2
Biological Control.................................................................................................................. 2
Grass Carp... ................... .................................. ......... .............. ............................... ................ 2
W atermilfoil Weevil............................................................................................................... 2
Rotovation, Harvesting, and Cutting...................................................................................... 2
Drawdown .............................................................................................................................. 2
Nutrient Reduction................................................................................................................. 2
No Action Alternative ....... ........ ................ ........................................... ..................... ............. 2
INTEGRATED TREATMENT PLAN .................................................................................. 2
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) ................................................................... 2
Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata).. ............................. ................ .................................. 2
Purple loosestrife (L ythrum salicaria) ................................................................................... 2
Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) ........................................................................................ 2
PLAN ELEMENTS, COSTS, AND FUNDING ....................................................................2
IMPLEMENT A TION AND EVALUATION ........................................................................2
BIB LI OG RAP BY .. ....... ....... ............................. ........... ........... ...... ............ ..... ....... ....... ..... ....... 2
4/30/2009
iv
North Lake IA VMP
LIST OF TABLES
Table I : Average Values for Select Trophic Parameters at North Lake .................................... 2
Table 2: Wildlife List................................................................................................................. 2
Table 3: 1996 Aquatic Plant Survey .......................................................................................... 2
Table 4: Budget with use of Tric10pyr ....................................................................................... 2
Table 5: Project budget with use of2,4-D ................................................................................. 2
Table 6: Total Matching Funds (triclopyr) ................................................................................2
Table 7: Total Matching Funds (2,4-D) .....................................................................................2
Table 8: In-kind Matching Funds...............................................................................................2
Table 9: Cash Matching Funds .................. ...... ............... ................... ................... ..................... 2
Table 10: KC Staff Salary and Burden Rates............................................................................. 2
Table 11: Federal Way Staff and Benefit Rates......................................................................... 2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: North Lake Watershed and Tributary 0016................................................................ 2
Figure 2: North Lake Land Use.................................................................... .....20
Figure 3: North Lake Aquatic Plant Map........................................................... ..22
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is a submersed aquatic noxious weed that proliferates
to form dense mats of vegetation in the littoral zone of lakes and reservoirs. It reproduces by
fragmentation, and is often spread as fragments that "hitch-hike" on boat trailers from one lake to
another. This noxious weed can degrade the ecological integrity of a water body in just a few
growing seasons, Dense stands of milfoil crowd out native aquatic vegetation, which in turn alters
predator-prey relationships among fish and other aquatic animals. M spicatum can also reduce
dissolved oxygen - first by inhibiting water mixing in areas where it grows, and then as oxygen is
consumed by bacteria during decomposition of dead plant material. Decomposition of M spicatum
also adds nutrients to the water that could contribute to increased algal growth and related water
quality problems. Further, dense mats of M spicatum can increase the water temperature by
absorbing sunlight, create mosquito breeding areas, and negatively affect recreational activities such
as swimming, fishing, and boating,
North Lake lies along the eastern border of Federal Way in the upper White River watershed in King
County Washington. The 55-acre lake is moderately infested with M spicatum. Members of the
North Lake Improvement Club (NLIC) realized the seriousness of the aquatic weed problem and
initiated a partnership with staff from the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks,
Weyerhaeuser, and the City of Federal Way to apply for an Aquatic Weeds Management Fund grant
through the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). If awarded, grant money will fund initial
eradication efforts, as well as several years of follow-up survey and control. Since complete
eradication is very difficult to achieve, and re-introduction is very likely, the community is
organizing a management structure and the funding mechanisms necessary to implement ongoing
monitoring and spot control.
Three other noxious weed species with expanding infestations at North Lake also threaten to degrade
the ecological and recreational benefits ofthe system. Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), purple
loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) have expanded beyond a
pioneering level of infestation and are well established around the shoreline and in the lake,
This Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) is a planning document developed
to ensure that the applicant (King County) and the community have considered the best available
information about the waterbody and the watershed prior to initiating control efforts, Members of the
North Lake Improvement Club, King County staff, and Weyerhaeuser staff worked in partnership to
develop this IA VMP for North Lake. To tackle the difficult task of generating community concern
and action for an environmental issue, a core group of residents formed a steering committee, which
included one King County staff member from the King County Lake Stewardship Program. Through
their work, the Steering Committee was able to educate the wider community about the problem,
inspire them to contribute feedback about potential treatment options, and explore ongoing
community-based funding mechanisms. The community ultimately agreed upon an integrated
treatment strategy, which includes an initial chemical treatment with a systemic aquatic herbicide,
followed by a combination of manual, mechanical, and cultural control methods to maintain the
outcome. This plan presents lake and watershed characteristics, details of the aquatic weed problems
at North Lake, the process for gaining community involvement, discussion of control alternatives,
and recommendations for initial and ongoing control of noxious aquatic weeds threatening North
Lake.
4/30/2009
North Lake IA VMP
North Lake is located east of the city of Federal Way and Interstate 5, south of 320th Street and north
of Highway 18. The lake is located in the White River Watershed (WRIA 10), which encompasses
parts of southern King County and extends into Pierce County, North Lake is located in a very urban
area of King County along with neighboring lakes Lake Killarney, Lake Geneva, and Fivemile Lake.
However, at this time Weyerhaeuser has no intention of developing the west side of the lake, The
52.3 acres of land owned and maintained by Weyerhaeuser will remain undeveloped. Only the
eastern and southern shorelines of the lake are developed with single family residences. North Lake
drains into the Commencement Bay through the Hylebos Creek. In the past Hylebos Creek has
provided good habitat for chinook salmon but the system has undergone extensive development over
the years and salmon populations in the Hylebos Basin have been greatly reduced (Mobrand
Biometrics, 2001). The estuarine area is still used by juvenile salmonid species including chinook and
coho, North Lake and neighboring Geneva, Killarney, and Fivemile Lakes all have public boat
launches and are popular boating, fishing, and swimming destinations. Residents of the North Lake
watershed are very proud of their setting, are active recreational users and are committed to social
and environmental issues.
Due to prolific growth of several species of dense, invasive aquatic noxious weeds, North Lake is in
danger of losing its aesthetic beauty, its wildlife habitat, and its recreational attributes. Ifleft
untreated, the worst of these weeds, Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), will blanket the
littoral zone of the lake in a short time, preventing most recreational uses and eliminating badly
needed wildlife habitat. There will be long-term financial and recreational loss and the loss of
conservation areas, all affecting watershed residents and other members of the public who use the
lake. Increasing development in the area is likely to increase the number of people using the lake in
coming years, which can accelerate the magnitude of the loss of beneficial uses to the community.
The shallow shoreline area of the lake provides excellent habitat for aquatic plants, In the past few
years aggressive, non-native Eurasian water milfoil (milfoil) has invaded the lake and is colonizing
the near-shore aquatic habitat. The dense submersed growth of milfoil has begun to cause a
significant deterioration in the quality of the lake and its value to the community, The boat launch
area has dense patches of milfoil, which can spread to other lakes by fragments on boat trailers,
Nearby lakes are threatened with new introductions of milfoil if North Lake is not controlled because
of the high probability of transport by boat trailers to these nearby systems.
Milfoil is the most significant submersed invasive threat but other noxious weeds have also invaded
North Lake. These include fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), purple loosestrife (Lythrum
salicaria), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus). All ofthese species are considered noxious weeds
as listed in WAC 16-750. Waterlilies have been a real threat to the lake, covering up sections of the
lake entirely. North Lake is shallow and waterlilies grow in the middle of the lake and close off
sections of the lake from recreational activities, This has been a major issue with area residents as it
has decreased their recreation because of safety issues. Waterlilies can also affect water quality by
decreasing dissolved oxygen, out competing native plants, and adding excessive nutrients to the lake
when they die back in the fall. None of the native aquatic plants in the system are a management
issue at this time. The native plants provide important benefits to the aquatic system and are not
impeding any of the recreational uses of the lake, Removing the noxious invaders will halt the
degradation of the system and allow the dynamic natural equilibrium to be maintained,
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
2
Unfortunately, these invasive plants concentrate in the near shore zone which is also that portion of
the lake that is valued and utilized most by lake residents and visitors. Dense weed growth poses a
threat to swimmers, and the portion of the lake where people can fish is shrinking, Both milfoil and
fragrant waterlilies foul fishing gear, motors, and oars. It is no longer possible to troll through large
portions of the lake.
As a group these invasive plants:
. Pose a safety hazard to swimmers and boaters by entanglement
. Snag fishing lines and hooks, eventually preventing shoreline fishing
. Crowd out native plants, creating mono cultures lacking in biodiversity
. Significantly reduce fish and wildlife habitat, thereby weakening the local ecosystem
as well as degrading wildlife and wildlife viewing opportunities
. Pose a threat to adjoining ecosystems
4/30/2009
3
North Lake IA VMP
MANAG.EMENJ GOALS
The overarching management goal is to control noxious aquatic weeds in North Lake in a manner
that allows sustainable native plant and animal communities to thrive, maintains acceptable water
quality conditions, and facilitates recreational enjoyment of the lake.
There are four main strategies to ensure success in meeting this goal:
1. Involve the community in each phase of the management process;
2. Use the best available science to identify and understand likely effects of management
actions on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems prior to implementation;
3, Review the effectiveness of management actions;
4. Adjust the management strategy as necessary to achieve the overall goal.
Specific details related to the implementation of management objectives are covered in subsequent
sections of this plan.
4/30/2009
4
North Lake IA VMP
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
North Lake residents have been a very active community from the beginning and regularly
demonstrate their commitment to improving their community and protecting the lake as well as the
expansive natural areas owned by Weyerhaeuser around their homes. This section provides an
overview of past, present, and future of community involvement.
Community Historv
From their earliest days, members of the North Lake community have worked together to promote
common goals, including the health of the lake, The North Lake Improvement Club (NLIC) was
formed in 1942 to work to maintain and improve North Lake and the region around the lake. The club
has always been open to anyone living in the area, The NLIC purchased a piece of property and built
a clubhouse in the early 1950's, The clubhouse has provided a convenient place for the community to
get together for social gatherings and meetings to plan and execute projects to improve the North
Lake neighborhood,
The club membership has been active in monitoring the development of the properties around North
Lake and to ensure that changes are made in a manner that is consistent with the neighborhood
desires, There has been significant development in the watershed in the last five years and the
community has been active in monitoring the development plans to assure the lake is protected. NLIC
as an organization and members as individuals have commented at hearings on developments now
underway in the watershed and hearings on developments that may have an impact on the quality of
living in the North Lake area. One of the currently vested development with the greatest potential to
impact the lake through stormwater runoff has been required to have the stormwater management
plan reviewed by representatives of the NLIC before it is approved by the City of Federal Way.
Being a participant in the King County's Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program through the Lake
Stewardship Program is another way the community demonstrates its interest and commitment to
lake health. Area residents have participated in the program on and off for the last 19 years. Most
recently, community members became involved in the program in 2001. Initially only one
community member participated in the program, but with the expansion of the program to include
Levell and Level 2 sampling, several members joined in to share the monitoring duties. There are
now six families sharing the monitoring duties, giving North Lake the distinction of having a
monitoring program with the most active community participation, Lake Stewardship Program
volunteers monitor lake level and precipitation daily, Secchi transparency, water temperature, algae
and bird observations weekly, and collect water samples every other week from April through
October. Water samples are analyzed for total phosphorus, total nitrogen, chlorophyll a and
concentrations of phytoplankton species, Volunteer data are published each year in reports produced
by the King County Lake Stewardship Program.
To address the increasing populations of water lilies in North Lake, lake front property owners
contracted for control of waterlilies in 1996. The control was done for one year. The contractor
completed two applications on the lily pads on the residential side of the lake, This was done only in
areas that fronted on property owners who agreed to pay the contractors. Qualitative evaluation of the
application indicated that it was successful and reduced the expansion of coverage on the residential
4/30/2009
5
North Lake IA VMP
side of the lake for a few years. However, since there was not a lake wide effort to control the lilies in
following years, the infestation returned and became worse.
The membership oftoday's NLIC reflects the strength of new perspectives and energies, As homes
change hands and the last developable land disappear, families on the lake share a love of this unique
ecosystem, and are committed to honor and perpetuate the legacy of good stewardship.
Community Commitment
The NLIC has held several informational meetings for its membership and others to learn about
noxious and invasive plants identification and control. The Club has and continues to be active in
public meetings where new developments plans are discussed and present comments to assure the
lake water quality and area environment will continue to be healthy.
Examples of issues discussed by the Community Club in recent years include:
. The impact of letting purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) continue to grow
. How to eradicate purple loosestrife
. Problems posed by fragrant waterlilies (Nymphaea odorata)
. How to eradicate fragrant waterlilies
The lakefront property owners have organized to obtain funding to begin a weed control program in
2004. A Small Change for a Big Difference grant was obtained from King County Department of
Natural Resources and Parks (KCDNRP), which will be combined with funds from the Weyerhaeuser
Company, and contributions and was used to begin waterlily control this year.
The lakefront property owners intend to continue the effort to control the waterlilies and other
noxious weeds in and around North Lake. The Steering Committee is spearheading this effort and is
pursuing several options to eradicate noxious weeds and keep the lake free of noxious weeds in years
to come.
In the long run, success will require on ongoing funding mechanism for monitoring the success of
control measures, surveying for noxious weed species each year, and responding to new infestations
quickly to maintain a weed-free lake. The Steering Committee is exploring ways to provide
maintenance funding in perpetuity. Community members are currently discussing several funding
ideas; the best long-term solution will inevitably utilize multiple mechanisms.
1. Voluntary contributions: Having enough lake front property owners commit to annual
maintenance fee to maintain a fund for control of the weeds. The funding goals would be adjusted
annually to meet the needs, with the largest amount needed to support the initial eradication
program. Volunteer monies would be collected in several ways, including running fundraising
activities as well as door to door campaigning. Although less consistent, this type of activity is
expected to work because of the stability of the neighborhood.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
6
2. Lake Management District (LMD): Forming an LMD would levy a "tax" on all lake front
property owners. The tax paid by each lakefront property owner would be determined by the size
of the property. Funds collected would be used to address specific problems at the lake, In order
to form an LMD, lakefront property owners need to vote to approve it, and the governing agency
(King County or Federal Way) needs to adopt an ordinance recognizing the fee collection
structure, problems to be addressed, and the methods by which problems will be addressed.
3. Volunteer maintenance: Train residents to perform the monitoring and removal efforts, There
are certified divers on the lake. Funds would be collected by the Community Club to purchase
necessary equipment and obtain training to conduct the milfoil removal operations by volunteers
after the grant funds expire. Currently, lake residents perform invasive weed control efforts
voluntarily on the emergent plants at North Lake.
Steerina Committee, Outreach, and Education Process
Community participation has been an integral part of the development of the North Lake IA VMP,
Community involvement educates community members about the potential problems posed by
noxious aquatic weeds, Since watershed residents were given ample opportunity to comment
throughout the process, there is greater community support for implementation efforts. Meeting
agendas, attendance lists, and meeting notes are contained in Appendix A.
The remainder of this section provides a chronological overview of the community involvement
process from the first discussions through the completion of the IA VMP.
Early Discussion: Explored potential for King County - North Lake partnership
Initially, two board members of the North Lake Improvement Club and lakeside residents contacted
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Lake Stewardship Program staff in winter
of2003. North Lake residents were interested in controlling noxious weeds and through the support
of the community, the North Lake Steering Committee was formed, Five resident members now sit
on the committee.
The North Lake Steering Committee wanted to apply to the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) Aquatic Weed Management Fund for money to help with North Lake weed control efforts
in spring 2004. Given the amount of work required to develop an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan, which is necessary for the grant application, North Lake Steering Committee and
King County staff decided it would be better to develop a strategy and work toward to applying for
the grant in fall of 2004.
March 2004: First meeting with North Lake Steering Committee
North Lake Steering Committee invited a King County Lake Stewardship Program representative and.
a Weyerhaeuser representative to a North Lake Steering Committee meeting on March 17,2004, This
initial Steering Committee meeting was for general information to determine what partners on the
North Lake project were setting out to accomplish and how this could be done as a joint effort
between North Lake residents, Weyerhaeuser, and King County. The Steering Committee and King
County staff discussed the process by which the community could work with King County to submit
a grant application from Ecology to control noxious aquatic weeds in North Lake,
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
7
April and May 2004: Project planning begins, Steering Committee meets, begins IA VMP
Development
A Steering Committee meeting was held on April 1, 2004 to discuss a King County Small Change
grant application and initial notification to lakeside residents for an educational meeting to be held on
April 5, 2004. The agenda and expectations were set for the meeting. The Steering Committee
created and hand delivered all lakeside residents invitations to attend the education meeting, On April
5,2004 thirty-two people attended the educational meeting. The primary purpose was to discuss the
problem with Eurasian watermilfoil and other aquatic noxious weeds, management techniques and
the IA VMP development process, The larger community's interest in furthering the process was also
assessed, which was a resounding desire to pursue aquatic weed removal. Following the April 5th
meeting, the Steering Committee members drafted and submitted the Small Change for a Big
Difference Grant application to the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks on
April 17, 2004. This grant application helped support a joint waterlily treatment with Weyerhaeuser.
In May of 2004 KC DNRP staff developed a draft of a project timeline, an education and outreach
plan and began to research necessary components of the IA VMP. May 5, 2004 Beth Cullen from
King County and North Lake Steering Committee members met to discuss the development of the
IA VMP. The primary goal was to approve the project, address any concerns, and outline necessary
tasks for the grant application process. A second IA VMP planning meeting was held at the end of
May. Specific tasks were assigned to each Steering Committee member and timelines for the
completion of draft assignments were set. At this meeting, members discussed the approval of the
Small Change for a Big Difference grant and how to notify the lakeside residents for the beginning
stages of the fragrant waterlily eradication.
June 2004: Steering committee continues IA VMP work, hosts first watershed-wide meeting
In the beginning of June, notification was distributed to all North Lake lakeside residents regarding
the first chemical treatment for the waterlily control. The dates decided for treatment were June 17th
and June 18th pending weather conditions, The treatment did occur and approximately 10 acres of
waterlilies were treated, three acres on June 1 ih and 10 acres on the June 18th. The treatment was
successful and there was immediate damage to the lilies. Over the course of the month the lilies died
back and areas of the lake were again open for recreation. The lily treatment had a draw-back because
it opened up new ground for the milfoil to spread. With the cover of the lilies gone, sunlight was able
to get to the bottom of lake, which encouraged more aggressive milfoil growth.
On June 14th, 2004 the Steering Committee and Beth Cullen from King County met to discuss the
progress and agenda for a watershed-wide meeting scheduled for June 28, 2004, At the June 28th
meeting the North Lake Steering Committee members presented the problems posed by the noxious
aquatic weeds present in North Lake. Guests to this meeting included Beth Cullen from King County,
Mark Braverman the Site Forestry Manager for Weyerhaeuser, Belinda Bowman, Whitworth Pest
Solutions, and Dan Smith from the City of Federal Way. The objective of this meeting was to update
the community on the waterlily eradication efforts and introduce the IAVMP. Before and after
herbicide treatment photos were shown to the public. Beth Cullen provided a PowerPoint
presentation giving a detailed description of the aquatic weeds in North Lake and the treatment
methods selected by the North Lake Steering Committee, The meeting also provided open floor time
for discussion and questions of all information presented, Members from neighboring Lake Geneva
came to the watershed meeting to learn about the process to possibly emulate on their lake.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
8
Public comment
At the initial lakeside resident meeting, presenters encouraged attendees to ask questions and offer
comments.
The first lakeside residents meeting on AprilSth, most comments supported acting as quickly as
possible to control weeds in the lake. There were questions about the effectiveness of the various
treatment options presented. Several comments expressed concern that the community members
would need to "foot the bill" for control costs. Steering Committee members addressed concerns
when possible and if answers were not readily apparent, offered to do more research and report back,
At the June 28th watershed wide meeting, residents were still enthusiastic about the project and the
results they were beginning to see from the initial treatment of Rodeo ™ applied by Whitworth Pest
Solutions. Many residents inquired when another later summer spray could occur and what the costs
would be. The only concerns expressed by residents were the safety of the chemicals used to control
invasive weeds for swimming, watering, and pets.
Public consensus
Members of the steering committee drafted a "Letter of Support" that members of the community
could sign to demonstrate their support of the proposed milfoil control strategy while recognizing its
potential cost. To date, there have been no objections to the proposed project or for the proposed
methods of treatment. Every person who has learned about the project has voiced support.
Given the community's small size, and their dedication and enthusiasm for keeping North Lake
healthy, none of the steering committee members anticipate resistance to the proposed project prior
to, during, or after implementation. The letter of support and copies of the signature sheets are in
Appendix B.
Continuina Community Education
The North Lake Steering Committee will offer the means by which the community will organize
ongoing education. In addition, the Steering Committee for the proposed aquatic weed removal
project will remain intact, although membership on the steering committee is likely to change over
time.
To ensure that community efforts are consistent with best available science and water quality
standards, the community club will designate a point of contact liaison within the KC DNRP.
Information will be disseminated through community club meetings and watershed mailings when
applicable. A liaison with school and youth organizations will also be designated. Additionally, the
Steering Committee will work to recruit new lake monitors and surveyors, All of the documents and
PowerPoint presentations generated by the Watershed-wide and Steering Committee meetings are
available on request. Links are provided to the websites for the Washington State Department of
Ecology, the King County Noxious Weed Control Program, and the King County Department of
Natural Resources and Parks to learn more about aquatic noxious weeds and other natural resource
management issues.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
9
The public education program for North Lake will consist of two elements that will be implemented
concurrently:
1. Noxious Aquatic Weeds Prevention and Detection
Initial eradication and control efforts are only worth doing if future infestations are prevented, or
detected and eliminated soon after detection, Since the re-introduction of milfoil and other weeds to
North Lake is almost certain, a prevention and detection plan is essential. There are four main
elements to the prevention and detection plan:
a) Annual distribution of educational materials. Steering Committee members will compile
published materials and generate literature specifically related to North Lake to distribute
to all watershed residents each year at the beginning of the growing season.
b) Annual aquatic plant identification workshops. Workshops each spring will cover native
plants as well as noxious aquatic weeds, Samples of our target weeds will be collected and
pressed in Year 1 as a permanent reference and education tool for the community, All
watershed residents and lake-users will be invited and encouraged to attend, The lakefront
residents at Lake Killarney, Lake Geneva and other nearby waterbodies might also be
invited to expand the educational effort beyond North Lake. Aquatic plant experts could
be invited from Ecology, the King County Noxious Weed Control Program, or other
applicable agencies. A better-educated community of residents and lake-users will be
more likely to identify and report noxious aquatic weeds and other potential problems,
c) Two aquatic weed surveys each growing season. Volunteers (community members) will
undergo training with lakes/aquatic plant specialists prior to conducting surveys, There are
at least two certified divers living on the lake, both of whom have been active in
developing the IA VMP and project proposal. Divers will be trained to survey the lake
bottom to complement visual surveys from the surface and to take samples for
identification.
d) Boy Scout Troop 306 will be at the public boat launch on opening day of fishing to
educate the public about the milfoil eradication efforts and what they can do as individuals
to decrease the chances of reinfestation, They will also work on checking and cleaning
boat trailers before they enter the water and after.
2. Lake Stewardship Education Program
North Lake residents have a unique situation with having six families who rotate responsibility in the
King County Lake Stewardship Program. While other lakes in King County may only have one or
two volunteers for the lake stewardship program, North Lake has six families that volunteer, These
families attend lake related workshops learning about nutrients in fertilizers, detergents, failing septic
system, eroding soil, shoreline planting suggestions and resources, and how animal waste can cause
algae and aquatic plants to grow and multiply. Another avenue to share information on appropriate
shoreline plantings is our North Lake Garden Club. One of the goals of the steering committee is to
develop a process to share this information with a broader audience of watershed residents,
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
10
North Lake has a public boat launch on the northeast end of the lake, We understand that the
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife has begun a pilot project to address the concerns of
lake-users spreading noxious weeds from lake to lake. An additional goal of the steering committee is
to learn and understand how the finding from this pilot can be incorporated in the health of our lake,
The North Lake community is an inclusive and involved community. We have many opportunities to
share lake quality information with our watershed residents, These opportunities include monthly
North Lake Improvement Club board meetings that are open to all members, the annual meeting of
the NLIC, Fourth of July parade and community get-together, holiday boat parade, annual
community garage sale and as needed NLIC cleanup. Each of these functions offers the steering
committee the avenue to provide lake-related information to all watershed residents and lake-users,
Our overall goal is to develop a process to keep lake quality information current and available to all
our watershed users.
The Steering Committee has generated some ideas for signage related to the transport of milfoil by
boats and trailers. If signs posted at the boat launch include step by step directions on how to properly
clean boats and trailers, and why it is important, lake-users may be more apt to do the right thing,
Obvious problems for boat cleaning involve questions of where it can be done and the right
equipment to do the job. The boat launch at North Lake does not have any tools to perform this
cleaning, which is similar to most other lakes in the area. Any adhering pollutants that are washed off
by a diligent boat owner at the launch site will probably end up in the lake since there is no facility to
collect the gray water. The Steering Committee has discussed the option of installing a Cleaning
Station at the North Lake boat launch with a hose, handpump, and a catchment and drain to
encourage the proper cleaning of boats and trailers. The handpump would hopefully discourage using
the station for cleaning cars or other inappropriate uses, North Lake may pursue these issues with the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, which has just begun a pilot program to address these
concerns.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
11
North Lake's watershed is located in south-western King County, Washington in an unincorporated
area located right outside the Federal Way city limits. State resource agencies frequently use a system
of Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) to refer to the state's major watershed basins, North
Lake is located in WRIA 10, which refers to the Puyallup - White River combination watershed and
includes the Puyallup and White Rivers and the southern part of King County.
The North Lake watershed constitutes approximately 425 acres (2.2%) of the Hylebos Creek Sub-
basin of the White - Puyallup River watershed. The Hylebos Creek Sub-basin is 19221 acres and
receives a mean annual rainfall of 40 inches. The sub-basin drains approximately 18 mile2 from the
cities of Federal Way to Commencement Bay in Pierce County and it encompasses 35 miles of
stream and 250 acres of wetlands (FOHC 2004).
According to the Soil Survey for King County Area, Washington, the soils around North Lake
watershed are primarily made up of the Alderwood series (V,S. Department of Agriculture, 1973),
The primary soil types are the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC) and Alderwood gravelly sandy
loam, 0 to 6 % slopes (AgB). Th~ soil is comprised of moderately to well drained soils that have a
weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. These soils are
on uplands and formed under conifers, in glacial deposits. Permeability is moderately rapid in the
surface layer and subsoil and very slow in the substratum, Roots penetrate easily to the consolidated
substratum where they tend to mat on the surface. Water moves on top of the substratum in winter
and the available water capacity is low, Runoff is slow to medium and the hazard of erosion is slight
to moderate, There is one small section of Norma sandy loam (No) in the southern part of the lake
and Orcas peat ( Or) in the north.
The Hylebos Creek Sub-basin tributaries drain approximately 18 mi2, including North Lake, Lake
Killarney, and Lake Geneva. Commercial areas, single family and multifamily residences dominate
the basin. North Lake is located in the upper part of the watershed by Federal Way, which is the most
heavily urbanized area of the basin (King County 1991), There are now 54 lakeside homes, which
indicates that single family high-density land use has continued to increase on the east side of the
lake. Future land use plans include a single family, high density area stretching along the east side of
the lake, east of 38th Ave South, Although not directly on the shoreline the drainage from the new
development will be going into North Lake as well as increase the number of people who will use the
public boat launch. The west side of the lake is located within the city limits of Federal Way,
however, the property is owned by Weyerhaeuser and is not open to development. The property is
approximately 52.3 acres of second growth forest that lines the whole east side of North Lake to
Weyerhaeuser Way South,
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
12
c::3 Watershad Boundary
5 North Lake
'"^- Major Roads
""- North Lake Outlet
N
+
Figure 1: North Lake Watershed and Tributary 0016
Tributary 0016 drains North Lake from its southern tip, and joins Tributary 0006, which drains Lake
Killamey, a half mile south of Tributary 0016. Tributary 0016 enters Hylebos Creek, which continues
southwest and enters Pierce County where it flows directly into Commencement Bay.
There is a significant amount of shoreline that remains relatively undeveloped at North Lake, thanks
to Weyerhaeuser preserving their land and not allowing for development on the west side of the lake.
This undoubtedly limits the nonpoint source nutrients reaching the lake, This entire sub-basin
benefits from the moderating effects of its many wetlands and lakes, which act as detention ponds to
reduce runoff "pulses," However, as the number of nearshore houses has increased around North
Lake, so has the clearing of buffering native vegetation along the shoreline to provide landscaping or
to enhance lake access and views. Nonetheless, many of the residential properties have maintained a
buffer strip, which helps to filter out nutrients and pollutants before they enter the lake, as well as
providing habitat. The public boat launch area is the only point where a road actually reaches the
water, 334th and 33rd Ave, South provide access to all of the homes on the lake and is set several
hundred feet away from the water on the other side of the homes, The runoff from the road filters
through the lakeside properties,
Waterbodv Characteristics
North Lake is a 55-acre lake with a mean depth of 14 feet and a maximum depth of34 feet, with an
estimated lake volume of770 acre-ft and 8930 ft, (1.69 mi.) of shoreline, There are no major surface
inflows to North Lake, with outflow into an unnamed tributary into the outlet channel with a weir,
There is public boat access to the lake provided by a boat launch owned by the Washington
Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) located on the northwest side of the lake.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
13
The sediments in North Lake are mainly loose and unconsolidated, with high silt. Some areas are
flocculent, especially up at the north end. The majority of the residential parcels also have loose
sediment away from the shoreline; some residents in the past have added gravel to shallow areas.
Water Qualitv
Since 1985, King County residents have participated in a volunteer monitoring program to create a
long-term record of water quality for the region's small lakes. Volunteers from North Lake have
contributed samples in the early 1980's, the mid 1990's, and then 2001 through 2004, (King County,
2001), Prior to this time, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) performed
annual lake monitoring in the time periods 1979, 1980 and 1983.
Lakes can be classified by measurements of potential and actual biological activity, also known as
"trophic state." Lakes with high concentration of nutrients and algae, generally accompanied by low
water transparencies, are termed eutrophic or highly productive, Lakes with low concentrations of
nutrients and algae, most often accompanied by high transparencies, are categorizep as oligotrophic
or low in productivity. Lakes intermediate between eutrophic and oligotrophic are termed
mesotrophic, A commonly used index of water quality for lakes is the Trophic State Index (TSI)
originally developed by Robert Carlson (1977), which separates lakes into the three categories by
scoring water clarity, and concentrations of both phosphorus and chlorophyll a, relating them to a
scale based on phytoplankton biovolume, Lakes can be naturally eutrophic, mesotrophic, or
oligotrophic based on the inherent character and stability of the surrounding watershed,
Eutrophication or the increase in a lake's biological activity over time is a process that occurs
naturally in some lakes and may be accelerated in other by human activities (King County 2003),
North Lakes productivity is mesotrophic (moderate), characterized by moderate water clarity and
chlorophyll a values, and low to moderate phosphorous levels. Data from the 16-year record from
1985 to 2000 are summarized in Table 1, taken from King County Lake Water Quality: A Trend
Report on King County Small Lakes (November 2001)
Summary of water quality characteristics
. water clarity (Secchi depth) ranged from 2.1 - 4.1 meters (May-October average)
. total phosphorous ranged from 9 - 16 J..lg/L (May-October average)
. Chlorophyll a ranged from 2.2 - 4.2 J..lg/L (May-October average), but most years were
below 4.0
. TSI Secchi ranged from 40 - 50
. TSI Chlorophyll a ranged from 38 - 45
. TSI TP ranged from 36 - 44
. ISI annual average 38 - 46
4/30/2009
14
North Lake IA VMP
Table 1: Average Values for Select Trophic Parameters at North Lake
Year No. of Secchi Chi a* TP* TSI* TSI* TSI* TSI*
Samples (meter) (J1g/L) (J1g/L) Secchi Chla TP Average
1985 8 4,1 2.2 9 40 38 36 38
1986 8 3,9 3.9 15 40 44 43 43
1987 8 3,2 3.2 13 43 42 42 42
1988 8 3.3 2,7 16 43 40 44 42
1989 9 2,7 2.3 13 45 39 41 42
1990 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1991 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1992 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1993 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1994 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1995 11 3,8 3.3 15 41 42 43 42
1996 9 2.5 2.6 15 47 40 43 43
1997 9 2.1 4,2 16 50 45 44 46
1998 12 2,8 2.4 13 45 39 41 42
1999 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
2000 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
*Chl a=chlorophyll a, TP=total phosphorus, and TSI=Trophic State Index
While nine years of data could be used to analyze trends employing the non-parametric Mann-
Kendall's test for trend, the existing pattern of missing data points made trend analysis inaccurate,
Therefore, trend analyses were not completed for North Lake (King County, 2001).
Fish and Wildlife Communities
North Lake and its surrounding habitats support a variety offish, birds, and animals by providing
nesting, forage, and cover. According to Chad Jackson at the Washington State Department ofFish
and Wildlife (WDFW), the lake is stocked on a yearly basis with rainbow trout. Other warm water
fish are present in the lake and most likely are the following species: perch, large mouth bass,
pumpkinseed, bullheads, sculpins, and suckers. Parts of the Hylebos Creek offer spawning and
rearing habitat for salmonid species. Salmonids are unable to get up to North Lake because of full
fish blockages along Hylebos Creek.
Wendy Honey, a North Lake resident, spoke with the Department ofFish and Wildlife on August 4,
2004. It was mentioned that several times since 1950 North Lake was "rehabilitated" with Rotenone;
it was put in the lake in 1950, 1954, 1963, 1968, 1972, and 1979. Rotenone is a piscicide that is used
to remove undesirable fish from lakes and streams, It was likely used to manage North Lake to
maintain populations of fish species popular for sport fishermen, Copies of the application records are
in Appendix D of this document.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
15
The mixed forest and wetland plant communities around the lake provide non-breeding habitat for a
few Puget Sound lowland amphibian species, such as the Pacific chorus frog (Psudacris regilla). The
non-native bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) is also quite common the North Lake, and they can have a
negative impact on our native amphibians through direct predations (Richter & Azous, 200la),
Mammals expected to make use of the lake and adjacent forested areas include: opossum (didelphus
marsupialis), bats such as the little brown bat (myotis lucifugus), Douglas squirrel (tamias doglasii),
muskrat (ondatra zibethica), and raccoon (procyn lotor). River otter (Lutra canadensis) are
considered a rare treat to observe, Beaver (Castor canadensis) and coyote (canis latrans) are
potential visitors to the lake.
Julie Cleary, a resident on North Lake, provided a bird list collected by her neighbor Beverly
Rosenow.
4/30/2009
16
North Lake IA VMP
Table 2: Wildlife List
Checklist of Birds Probable on North Lake In order by FAMILY
Observed and Probable Birds in Bold
Other Possible Birds in Italics
LOON 0 Common
0 Common Loon SS Goldeneye KINGFISHER
GREBES 0 Barrow's 0 Belted
Goldeneye Kingfisher
0 Pied-billed Grebe 0 Bufflehead
SWALLOWS
0 Homed Grebe 0 Hooded
0 Western Grebe SC Merganser 0 Purple Martin
SC
CORMORANT 0 Common 0 Tree Swallow
0 Double-crested Merganser
Cormorant 0 Red-breasted 0 Violet-green
Swallow
WADERS Merganser
0 Northern
0 Great Blue Heron 0 Ruddy Duck Rough-winged
KCS RAPTORS 0 Cliff Swallow
0 Green Heron 0 Osprey KCS 0 Barn Swallow
WATERFOWL 0 Bald Eagle ST, WRENS
0 Trumpeter Swan FT
0 Marsh Wren
0 Greater White- RAILS
fronted Goose 0 Virginia Rail WARBLERS
0 Snow Goose 0 Sora 0 Common
Yellowthroat
0 Canada Goose 0 American Coot BLACKBIRDS
0 Wood Duck SHOREBIRDS 0 Red-winged
0 Green-winged Teal 0 Killdeer Blackbird
0 Mallard 0 Spotted
0 Northern Pintail Sandpiper NOTES
0 Blue-winged Teal 0 Common Snipe SC = state candidate
0 Cinnamon Teal 0 Long-billed SS = state sensitive
Dowitcher*
0 Northern Shoveler GULLS ST = state threatened
0 Eurasian Wigeon 0 Mew Gull FT = federally
0 American Wigeon threatened
0 Ring-billed
0 Canvasback Gull KCS = King County
Comprehensive Plan
0 Redhead 0 Glaucous- Shall be Protected
0 Ring-necked Duck winged Gull * Reported
SWIFTS
0 Greater Scaup
Lesser Scaup 0 Black Swift
0
0 Vaux's Swift SC
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
17
Beneficial and Recreational Uses
North Lake and its surroundings support a variety of uses to humans, Recreational activities include
swimming, fishing, boating (no combustion motors), bird watching, and wildlife viewing, Residents
access the lake for these activities from any of the small private docks around the lake associated with
the residential parcels, A public boat launch maintained by Washington Department ofFish &
Wildlife allows everybody to benefit from this beautiful resource as well,
Internal combustion engines are not allowed on the lake (KCC 12.44.330), consequently there are no
activities such as water skiing or jet skiing, One consequence of this ban is that the natural character
and integrity of the system have been preserved. Also, the system is spared potential pollution from
petroleum releases and noise pollution, There is also no hunting allowed on North Lake,
N
+
Property Owners
LJ State of Washington
W Weyerhaeuser
G Residential
Figure 2: North Lake Land Use
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
18
Characterization of Aquatic Plants in North Lake
The most recent comprehensive aquatic plant survey of North Lake occurred on July 26, 1995 as part
of a plant-mapping project on 36 lakes carried out by King County's Lake Stewardship Program
(King County, 1996). The surveys were conducted by boat using a two-person crew plus a volunteer
(or volunteers) when available, Surveyors used GPS to establish shoreline sections between two fixed
points. Each shoreline section was characterized by community type, species present, percent cover
of community type, and relative species density within a community type, Community types were
defined as emergent, floating, or submergent
4/30/2009
19
North Lake IA VMP
North
Aquatic Plants Map
Elm Floating
~ Emergent
!!IIilI! Submergent
- ' No plants or sparse
[ZJ No plants-deep
* Loosestrife
.......... Shoreline
- Section boundary
Lalce Area: 57.4 acres
Mean Depth: 14 feet
Maximum Depth: 34 feet
-+-
o 100 200 400 feet
I ' I
September 1996
Aquatic Plant Mappingftr Thirty-six King County Lakes
Page 71
Figure 3: Aquatic Plant Map
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
20
Nineteen plant species were identified at North Lake, including eight emergent types, three floating
types, and eight submergent types, Emergents are plants that are rooted in the sediment at the water's
edge but have stems and leaves which grow above the water surface, Floating rooted plants are rooted
in the sediment and send leaves to the water's surface, Submergent plants are either freely-floating or
are rooted in the lake bottom but grow within the water column, The floating plant coverage totaled
14.4 acres, while the submergent community comprised 20.7 acres. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum
salicaria) could be found along the entire shoreline.
In 2002, two consulting firms AquaTechnex and Envirovision Corporation produced a Regional
Eurasian Milfoil Control Plan for King County in 2002. At this time, North Lake was not
documented to have Eurasian water milfoil.
On May 4, 2004, King County Lake Stewardship staff and a member of the King County Noxious
Weed Group conducted a preliminary snorkel survey, characterizing the milfoil infestation of the
lake. The survey was conducted with one person in the boat taking notes and two snorkelers
surveying the entire littoral zone, The catalyst for this survey was complaints from the North Lake
community that non-native waterlilies and Eurasian watermilfoil were increasing in density, On the
survey several fragments of milfoil were found in the lake and a few scattered rooted milfoil plants,
The majority of the infestation was found at the boat launch on the north end of the lake. Waterlilies
were documented in covering the majority of the littoral zone and spreading into the middle of the
lake,
Lythrum salicaria is now common in buffer shoreline vegetation; populations and distribution of L.
sa/icaria have been partially contained by community efforts to stop seed production through manual
control efforts. The plant has obviously continued to increase over the years despite these recent
control efforts.
The Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) performed a search of their Natural Heritage
Information System database for rare plant species, select rare animal species, and high quality
wetland and terrestrial ecosystems in the vicinity of North Lake
(http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/fr/nhp/wanhp.html).This search did not find any endangered,
threatened, or sensitive plant species recorded for North Lake, nor did it find the presence of any
animal species tracked by their system,
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
21
~
C
CD a> N 1.0 f'.. N N N 1.0 1.0 f'.. a> f'.. f'.. 1.0 f'.. "<t <0 0 0 N
8-~ N N ('I) N ~ ~ N N N N N ~ N ('I) ('I) ~ N
e
u..
"C
c
::I "0
o ~
u.."<t:';::;
~ . ffi
O~:2
;:; c::
U :J
CD
U)
f'..
a>
I
<0
a>
a.
~~
0) c
0) ::I
~ E
iu E
.0 0
E 0
Q)
o
Q)
o
~
c::
:J
o
()
Cl
c::
~
"0
Q)
f'..<O!E
cONe
Q)
...t~:2
c::
:J
"0....."0
ClQ)c::Q)
c:: ~ Q) ~
:';::;Q)C>Q)
lU E iu E
.2.oE.o
u..:Jw:J
en en
f'..f'.. f'..
f'..cOcO f'..<O
cOll'ill'i <OcOll'i"<t
. . .f'.. . . . .
('I)"<t"<t ."<tI.O"<t('l)<O
. . .('1) . . . .
N('I)('I) ('I)"<t('l)N
~NN MN
. .
~ ~
..............."0"0"0
c:: c:: c:: Q) Q) ~
Q) Q) Q) ~ ~ .....
e>e>e>Q)Q)Q)
~~~~~~
www~~~
CD (J) Q)
E "0 (J) .r. "0 'C c::
ClS"Q) (J) (J) Q) Cl~
Z:.ElU:J~lU~
cenc,O:::>-:J
o.....~Q).....u..O"
EQ)(J)~Q)~.....
ro :J 'a.. ro 0 2
8s:~ens:~~
o >->
~
'C
.....
l3g
~ 'E
o .....
....I Q)
~~iu
:J "0
0.. ffi
en
.
~
f'..
.<0 f'..
f'.. <0. 1.0 cO
...t 1.0. ...t f'... Il'i
M "<t. M ('I). M
. ('I) . ~
~ . N N
N. .
. ~ ~
~
"0"0...................."0
ClClQ)Q) c::c:: c::c:: Q)
c::c::~~Q)Q)Q)Q) ~
:';::;:';::;Q)Q)ClClClClQ)
~~~~~~~~~
i:i:u.:J:Jwwww:J
en en (J)
.r.
a.
E
>-
Z
.!..
2~
~~
>- "0 -g
>-= Q) Q)
5-:~~
iu2"Oc::
lU c:: 0
ros:~o..
~..,+-(ij
~ffim~
.2 c,"Q) 5
"Q) lU e>.o
>-Li:lU,Q
....10:::
0'1
o
o
~
o
~
--
""'"
s
Q) t:
:J.r.lU_ 0
g (J) Q)"n; ~
,- 2 ~:t:: Q)
() "S 'a.. lU "0
.r. OJ en () -g
~ CD
lU
~
iii
Q)
~
lU
....I
~
c::
:J
o
U
Cl
c::
S2
<0
('I)
.....
J2 .ci (J) (J) - 0 a. a. (J) (J) .... .- 0 .0 Q) a..o "0 - (J)
Cl~OJ()WW-....I....I~zzzzo..o..o..enen~~
c::
'a..
a.
lU
~
t>
t
=
00
...
=
~
~
Cj
,.
...
~
=
=-
<
I,C
="
="
~
.....
c::
lU
0::
o
:.;::;
lU
:J
Jl
E
o
.t=
'C
(J)~
,! Q)
UE
&0
U) (J)
lU
1: 'c
"0 .!! ~
~ ~ ~
lU OJ
E
.....
.e
Q)
0:::
..
!'f')
~
::=
~
Eo-
(J)
" 'w
a.C::
ci(J)Q)
(J) ,~ -g
~ m ffi
lU n 0
.r. 0 lU
() Q) Q)
UJ-g
UJ
(J) (J)
:J :J
(J) ,~ lU a. ~ S ~ "~
2 ..... 'C ~ (J) lU ~ = ~ .::.
o ~ "~ E == ci 2 .g ~'a.. ~
~mm.2~(J).20lUQ)lU
"Oa.(J)-<+=~""'lUC::5~
16 .~ E ~a. ~ -.....Q) ~ ~ .9 ..... -
(J)Cl- '" a. Q)Q);i
.- -' 0 "-'- .r. _ Cl c::
a. ~ E ._ lU Z :J a. o'oJ' 0 Q)
,~ -g >. ~ Z Z E E E (5
-....I....I~ Z'~~o..
o 0
0..0..
"w lU
ci ~ =
(J) ~g
(J) 0.....
:J"O~
a.lUlU
.!:: Q) .r.
OlUa.
en ..... >.
'a.. ~
en
~
...(
......
~
~
~
......
9-
(J)
lU
'C
lU
"S
o
'C
:5
Noxious Aauatic Weeds in North Lake
The term "noxious weed" refers to those non-native plants that are legally defined by Washington's
Noxious Weed Control Law (RCW 17,10) as highly destructive, competitive, or difficult to control
once established. Noxious weeds have usually been introduced accidentally as a contaminant, or as
ornamentals. Non-native plants often do not have natural predators (i,e, herbivores, pathogens) or
strong competitors to control their numbers as they may have had in their home range. WAC 16.750
sets out three classes (A, B, C) of noxious weeds based on their distribution in the state, each class
having different control requirements. County Weed Boards are given some discretion as to setting
control priorities for Class B and C weeds,
Table 2 shows the 19 species found in the 1995 plant survey, including three listed noxious weed
species: Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), and yellow
flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), In 1995 Eurasian watermilfoil was not detected in the lake, However, in
the winter of 2004 North Lake residents discovered milfoil and upon surveying King County
confirmed milfoil has been introduced into the lake, Purple loosestrife, fragrant waterlily, yellow flag
iris and Eurasian water milfoil will be the focus of the plant management efforts on North Lake.
Purple loosestrife and milfoil are Class B Noxious weeds; Class B are required by law to be
controlled and contained, Fragrant waterlily and yellow flag iris are Class C Noxious Weeds; Class C
weeds are generally not required by law to be controlled and contained, but counties may designate a
Class C weed for control in their county or in certain areas of their county, Neither yellow flag iris
nor fragrant waterlily are required to be controlled in King County,
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)
Eurasian watermilfoil is native to Europe, Asia, and North Africa and also occurs in Greenland
(Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 1995). The oldest record of Eurasian watermilfoil
in Washington is from a 1965 herbarium specimen collected from Lake Meridian, King County. It
was first identified causing problems in the 1970s in Lake Washington and proceeded to move down
the 1-5 corridor, probably transported to new lakes on boats and trailers, Eurasian watermilfoil is
among the worst aquatic pests in North America, M spicatum is a submersed, perennial aquatic plant
with feather-like leaves. It usually has 12 to 16 leaflets (usually more than 14) on each leaf arranged
in whorls of 4 around the stem, Leaves near the surface may be reddish or brown. Sometimes there
are emergent flower stalks during the summers that have tiny emergent leaves. In western
Washington, Eurasian watermilfoil frequently over-winters in an evergreen form and may maintain
considerable winter biomass (K. Hamel, pers, comm,). This plant forms dense mats of vegetation just
below the water's surface, In the late summer and fall, the plants break into fragments with attached
roots that float with the currents, infesting new areas. Disturbed plants will also fragment at other
times of the year, A new plant can start from a tiny piece of a milfoil plant. M spicatum was not
previously thought to reproduce from seed in this region. However, aquatic plant experts are
beginning to think that milfoil seeds might be playing a bigger role in repopulating lakes than was
previously hoped (K. Hamel, pers, comm,), This is especially true if the lake dewaters. Milfoil starts
spring growth earlier than native aquatic plants, and thereby gets a "head start" on other plants,
Eurasian watermilfoil can degrade the ecological integrity of a water body in just a few growing
seasons,
Dense stands of milfoil crowd out native aquatic vegetation, which in turn alters predator-prey
relationships among fish and other aquatic animals. Eurasian watermilfoil can also reduce dissolved
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
23
oxygen - first by inhibiting water mixing in areas where it grows, and then as oxygen is consumed by
bacteria during decomposition of dead plant material. Decomposition of M spicatum also releases
phosphorus and nitrogen to the water that could increase algal growth, Further, dense mats of
Eurasian watermilfoil can increase water temperature by absorbing sunlight, raise the pH, and create
stagnant water mosquito breeding areas. Eurasian watermilfoil will negatively affect recreational
activities such as swimming, fishing, and boating. The dense beds of vegetation make swimming
dangerous, snag fish hooks on every cast, and inhibit boating by entangling propellers or paddles and
slowing the movement of boats across the water.
At North Lake, M spicatum is moderate to light in density, The infestation is still patchy with only a
few high-density milfoil stands. As of 2004, most of the patches are still moderate to low density, and
therefore are not yet causing enormous impacts. It is likely that the milfoil infestation will continue to
expand ifleft untreated, dramatically increasing negative impacts to the beneficial uses of North
Lake.
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
Purple loosestrife is native to Europe and Asia and was introduced through ship ballast water to the
Atlantic Coast in the mid-1800s (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 1997). In
Washington, purple loosestrife was first collected from the Seattle area in 1929 from Lake
Washington. Purple loosestrife is a perennial that can reach 9 feet tall with long spikes of magenta
flowers, The flowers usually have 6 petals, and the stems are squared-off. Purple loosestrife is
considered a facultative wetland (+) species (F ACW+), with a 67-99% probability of occurring in
wetlands as opposed to upland areas (Reed, 1988), Vigorous plants can produce over 2 million tiny,
lightweight seeds (120,000 per spike) that are easily spread by waterfowl and other animals
(Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 1997). Although a prolific seeder, purple
loosestrife can also spread through vegetative production by shoots and rhizomes as well as by root
fragmentation. It has a woody taproot with a fibrous root system that forms a dense mat, keeping
other plants from establishing in a space.
Purple loosestrife has colonized the shoreline of North Lake, This plant disrupts wetland ecosystems
by displacing native or beneficial plants and animals. Waterfowl, fur-bearing animals, and birds
vacate wetland habitat when native vegetation is displaced by purple loosestrife. Loss of native
vegetation results in decreased sources of food, nesting material, and shelter, Economic impacts are
high in agricultural communities when irrigation systems are clogged or when wet pastures are
unavailable for grazing, Purple loosestrife is aggressive and competitive, taking full advantage of
disturbance to natural wetland vegetation caused by anthropogenic alterations of the landscape. Seed
banks build for years since seeds may remain viable for up to 3 years. Monospecific stands are long-
lived in North America as compared to European stands, illustrating the competitive edge loosestrife
has over other plant species.
The Purple loosestrife on North Lake will need a combined approach to achieve adequate control. In
August 2002, approximately 200-300 beetles (Galerucella calmariensis) were released at the North
Lake boat launch and in July 2003, approximately 400-500 beetles were released at the boat launch,
No beetles have been released in 2004, It typically takes about five years to see any control from the
beetles, so the lack of visible beetle damage at this point is not unexpected (M, Walker, pers. comm,),
However, the beetles will not be sufficient in and of themselves, A portion of the lake is often shaded
and the beetles need sun to thrive, An integrated approach to controlling the purple loosestrife on
North Lake would be the most beneficial.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
24
Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata)
This species is native to the eastern half of North America (Washington State Noxious Weed Control
Board, 2001b), It was probably introduced into Washington during the Alaska Pacific Yukon
Exposition in Seattle in the late 1800's. It has often been introduced to ponds and lakes because of its
beautiful, large white or pink (occasionally light yellow), many-petaled flowers that float on the
water's surface, surrounded by large, round green leaves. The leaves are attached to flexible
underwater stalks rising from thick fleshy rhizomes, Adventitious roots attach the horizontal creeping
and branching rhizomes,
This aquatic perennial herb spreads aggressively, rooting in murky or silty sediments in water up to 7
feet deep, It prefers quiet waters such as ponds, lake margins and slow streams and will grow in a
wide range of pH, Shallow lakes are particularly vulnerable to being totally covered by fragrant
waterlilies, Waterlily spreads by seeds and by rhizome fragments. A planted rhizome will cover about
a 15-foot diameter circle in five years (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 2001b),
Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata) is quickly expanding its distribution on North Lake (W,
Honey, pers, comm.), When uncontrolled, this species tends to form dense mono specific stands that
can persist until senescence in the fall, Mats of these floating leaves prevent wind mixing and
extensive areas oflow oxygen can develop under the waterlily beds in the summer, Waterlilies can
restrict lakefront access and hinder swimming, boating, and other recreational activity, They may also
limit our native waterlily (Nuphar luteum) with which it overlaps in distribution. The fragrant
waterlily is still expanding in patches on North Lake, and so its future impacts are not clear. Some
patches have connected, limiting recreational activities such as boating, fishing, and swimming, Even
canoes can have great difficulty moving across dense floating mats of fragrant waterlily, not to
mention entanglement with propellers of boat motors,
Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus)
Yellow flag iris is native to mainland Europe, the British Isles, and the Mediterranean region of North
Africa (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 2001a), This plant was introduced widely as
a garden ornamental. It has also been used for erosion control. The earliest collection in Washington
is from Lake McMurray in Skagit County in 1948 (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board,
2001a). The yellow flowers are a distinguishing characteristic, but when not flowering it may be
confused with cattail (Typha sp.) or broad-fruited bur-reed (Sparganium eurycarpum).
Yellow flag iris is considered an obligate wetland species (DBL), with a >99% probability of
occurring in wetlands as opposed to upland areas (Reed, 1988), The plants produce large fruit
capsules and corky seeds in the late summer. Yellow flag iris spreads by rhizomes and seeds, Up to
several hundred flowering plants may be connected rhizomatously, Rhizome fragments can form new
plants. Yellow flag iris can spread by rhizome growth to form dense stands that can exclude even the
toughest of our native wetland species, such as cattail (Typha latifolia),
This noxious weed has already colonized the shoreline of North Lake. In addition to threatening to
lower plant diversity, this noxious weed can also alter hydrologic dynamics through sediment
accretion along the shoreline. This species produces prolific seed that could easily be transported
downstream to invade this valuable resource area,
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
25
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
This section outlines common methods used to control aquatic weeds. Much of the information in
this section is quoted directly from the Ecology's website:
http://www.ecy . wa.gov/r>rograms/w%lants/management/index.html
Additional information is derived from the field experience of the King County Noxious Weed
Control Program, in particular from Drew Kerr, Aquatic Noxious Weed Specialist and WSDA
licensed aquatic herbicide applicator, Recommendations found in the 2001 draft version of the "King
County Regional Milfoil Plan" have also been taken into consideration.
Control/eradication methods discussed herein include Aquatic Herbicide, Manual Methods, Bottom
Screens, Diver Dredging, Biological Control, Rotovation, Cutting, Harvesting, and Drawdown,
Aauatic Herbicides
Description of Method
http://www.ecy . wa. gov/orograms/w%lants/management/aqua028 ,html
Aquatic herbicides are chemicals specifically formulated for use in water to eradicate or control
aquatic plants. Herbicides approved for aquatic use by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EP A) have been reviewed and considered compatible with the aquatic environment when
used according to label directions, However, individual states may also impose additional constraints
on their use.
Aquatic herbicides are sprayed directly onto floating or emergent aquatic plants, or are applied to the
water in either a liquid or pellet form. Systemic herbicides are capable of killing the entire plant by
translocating from foliage or stems and killing the root. Contact herbicides cause the parts of the plant
in contact with the herbicide to die back, leaving the roots alive and capable of re-growth (chemical
mowing), Non-selective herbicides will generally affect all plants that they come in contact with,
both monocots and dicots, Selective herbicides will affect only some plants (usually dicots - broad
leafed plants like Eurasian watermilfoil will be affected by selective herbicides whereas monocots
like Brazilian elodea and our native pondweeds may not be affected),
Because of environmental risks from improper application, aquatic herbicide use in Washington State
waters is regulated and has certain restrictions, The Washington State Department of Agriculture
must license aquatic applicators. In addition, because of a March 2001 court decision (Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals), coverage under a discharge permit called a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit must be obtained before aquatic herbicides can be applied to
some waters of the U,S, This ruling, referred to as the Talent Irrigation District decision, has further
defined Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Ecology has developed a general NPDES permit which
is available for coverage under the Washington Department of Agriculture for the management of
noxious weeds growing in an aquatic situation and a separate general permit for nuisance aquatic
weeds (native plants) and algae control. For nuisance weeds (native species also referred to as
beneficial vegetation) and algae, applicators and the local sponsor of the project must obtain a
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
26
NPDES permit from the Washington Department of Ecology before applying herbicides to
Washington water bodies.
Although there are a number of EP A registered aquatic herbicides, the Department of Ecology
currently issues permits for seven aquatic herbicides (as of 2004 treatment season), Several other
herbicides are undergoing review and it is likely that other chemicals may be approved for use in
Washington in the future. As an example, Renovate@ (Triclopyr) has been approved by the U.S. EPA
for aquatic use in November 2002, making it the first aquatic herbicide to receive registration since
1988. Renovate@ was designed to be effective on both emergent and submersed plants,
The chemicals that are currently permitted for use in 2004 are:
Aquatic Herbicides (see Appendix for herbicide labels)
. Glyphosate - (Trade names for aquatic products with glyphosate as the active ingredient include
Rodeo@, AquaMaster@, and AquaPro@), This systemic broad-spectrum herbicide is used to control
floating-leaved plants like waterlilies and shoreline plants like purple loosestrife, It is generally
applied as a liquid to the leaves. Glyphosate does not work on underwater plants such as Eurasian
watermilfoil or hydrilla, Although glyphosate is a broad spectrum, non-selective herbicide, a good
applicator can somewhat selectively remove targeted plants by focusing the spray only on the
plants to be removed, Plants can take several weeks to die and a repeat application is often
necessary to remove plants that were missed during the first application.
. Fluridone - (Trade names for fluridone products include: Sonar@ and A vast!@), Fluridone is a
slow-acting systemic herbicide used to control Eurasian watermilfoil, hydrilla and other
underwater plants, It may be applied as a pellet or as a liquid, Fluridone can show good control of
submersed plants where there is little water movement and an extended time for the treatment, Its
use is most applicable to whole-lake or isolated bay treatments where dilution can be minimized,
It is not considered effective for spot treatments of areas less than five acres, It is slow acting and
may take six to twelve weeks before the dying plants fall to the sediment and decompose. When
used to manage Eurasian watermilfoil in Washington, fluridone is applied several times during
the spring/summer to maintain a low, but consistent concentration in the water. Although
fluridone is considered to be a broad-spectrum herbicide, when used at very low concentrations, it
can be used to selectively remove Eurasian watermilfoil. Some native aquatic plants, especially
pondweeds, are minimally affected by low concentrations of fluridone.
. 2,4-D - There are two formulations of2,4-D approved for aquatic use. The granular formulation
contains the low-volatile butoxy-ethyl-ester (BEE) formulation of2,4-D (Trade names include:
AquaKleen@ and Navigate@). The liquid formulation contains the dimethyl amine salt (DMA)of
2,4-D (Trade name - DMA *4IVM), 2,4-D is a relatively fast-acting, systemic, selective herbicide
used for the control of Eurasian watermilfoil and other broad-leaved species. Both the granular
and liquid formulations can be effective for spot treatment of Eurasian watermilfoil. 2,4-D has
been shown to be selective to Eurasian watermilfoil when used at the labeled rate, leaving native
aquatic species relatively unaffected. However, 2,4-D is not effective against hydrilla,
. Endothall - Dipotassium Salt - (Trade name Aquathol@) Endothall is a fast-acting non-
selective contact herbicide, which destroys the vegetative part of the plant but generally does not
kill the roots, Endothall may be applied in a granular or liquid form, Typically endothall
compounds are used primarily for short-term (one season) control of a variety of aquatic plants,
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
27
including hydrilla. However, there has been some recent research that indicates that when used in
low concentrations, endothall can be used to selectively remove exotic weeds; leaving some
native species unaffected, Because it is fast acting, endothall can be used to treat smaller areas
effectively. Endothall is not effective in controlling American waterweed (Elodea canadensis) or
Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa).
. Diquat - (Trade name Reward@), Diquat is a fast-acting non-selective contact herbicide that
destroys the vegetative part of the plant but does not kill the roots. It is applied as a liquid.
Typically diquat is used primarily for short-term (one season) control of a variety of submersed
aquatic plants, It is very fast acting and is suitable for spot treatment. However, turbid water or
dense algal blooms can interfere with its effectiveness. Diquat was allowed for use in Washington
in 2003 and Ecology will be collecting information about its efficacy against Brazilian elodea in
2003, It is effective in controlling hydrilla.
. Triclopyr - (Trade name Renovate3@), There are two formulations oftriclopyr. It is the
triethylamine salt (TEA) formation of triclopyr that is registered for use in aquatic or riparian
environments. Triclopyr, applied as a liquid, is a relatively fast-acting, systemic, selective
herbicide used for the control of Eurasian watermilfoil and other broad-leaved species such as
purple loosestrife. Triclopyr can be effective for spot treatment of Eurasian watermilfoil and is
relatively selective to Eurasian watermilfoil when used at the labeled rate. Many native aquatic
species are unaffected by triclopyr, Triclopyr is very useful for purple loosestrife control since
native grasses and sedges are unaffected by this herbicide, When applied directly to water,
Ecology has imposed a 12-hour swimming restriction to minimize eye irritation, Triclopyr
received its aquatic registration from EPA in 2003 and was allowed for use in Washington in
2004.
. Imazapyr - (Trade name Habitat@). This systemic broad spectrum herbicide, applied as a liquid,
is used to control emergent plants like spartina, reed canarygrass, and phragmites and floating-
leaved plants like waterlilies. Imazapyr does not work on ooderwater plants such as Eurasian
watermilfoil. Although imazapyr is a broad spectrum, non-selective herbicide, a good applicator
can somewhat selectively remove targeted plants by focusing the spray only on the plants to be
removed. Imazapyr was allowed for use in Washington in 2004,
Advantages
. Aquatic herbicide application can be less expensive than other aquatic plant control methods,
. Aquatic herbicides are easily applied around docks and underwater obstructions.
. 2,4-D DMA, 2,4-D BEE, and Triclopyr TEA have been shown to be effective in controlling
smaller infestations (not lake-wide) of Eurasian watermilfoil in Washington, and could also be
used on the purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris,
. Washington has had some success in eradicating Eurasian watermilfoil from some smaller lakes
(320 acres or less) using Sonar@,
. Glyphosate is the recommended chemical for fragrant waterlily control.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
28
Disadvantages
. Some herbicides have swimming, drinking, fishing, irrigation, and water use restrictions,
. Herbicide use may have unwanted impacts to people who use the water and to the environment,
. Non-targeted plants as well as nuisance plants may be controlled or killed by some herbicides,
. Depending on the herbicide used, it may take several days to weeks or several treatments during a
growing season before the herbicide controls or kills treated plants.
. Rapid-acting herbicides like Aquathol@ may cause low oxygen conditions to develop as plants
decompose, Low oxygen can cause fish kills,
. To be most effective, generally herbicides must be applied to rapidly growing plants,
. Some expertise in using herbicides is necessary in order to be successful and to avoid unwanted
impacts,
. Many people have strong feelings against using chemicals in water,
. Some cities or counties may have policies forbidding or discouraging the use of aquatic
herbicides,
Permits
A NPDES permit is needed, Both the noxious and nuisance NPDES permits require the development
of Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans (IA VMP) by the third year of chemical control
work. The requirement of monitoring of herbicide levels started in 2003, whether the chemical has
been applied directly to the water or along the shoreline where it may have gotten into the adjacent
surface water. For noxious weed control, the applicator must apply to the Washington Department of
Agriculture (Agriculture) for coverage under their NPDES permit each treatment season. There is no
permit or application fee to obtain NPDES coverage under Agriculture's permit for Noxious Weeds.
Since North Lake is in unincorporated King County, the King County Department of Development
and Environmental Services (DDES) will require a permit for application of herbicide in Sensitive
Areas to submergent, floating and emergent aquatic plants, This falls under their Clearing and
Grading Permit. A Shoreline Exemption Permit will also be required by DDES,
Costs
Approximate costs for one-acre herbicide treatment (costs will vary from site to site):
. Glyphosate: $250
. Fluridone: $900 to $1,000
. Endothall: $650
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
29
. 2,4-D: $600
. Diquat: $300 to $400
. Triclopyr: $1,000
Other Considerations
The focus of the discussion below are the active ingredients 2,4-D, Triclopyr and Glyphosate since
the Steering Committee, with input from the watershed-wide public meetings, have chosen these
chemicals as the best options for the start of the Integrated Treatment Strategy for North Lake. Since
fluridone (Sonar@) would have required a whole lake treatment and is very expensive per unit, it was
not chosen as a viable option and is not discussed in further detail. Although not the preferred method
of control, 2,4-D has been an effective tool in the past in Washington lakes and will be looked at as
an alternative in North Lakes integrated approach,
EPA studies yield the parameters LDso (acute lethal dose to 50% ofa test population), NOEL (No
Observable Effect Level, which is the highest test dosage causing no adverse responses), and RID
(EPA Reference Dose determined by applying at least a 100-fold uncertainty factor to the NOEL),
The EP A defines the RID as the level that a human could be exposed to daily with reasonable
certainty of no adverse effect from any cause, in other words, a "safe" dose, Exposures to bystanders
or consumers are deemed safe when the RID is not exceeded (Felsot, 1998), Since all substances,
natural or manmade, may prove toxic at a sufficiently high dose, one should remember the old adage
"dose makes the poison." The LDso value is useful for comparing one compound with another and for
grouping compounds into general hazard classes.
According to Felsot (1998), any pesticide, such as triclopyr, glyphosate or 2,4-D that does not
produce adverse effects on aquatic organisms until levels in water reach milligram per liter (i.e.,
mg/L, equivalent to a part per million, ppm) would be considered of comparatively low hazard,
Substances that are biologically active in water at levels one-thousand-fold less, (i.e., Ilg/L, parts per
billion, ppb), are considered highly hazardous to aquatic life. Most pesticides falling in the latter
category are insecticides rather than herbicides,
Also, compounds that have half-lives less than 100 days are considered non-persistent compared to
compounds having half-lives approaching one year or longer (for example, DDT). The half-life of
triclopyr in water ranges from one day to seven days, while 2,4-D is about 7 days in water and
glyphosate is about 12 days in water. Since there are multiple factors that modulate the pesticides'
hazard, just focusing on the half-life itself can be misleading for hazard assessment. It is now known
that the longer a residue remains in soil/sediment, the less likely it will be taken up by plants, leach,
or runoff (Felsot, 1998). This phenomenon is called residue aging and involves changes in the forces
governing interactions of the chemical with the soil matrix over time.
Triclopyr
There are minimal restrictions for aquatic triclopyr applications, Washington State Department of
Ecology has issued a 12-hour restriction on swimming to minimize the potential for eye irritation,
There is a 120-day restriction on using water treated with triclopyr for irrigation on sensitive plants
such as grapes and tomatoes. The alternative to waiting for 120 days is treated water can be used once
it is determined that the water has reached a non-detectable level by laboratory analysis. There is no
restriction for using treated water on established grasses.
4/30/2009
30
North Lake IA VMP
Animal health
Sensitive and environmentally relevant species such as the various salmon species have demonstrated
LCsos that range between 96 and 182 ppm acid equivalent (a,e.). These toxicity values place triclopyr
TEA in the US EP A's ecotoxicological categories of slightly toxic (LC50 = > 1 0 to 100 ppm) to
practically non-toxic (LCso = > 1 OOppm), There have been no verified cases of toxicity to fish when
triclopyr is used at the maximum use rate of 2.5 ppm a.e. In the field where triclopyr TEA was used
to control Eurasian watermilfoil, waterhyacinth, or purple loosestrife, no invertebrate mortality or
changes in invertebrate population structure was seen that could be attributed to the uses of triclopyr
TEA. Triclopyr acid is slightly toxic to birds when orally dosed or consumed in the diet. The
triethylamine salt is slightly toxic to practically non-toxic when orally dosed or consumed in the diet.
Reproduction of birds may be affected at levels greater than 100 ppm (Washington Department of
Ecology, 2004).
Triclopyr TEA appears to be safe for use in aquatic ecosystems, When expected environmental
concentrations (EEC) of triclopyr are compared with laboratory LCsos, the highest concentration that
may be encountered immediately after application (2,5 ppm a,e, for control of submerged weeds or
4.4 ppm a,e. for control of floating and emerged weeds in shallow water) may affect more sensitive
species. However, fish and non-mollusk species would not be harmed by these concentrations. The
most sensitive fish species is rainbow trout with a 96-hour LC50 of 82 ppm a.e, and the most
sensitive non-mollusk invertebrate is the red swamp crayfish with a 96-hour LCso of>103 ppm a.e,
Exposure to terrestrial wildlife occurs through two common routes, drinking water treated with
triclopyr and eating aquatic plants, fish, or other aquatic organisms from the treatment site, Based on
acute and chronic studies, triclopyr and its products used as aquatic herbicides do not pose a
significant acute or chronic risk to terrestrial mammals (WDOE, 2004),
Human health
The Reference Dose (RID), the amount oftriclopyr residuals that could be consumed daily over a
lifetime without adverse effects, was established at 0.05g mg/kg/day, based on the two generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats with a no observed effect level (NOEL) of 5,0 mg/kg/day, the
lowest dose tested, Concentrations of triclopyr in sites with short half-lives will typically fall below
the temporary drinking water tolerance within one to three days of application (WDOE, 2004),
The only health concerns for swimming are minor eye irritation and exposure to children
immediately after application. Due to dilution, the chances of overexposure are limited; a mandatory
waiting time after application before swimming is allowed, Exposure and risk calculations were
determined for hypothetical situations involving ingestion and dermal contact with treated water
while swimming and drinking potable water. Calculation of the exposures utilized the swimmer's
weight, the skin surface area available for exposure, the amount of time spent in the treated water
containing 2.5 and 0,5 ppm triclopyr, amount of water swallowed while swimming over specific time
periods, and the estimated human skin permeability coefficient. Risk analyses were completed for
various populations. The most sensitive population was found to be children who swim for three
hours and ingest water while swimming. A child would have to ingest 3.5 gallons oflake water where
triclopyr had been recently applied to cause risk factors to be exceeded. Based on specifications on
the label and the results of triclopyr toxicity studies, the aggregate or combined daily exposure to the
chemical does not pose an adverse health concern, The Washington Department of Health (WDOH)
has recommended a 12-hour restriction for reentry into treated water to assure that eye irritation
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
31
potential and any other adverse effects will not occur. WDOH also recommends that those wanting to
avoid all exposures can wait one to two weeks following application when the triclopyr residues have
dissipated from the water and sediments (WDOE 2004).
2,4-0
As far as restrictions for aquatic 2,4-D applications, there is no fishing restriction, and three to five
days after treatment the water is generally below the drinking water standard (70ppb, irrigation
standard is 100ppb for broad-leafed plants). Although 2,4-D should not damage grass or other
monocots, it is not recommended that one use treated water to water lawns during this first three to
five days since over-spray will kill ornamentals or plants such as tomatoes and grapes that are very
sensitive to 2,4-D. There is no swimming restriction for 2,4-D use. Ecology advises that swimmers
wait for 24 hours after application before swimming in the treatment area, but that is an advisory
only. The choice is up to the individual.
Human and Qeneral mammalian health
The oral LDso for 2,4-D (acid) is 764 mg/kg and the dermal LDso is >2000 mglkg, This chemical has
a low acute toxicity (from an LD50 standpoint, is less toxic than caffeine and slightly more toxic than
aspirin). The RID for 2,4-D (acid) is 0.01 mg/kg/d. Recent, state-of-the-art EPA studies continue to
find that it is not considered a carcinogen or mutagen, nor does it cause birth defects. It has a
relatively short persistence in water, since it tends to bind to organic matter in the sediments, The
herbicide 2,4-D generally does not bioaccumulate to a great extent, and the small amounts which do
accumulate are rapidly eliminated once exposure ceases (Washington State Department of Ecology,
2001b).
The risks to human health from exposure to aquatic 2,4-D applications were evaluated in terms of the
most likely forms of contact between humans and the water to which the herbicide was applied,
Ecology's Risk Assessment results indicate that 2,4-D should present little or no risk to the public
from acute (one time) exposures via dermal contact with the sediment, dermal contact with water
(swimming), or ingestion offish (Washington State Department of Ecology, 200lb). Based on the
low dermal absorption of the chemical, the dose of2,4-D received from skin contact with treated
water is not considered significant. Dose levels used in studies are often far beyond what an animal or
human would experience as a result of an aquatic application. Many experiments have examined the
potential for contact by the herbicide applicator, although these concentrations have little relevance to
environmental exposure by those not directly involved with the herbicide application, Once the
herbicide has entered the water, its concentration will quickly decline because of turbulence
associated mixing and dilution, volatilization, and degradation by sunlight and secondarily by
microorganisms (Felsot, 1998),
Results of chronic exposure assessments indicate that human health should not be adversely impacted
by chronic 2,4-D exposure via ingestion of fish, ingestion of surface water while swimming,
incidental ingestion of sediments, dermal contact with sediments, or dermal contact with water
(Washington State Department of Ecology, 200lb). Pharmacokinetic investigations have
demonstrated that 2,4-D is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and is quickly excreted,
Animal toxicological investigations carried out at high doses showed a reduction in the ability of the
kidneys to excrete the chemical, and resulted in some systemic toxicity, However, the high doses
tested may not be relevant to the typical low dose human exposures resulting from labeled use, A
review of the scientific and medical literature failed to provide any human case reports of systemic
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
32
toxicity or poisoning following overexposure to these herbicide products when used according to
label instructions (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001 b), The risks to mammalian pets
and wildlife should be closely related to these reported human risks, especially since many of the
toxicity experiments are carried out on test animals by necessity.
The potential hazard to pregnant women and to the reproductive health of both men and women was
evaluated. The results of the 2,4-D developmental or teratology (birth defects) and multigenerational
reproduction studies indicate that the chemical is not considered to be a reproductive hazard or cause
birth defects (teratogen) when administered below maternally toxic doses (Washington State
Department of Ecology, 2001b), A review of the histopathological sections of various 2,4-D
subchronic and chronic studies provides further support that the chemical does not affect the
reproductive organs, except in some higher dose groups beyond the potential level of incidental
exposure after an aquatic weed application.
Fish health
Based on laboratory data reported in the Department of Ecology's Risk Assessment of2,4-D, 2,4-D
DMA has a low acute toxicity to fish (LCso 2::100 to 524 mg a,i./L for the rainbow trout and bluegill
sunfish respectively). No Federally sensitive, threatened or endangered species were tested with 2,4-
D DMA, However, it is likely that endangered salmonids would not exhibit higher toxic effects to
2,4-D DMA than those seen in rainbow trout. Since the maximum use rate of2,4-D DMA would be
no higher than the maximum labeled use rate (4.8 mg a.i./L) even the most sensitive fish species
within the biota should not suffer adverse impacts from the effects of2,4-D DMA. In conclusion, 2,4-
D DMA will not effect fish or free-swimming invertebrate biota acutely or chronically when applied
at typical use rates of 1.36 to 4.8 mg a.i./L (Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 2001b). However,
more sensitive species of benthic invertebrates like glass shrimp may be affected by 2,4-D DMA, but
80 and 90% of the benthic species should be safe when exposed to 2,4-D DMA acutely or chronically
at rates recommended on the label. Field work indicates that 2,4-D has no significant adverse impacts
on fish, free-swimming invertebrates and benthic invertebrates, but well designed field studies are in
short supply.
According to the Department of Ecology's Risk Assessment of2,4-D, in the United States, 2,4-D
BEE is the most common herbicide used to control aquatic weeds. 2,4-D BEE, has a high laboratory
acute toxicity to fish (LCso = 0.3 to 5.6 mg a.i./L for rainbow trout fry and fathead minnow
fingerlings, respectively). Formal risk assessment indicates that short-term exposure to 2,4-D BEE
should cause adverse impact to fish since the risk quotient is above the acute level of concern of 0,0 1
(RQ = 0,1 ppm/O.3 ppm = 0.33). However, the low solubility of 2,4-D BEE and its rapid hydrolysis
to 2,4-D acid means fish are more likely to be exposed to the much less toxic 2,4-D acid. 2,4-D acid
has a toxicity similar to 2,4-D DMA to fish (LCso = 20 mg to 358 mg a.i./L for the common carp and
rainbow trout, respectively). In contrast, formal risk assessment with 2,4-D acid indicates that short-
term exposure to 2,4-D BEE should not cause adverse impact to fish since the risk quotient is below
the federal level of concern of 0,0 1 (RQ = 0.1 ppm/20 ppm = 0.005), To conclude, 2,4-D BEE will
have no significant impact on the animal biota acutely or chronically when using applied rates
recommended on the label (Washington State Dept, of Ecology, 2001b), Although laboratory data
indicates that 2,4-D BEE may be toxic to fish, free-swimming invertebrates and benthic invertebrates,
data indicates that its toxic potential is not realized under typical concentrations and conditions found
in the field. This lack of field toxicity is likely due to the low solubility of 2,4-D BEE and its rapid
hydrolysis to the practically non-toxic 2,4-D acid within a few hours to a day following the
application.
4/30/2009
33
North Lake IA VMP
Glyphosate
Examination of mammalian toxicity has shown that the acute oral and dermal toxicity of glyphosate
would fall into EPA's toxicity category III. This category characterizes slightly to moderately toxic
compounds. Glyphosate is practically nontoxic by ingestion, with a reported acute oral LDso of 5600
mg/kg in tested rats. The risks of incidental contact from swimming in treated water have also been
judged as low with a dermal LDso of 7940 mg/kg, a very high threshold, The RID for glyphosate is
0.1 mg/kg/d. To place the level of hazard to humans in perspective, the commonly consumed
chemicals caffeine (present in coffee, tea, and certain soft drinks), aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), and
nicotine (the neuroactive ingredient in tobacco) have acute oral LDso's of 192, 1683, and 53 mg/kg,
respectively. Thus, the herbicides for the most part are comparatively less toxic than chemicals to
which consumers voluntarily expose themselves (Fe1sot, 1998),
Since the shikimic acid pathway does not exist in animals, the acute toxicity of glyphosate is very
low. Animal studies, which the Environmental Protection Agency has evaluated in support of the
registration of glyphosate, can be used to make inferences relative to human health. The D,S, Forest
Service's glyphosate fact sheet reports that the EPA has concluded that glyphosate should be
classified as a compound with evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans (Information Ventures,
Inc,), This conclusion is based on the lack of convincing carcinogenicity evidence in adequate studies
in two animal species. Laboratory studies on glyphosate using pregnant rats (dose levels up to 3500
mg/kg per day) and rabbits (dose levels up to 350 mg/kg per day), indicated no evidence of teratology
(birth defects). A three-generation reproduction study in rats did not show any adverse effects on
fertility or reproduction at doses up to 30 mg/kg per day, Glyphosate was negative in all tests for
mutagenicity (the ability to cause genetic damage).
Technically, glyphosate acid is practically nontoxic to fish and may be slightly toxic to aquatic
invertebrates (EXTOXNET, 1996). Some formulations may be more toxic to fish and aquatic species
due to differences in toxicity between the salts and the parent acid, or to surfactants used in the
formulation. There is a very low potential for the compound to build up in the tissues of aquatic
invertebrates or other aquatic organisms. In water, glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to suspended
organic and mineral matter and is broken down primarily by microorganisms,
In relation to shoreline applications, glyphosate is moderately persistent in soil, with an estimated
average half-life of 47 days, It is strongly adsorbed to most soils, even those with lower organic and
clay content. Thus, even though it is highly soluble in water, field and laboratory studies show it does
not leach appreciably, and has low potential for runoff (except as adsorbed to colloidal matter), One
estimate indicated that less than 2% of the applied chemical is lost to runoff (Malik et. aI., 1989),
Microbes are primarily responsible for the breakdown of the product, and volatilization or
photodegradation losses will be negligible.
The manufacturer of Rodeo@, one of the aquatic formulations of glyphosate, recommends use of a
nonionic surfactant with all applications to improve efficacy. Of the approved surfactants for aquatic
use in Washington, only LI-700 (Loveland Industries, Inc.) may be used for fragrant waterlily control
and will therefore be applied directly to the water, Based on the results of searches of the published
literature and the Toxic Substances Control Act Test Submission (TSCATS) database, little data are
available regarding the toxicity of the surfactant formulations (Diamond & Durkin, 1997). The oral
LDso was >5000 and 5900 mg/kg in male and female rats, respectively, and the dermal LDso for a 24-
hour exposure was >5000 mg/kg in rabbits, These values are in the same range as glyphosate alone,
EP A's toxicity category III, which puts LI-700 in a category of lower risk to mammals.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
34
Suitability for North Lake
Aquatic herbicides can provide an effective method for control and eventual eradication of noxious
weeds. The use ofa formulation oftriclopyr or 2,4-D should provide excellent initial control of the
Eurasian watermilfoil while allowing for the more-appropriate spot treatments in this scattered
infestation, We should be able to avoid an expensive, lake-wide treatment with fluridone for control
of Eurasian watermilfoil.
The loose sediments in North Lake are high in organic content and are flocculent around much of the
lake's littoral zone, Triclopyr TEA and 2,4-D DMA would be applied in liquid formulation would be
applied in a liquid formulation, The 2,4-D DMA also carries with it the reduced acute toxicity
reported above, which could mitigate any potential harm to fish and their food web, Work in 2003
with 2,4-D DMA in Spring Lake resulted in excellent control of mil foil with no observed regrowth
(M, Murphy, pers. comm.). North Lake does not have anadromous salmonids because impassable
fish barriers exist along the Hylebos Creek system, Neither herbicide (Triclopyr or 2,4-D DMA)
should have any downstream effects since the rapid hydrolysis produces a chemical that is practically
non-toxic.
Glyphosate should be very effective on the other target species: purple loosestrife, fragrant waterlily,
and yellow flag iris. Westerdahl and Getsinger (1988) report excellent control of the fragrant
waterlily with glyphosate, Generally glyphosate is the recommended herbicide for waterlily control
because it can be applied directly to the floating leaves, unlike fluridone or endothall which must be
applied to the water. The application of glyphosate allows specific plants or areas of plants to be
targeted for removal. Generally two applications of glyphosate are needed. The second application
later in the summer controls the plants that were missed during the first herbicide application, The
control effectiveness of fragrant waterlily is easy to measure through visual surveys due to the
floating leaves.
Glyphosate should provide excellent systemic control of mature purple loosestrife plants and
seedlings. This herbicide is very effective on purple loosestrife and we can expect better than 70-80%
control on existing plants after Year 1, Seeds of purple loosestrife can remain viable for three years in
the laboratory, but may remain viable for a much shorter time in the natural environment
(Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 1997). Therefore, the existing mature plants and
seedbank may be exhausted within the time frame of the project. Finally, Glyphosate should also
provide excellent systemic control of yellow flag iris, This species has an abundant leaf surface area
to absorb the chemical for translocation to the rhizome. The use of a herbicide will enable the
elimination of the mature plants without potentially destructive disturbance of the shoreline by
excavation, Both triclopyr and 2,4-D used for milfoil control, may also be an effective alternative for
the purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris control efforts. However, this chemical is more expensive,
so an evaluation of the effectiveness of glyphosate on these species will determine whether a change
in herbicide would be beneficial.
One of the main reasons to eradicate milfoil and fragrant waterlily is to maintain the health of the
native aquatic plant community for all of the species that utilize them in their life cycles, as well as to
maintain the viability of the lake for human recreational uses. The nature of the control methods to be
implemented will minimize impacts to native aquatic vegetation, The control of the Eurasian
watermilfoil and fragrant waterlily will be conducted by methods designed to preserve (and
eventually enhance or conserve) the native plant communities, Herbicide selective to Eurasian
watermilfoil will be used for its control and will not require a whole-lake treatment that would expose
4/30/2009
35
North Lake IA VMP
all the submersed plants to the herbicide, The herbicide for the fragrant waterlily will be applied to
the floating leaves, and therefore should be easily focused to kill only the target vegetation, Follow-
up control methods (diver hand pulling and/or diver dredging) will focus specifically on these two
target species and should also leave beneficial plants intact. With these constraints in place,
conservation areas should not need to be established to serve vital ecosystem functions until native
plants re-establish, The application of herbicide to the emergent species (purple loosestrife and
yellow flag iris) will also be conducted by manual spot applications, An experienced herbicide
applicator can selectively target individual weed species and limit collateral damage to other species
to a minimum, This is especially true when infestations are small so that large areas with a diverse
plant distri"ution don't have to be treated. Emergent noxious weed infestations at North Lake are
wide spread in the lake but careful application of herbicide to the waterlilies should avoid collateral
damage and preserve the native plant community,
We do not anticipate any need to revegetate after controlling the milfoil and fragrant waterlily since
less than 25% of the lake is currently colonized with aquatic plants. In the terrestrial environment in
the Pacific Northwest, bare ground will often be colonized rapidly by invasive species, but this is not
usually a problem in lacustrine areas. A drawback of using herbicides is the "uplifting" of mats of
. decomposing waterlily roots that can form large floating islands in the waterbody after the herbicides
have killed the plants. The waterlilies are in large mono specific stands around the lake, These areas
could potentially generate floating sediment mats because of their size. Volunteers from the
community will remove any sediment mats created in these areas, for which we will need to get
Hydraulic Project Approval from WDFW. For smaller mats, we may tow them to shore and remove
the sediment with hand tools, Iflarger mats occur, we will have to investigate machinery mounted on
a barge to dig or dredge out the sediment mat.
Past community efforts at North Lake have used aquatic herbicides, so we do not anticipate
disagreement with this recommendation from the community, Initial support has been documented in
the form of signatures on a Letter of Support distributed after the second watershed-wide meeting on
June 28th, 2004, Prior to any activities on the lake, outreach materials will be sent to all watershed
residents informing them of the actions and appropriate contact information will be provided for any
questions or comments. The watershed residents will be notified prior to any treatments with the
anticipated treatment dates
Some residences on North Lake have water rights. To ensure that all residents who might draw water
from the lake are aware of water use restrictions, there will be announcements sent to all lakeside
residents prior to each herbicide treatment. One announcement will be sent at the beginning of the
summer with approximate dates of planned treatments, and subsequent announcements will be sent.7-
10 days prior to each treatment, with exact dates of treatment and use restrictions. The announcement
must let water right holders know who to contact should this interfere with their rights, The lake
group may have to provide alternate water sources to these people should they object to the treatment
Manual Methods
Hand-Pulling
Hand-pulling aquatic plants is similar to pulling weeds out of a garden. It involves removing entire
plants (leaves, stems, and roots) from the area of concern and disposing of them in an area away from
the shoreline, In water less than three feet deep no specialized equipment is required, although a
4/30/2009
36
North Lake IA VMP
spade, trowel, or long knife may be needed if the sediment is packed or heavy, In deeper water, hand
pulling is best accomplished by divers with SCUBA equipment and mesh bags for the collection of
plant fragments. Some sites may not be suitable for hand pulling such as areas where deep flocculent
sediments may cause a person hand pulling to sink deeply into the sediment.
Cutting
Cutting differs from hand pulling in that plants are cut and the roots are not removed. Cutting is
performed by standing on a dock or on shore and throwing a cutting tool out into the water. A non-
mechanical aquatic weed cutter is commercially available, Two single-sided, razor sharp stainless
steel blades forming a "V" shape are connected to a handle, which is tied to a long rope, The cutter
can be thrown about 20 - 30 feet into the water, As the cutter is pulled through the water, it cuts a 48-
inch wide swath. Cut plants rise to the surface where they can be removed, Washington State requires
that cut plants be removed from the water, The stainless steel blades that form the V are extremely
sharp and great care must be taken with this implement. It should be stored in a secure area where
children do not have access.
Raking
A sturdy rake makes a useful tool for removing aquatic plants, Attaching a rope to the rake allows
removal of a greater area of weeds, Raking literally tears plants from the sediment, breaking some
plants off and removing some roots as well. Specially designed aquatic plant rakes are available.
Rakes can be equipped with floats to allow easier plant and fragment collection. The operator should
pull towards the shore because a substantial amount of plant material can be collected in a short
distance.
Cleanup
All of the manual control methods create plant fragments, It's important to remove all fragments
from the water to prevent them from re-rooting or drifting onshore, Plants and fragments can be
composted or added directly to a garden,
Advantages
. Manual methods are easy to use around docks and swimming areas.
. The equipment is inexpensive.
. Hand-pulling allows the flexibility to remove undesirable aquatic plants while leaving desirable
plants.
. These methods are environmentally safe.
. Manual methods don't require expensive permits, and can be performed on aquatic noxious
weeds with Hydraulic Project Approval obtained by reading and following the pamphlet Aquatic
Plants and Fish (publication #APF-1-98) available from the Washington Department ofFish &
Wildlife
4/30/2009
37
North Lake IA VMP
Disadvantages
. As plants re-grow or fragments re-colonize the cleared area, the treatment may need to be
repeated several times each summer,
. Because these methods are labor intensive, they may not be practical for large areas or for thick
weed beds,
. Even with the best containment efforts, it is difficult to collect all plant fragments, leading to re-
colonization.
. Some plants, like waterlilies, which have massive rhizomes, are difficult to remove by hand
pulling.
. Pulling weeds and raking stirs up the sediment and makes it difficult to see remaining plants.
Sediment re-suspension can also increase nutrient levels in lake water,
. Hand pulling and raking impacts bottom-dwelling animals,
. The V -shaped cutting tool is extremely sharp and can be dangerous to use.
Permits
Permits are required for many types of manual projects in lakes and streams. The Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife requires a Hydraulic Project Approval permit for all activities
taking place in the water including hand pulling, raking, and cutting of aquatic plants,
Costs
. Hand-pulling costs up to $130 for the average waterfront lot for a hired commercial puller,
. A commercial grade weed cutter costs about $130 with accessories, A commercial rake costs
about $95 to $125. A homemade weed rake costs about $85 (asphalt rakeis about $75 and the
rope costs 35-75 cents per foot).
Other Considerations
The community may need to invest money into buying the equipment and operation. Manual methods
must include regular scheduled surveys to determine the extent ofthe remaining weeds and/or the
appearance of new plants after eradication has been attained. This is a large time investment by
lakeside residents,
Suitability for North Lake
Manual methods will be important in assisting in milfoil eradication, after the chemical control
methods have been evaluated for their effectiveness, At this point, diver hand-pulling should be
sufficient to remove all of the remaining Eurasian watermilfoil plants, Manual methods will also be
vital in combating new infestations of Eurasian watermilfoil in subsequent years, especially around
the boat launch, Based on the ways in which milfoil propagates, most manual methods are not
4/30/2009
38
North Lake IA VMP
appropriate for milfoil eradication, Several of the methods create plant fragments, which can spread
the milfoil throughout the lake. Manual methods have the potential for missing Eurasian watermilfoil
plants, especially after stirring up sediments.
Cutting can be used to control small areas of fragrant waterlily, especially those close to the
shoreline. Using this method out in the open water would require a stable boat (not canoe) and great
care not to injure oneself or another passenger, Since repeated cutting over several seasons may be
required to starve the roots, this would fit best as a supplement to other control methods,
Many landowners have already been manually removing their loosestrife for several seasons, This
does not kill the mature perennial plants, but does halt seed production and can contain the infestation
at current levels, If done repeatedly over several seasons it should starve the roots and kill the plants.
Manual removal of seedlings (pulling) of purple loosestrife is much easier than the removal of well-
rooted, mature plants. This technique can be used to exhaust the seed bank and supplement other
eradication efforts,
Manual efforts are much more difficult on yellow flag iris since the plants don't emerge from simple
stems that can be cut, and they arise from massive rhizomes inhibiting pulling or digging, There is a
large arnount of root mass associated with the iris in this area that would take a significant effort to
remove by excavation,
Diver Dredaina
Diver dredging (suction dredging) is a method whereby SCUBA divers use hoses attached to small
dredges (often dredges used by miners for mining gold from streams) to suck plant material from the
sediment. The purpose of diver dredging is to remove all parts of the plant including the roots. A
good operator can accurately remove target plants, like Eurasian watermilfoil, while leaving native
species untouched. The suction hose pumps the plant material and the sediments to the surface where
they are deposited into a screened basket. The water and sediment are returned back to the water
column (if the permit allows this), and the plant material is retained, The turbid water is generally
discharged to an area curtained off from the rest of the lake by a silt curtain, The plants are disposed
of on shore. Removal rates vary from approximately 0.25 acres per day to one acre per day depending
on plant density, sediment type, size oftearn, and diver efficiency, Diver dredging is more effective
in areas where softer sediment allows easy removal of the entire plants, although water turbidity is
increased with softer sediments, Harder sediment may require the use of a knife or tool to help loosen
sediment from around the roots. In very hard sediments, milfoil plants tend to break off leaving the
roots behind and defeating the purpose of diver dredging,
Diver dredging has been used in British Columbia, Washington, and Idaho to remove early
infestations of Eurasian watermilfoil. In a large-scale operation in western Washington, two years of
diver dredging reduced the population of milfoil by 80 percent (Silver Lake, Everett). Diver dredging
is less effective on plants where seeds, turions, or tubers remain in the sediments to sprout the next
growing season. For that reason, Eurasian watermilfoil is generally the target plant for removal
during diver dredging operations,
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
39
Advantages
. Diver dredging can be a very selective technique for removing pioneer colonies of Eurasian
watermilfoil.
. Divers can remove plants around docks and in other difficult to reach areas.
. Diver dredging can be used in situations where herbicide use is not an option for aquatic plant
management.
Disadvantages
. Diver dredging is very expensive,
. Dredging stirs up large amounts of sediment. This may lead to the release of nutrients or long-
buried toxic materials into the water column.
. Only the tops of plants growing in rocky or hard sediments may be removed, leaving a viable root
crown behind to initiate growth.
. In some states, acquisition of permits can take years,
Permits
Permits are required for many types of projects in lakes and streams. Diver dredging requires
Hydraulic Approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Check with your city or county for
any local requirements before proceeding with a diver-dredging project. Also diver dredging may
require a Section 404 permit from the V,S, Army Corps of Engineers.
Costs
Depending on the density of the plants, specific equipment used, number of divers and disposal
requirements, costs can range from a minimum of$I,500 to $2,000 per day,
Other Considerations
Could be good spot control method in subsequent years (coordinated with diver survey),
Suitability for North Lake
Diver dredging removes the plant in its entirety, It removes the biomass above the sediment as well
as the tubers in the sediment.
This option is best used for pioneering infestation and in soft sediments, Diver dredging could be
used after the initial herbicide applications to remove plants that were missed or unaffected by the
herbicide, The soft organic sediments in North Lake should make this method effective. However,
permit costs may warrant having this work done as diver hand pulling since the roots should be
largely removed from the loose sediments without the need for dredging, Diver dredging greatly
disturbs sediments and can affect nutrient concentrations and algal production in the lake (see
Disadvantages above), If other techniques of for removal are suitable, this should not be considered,
4/30/2009
40
North Lake IA VMP
Bottom Screens
A bottom screen or benthic barrier covers the sediment like a blanket, compressing aquatic plants
while reducing or blocking light. Materials such as burlap, plastics, perforated black Mylar, and
woven synthetics can all be used as bottom screens, Some people report success using pond liner
materials. There is also a commercial bottom screen fabric called Texel, a heavy, felt-like polyester
material, which is specifically designed for aquatic plant control.
An ideal bottom screen should be durable, heavier than water, reduce or block light, prevent plants
from growing into and under the fabric, be easy to install and maintain, and should readily allow
gases produced by rotting weeds to escape without "ballooning" the fabric upwards.
Even the most porous materials, such as window screen, will billow due to gas buildup, Therefore, it
is very important to anchor the bottom barrier securely to the bottom, Unsecured screens can create
navigation hazards and are dangerous to swimmers. Anchors must be effective in keeping the
material down and must be regularly checked, Natural materials such as rocks or sandbags are
preferred as anchors.
The duration of weed control depends on the rate that weeds can grow through or on top of the
bottom screen, the rate that new sediment is deposited on the barrier, and the durability and longevity
of the material. For example, burlap may rot within two years, plants can grow through window
screening material, and can grow on top of felt-like Texel fabric, Regular maintenance is essential
and can extend the life of most bottom barriers.
Bottom screens will control most aquatic plants, however freely-floating species such as the
bladderworts or coontail will not be controlled by bottom screens. Plants like Eurasian watermilfoil
will send out lateral surface shoots and may canopy over the area that has been screened giving less
than adequate control.
In addition to controlling nuisance weeds around docks and in swimming beaches, bottom screening
has become an important tool to help eradicate and contain early infestations of noxious weeds such
as Eurasian watermilfoil and Brazilian elodea. Pioneering colonies that are too extensive to be hand
pulled can sometimes be covered with bottom screening material. For these projects, we suggest
using burlap with rocks or burlap sandbags for anchors, By the time the material decomposes, the
milfoil patches will be dead as long as all plants were completely covered. Snohomish County staff
reported native aquatic plants colonizing burlap areas that covered pioneering patches of Eurasian
watermilfoil. When using this technique for Eurasian watermilfoil eradication projects, divers should
recheck the screen within a few weeks to make sure that all milfoil plants remain covered and that no
new fragments have taken root nearby.
Bottom screens can be installed by the homeowner or by a commercial plant control specialist,
Installation is easier in winter or early spring when plants have died back. In summer, cutting or hand
pulling the plants first will facilitate bottom screen installation. Research has shown that much more
gas is produced under bottom screens that are installed over the top of aquatic plants, The less plant
material that is present before installing the screen, the more successful the screen will be in staying
in place. Bottom screens may also be attached to frames rather than placed directly onto the sediment.
The frames may then be moved for control of a larger area,
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
41
Advantages
. Installation of a bottom screen creates an immediate open area of water,
. Bottom screens are easily installed around docks and in swimming areas,
. Properly installed bottom screens can control up to 100 percent of aquatic plants,
. Screen materials are readily available and can be installed by homeowners or by divers,
Disadvantages
. Because bottom screens reduce habitat by covering the sediment, they are suitable only for
localized control.
. For safety and performance reasons, bottom screens must be regularly inspected and maintained,
. Harvesters, rotovators, fishing gear, propeller backwash, or boat anchors may damage or dislodge
bottom screens,
. Improperly anchored bottom screens may create safety hazards for boaters and swimmers,
. Swimmers may be injured by poorly maintained anchors used to pin bottom screens to the
sediment.
. Some bottom screens are difficult to anchor on deep muck sediments.
. Bottom screens interfere with fish spawning and bottom-dwelling animals.
. Without regular maintenance aquatic plants may quickly colonize the bottom screen,
Permits
Bottom screening in Washington requires Hydraulic Project Approval. Local jurisdictions may
require shoreline permits.
Costs
Barrier materials cost $0,22 to $1.25 per square foot. The cost of some commercial barriers includes
an installation fee,
Commercial installation costs vary depending on sediment characteristics and type of bottom screen
selected. It costs up to about $750 to have 1,000 square feet of bottom screen installed, Maintenance
costs for a waterfront lot are about $120 each year,
Other Considerations
None
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
42
Suitability for North Lake
Bottom barriers have been used in other lakes to control aquatic plants, Without constant upkeep and
maintenance the long-term benefits of bottom barriers are minimal. Currently, infested areas are to
spread out to use a bottom barrier without becoming cost prohibitive, Most of the lake shore
residences have only small infestations and the bottom barrier would just reduce habitat by covering
the sediment.
Barriers could be effective at the boat ramp to prevent re-infestation after initial control, or in areas
that have dense milfoil and have shown resistance to the herbicide. Installing a bottom barrier at the
boat launch can provide these benefits. Since there is not a swimming beach at North Lake, the boat
launch seems the only appropriate place to install a bottom barrier to enhance the recreational
potential of the lake.
Bioloaical Control
General Overview
Many problematic aquatic plants in the western United States are non-indigenous species, Plants like
Eurasian watermilfoil, Brazilian elodea, and purple loosestrife have been introduced to North
America from other continents. Here they grow extremely aggressively, forming mono cultures that
exclude native aquatic plants and degrade fish and wildlife habitat. Yet, often these same species are
not aggressive or invasive in their native range. This may be in part because their populations are
kept under control by insects, diseases, or other factors not found in areas new to them,
The biological control of aquatic plants focuses on the selection and introduction of other organisms
that have an impact on the growth or reproduction of a target plant, usually from their native ranges.
Theoretically, by stocking an infested waterbody or wetland with these organisms, the target plant
can be controlled and native plants can recover,
Classic biological control uses control agents that are host specific. These organisms attack only the
species targeted for control. Generally these biocontrol agents are found in the native range of the
nuisance aquatic plants and, like the targeted plant, these biocontrol agents are also non-indigenous
species, With classic biological control an exotic species is introduced to control another exotic
species. However, extensive research must be conducted before release to ensure that biological
control agents are host specific and will not harm the environment in other ways, The authors of
Biological Control of Weeds -A World Catalogue of Agents and Their Target Weeds state that after
100 years of using biocontrol agents, there are only eight examples, world-wide, of damage to non-
target plants, "none of which has caused serious economic or environmental damage...".
Search for a classical biological control agent typically starts in the region of the world that is home
to the nuisance aquatic plant. Researchers collect and rear insects and/or pathogens that appear to
have an impact on the growth or reproduction of the target species, Those insects/pathogens that
appear to be generalists (feeding or impacting other aquatic plant species) are rejected as biological
control agents. Insects that impact the target species (or very closely related species) exclusively are
considered for release.
4/30/2009
43
North Lake IA VMP
Once collected, these insects are reared and tested for host specificity and other parameters, Only
extensively researched, host-specific organisms are cleared by the United States for release, It
generally takes a number of years of study and specific testing before a biological control agent is
approved,
Even with an approved host-specific bio-control agent, control can be difficult to achieve, Some
biological control organisms are very successful in controlling exotic species and others are of little
value, A number of factors come into play. It is sometimes difficult to establish reproducing
populations of a bio-control agent. The ease of collection of the biocontrol and placement on the
target species can also have a role in the effectiveness, Climate or other factors may prevent its
establishment, with some species not proving capable of over-wintering in their new setting.
Sometimes the bio-control insects become prey for native predator species, and sometimes the impact
of the insect on the target plant just isn't enough to control the growth and reproduction of the
specIes,
People who work in this field say that the more biological control species that you can put to work on
a problem plant, the better success you will have in controlling the targeted species. There are some
good examples where numerous biological control agents have had little effect on a targeted species,
and other examples where one bio-control agent was responsible for the complete control of a
problem species.
However, even when biological control works, a classic biological control agent generally does not
totally eliminate all target plants, A predator-prey cycle establishes where increasing predator
populations will reduce the targeted species, In response to decreased food supply (the target plant is
the sole food source for the predator), the predator species will decline, The target plant species
rebounds due to the decline of the predator species. The cycle continues with the predator populations
building in response to an increased food supply.
Although a successful biological control agent rarely eradicates a problem species, it can reduce
populations substantially, allowing native species to return, Used in an integrated approach with other
control techniques, biological agents can stress target plants making them more susceptible to other
control methods,
A number of exotic aquatic species have approved classic biological control agents available for
release in the US, These species include Hydrilla, water hyacinth, alligator weed, and purple
loosestrife,
In 1992 three beetles were released in Washington for purple loosestrife control. Their damaging
impact on purple loosestrife populations was evident in the Winchester Wasteway area of Grant
County in 1996, In 1998, 1999, and 2000, the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board
organized insect collection for state, local, and federal staff, Thousands of insects were collected and
distributed to purple loosestrife sites throughout the state and even the United States. The King
County Noxious Weed Control Program has placed Galerucella sp. from the Winchester Wasteway
on a number of purple loosestrife sites, including North Lake. North Lake was chosen because of a
high density of the target plant and the fact that other control methods were impractical. Large
numbers of purple loosestrife dominates the boat launch at North Lake and surrounding shoreline,
Chemical control was a much more expensive alternative and the beetle is showing success at being a
control tool. Three releases have been done at the North Lake boat launch, one in 2002 and two in
North Lake fA VMP
4/30/2009
44
2003. Approximately 800 beetles were released and have since been found in other areas of the lake,
In the summer of 2004, a homeowner along the north shore of the lake found the beetles on her stand
of purple loosestrife. However, if the beetles are not expected to rid the lakeshore of the purple
loosestrife, an integrated approach will be necessary to achieve eradication,
Another type of biological control uses general agents such as grass carp (see below) to manage
problem plants, Unlike classical bio-control agents, these fish are not host specific and will not target
specific species, Although grass carp do have food preferences, under some circumstances, they can
eliminate all submersed vegetation in a waterbody, Like classic biological control agents, grass carp
are exotic species and originate from Asia, In Washington, all grass carp must be certified sterile
before they can be imported into the state, There are many waterbodies in Washington (mostly
smaller sites) where grass carp are being used to control the growth of aquatic plants,
During the past decade a third type of control agent has emerged. In this case, a native insect that
feeds and reproduces on northern milfoil (Myriophyllum sibericum) which is native to North
America, was found to also utilize the non-native Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum).
Vermont government scientists first noticed that Eurasian watermilfoil had declined in some lakes
and brought this to the attention of researchers, It was discovered that a native watermilfoil weevil
(Euhrychiopsis lecontei) feeding on Eurasian watermilfoil caused the stems to collapse. Because
native milfoil has thicker stems than Eurasian watermilfoil, the mining activity of the larvae does not
cause it the same kind of damage. A number of declines of Eurasian watermilfoil have been
documented around the United States and researchers believe that weevils may be implicated in many
of these declines,
Several researchers around the United States (Vermont, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, & Washington)
have been working to determine the suitability of this insect as a bio-control agent, The University of
Washington conducted research into the suitability of the milfoil weevil for the biological control of
milfoil in Washington lakes and rivers. Surveys have shown that in Washington the weevil is found
more often in eastern Washington lakes and it seems to prefer more alkaline waters, However, it is
also present in cooler, wetter western Washington, The most likely candidates for use as biological
controls are discussed in the following section.
Grass Carp
http://www.ecy . wa.gov/orograms/w%lants/management/aqua024.html
The grass carp (Cteno pharynogodon), also known as the white amur, is a vegetarian fish native to
the Amur River in Asia, Because this fish feeds on aquatic plants, it can be used as a biological tool
to control nuisance aquatic plant growth, In some situations, sterile (triploid) grass carp may be
permitted for introduction into Washington waters.
Permits are most readily obtained if the lake or pond is privately owned, has no inlet or outlet, and
is fairly small, The objective of using grass carp to control aquatic plant growth is to end up with a
lake that has about 20 to 40 percent plant cover, not a lake devoid of plants. In practice, grass carp
often fail to control the plants, or in cases of overstocking, all the submersed plants are eliminated
from the waterbody.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
45
The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife determines the appropriate stocking rate for each
waterbody when they issue the grass carp-stocking permit. Stocking rates for Washington lakes
generally range from 9 to 25 eight- to eleven-inch fish per vegetated acre, This number will depend
on the amount and type of plants in the lake as well as spring and summer water temperatures. To
prevent stocked grass carp from migrating out of the lake and into streams and rivers, all inlets and
outlets to the pond or lake must be screened, For this reason, residents on waterbodies that support a
salmon or steelhead run are rarely allowed to stock grass carp into these systems,
Once grass carp are stocked in a lake, it may take from two to five years for them to control nuisance
plants, Survival rates of the fish will vary depending on factors like presence of otters, birds of prey,
or fish disease, A lake will probably need restocking about every ten years.
Success with grass carp in Washington has been varied, Sometimes the same stocking rate results in
no control, control, or even complete elimination of all underwater plants, Bonar et. AI. Found that
only 18 percent of98 Washington lakes stocked with grass carp at a median level of24 fish per
vegetated acre had aquatic plants controlled to an intermediate level. In 39 percent of the lakes, all
submersed plant species were eradicated, It has become the consensus among researchers and aquatic
plant managers around the country that grass carp are an all or nothing control option, They should be
stocked only in waterbodies where complete elimination of all submersed plant species can be
tolerated,
Grass carp exhibit definite food preferences and some aquatic plant species will be consumed more
readily than others. Pauley and Bonar performed experiments to evaluate the importance of 20 Pacific
Northwest aquatic plant species as food items for grass carp. Grass carp did not remove plants in a
preferred species-by-species sequence in multi-species plant communities. Instead they grazed
simultaneously on palatable plants of similar preference before gradually switching to less preferred
groups of plants. The relative preference of many plants was dependent upon what other plants were
associated with them. The relative preference rank for the 20 aquatic plants tested was as follows:
Potamogeton crispus (curly leafpondweed) = P. pectinatus (sago pondweed) > P. zosteriformes (flat-
stemmed pondweed) > Chara sp,(muskgrasses) = Elodea canadensis (American waterweed) = thin-
leaved pondweeds Potamogeton spp. > Egeria densa (Brazilian elodea) (large fish only) > P.
praelongus (white-stemmed pondweed) = Vallisneria americana (water celery) > Myriophyllum
spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil) > Ceratophyllum demersum (coontail) >Utricularia vulgaris
(bladderwort) > Polygonum amphibium (water smartweed) > P. natans (floating leaved pondweed) >
P. amplifolius (big leaf pondweed) > Brasenia schreberi (watershield) = Juncus sp.(rush) > Egeria
densa (Brazilian elodea) (fingerling fish only) > Nymphaea sp. (fragrant waterlily) > Typha sp.
(cattail) > Nuphar sp, (spatterdock),
Generally in Washington, grass carp do not consume emergent wetland vegetation or waterli1ies even
when the waterbody is heavily stocked or over stocked. A heavy stocking rate of triploid grass carp in
Chambers Lake, Thurston County resulted in the loss of most submersed species, whereas the
fragrant waterlilies, bog bean, and spatterdock remained at pre-stocking levels, A stocking of 83,000
triploid grass carp into Silver Lake Washington resulted in the total eradication of all submersed
species, including Eurasian watermilfoil, Brazilian elodea, and swollen bladderwort, However, the
extensive wetlands surrounding Silver Lake have generally remained intact. In southern states, grass
carp have been shown to consume some emergent vegetation (Washington State Department of
Ecology, 2002),
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
46
Grass carp stocked into Washington lakes must be certified disease free and sterile, Sterile fish, called
triploids because they have an extra chromosome, are created when the fish eggs are subjected to a
temperature or pressure shock. Fish are verified sterile by collecting and testing a blood sample,
Triploid fish have slightly larger blood cells and can be differentiated from diploid (fertile) fish by
this characteristic, Grass carp imported into Washington must be tested to ensure that they are sterile.
Because Washington does not allow fertile fish within the state, all grass carp are imported into
Washington from out of state locations, Most grass carp farms are located in the southern United
States where warmer weather allows for fast fish growth rates, Large shipments are transported in
special trucks and small shipments arrive via air,
Here are some facts about grass carp:
. Are only distantly related to the undesirable European carp, and share few of its habits.
. Generally live for at least ten years and possibly much longer in Washington State waters.
. Will grow rapidly and reach at least ten pounds. They have been known to reach 40 pounds in the
southern United States,
. Feed only on plants at the age they are stocked into Washington waters.
. Will not eat fish eggs, young fish or invertebrates, although baby grass carp are omnivorous.
. Feed from the top of the plant down so that mud is not stirred up. However, in ponds and lakes
where grass carp have eliminated all submersed vegetation the water becomes turbid, Hungry fish
will eat organic material out of the sediments.
. Have definite taste preferences. Plants like Eurasian milfoil and coontail are not preferred,
American waterweed and thin leaved pondweeds are preferred. Waterlilies are rarely consumed in
Washington waters.
. Are dormant during the winter, Intensive feeding starts when water temperatures reach 680 F.
. Prefer flowing water to still waters (original habitat is fluvial),
. Are difficult to recapture once released,
. They may not feed in swimming areas, docks, boating areas, or other sites where there is heavy
human activity.
Advantages
. Grass carp are inexpensive compared to some other control methods and offer long-term control,
but fish may need to be restocked at intervals.
. Grass carp offer a biological alternative to aquatic plant control.
4/30/2009
47
North Lake IA VMP
Disadvantages
. Depending on plant densities and types, it may take several years to achieve plant control using
grass carp and in many cases control may not occur.
. If the waterbody is overstocked, all submersed aquatic plants may be eliminated. Removing
excess fish is difficult and expensive,
. The type of plants grass carp prefer may also be those most important for habitat and for
waterfowl food,
. If not enough fish are stocked, less-favored plants, such as Eurasian milfoil, may take overthe
lake.
. Stocking grass carp may lead to algae blooms.
. All inlets and outlets to the lake or pond must be screened to prevent grass carp from escaping
into streams, rivers, or other lakes,
Permits
Stocking grass carp requires a fish-stocking permit from the Washington Department ofFish and
Wildlife, Also, if inlets or outlets need to be screened, an Hydraulic Project Approval application
must be completed for the screening project.
Costs
In quantities of 10,000 or more, 8 to 12 inch sterile grass carp can be purchased for about $5,00 each
for truck delivery. The cost of small air freighted orders will vary and is estimated at $8 to $10 per
fish.
Other Considerations
. Would not achieve immediate results - takes time and is not guaranteed to work.
. Community may have concerns with introduced species
. Potential damage to the native plant community of the lake, which could result in the
establishment of other aggressive plant species as pioneers
. Concerns from fishermen about grass carp
. Initial investment very expensive
. The introduction of grass carp has generally been discouraged by State agencies, especially in
systems like North Lake.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
48
Suitability for North Lake
Grass carp are not suitable for aquatic plant control in North Lake. The infestation of mil foil has not
reached a level where a bio-control such as grass carp would be necessary and the carp could remove
all the beneficial plants that support a healthy fish population, Without cover and the invertebrates
associated with beneficial native aquatic vegetation, the system would be degraded and some species
(invertebrates, fish, etc,) may be extirpated,
Watermilfoil Weevil
The following information and citations on the watermilfoil weevil are taken from the Washington
State Department of Ecology's website on Aquatic Plant Management.
htto:/ /www,ecy,wa,gov/programs/wq/plants/management/weeviI.html
The milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei, has been associated with declines of Eurasian
watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) in the United States (e.g. Illinois, Minnesota, Vermont, and
Wisconsin). Researchers in Vermont found that the milfoil weevil can negatively impact Eurasian
watermilfoil by suppressing the plants growth and reducing its buoyancy (Creed and Sheldon 1995).
In 1989, state biologists reported that Eurasian watermilfoil in Brownington Pond, Vermont had
declined from approximately 10 hectares (in 1986) to less than 0.5 hectares, Researchers from
Middlebury College, Vermont hypothesized that the milfoil weevil, which was present in
Brownington Pond, played a role in reducing Eurasian watermilfoil (Creed and Sheldon 1995).
During 1990 through 1992, researchers monitored the populations of Eurasian watermilfoil and the
milfoil weevil in Brownington Pond, They found that by 1991 Eurasian watermilfoil cover had
increased to approximately 2.5 hectares (approximately 55-65 g/m2) and then decreased to about 1
hectare (<15 g/m2) in 1992. Weevil abundance began increasing in 1990 and peaked in June of 1992,
where 3 - 4 weevils (adults and larvae) per stem were detected (Creed and Sheldon 1995), These
results supported the hypothesis that the milfoil weevil played a role in reducing Eurasian
watermilfoil in Brownington Pond,
Another documented example where a crash of Eurasian watermilfoil has been attributed to the
milfoil weevil is in Cenaiko Lake, Minnesota, Researchers from the University of Minnesota reported
a decline in the density of Eurasian watermilfoil from 123 g/m2 in July of 1996 to 14 g/m2 in
September of 1996. Eurasian watermilfoil remained below 5 g/m2 in 1997, then increased to 44 g/m2
in June and July of 1998 and declined again to 12 g/m2 in September of 1998 (Newman and Biesboer,
in press). In contrast, researchers found that weevil abundance in Cenaiko Lake was 1.6 weevils
(adults and larvae) per stem in July of 1996. Weevil abundance, however, decreased with declining
densities of Eurasian watermilfoil in 1996 and by September 1997 weevils were undetectable. In
September of 1998 weevil abundance had increased to >2 weevils per stem (Newman and Biesboer,
in press), Based on observations made by researchers in Vermont, Ohio and Wisconsin it seems that
having 2 weevils (or more) per stem is adequate to control Eurasian watermilfoiI. However, as
indicated by the study conducted in Cenaiko Lake, Minnesota, an abundance of 1,5 weevils per stem
may be sufficient in some cases (Newman and Biesboer, in press).
In Washington State, the milfoil weevil is present primarily in eastern Washington and occurs on
both Eurasian and northern watermilfoil (M sibiricum), the latter plant being native to the state
(Tamayo et. AI. 1999), During the summer of 1999, researchers from the University of Washington
determined the abundance of the milfoil weevil in 11 lakes in Washington. They found, that weevil
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
49
abundance ranged from undetectable levels to 0.3 weevils (adults and larvae) per stem. Fan Lake,
Pend Oreille County had the greatest density per stem of 0,6 weevils (adults, larvae and eggs per
stem). The weevils were present on northern watermilfoil. These abundance results are well below
the recommendations made by other researchers in Minnesota, Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin of
having at least 1,5 - 2,0 weevils per stem in order to control Eurasian watermilfoil.
To date, there have not been any documented declines of Eurasian watermilfoil in Washington State
that can be attributed to the milfoil weevil, although Creed speculated that declines of Eurasian
watermilfoil in Lake Osoyoos and the Okanogan River may have been caused by the milfoil weevil.
In Minnesota, Cenaiko Lake is the only lake in that state that has had a Eurasian watermilfoil crash
due to the weevil; other weevil lakes are yet to show declines in Eurasian watermilfoil.
Researchers in Minnesota have suggested that sunfish predation may be limiting weevil densities in
some lakes (Sutter and Newman 1997), The latter may be true for Washington State, as sunfish
populations are present in many lakes in the state, including those with weevils. In addition, other
environmental factors that may be keeping weevil populations in check in Washington, but have yet
to be studied, include over-wintering survival and habitat quality and quantity (Jester et. AI. 1997;
Tamayo et. AI., in press). Although the milfoil weevil shows potential as a biological control for
Eurasian watermilfoil more work is needed to determine which factors limit weevil densities and
what lakes are suitable candidates for weevil treatments in order to implement a cost and control
effective program,
Advantages
. Milfoil weevils offer a biological alternative to aquatic plant control.
. They may be cheaper than other control strategies,
. Biocontrols enable weed control in hard-to-access areas and can become self-supporting in some
systems.
. If they are capable of reaching a critical mass, biocontrols can decimate a weed population,
Disadvantages
. There are many uncertainties as to the effectiveness of this biocontrol in western Washington
waters,
. There have not been any documented declines of Eurasian watermilfoil in Washington State that
can be attributed to the milfoil weevil.
. Many of our lakes, including North Lake, have introduced sunfish populations that may predate
on the milfoil weevils,
. Bio-controls often don't eradicate the target plant species, and there would be population
fluctuations as the milfoil and weevil follow predator-prey cycles.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
50
Permits
The milfoil weevil is native to Washington and is present in a number oflakes and rivers, It is found
associated with both native northern milfoil and Eurasian watermilfoil. A company is selling milfoil
weevils commercially, However, to import these out-of-state weevils into Washington requires a
permit from the Washington Department of Agriculture, As of October 1, 2002 no permits have been
issued for Washington.
Costs
The costs for researchers to locate, culture, and test bio-control agents is high, Once approved for use,
insects can sell for $1,00 or more per insect. Sometimes it is possible to establish nurseries where
weed specialists can collect insects for reestablishment elsewhere,
Suitability for North Lake
Since the milfoil weevil is a new bio-control agent, it has not been released yet intentionally in
western Washington to control Eurasian watermilfoil. It is uncertain how effective the weevil will be
and whether populations per stem can be maintained at levels high enough to eradicate Eurasian
watermilfoil. Also, as with the grass carp, the infestation of milfoil in North Lake is not heavy
enough to warrant bio-control introduction when other methods are still available,
Rotovation. Harvestina. and Cuttina
Rotovation
Rotovators use underwater rototiller-like blades to uproot Eurasian watermilfoil plants, The rotating
blades churn seven to nine inches deep into the lake or river bottom to dislodge plant root crowns that
are generally buoyant. The plants and roots may then be removed from the water using a weed rake
attachment to the rototiller head or by harvester or manual collection,
Harvesting
Mechanical harvesters are large machines, which both cut and collect aquatic plants. Cut plants are
removed from the water by a conveyor belt system and stored on the harvester until disposal. A barge
may be stationed near the harvesting site for temporary plant storage or the harvester carries the cut
weeds to shore. The shore station equipment is usually a shore conveyor that mates to the harvester
and lifts the cut plants into a dump truck. Harvested weeds are disposed of in landfills, used as
compost, or in reclaiming spent gravel pits or similar sites.
Cutting
Mechanical weed cutters cut aquatic plants several feet below the water's surface, Unlike harvesting,
cut plants are not collected while the machinery operates,
Suitability for North Lake
None of these options are suitable for the level of infestation at North Lake. They are not eradication
tools, but rather are used to manage and control heavy, widespread infestations of aquatic weeds,
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
51
These processes create plant fragments, and therefore should not be used in systems where milfoil is
not already widespread. In a moderate infestation such as North Lake, these methods would probably
serve to spread and expand the infestation, According to Ecology, "There is little or no reduction in
plant density with mechanical harvesting," Since the aim of this project is to eliminate milfoil from
the system, these are not compatible control strategies, Harvesting and cutting do not remove root
systems, Rotovation would cause damage to the lake sediments and associated animals in a system
that does not already receive dredging for navigability.
o rawd own
Lowering the water level of a lake or reservoir can have a dramatic impact on some aquatic weed
problems. Water level drawdown can be used where there is a water control structure that allows the
managers of lakes or reservoirs to drop the water level in the waterbody for extended periods of time,
Water level drawdown often occurs regularly in reservoirs for power generation, flood control, or
irrigation; a side benefit being the control of some aquatic plant species. However, regular
drawdowns can also make it difficult to establish native aquatic plants for fish, wildlife, and
waterfowl habitat in some reservoirs,
Suitability for North lake
Drawdown is not a viable control strategy for North Lake, The outlet from North Lake has a
permanent weir with limited drawdown capacities, Not only would drawdown be difficult to achieve,
it would also cause significant damage to the ecosystem. The amount of drawdown required to
impact milfoil would dry out the littoral zone of the lake, This would damage native plants and
animals in the lake and have many negative consequences for residents living around the lake,
Without a surface inflow to the system, returning the water level to a previous state would be both
cost and time prohibitive.
Nutrient Reduction
Nutrient Reduction Alternative
At lakes in watersheds with identifiable sources of excess nutrients, a program to reduce nutrients
entering the lake could possibly be an effective method of controlling aquatic vegetation, Sources of
excessive nutrients might include failing septic tanks, other accidental or planned wastewater
effluent, or runoff from agricultural lands, If nutrient reduction were enacted as the primary method
of weed control, extensive research would be necessary to determine the current nutrient budget for
the lake and surrounding watershed, whether nutrient reduction would result in milfoil reduction, and
to identify and mitigate the natural and human-mediated nutrient sources,
Suitability for North lake
Nutrient reduction is not an appropriate control measure for the following reasons:
. It is not an eradication method.
. There is no evidence that there is significant point-source nutrient loading at North Lake.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
52
. There is no evidence that reducing nutrient loads to the water column would impact milfoil
growth.
However, all lake groups should strive to reduce nutrient loading to their lake by practicing and
implementing Best Management Practices,
No Action Alternative
One option for managing aquatic weeds in North Lake is to let aquatic weeds continue to grow, and
do nothing to control them. This "no action" alternative would acknowledge the presence of the
aquatic weeds but would not outline any management plan or enact any planned control efforts,
Effectively, a no action determination would preclude any integrated treatment and/or control effort,
placing the choice and responsibility of aquatic weed control with lakefront property owners,
Suitability for North Lake
The milfoil infestation is currently light to moderate in density; unless control measures are enacted,
it is likely to increase each growing season in the future until the entire littoral zone of the lake is
dominated by milfoil. Based on results of informal surveys by residents and King County staff, the
infestations of milfoil, purple loosestrife, and fragrant waterlily have greatly increased since the last
comprehensive plant survey in 1995 (King County, 1996), If there is no control effort, it is likely that
weed infestations will continue to grow, making North Lake a prime source of mil foil fragments for
other nearby lakes with public access and boat launch facilities, as well as a potential source of seed
spread by purple loosestrife, Even if some of the residents chose to control the aquatic weeds near
their properties, pockets of milfoil would remain, The surviving plants would fragment each autumn,
spreading to other areas of the lake, including those that were treated by residents. The no action
alternative is not preferred by members of the North Lake community, Weyerhaeuser, or the King
County Department of Natural Resources and Parks.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
53
INTEGRATED TREATMENT PLAN
North Lake and its associated shoreline contain four listed noxious weed species that should have
control measures implemented to halt the spread of their invasions and reverse the degradation
currently occurring. The four target species are the Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum),
fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and yellow flag iris
(Iris pseudacorus), Although all four species at North Lake are highly aggressive and are difficult to
control/eradicate, we believe that the goal of eradication is reasonable for all of them, and we can be
successful within the time frame of the project.
Eurasian watermilfoil (MvrioDhvllum sDicatuml
Year 1
Initial control of Eurasian watermilfoil will be accomplished using an aquatic formulation of
Triclopyr TEA (Renovate3 @) in late May to early June over approximately 10 acres of milfoil-
infested area as estimated in 2004 by King County Lake Stewardship and Noxious Weed staff
(depending on court decisions and award money or 2,4-D (DMA*4IVM@, Aquakleen@ or
Navigate@) could be used), The contractor should survey the entire lake with divers using a GPS and
marking all the points that need treatment. The areas are marked on the water's surface with buoys
and then the application is performed from a boat using trailing hoses to disperse the herbicide
underwater. Due to the nature of the sediments in North Lake (as described in Aquatic Plant Control
Alternatives), Triclopyr TEA is the preferred formulation, Eradication of Eurasian watermilfoil is the
end goal. A follow-up application in Year I, about three weeks after the first, may be applied to pick
up missed plants or late emergents. Only 2.5 mg/L of the herbicide is allowed to be applied during
the growing season in the treatment area, We will plan for a maximum of 25% of the original area of
10 acres to need the second treatment. Diver hand-pulling (or diver dredging) will clean up any
remaining milfoil found after both herbicide applications have had time to take effect (Le, two to
three weeks after the second herbicide treatment).
A bottom barrier will be installed at the boat launch in the winter of Year I to ensure eradication in
the vicinity, and to aid in preventing new introductions, Community education efforts will be
continued, including training in milfoil identification and survey methods. There will also be an
increase in the signage at the boat launch.
The NPDES permit coverage from WSDA requires notification and posting of the waterbody, and
these specific protocols will be followed. The NPDES permit also requires monitoring of the
herbicide levels in the lake after treatment. Independent samples will be collected at the time of the
application and again five days post treatment. A baseline sample will also be taken before the
application, especially since Water Quality experts at Ecology report heightened levels of2,4-D in
our surface waters due to runoff after heavy storm events (K. Hamel, pers, comm,) One sample is
taken from within the treatment area, and one from outside, These four samples (per application) will
be sent to an independent, Ecology-accredited laboratory for the analysis, As more of these samples
need to be analyzed to meet NPDES requirements, some companies may get an ELIZA test
accredited through Ecology which will be less expensive. As the permit stands in 2003, this
procedure will be performed each year an application for milfoil is conducted, Surveys after the
initial application are essential to determining the success of the effort, and will be used to determine
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
54
what measures need to be implemented to complete the milfoil control for Year 1 (and subsequent
years),
Problems may arise if the same firm that conducted the herbicide application also surveys for the
success ofthe effort. We plan to hire a separate, independent firm to conduct these surveys to
overcome this potential problem, Volunteers from the North Lake community will be directly
involved with overseeing the implementation of control work to keep the contractors accountable,
Year 2
Year 2 will begin with diver surveys of the lake to check the status of the infestation, Spot herbicide
treatment with tric10pyr (Renovate3@) or 2,4-D (DMA *4IVM@, Aquakleen@ or Navigate@) will
begin in late May to early June over an estimated maximum of 50% of the original milfoil infested
area (max. six acres). Obviously, if the diver surveys find greater than six acres need to be treated, the
real infestation size will be accommodated, At this point we will have a sense as to whether the
herbicide has eliminated a significant amount of the Eurasian watermilfoil, or whether it has seemed
to become less effective,
After the first herbicide application in Year 2, we will conduct the first diver hand-pulling/ diver
dredging about three to four weeks after the herbicide treatment, We plan for a maximum of25% of
the original area (or three acres) to need the first manual removal. We will follow this with a second
survey in August with diver hand-pulling! dredging as needed, At this point, we hope that less than
10% of the original area (or one acre) will be involved, Annual maintenance of the bottom barrier at
the boat launch will consist of removal of rooted plants and sediment accumulations, as well as
securing the barrier to the bottom to ensure safety and effectiveness. Continued community education
will complete our Eurasian watermilfoil efforts for Year 2.
Year 3
Year 3 will again begin with diver surveys of the lake to assess the milfoil distribution. Ifherbicide is
needed we will stay with the original active ingredient for the herbicide treatment in Year 3. We
project that no more than an acre total of Eurasian watermilfoil will need this treatment. We will then
use diver hand-pulling/ diver dredging as necessary if individual plants are discovered in our mid-
summer survey, Annual maintenance of the bottom barrier at the boat launch and continued
community education will complete our Eurasian watermilfoil efforts for Year 3.
In Years 4-7 (and beyond), diver and surface surveys will occur at least twice during the growing
season. Because permits for herbicide applications must be acquired far in advance, we plan to rely
on diver hand-pulling as the control method. If at any point we find that we are losing ground on
eradication efforts, we will apply for the appropriate permits and perform spot applications with
herbicide. We will need to continue the bottom barrier maintenance annually.
There should be no need to revegetate the areas of Eurasian watermilfoil after treatment. Most of the
native submersed species are monocots (Potamogeton sp.) that should be relatively unaffected by
either the Tric10pyr or 2,4-D application. Removing the noxious invaders will halt the degradation of
the system and allow the dynamic natural equilibrium to be maintained.
4/30/2009
55
North Lake IA VMP
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) may be eliminated by this outlined integrated
approach. Two herbicide applications per season in the first year(s), followed by manual methods,
should ensure that no milfoil plants survive. Once the established plants are eradicated, and follow up
surveys have verified their absence for several seasons, potential reintroduction will be a remaining
challenge, Any areas that dewater will be checked for milfoil seedlings, Since North Lake does not
currently have prolific plant growth, milfoil plants should be found easily and manual control
methods should prove more effective than in a lake with dense beds of native vegetation,
Fraarant waterlilv (NvmDhaea odorataJ
Year 1
Control efforts on the fragrant waterlily began in the summer of 2004 with Glyphosate. 10 acres of
the lake was treated, The intensity of control will be equal across the entire lake, with eradication as
the end goal. Triclopyr and 2,4-D may have some effect on fragrant waterlily since it is also a broad-
leafed plant and there is some overlap in the distribution of these plants in North Lake, However, 2,4-
D is reported as not being very effective on this species (K. Hamel, pers, comm.), At the same time as
the second herbicide application for the Eurasian watermilfoil in Year 1, we will use Glyphosate
(Rodeo@ or Aquamaster@) on the fragrant waterlilies around the lake to continue control. In addition
to posting requirements, the NPDES permit requires monitoring of the glyphosate levels in the lake
after treatment. Independent samples will be collected about one hour after the application and again
24 hours post treatment. One sample is taken from within the treatment area, and one from outside.
These four samples (per application) will be sent to an independent, Ecology-accredited laboratory
for the analysis. A follow up treatment may be done in the later summer of 2004 to insure control
over the fragrant waterlily population. It is not likely that the lilies will be eradicated by year 1.
Year 2
Year 2 will likely include another glyphosate application, Since milfoil will be treated with herbicide,
we may get some control on the waterlilies from the triclopyr application. However, since triclopyr
will be applied in spot applications to milfoil, there may be less and less overlap between milfoil and
fragrant waterlily, In either case, a glyphosate application will be performed when floating leaves
have formed on the waterlily (approximately the same time as Year 1). One glyphosate application is
planned in Year 2 and will be followed by cutting and removing any plants not killed by the
herbicide. This manual control will be performed by the end of the summer before the plants set seed,
Year 3
In future years, we may need to eliminate returning plants or new infestations, We have planned for a
"final" herbicide application in Year 3 as a contingency, Cutting will be used to control small areas of
waterlily. If the level ofwaterlily infestation again gets to the point where manual control is no longer
feasible, we will plan for an herbicide application the following summer. This lead-time is required to
get the necessary permits. The native waterlily (Nuphar luteum) is well represented in the south end
of the lake where much of the fragrant waterlily is currently found and is likely to expand its
distribution, The selective nature of spot applications of Glyphosate should minimize impacts to non-
target vegetation, and may allow the native waterlily to rebound or expand.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
56
Purple loosestrife (Lvthrum salicaria)
North Lake was chosen for Galerucella calmariensis, a biological control, release because of a high
density of the target plant and the fact that other control methods were impractical. Large numbers of
purple loosestrife dominates the boat launch at North Lake and surrounding shoreline. Chemical
control was a much more expensive alternative and the beetle has proven to be a successful
management tool. Three releases have been done at the North Lake boat launch, one in 2002 and two
in 2003, Approximately 800 beetles were released and have since been found in other areas of the
lake, According to the King County Noxious Weed specialist, Monica Walker, beetles alone are not
sufficient to eradicate the purple loosestrife. An integrated approach will be necessary for eradication
to be successful.
One glyphosate application per year is planned for Years 1-3, Glyphosate will be wicked on to each
plant, taking care that no other native, desirable plants receive the herbicide treatment, Plants will be
rechecked 1 month after herbicide application, and any that have produced flowers will be manually
controlled before they set seed. These plants will be cut at the base and disposed of as garbage.
Guidance will be provided to residential landowners as to which native plants or non-aggressive
exotics would serve well to perform the desired functions of buffer vegetation along their shorelines,
Some landowners are concerned with aesthetic elements and would like to replace the beautiful floral
display of purple loosestrife, whereas others have ecological concerns about buffering a waterbody
with wetland vegetation to help maintain the health of the system. Part of the community education
process will be bringing these two different views together to establish more natural landscapes on
the residential parcels around the lake, and develop sustainable, noxious-weed-free systems. Purple
loosestrife has decreased slightly due to four years of manual and biological control methods,
Yellow flaa iris (lr;s IlseudacorusJ
Control efforts on the yellow flag iris will focus on the entire shoreline, We plan to use a treatment
with glyphosate (Rodeo@ or Aquamaster@), which should be done at the same time as the purple
loosestrife and fragrant waterlily control. We plan to make one herbicide application in each of the
first 3 years.
Control efforts around the remainder of the lake will be accomplished through educational outreach,
We will begin by asking residents to continue taking seed heads off the plants in late summer before
they expand the infestation. We will also encourage landowners to start digging out the individual
plants on their shoreline. Caution must be taken when working the yellow flag iris as the plant sap is
poisonous and can cause severe blistering and irritation, if ingested it can cause vomiting and
diarrhea, Gloves and care must be used when working with this plant. Permission from all of the
individual landowners will be necessary before any herbicide work can proceed on their land, These
efforts will be ongoing, Suggestions will be provided to residential landowners as to native plants or
non-aggressive exotics that would serve well to perform the desired functions of buffer vegetation
along their shorelines,
4/30/2009
57
North Lake IA VMP
Table 3 outlines the tasks and estimated costs of implementation on an annual basis. Implementation
of the North Lake IA VMP will span at least seven years, at a total estimated cost of$58,272, The
majority of the costs accrue in the first several years, which is the period of most aggressive
treatment. Beyond that, costs are directed at detecting and controlling re-introduction of noxious
aquatic plant species.
Table 4: Budget with use of Triclopyr
Task
Totals
Grand Total
2,000.00
13,900.00
2,925.00
7,900.00
23,040.00
2,540.00
5,000.00
1,750.00
8,500.00
$67,555.00
$5,923.63
$6,731.40
$80,210.03
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
58
Table 5: Project budget with use of 2,4-D
Task
Lily
Treatment
Herbicide (2,
D)
Emergent
Weed
Treatment
Diver Surve
Diver Dredgel
hand pull
Boat launch
bottom
barrier
Printing
Costs
Totals
Grand Total
2,000.00
13,659.00
2,925.00
7,900.00
23,040.00
2,540.00
5,000.00
1,750.00
8,500.00
$67,314.00
$5,791.63
$6,581.40
$79,687.03
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
59
Sources of F
There are several
Grants
The Washington
This IA VMP wa
relatively low-Ie
potential for infe
offer funding. Ot
Resources Stew
Dedicated non
The King Count
projects. While t
project in the firs
Community-B
There is a propo
estimated at $50,
improve lake an
five years of the
lake.
If funds raised b
forming a Lake
from all watersh
the lake. Money
the lake and wat
to pursue a LMD
Matching Fun
Table 6 shows th
match and cash
Table 6:
Total PI'\
75% of to
Required
North Lake IA VMP
undina
likely sources of funding available for project implementation:
State Department of Ecology has an Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (A WMF),
s developed to be consistent with all A WMF guidelines and requirements, Given the
vel infestation, outstanding ecological value of North Lake and its watershed, and the
station of neighboring lakes, it is hoped that Ecology and other grant programs will
her possible funding sources include King County's WaterWorks and the Natural
ardship Network.
-grant funds from King County
y Noxious Weed Program has limited funds available to contribute to weed control
his can not be considered an ongoing source of funding, $1000 is promised to the
t year of implementation.
ased Funding
sal before the North Lake Improvement Club to begin collecting annual contributions
with the additional revenue to be dedicated to projects and programs designed to
d watershed conditions. This could generate several thousand dollars over the first
project. Noxious aquatic weed management currently tops the list of threats to the
y requesting contributions prove insufficient, community members have discussed
Management District (LMD), If implemented, a LMD would collect an annual fee
ed property owners, Fees would be weighted based on property size and proximity to
collected through a LMD must be dedicated to addressing specific problems facing
ershed. This IA VMP will provide some guidance should watershed residents choose
ds
e matching requirements outlined by Ecology's A WMF and the estimated in-kind
match provided by King County and the North Lake Community,
Total Matching Funds (triclopyr)
o'ect cost = $80,210.03
Budgeted Match % ofTotal
tal project
match
$60,157.52
$20,052.51
Budgeted in-kind match
Budgeted cash match $
Ecology $ after match
$13,825.00
6,450.40
$59,934.63
17.2%
8.0%
74.7%
4/30/2009
60
Table 7: Total Matching Funds (2,4-D)
Total Project cost = $ 79,687,03
Budgeted %ofTotal
75% of total project $59,765.27
Required match $19,921.76 $ 13,825.00 17.3%
$ 6,450.40 8.1%
Ecology $ after match $59,411.63 74.6%
Table 8: In-kind Matching Funds
Item Cost Units Unitsf year Years Notes Total
Volunteer hours $ 15.00 per hour 135 5 8-10 very active $10,125.00
community members. -2
certified divers on lake.
Time estimates indude
boat surveys, diver
training, bottom barrier
maintenance, steering
committee meetings,ID
workshops, educational
flyer development.
Educational Materials $ 500.00 per year 1 5 Community member $ 2,500.00
Development and time spent developing
Presentation materials and presenting
materials to youth
groups and other
organizations
Boat rental $ 40.00 per day 6 5 $ 1,200.00
Total est. in-kind
match $13,825.00
Table 9: Cash Matching Funds
Item Cost Units Unitsf year Years Notes Total
Community self-tax $ 500.00 per year 1 5 Based on $ 2,500.00
im plementation of one or
more community-based
funding strategies
outlined in IAVMP. Will be
assessed annually into
future (indefinitely).
KC DNRP Noxious Weed $ 1,000.00 per year 1 1 Dedicated cost share $ 1,000.00
Control Program Cost Share funds from Noxious
Weed Control Prooram
Grants $ 1,000.00 per year 1 2 Estimate based on likely $ 2,000.00
sources.
KC Staff - Aquatic Noxious $31.68 per hour 10 3 See below for salary and $ 950.40
Weed Specialist burden rates as of 2003.
Total est. cash match $ 6,450,40
4/30/2009
61
North Lake IA VMP
Table 10: KC Staff Salary and Burden Rates
Position
Environmental Scientist
Water Quality Planner
Aquatic Weed Specialist
Hourly Rate
$ 27.16
$ 25.29
$ 18.70
Table 11: Federal Way Staff and Benefit Rates
Position
Smith
Russel
Donald
Hourly Rate
$ 35.00
$ 22.70
$ 30.27
Hourly
Burdened
Rate
$43.40
$28,83
$ 38,14
Hourly Burdened
Rate
$46,01
$42,84
$31,68
North Lake fA VMP
62
4/30/2009
The implementation of the plan will follow the process outlined below:
1. Convene a project Implementation Committee. Many Steering Committee members
have indicated their willingness to transition into this role,
2. Review proposed plan and develop timeline with specific tasks. The IA VMP will
guide this process.
3. Assign tasks to Implementation Committee members.
4. Issue a Request for Proposals for weed survey and control work.
5. Secure necessary permits. Permit application will be coordinated with the contracted
applicator.
6. Implement community education plan.
7. Apply herbicide treatment. Application will be completed as prescribed in IA VMP,
unless consultation with Ecology and the applicator leads to defensible changes in the
plan.
8. Conduct follow-up surveys. Professional contractors and community members who have
received adequate training can complete this work, with community participation under
supervision of King County staff.
9. Apply follow-up herbicide treatment if necessary. Follow-up surveys will determine
the extent to which this work is necessary.
10. Conduct diver surveys and hand-pulling as necessary. Professional contractors and
community members who have received adequate training can complete this work, with
community participation under supervision of King County staff,
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
63
BIBUOGRAeI:IV
Aiken, S, G., P.R Newroth, and I. Wile, 1979, The biology of Canadian weeds. 34, Myriophyllum
spicatum L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 59:201-215, Cited in Sheldon and Creed, 1995,
Beavers, Tom, July 2004, Personal communication, White River Basin Steward, King County
Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, W A.
Carlson, RE. 1977. A trophic state indexfor lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 22:361- 368,
Cleary, Julie. July 2004. E-mail correspondence, Resident of North Lake, King County, W A.
Creed, RP" Jr" and S.P. Sheldon, 1995, Weevils and watermilfoil: Did a North American herbivore
cause the decline of an exotic weed? Ecological Applications 5(4): 1113-1121.
Diamond, Gary L. and Patrick R, Durkin, 1997, Effects of Surf act ants on the Toxicity of Glyph os ate,
with Specific Reference to RODEO. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), SERA TR
97-206-1b,
Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET), 1996, Pesticide Information Profiles: Glyphosate.
Oregon State University, Retrieved August 14,2002. Available online at: http://ace.orst.edu/cgi-
bin/mfs/O 1 /pips/ glvphosa.htm
Felsot, Allan S, 1998. Hazard Assessment of Herbicides Recommended for Use by the King County
Noxious Weed Control Program. Prepared for the Utilities and Natural Resources Committee of the
Metropolitan King County Council. Available online at:
http://dill.metrokc.gov/wlr/lands/weeds/herbicid.htm
Friends of Hylebos Creek, 2004, The Hylebos Watershed Webpage. Available online at:
http://www.hylebos.org/watershed/index.htm
Hamel, Kathy, September 2002- February 2003. Personal communication, Aquatic Plant Specialist,
Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, W A.
Honey, Wendy, June 2004, Personal communication, Resident of North Lake community. King
County, W A.
Information Ventures, Inc, 1995. Pesticide Fact Sheet: Glyphosate. Prepared for U,S, Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. Available online at: http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pestcide/glyphos.html
Jackson, Chad, October 2002. Personal Communication, Area Fish Biologist, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, W A.
King County, 1991, Draft Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan. Surface Water
Management Division,
King County, 1996. Aquatic Plant Mappingfor 36 King County Lakes. Surface Water Management
Division,
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
64
King County, 2001. King County Lake Water Quality: A Trend Report on King County Small Lakes.
Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Lake Stewardship Program.
King County, 2003. Data from King County's Lake Stewardship Volunteer Monitoring Program,
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks,
Malik, J., G. Barry, and G. Kishore, 1989, Mini-review: The herbicide glyphosate, BioFactors, 2(1):
1725,1989.10-100
Reed, P, 1988, National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest Region 9. U,S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88 (26,9),
Richter, K.O. and A.L. Azous, 200la. Amphibian Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use in:
Wetlands and Urbanization: Implicationfor the Future, Azous, A.L. and R.R. Homer (eds), Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, 338 pp.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1973, Soil Survey King County
Area Washington, U,S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C,
Walker, Monica, August 2004. E-mail correspondence, Noxious Weed Specialist, King County
Noxious Weed Group, Seattle, W A,
Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001a, An Aquatic Plant Identification Manualfor
Washington's Freshwater Plants. 195pp.
Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001b, Herbicide Risk Assessmentfor the Aquatic Plant
Management Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Appendix C - Volume 3: 2,4-D).
Available online at: http://www.ecv.wa.gov/pubs/0010043.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology, 2002, Aquatic Plant Management website. Retrieved July
25,2002. Available online at: http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/managementlindex,html
Washington State Department of Ecology, 2004. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
Permitted use of Tric1opyr. 115pp. Available online at: http://www,ecy,wa.gov/biblio/0410018.html
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 1995. Eurasian watermilfoil. In: Written Findings.
Available online at: http://www.nwcb.wa,gov/weed info/milfoi1.html
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 2001, Iris pseudacorus. In: Written Findings,
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 1997. Lythrum salicaria. In: Written Findings,
Available online at: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed info/ploosestrife,html
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 2001b, Nymphaea odorata. In: Written Findings,
Westerdahl, H.E, and K.D. Getsinger (eds), 1988. Aquatic Plant Identification and Herbicide Use
Guide; Volume I: Aquatic Herbicides and Application Equipment. Technical Report A-88-9, US
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, TAS.
North Lake IA VMP
4/30/2009
65
APPENDIX A
Appendix A documents the public involvement process during the development of the North
Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Managernent Plan, Throughout this process, the Steering
Committee made decisions based on input from and interactions with the wider community.
Documents contained herein relate to planning and implementation of outreach and education
activities including steering committee meeting agendas, meeting notes, flyers, and handouts.
Documents appear in their original form, and have not been edited after the fact to reflect
subsequent decisions or changes in the proposed project. As such, there are spelling and
grammar errors, and varied document formats,
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
A-I
3-17-04
North Lake Steering Committee meeting
Attendees: Julie Cleary, Tom Jovanovich, Wendy Honey, Debra Hansen, Mark Braverman representing
Weyerhaeuser and Beth Cullen representing The King County Lake Stewardship Program (2 hour meeting)
Notes:
. Need to apply State Grant for Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan
. State Grant can sustain for a couple of years
. Beth Cullen would be the project manager including handling funds
. Weyerhaeuser has a permit for treating the Lilly pads for 2004 and plans to do treatment end of May
. Look at Spring Lake model at htto://dnr.metrokc.gov
. Watershed Grant for $2000 available on-line
o Identify scope of work (Wendy to talk to Dr. Whitworth of Whitworth Pest Solutions)
o Receiving this grant would help in getting the State grant
o First step is to partner with Weyerhaeuser, community and King County
o Need to chip in $$
o Ken Pritchard is grant coordinator
o Need to get this in quickly after April 5 meeting
. Application for State Grant needs to be completed before October
o Kathy Hammil in charge of State Grants
o Possibility of up to $50,000
o Again look at Spring Lake process
. We agreed to try to get the lakeside residents to the monthly board meeting on April 5. Wendy to
contact Lois (NLlC Secretary) about possibility.
. HP A needed to pull out Lilies, Milfoil by hand. HP A free from King County
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
A-2
4/01/04
North Lake Steering Committee
Attendees: Debra Hanson, Wendy Honey, Julie Cleary (90 minute meeting)
Meeting for April 5th with North Lake Community
. How will we know if we have been successful with this meeting?
o Vote of support and address concems
. What do we need to do in preparation for this meeting?
o Distribute flyers
o Coffee/tea
o Set up club house
o What else?
· Sign in sheet with Name/ Address/Phone/email
. What do we want to accomplish?
o Community support and education
. Who is going to give an explanation of what we are trying to do and introduce Beth Cullen as a
speaker?
o Wendy Honey, Steering Committee Chairperson
. Introduce Steering Committee members
. Explain that we are starting a 7-10year community maintenance to control our
communities noxious and invasive weed/plant problem
. Introduce Beth Cullen to speak on educating community on noxious and invasive
weed/plant
. Small Change Grant Writing
o Handouts provided by King County
o Who is going to do what by when?
· Questions were assigned to Steering Committee members to draft and complete by
4/07/04 (Wednesday)
A-3
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
PLEASE JOIN US!!
North Lakeside residents, we need your help in returning North Lake to a
Clean, recreational lake to live and play on. Milfoil, Lilly pads and Purple
Loosestrife are threatening the health of our lake, We need to take action,
Please join us for a discussion and direction setting
Date:
Where:
Time:
Speaker:
April 5
North Lake Improvement Club
7:15pm
Beth Cullen from King County Lake Stewardship Program
We have an opportunity to participate in clean up by using the permit
Weyerhaeuser has obtained to address the Lilly problem in May of 2004 and the
possibility of a grant from King County, Your participation in direction setting
is critical to a successful clean up.
North Lake Steering Committee
Julie Cleary (253)874-9138
Debra Hansen (253)927-7789
Wendy Honey (253)952-5283
Tom Jovanovich (253)874-8239
A-4
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
4/05/04
Speakers Notes (Wendy Honey) (attended by 31 residents including steering committee members 90 minute
meeting)
Thank neighbors for attending and support (include those not able to attend)
Introduce Steering Committee: Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Tom Jovanovich, Wendy Honey
Brief overview:
· Began last year with conversations ofthe lily pads. Many neighbors have noticed and commented on
increased lake weeds over the years.
· Invited Beth Cullen and Katie Sauter Messick to talk with the North Lake Improvement Club Board
members about weed control and funding options through grants
· Our goal is to begin eradication of the non-native lily pads. Begin this process this spring. Count grant
application for this process may be available. Cost is approximately $1500.00 in conjunction with
Weyerhaeuser. Cost saving to begin now is $1050.00 ($250.00 per acre savings on treatment and
shared permit)
· Long term goal is to request a grant through the State Department of Ecology and develop an Integrated
Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan for our lake. 7-10 year process. This will result in controlling
other noxious weeds such as the Milfoil, Purple Loosestrife, and Yellow Flag Iris.
· Approximately 50 lakeside neighbors contacted over the weekend. 30 (100%) that we were able to
speak with gave their support
o Support may come in the form of: Financial assistance
Volunteer time
· Introduce Beth Cullen, Water Quality Planner I Lake Stewardship Program, King County Water and
Land Resources (206)263-6242 / beth.cullen@metrokc.gov
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
A-5
Discussion Items:
Next Steps:
Community Feedback:
Grant Process:
Task Delegation:
Dan Smith, City of Federal Way:
North Lake Steering Committee
Wednesday May 5, 2004
North Lake lA VMP - Appendix A
A-6
North Lake Steering Committee
Wednesday May 5, 2004
Attendees: Wendy Honey, Julie Cleary, Tom Jovanovich, Chuck Gibson, Beth Cullen
(6:30pm-8:30pm 2 hour meeting)
Discussion Items:
The goal of the committee is to eradicate milfoil, lilies, loosestrife and iris. The first few years ofthe
management plan will focus on herbicide treatments but begin to add diver surveys and resident monitoring to
the plan
Next Steps:
Start aggressive eradication. Consider $20,000 a year for first couple of years for herbicide treatments.
3-4 years for control of non-native water lilieslPurple Loosestrife/Milfoil
Educational grant may be available. Could we utilize the Boy Scouts for volunteers?
2nd stage-monitoring / hand pulling
We need to consider obtaining at least: 10% cash matching / 5% volunteer matching
Community Feedback:
All feedback from 4/05/2004 meeting positive and all committee members report positive feedback. No
objections to the program mentioned.
Grant Process:
The King County grant to piggy-back on the lily control should be awarded by min-May
Weyerhaeuser is waiting to hear about that grant before the contract begins
IA VMP Grant available $60,000-$75,000
Due by October
DOE grant contact: Kathy Hammil
Neighboring Lakes Geneva, Killamey, and 5 mile have same problems with non-native and noxious
weeds/plants
Initial control of non-native water lilies will probably need 2 treatments of RODEO to be effective
Need to develop letter of support and receive signatures for grant application
Task Delegation:
. Link for IA VMP
. Draft budget
. Community history-importance of North Lake to its residence, history of weeds, and previous
treatments
. Write Problem Statement-safety of waters, spreading to neighboring lakes, Goal is to eradiate non-
native and noxious weeds and reintroduce native plants. Include undeveloped lake area in King County
. Keep sign in sheets/agendas/time logs
Other contacts:
Dan Smith, City of Federal Way:
Public Works, Surface Water
Lake Management District.
Discussion on weeds: results of King County dive survey:
Native water lilies-shaped like ace of spades and stand up on waters surface. There are not many patches of
these on North Lake. More fragrant non-native lilies
Eurasian Milfoil-big puffY-leaflets-fluorescent bright. Northern is native-darker/olive green. Milfoil is
everywhere in the lake. Early season for milfoil probably due to weather conditions
Native Pond weed.
Important Notes:
Removing the lilies may increase milfoil. Lilies shade milfoil from sunlight/growth
HP A Hydraulic Permit Approval is needed for hand pulling of weeds
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
A-7
Monetary matches with Weyerhaeuser for match and budget timing. Weyerhaeuser may continue funding lake
management
Next meetings:
Steering Committee May 24th
Steering Committee June-14th with Beth Cullen
Watershed meeting June 28th
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
A-8
5/24/04
Steering Committee Meeting
Attendees: Wendy Honey, Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Tom Jovanovich, Chuck Gibson
(6:30pm-8:00pm 90 minutes)
. Discuss planning and assign problem statement and lake history.
. Who are our contact?
o Long time residents
Objective to have draft completed by next meeting. All committee members assigned a section to write.
Circulate by email and each committee member will review and provide feedback.
Next meeting:
June 14th with Steering Committee members and Beth Cullen
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
A-9
6/28/2004 Meeting Agenda
Welcome-Neighbors
Guests-
Detrich and Glenda Jones, North Lake Residents
Beth Cullen, Water Quality Planner, Lake Stewardship Program
King County Water and Land Resources
Mark Braverman, Site Forestry Manager for Weyerhaeuser
Belinda Bowman, General Manager, Whitworth Pest Solutions
Dan Smith, City of Federal Way
Introduce Committee Members: Wendy Honey, Debra Hanson, Julie Cleary, Tom Jovanovich, Chuck Gibson
Objective: To update the community on the Small Change Grant, water lil1y eradication efforts currently taking
place, and introduce IA VMP - Speaker Wendy Honey
Small Change for a Big Difference Grant from King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks: .
North Lake Photo presentation:
Whitworth Pest Solutions: update on 6/17 spray of Fragrant Water Lilies: Belinda Bowman
Introduce IA VMP, Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan:
IA VMP PowerPoint presentation: Beth Cullen
Open floor for discussion and questions.
Close meeting / Collect Letter of Support from each household attending
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
10
A-
6/28/2004 Meeting Agenda
(Speaker Notes: Wendy Honey)
Welcome-Neighbors
Guests-
Dietrich and Glenda Jones, North Lake Residents
Beth Cullen, Water Quality Planner, Lake Stewardship Program
King County Water and Land Resources
Mark Braverman, Site Forestry Manager for Weyerhaeuser
Belinda Bowman, General Manager, Whitworth Pest Solutions
Dan Smith, City of Federal Way
Introduce Committee Members: Wendy Honey, Debra Hanson, Julie Cleary,
Unable to attend: Tom Jovanovich, Chuck Gibson
Objective: To update the community on the Small Change Grant, water lily eradication efforts currently taking
place, and introduce IA VMP - Speaker Wendy Honey
In June we received approval on the Small Change for a Big Difference Grant from King County Department of
Natural Resources and Parks. This grant was for $2000.00 and allowed funding for the first stage of fragrant
water lily eradication that took place on June 17, and 18th.
This first stage seems to be a successful start as many of the fragrant water lilies are beginning to die. As this
continues to happen, they may sink to the bottom and it is possible that some masses ofthem may rise and float.
If they float onto your shoreline and it is more thank you can handle for cleaning up to recycle or compost,
please contact a member ofthe Steering Committee and we will organize a work party to assist. We may need
follow-up treatments as we get into the later summer months. In order to schedule future funding of this project,
we need to determine the financial support. There is approximately $360.00 left from the grant funds, and we
would need to ask residents to assist in funding. We can still use the Weyerhaeuser permit for future treatments,
even if they are not in conjunction. It is important to mention that the Native Lilies were not sprayed as part of
the eradication. The contractor was very careful not to spray these lilies and they will remain as part of the
native habitat.
North Lake PowerPoint presentation: Wendy Honey, photos ofthe lake during the water lily eradication efforts
June 16t\ June li\ and June 24th.
Whitworth Pest Solutions: update on 6/17 spmy of Fragrant Water Lilies: Belinda Bowman
Our next step: Introduce IA VMP, Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan: The grant application the
Steering Committee is currently dmfting. This grant is from the State Department of Ecology. The due date for
the grant application is October 2004 for funding eradication project to begin in 2005. (Include request for
matching funds both in kind and monetary) We are considering the first 3 years to be the most costly and are
hoping to receive $100.00 per household in order to meet our match funds. We do need ongoing financial
support from the homeowners as at some point, when funding has run out, we will be self funding to keep our
lake free of the weeds that today infest the shoreline and water surface. We also receive credit for in kind
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
II
A-
matches oftime such as monitoring progress. To date the Steering committee has dedicated in excess of 100
hours to these projects. If you are working with any Steering Committee member on any project efforts, it is
important that all time is logged for credit
IA VMP PowerPoint presentation: Beth Cullen
Open floor for discussion and questions.
Close meeting with thanks and support / Collect Letter of Support from each household attending
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
12
A-
7/26/04
Steering Committee Meeting Agenda
Attendees: Tom Jovanovich, Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Chuck Gibson, Wendy Honey, Beth Cullen
. Informational discussion on herbicides to consider:
o Approximately 3-5 acres of mil foil
o 24D-higher toxicity-not for use in Salmon bearing streams Approx. Cost $600.00 per acre
o Triclopere-less toxic-new approved approx. cost $1000.00 per acre-spot treat shallows
o Map out Eurasian milfoil
o Glysophate considered for Purple Loosestrife and yellow flag iris
o Consider herbicide treatments matched with diver hand pulling
o Discuss fabric barrier at the boat launch. Annual housekeeping
o Need to set up lake patrol
. Discuss further work on IA VMP application
o How are we doing? On target!
. Update on lake management fund
o Need to get this account established. It was determined to request $50.00 from each lakeside
resident. Ifwe are able to collect 80% that would cover this year's expenses as well as a seed
account for next year.
. Discuss next RODEO application
o To be applied by Whitworth Pest Solutions end of Aug or by Mid September. Approx. const
$750.00 plus tax
. Other items as needed:
o Continue drafting IA VMP and working on application.
o Get account established through NLlC treasurer, Simone
. Next meeting after the first of September.
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
13
A-
9/02/04
Steering Committee Meeting
Attendees: Wendy Honey, Debra Hansen, Julie Cleary, Chuck Gibson
(6:30pm-8:00pm 90minutes)
Items to discuss:
. Review our notes/comments on the draft IA VMP
. Review and discuss the application document (Wendy is still working on this)
o Draft answers and discuss format to use
. Review the attachments for the IA VMP
o Letter of support and signatures
o Meeting agendas and notes
o Correspondence from the Dept. ofPisheries (Larry T. is to be mailing this to Wendy)
regarding Rotenone restoration of North Lake in 1950's-1970's
o Community feedback (ANY?)
Non reported
Next step is to forward completed draft to Beth Cullen at King County with completed application, attachments,
and disc of pictures of North Lake, history, and 2004 lily eradication progress. This will be sent by 9/04/2004.
Next meeting to be determined
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A
14
A-
APPENDIX B
Appendix B contains a copy of the Letter of Support distributed at the watershed-wide
community meeting. Prior to distributing the letter and the signature sheets at the end of the
watershed-wide meeting on June 28, 2004, King County staff and the Steering Committee
members presented full details of the proposed treatment strategy and answered questions
from those present at the meeting. In addition to signatures of support gathered at the end of
the meeting, several Steering Committee members took sheets with them so they could
explain the proposal to their neighbors and have them sign if they supported the proposal.
There are 54 signatures in support of the proposed treatment plan presented in detail at the
watershed-wide meeting and summarized in the Letter of Support.
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix B
B-1
North Lake Noxious Weed Project
Letter of Community Support
June 28, 2004
By signing this letter, we, the members ofthe North Lake community, agree
.:. that Eurasian watermilfoil and other listed noxious aquatic weeds present a serious threat
to the natural beauty, ecological integrity, and safe recreational activities on Spring Lake.
.:. that controlling the noxious weeds is an immediate priority and that ongoing monitoring
and control should be a continuing priority into the future
.:. that community-based funding will be necessary to maintain a milfoil-free lake after
initial eradication efforts
.:. that the proposed treatment strategy outlined below is reasonable but may be altered by
experts at the Department of Ecology to achieve the greatest likelihood of success
Recommended Treatment Strate2Y
Initial Treatment (Year 1)
Treat infested areas with 2, 4 D or triclopyr
Diver hand-pulling
Install bottom barrier at boat ramp
Community education - milfoil ID and survey methods training
Year 2
Diver surveys
Triclopyr/ 2,4-D for spot control as necessary
Diver hand-pulling and dredging as necessary
Bottom barrier maintenance
Continued community education
Ongoing management
Continued community education
Community survey
Diver survey
Diver hand-pulling as necessary
Bottom barrier maintenance
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix B
B-2
1::
o
0..
0..
;::l
r:/J.
~
o
~
Q)
~
Q)
~
,0
.-
~
~
o
U
Q)
~
~
'E
o
z
o
.--
'+-
o
.-
<U
OJ
CO
a..
~CJ:]
;f~
.!fl l~-
rb ~
f'() t\'J
J ~ ~
~~
ll\ f ~~
.'1 ~ G:)~ ~
: f~.J ~v,
~ .... f'.MN) ..
~~~"nM
~ ...' ('(\ V) c1 ~
\,\ ~~~~
~ -.} '-.}~ ~:.n~ tlO
~~ ..... . C"\
t-~...... -......:::# N
~;;;~n~r<)
~
/;) ~ Ii
$; ~ 5~ t~
(YJ :ci \]\ ~ ~
o ~l ~
V? v-. ~
~ ~~
'rI\
~
~
~~ ~
~ ~
~
~ v.S
"f1
~~
"<t
o
o
N
00
N
<U
c
:J
J
N
..,f
o
.--
.-
.-
N
.-
(Y)
.-
Il'i
cD r--
a;j 0>
(Y)
'<f ~
~ ~
.<f ,~
;: &
~
~
~
Q: if" 0
~ ..J
(f) Q
~
~ IV:>
<Jo I'{) (V)
0 ~ 'Y)
1:: (1) !'(\
0 '- 0
0.. & N \:)
0.. ~ 0
;::l <:J
r:/J. rO ~ r{\
~ ~ tJ\ t{)
0
~
Q)
~ ~
<L> 1
~
,0 ~
.- {)
~ Vl <to..
~ l/ .3
'J \2 \;J
~
0
u P _\1\
Q) ~ ~
~ () ~
'-J 0
~ 'f 0
N
'€ 00
N
0 <U
,....: a;j c:i ..,f Il'i ,....: 0> c
Z <0 0) .-- N (Y) <0 00 0 :J
. .-- .- .- .- N N N N N N N N N N (Y) J
o
.--
'+-
o
N
<U
OJ
co
a..
01 Vi J (j
. if'
,~ . V)
~
-
~
~ ~ *60 'V ~
f() rI\ ~ .!,..
~ " C'^
l N) fV"
t
0 ~ '- ~ cf'- ~../)
0.. ~ ~ ;;--
g.
~ {'(\ ~ ()D -I :::r
~ ..>
r:/J. !Y) () ~ f'/"
t+-I r'\
0 lYJ M
~
Q)
~
Q) -6
~
,0 '::>
.- 0
= 4-
~
0
U
Q)
~ "<t
ro 0
~ 0
N
€ ~ CO
N
<U
0 (") r--: -.i c
Z .-- N "<t ID <0 CIO .- N (Y) ID :J
(Y) (Y) (") (Y) (Y) (Y) (Y) (Y) "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t J
o
.-
'+-
o
(Y)
<U
OJ
CO
0..
--j-.
~
~
'^
~
~t:
c)"-
~~
o
.--
'+-
o
"<t
<U
OJ
ro
a..
\
'"
~ "
~ '-' \
"" ~
~ "-
,0 - ~
'-1 ..J "'\
~ CY)
. ~ ~ <0
~
I) ~ ~
1'''') '1j ~\
L-:> . '" ~
- '\)\ "-
"fA .....
1:: ~ <Y7 ~
0 ~
0.. '-S> Q\ ~
~ t ""'- N ~
.-J '-
U) N '" ~ ~
~ .-
0 -" N'\ ~
~
Q) ~ ~
~
Q)
~ ~
,0 ~
.-
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ..u
s:-- ~
--....
0 t.ij ~ ~
U. ~ ~
Q) \J
~ "<t
.' \ { 0
~ .~ ~ 0
N
'E 00
N
<U
0 N cD ......: ci c
Z co r-- ex> 0> 0 .- (Y) "<t l.O ex> (j) :J
"<t "<t "<t "<t to l.O 10 10 10 l.O 10 10 l.O l.O <0 -,
APPENDIX C
Appendix C contains product labels from aquatic herbicide formulations that are included in
the proposed treatment plan for aquatic noxious weeds at North Lake. These include the labels
for two aquatic glyphosate products (Rodeo and Aquamaster), one granular 2,4-D BEE
product (Navigate), and one liquid 2,4-D DMA product (DMA*4IVM). AquaKleen is
essentially the same formulations as Navigate by a different manufacturer. A liquid
formulation oftriclopyr (Renovate 3) is also included as possible treatment for Eurasian
watermilfoil.
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix C
C-l
Specimen label
Herbicide
Aquatic Sites: For control of emersed, submersed
and floating aquatic plants in aquatic sites such as
ponds, lakes, reservoirs, non-irrigation canals and
ditches which have little or no continuous outflow,
marshes and wetlands, including broad leaf and
woody vegetation on banks and shores within or
adjacent to these and other aquatic sites.
Active Ingredient:
triclopyr: 3,5,6-trichloro-
2-pyridinyloxyacetic acid,
triethylamine salt............................. .............. ....44.4%
Inert Ingredients..... ....................................... .... ......... ........55.6%
Total.................... .................................... .......... ............ ....100.0%
Acid equivalent: triclopyr. 31.8% - 31b/gal
Keep Out of Reach of Children
DANGER PELIGRO
Si usted no entiende Ia etiqueta, busque a alguien para que
se la explique a usted en detalfe. (If you do not understand
the label, find someone to explain it to you in detail.)
Precautionary Statements
Hazards to Humans and Domestic
Animals
Corrosive. Causes irreversible eye damage' Hannful if
swallowed or absorbed through skin. Prolonged or
frequently repeated skin contact may cause allergic
reaction in some individuals
Do not get in eyes or on skin or clothing.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Applicators and other handlers must wear:
. long-sleeved shirt and long pants
. Shoes plus socks' Protective eyewear
. Chemical resistant gloves (~ 14 mils) such as butyl
rubber, natural rubber, neoprene rubber or nitrile rubber
Discard clothing and other absorbent materials that have
been drenched or heavily contaminated with this product's
concentrate. Do not reuse them. Follow manufacturer's
insbuctions for cleaning/maintaining PPE. If no such
insbuctions for washables, use detergent and hot water.
Keep and wash PPE separately from other laundry.
FIRST AID
In the eyes . Hold eye open and rinse slowly and
gently with water for 15 - 20
minutes. Remove contact lenses, if
present, after the first 5 minutes,
then continue rinsing eye.
. Calf poison control center or doctor
for treatment advice.
If on skin or . Take off contaminated clothing.
clothing . Rinse skin immediately with plenty
of water for 15 - 20 minutes.
. Call a poison control center or
doctor for treatment advice.
If swallowed . Call a poison control center or
doctor for treatment advice.
. Have person sip a glass of water if
able to swallow.
. Do not induce vomiting unless told
to do so by a poison control center
or doctor.
. Do not give anything by mouth to a
unconscious person.
Have the product container or label with you when
calling a poison control center or doctor, or going for
treatment
Note to Applicator: Allergic skin reaction is not
expected from exposure to spray mixtures of
Renovate 3 herbicide when used as directed.
Note to Physician: Probable mucosal damage
may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage.
Refer to inside of label booklet for additional
precautionary infonnation including Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE), User Safety
Recommendations and Directions fOr Use including
Storage and Disposal.
Notice: Read the entire label. Use only according to label
directions. Before using this product, read Warranty
Disclaimer, Inherent Risks of Use, and Limitation of
Remedies at end of label booklet. If terms are
unacceptable, return at once unopened.
In case of. emergency endangering health or the
environment involving this product, call1NFOTRAC at
1-800-535-5053. If you wish to obtain additional product
infoonation, visit our web site at www.sepro.com.
Agricultural Chemical: Do not ship or store with food,
feeds, drugs or clothing.
EPA Reg. No. 62719-37-67690
FPl 012203
EPA Est. No. 464-MI-1
SPC - 381116
*Trademark of Dow AgroSciences llC manufactured for:
SePRO Corporation Cannel, IN 46032, U.SA
Q)
-C
.0
.-
-e
Q)
:c
M
CD
....
=
o
I:
.I
Engineering Controls
When handlers use closed systems, enclosed cabs, or aircraft in
a manner that meets the requirements listed in the WPS (40 CFR
170.240(d)(4-6), the handler PPE requirements may be reduced
or modified as specified in the WPS.
USER SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS
Users should:
. Wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco
or using the toilet.
. Remove clothing immediately if pesticide gets inside. Then wash
thoroughly and put on dean clothing.
. Remove PPE immediately after handling this product.
Wash the outside of gloves before removing. As soon as possible,
wash thoroughly and change into clean clothing.
Environmental Hazards
Under certain conditions, treatment of aquatic weeds can result in
oxygen depletion or loss due to decomposition of dead plants,
which may contribute to fish suffocation. This loss can cause fish
suffocation. Therefore, to minimize this hazard, do not treat more
than one-third to one-hatf of the water area in a single operation
and wait at least 10 to 14 days between treatments. Begin treat-
ment along the shore and proceed outwards in bands to allow fish
to move into untreated areas. Consult with the State agency for
fish and game before applying to public water to determine if a
permit is needed.
Physical or Chemical Hazards
Combustible. Do not use or store the product near heat or
open flame.
Directions for Use
,
It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner
inconsistent with its labeling. Read all Directions for Use
carefully before applying.
Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or
other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected
handlers may be in the area during application. For any
requirements specific to your state or tribe, consult the agency
responsible for pesticide regulation
AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS
Use this product only in accoo:lance with its labeling and with the
Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard
contains requirements for the protection of agricultural WOIkers on
farms. forests, m.I'Series, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural
pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination,
notification, and emergency assistance. It also rontains specific
instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label
about personal protective equipment (PPE), and restricted-entry
inleival. The requirements in this box only apply to uses of this product
that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard.
Do not enter or allow WOIker entry into treated areas during the
restricted entry interval (REI) of 48 hours.
PPE required for early entry to treated areas that is permitted under the
Worker Protection Standard and thai involves contact with anything
that has been treated, such as plants, soH, or water, is:
. CoveraUs
. Shoes plus socks
. Protective eyewear
. ChemicaHesistant gloves ( ~ 14 mils) such as butyl rubber, natural
rubber, neoprene rubber or nitrile rubber
2
NON-AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS
The requirements in this box apply to uses of this product that are
NOT within the scope of the Worker Protection Standard for
AgriaJltural Pesticides (40 CFR Part 170). The WPS applies when
this product is used to produce agricultural plants on fanns, forests.
nurseries, or greenhouses.
Entry Restrictions for Non-WPS Uses: For applications to non-
cropland areas, do not allow entry into areas until sprays have dried,
unless applicator and other handler PPE is worn.
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage and disposal.
Open dumping is prohibited.
Pesticide Storage: Store above 28' F or agitate before use.
Pesticide Disposal: Wastes resulting from the use of this product
may be disposed of on site or at an approved waste disposal facility.
Container Disposal for RefiUabIe Containers: Seal aft openings
which have been opened during use. Return the empty container to
a collection site designated by SePRO Corporation. If the container
has been damaged and cannot be retumed according to the
recommended procedures, contact SePRO Corporation at
1-800419-7779 to obtain proper handling instructions.
Container Disposal (Metal): Do not reuse container. Triple rinse
(or equivalent). Then offer for recycling or reconditioning. or
puncture and dispose of in a sanitaly tandfill, or by other procedures
approved by state and local authorities.
Container Disposal (Plastic): Do not reuse container. Triple
rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for recycling or reconditioning, or
puncture and dispose of in a sanitaly tandfill, or by incineration, or,
if allowed by state and local authorities. by burning. If bumed, slay
out of smoke.
General: Consult federal. slate, or local disposal authorities for
approved alternative procedures.
General Information .
For Aquatic and Wetland Sites
Renovatet 3 herbicide is recommended for control of emersed,
submersed and floating aquatic plants in aquatic sites such as
ponds, lakes, reservoirs, non-inigation canals, and ditches which
have little or no continuous outflow, marshes and wetlands,
including broadleaf and woody vegetation on banks and shores
within or adjacent to these and other aquatic sites.
Obtain Required Pennits: Consult with appropriate state or local
water authorities before applying this product to public waters.
State or local public agencies may require permits.
General Use Precautions and Restrictions
In Arizona: The state of Arizona has not approved Renovate* 3
for use on plants grown for commercial production, specifically
forests grown for commercial timber production, or on designated
grazing areas.
When applying this product in tank mix combination, follow all
applicable use directions, precautions and limitations on each
manufacturer's label.
Chemigation: Do not apply this product thrOugh any type of
irrigation system.
Irrigation: Do not use treated water for irrigation for 120 days
following application. As an altemative to waiting 120 days, treat-
ed water may be used for irrigation once the triclopyr level in the
intake water is detennined to be non-detectable by laboratory
analysis (immunoassay). There is no restriction on use of water
from the treatment area to irrigate established grasses.
Do not apply Renovate 3 directly to, or otherwise pennit it to come
into direct contact with grapes, tobacco, vegetable crops, flowers,
or other desirable broadleaf plants, and do not pennit spray mists
containing it to drift into them.
. Do not apply to salt water bays or estuaries.
. Do not apply directly to un-impounded rivers or streams.
. Do not apply on ditches or canals used to transport irrigation
water: It is pennissible to treat non-irrigation ditch banks.
. Do not apply where runoff water may flow onto agricultural land
as injury to crops may result
. When making applications to control unwanted plants on banks
or shorelines of moving water sites, minimize overspray to open
water.
. The use of a mistblower is not recommended.
Grazing and Haying Restrictions
Except for lactating dairy animals, there are no grazing restrictions
following application of this product.
. Grazing Lactating Dairy Animals: Do nOt allow lactating dairy
animals to graze treated areas until the next growing season
following application of this product.
. Do not harvest hay for 14 days after application.
. Grazed areas of non-cropland and forestry sites may be spot
treated if they comprise no more than 10% of the total grazable
area.
Slaughter Restrictions: During the season of application, with-
draw livestock from grazing treated grass at least 3 days before
slaughter.
Avoiding Injurious Spray Drift
Applications should be made only when there is litUe or no hazard
from spray drift. Very small quantities of spray, which may not be
visible, may seriously injure susceptible plants. Do not spray
when wind is blowing toward susceptible crops or omamental
plants near enough to be injured. It is suggested that a continu-
ous smoke column at or near the spray site or a smoke generator
on the spray equipment be used to detect air movement, lapse
conditions, or temperature inversions (stable air). If the smoke
layers or indicates a potential of hazardous spray drift, do not
spray.
Aerial Application: For aerial application near susceptible crops,
apply through a Microfoilt or Thru-Valve boomt, or use a drift
control additive labeled for aquatic use. Other drift reducing
systems or thickened sprays prepared by using high viscosity
inverting systems may be used if they are made as drift-free as
mixtures containing thickening agents labeled for use in aquatics
or applications made with the Microfoil or Thru-Valve boom.
Keep spray pressures low enough to provide coarse spray
droplets. Spray boom should be no longer than 3/4 of the rotor
length. Do not use a thickening agent with the Microfoil or
Thru-Valve booms, or other systems that cannot accommodate
thick sprays. Spray only when the wind velocity is low (follow
state regulations). Avoid application during air inversions. If a
spray thickening agent is used, follow all use recommendations
and precautions on the product label.
tReference within lhis label to a particular piece of equipment produced
by or available from other parties is provided without consideration for
use by lhe reader at its discretion and subjecllo the reader's
independent circumstances, evaluation, and expertise. Such reference
by SePRO Corporation is not intended as an endorsement of such
equipment, shall not constitute a warranty (express or implied) of such
equipment, and is not intended to imply lhat oliler equipment is not
available and equally suitable. Ally discussion of methods of use of
such equipment does not imply lhatthe reader should use lhe equipment
other lhan is advised in directions available from the equipment's
manufacturer. The reader is responsible for exercising its own judgment
and expertise, or consulting with sources other lhan SePRO Corporation.
in selecting and determining how to use its equipment.
Spray Drift Management
Avoiding spray drift at the application site is the responsibility of
the applicator. The interaction of many equipment and weather
related factors detennine the potential for spray drift. The applica-
tor and the grower are responsible for considering all these factors
when making decisions.
The following drift management requirements must be followed to
avoid olf-target drift movement from aerial applications:
1. The distance of the outer most operating nozzles on the boom
must not exceed 3/4 the length of the rotor.
2. Nozzles must always point backward parallel with the air
stream and never be pointed downwards more than 45 degrees.
Where states have more stringent regulations, they should be
observed.
The applicator should be familiar with and take into account the
information covered in the following Aerial Drift Reduction
Advisory. [This infonnation is advisory in nature and does not
supersede mandatory label requirements.]
Aerial Drift Reduction Advisory
Infonnation on Droplet Size: The most effective way to reduce
drift potential is to apply large droplets. The best drift manage-
ment strategy is to apply the largest droplets that provide sufficient
coverage and control. Applying larger droplets reduces drift
potential, but will not prevent drift if applications are made
improperly, or under unfavorable environmental conditions (see
Wind, Temperature and Humidity, and Temperature Inversions).
Controlling Droplet Size:
. Volume - Use high flow rate nozzles to apply the highest
practical spray volume. Nozzles with higher rated flows produce
larger droplets.
. Pressure - Do not exceed the nozzle manufacturer's
recommended pressures. For many nozzle types lower
pressure produces larger droplets. When higher flow rates are
needed, use higher flow rate nozzles instead of increasing
pressure.
. Number of Nozzles - Use the minimum number of nozzles that
provide unifonn coverage.
. Nozzle Orientation - Orienting nozzles so that the spray is
released parallel to the airstream produces larger droplets than
other orientations and is the recommended practice. Significant
deflection from horizontal will reduce droplet size and increase
drift potential.
. Nozzle Type - Use a nozzle type that is designed for the
intended application. Wrth most nozzle types, narrower spray
angles produce larger droplets. Consider using low-drift nozzles.
Solid stream nozzles oriented straight back produce the largest
droplets and the lowest drift.
3
Boom length: For some use pattems, reducing the effective
boom length to less than 3/4 of the wingspan or rotor length may
further reduce drift without reducing swath width.
Application Height: Applications should not be made at a height
greater than 10 feet above the top of the largest plants unless a
greater height is required for aircraft safety. Making applications
at the lowest height that is safe reduces exposure of droplets to
evaporation and wind.
Swath Adjusbnent When applications are made with a cross-
wind, the swath will be displaced downwind. Therefore, on the up
and downwind edges of the field, the applicator must compensate
for this displacement by adjusting the path of the aircraft upwind.
Swath adjustment distance should increase, with increasing drift
potential (higher wind, smaller drops, etc.).
Wind: Drift potential is lowest between wind speeds of 2-10 mph.
However, many factors, induding droplet size and equipment type
detennine drift potential at any given speed. Application should
be avoided below 2 mph due to variable wind direction and high
inversion potential. Note: local terrain can influence wind
patterns. Every applicator should be familiar with local wind
patterns and how they affect spray drift
Temperature and Humidity: When making applications in low
relative humidity, set up equipment to produce larger droplets to
compensate for evaporation. Droplet evaporation is most severe
when conditions are both hot and dry.
Temperature Inversions: Applications should not occur during a
local, low level temperature inversion because drift potential is
high. Temperature inversions restrict vertical air mixing, which
causes small suspended droplets to remain in a concentrated
doud. This cloud can move in unpredictable directions due to the
light variable winds common during inversions. Temperature
inversions are characterized by increasing temperatures with
altitude and are common on nights with limited cloud cover and
light to no wind. They begin to form as the sun sets and often
continue into the morning. Their presence can be indicated by
ground fog; however, if fog is not present, inversions can also be
identified by the movement of the smoke from a ground source or
an aircraft smoke generator. Smoke that layers and moves
laterally in a concentrated cloud (under low wind conditions)
indicates an inversion, while smoke that moves upward and
rapidly dissipates indicates good vertical air mixing.
Sensitive Areas: The pesticide should only be applied when
the potential for drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g., residential
areas, known habitat for threatened or endangered species,
non-target crops) is minimal (e.g., when wind is blowing away
from the sensitive areas).
Ground Equipment: To aid in reducing spray drift, Renovate 3
should be used in thickened (high viscosity) spray mixtures using
a labeled drift control additive, high viscosity invert system, or
equivalent as directed by the manufacturer. With ground equip-
ment, spray drift can be reduced by keeping the spray boom as
low as possible; by applying 20 gallons or more of spray per acre;
by keeping the operating spray pressures at the lower end of the
manufacturer's recommended pressures for the specific nozzle
type used (low pressure nozzles are available from spray equip-
ment manufacturers); and by spraying when wind velocity is low
(follow state regulations). In hand-gun applications, select the
minimum spray pressure that will provide adequate plant
4
coverage (without fanning a mist). Do not apply with nozzles that
produce a fine-droplet spray.
High Volume leaf-Stem Treatment: To minimize spray drift, do
not use pressure exceeding 50 psi at the spray nozzle and keep
sprays no higher than brush tops. A labeled thickening agent
may be used to reduce drift.
Plants Controlled by Renovate 3
Woody Plant Species
alder
arrowwood
ash
aspen
bear dover (beannat)
beech
birch
blackberry
blackgum
Brazilian pepper
cascara
ceanothus
cherry
Chinese Tallow
chinquapin
choke cherry
cottonwood
crataegus (hawthorn)
locust
Maleleuca (seedlings)
Annual and Perennial BroadleafWeeds
burdock ligodium
Canada thistle plantain
curly dock smartweed
elephant ear tansy ragwort
Aquatic Weeds
alligatorweed
American lotus
American frogbit
Aquatic sodaapple
Eurasian watennilfoil
milfoil species
nuphar (spatterdock)
parrotfeather*
pickerelweed
pennywort
maples
mulberry
oaks
poison ivy
poison oak
poplar
salt-bush (Baccharis spp.)
sweetgum
waxmyrtle
willpw
tropical sodaapple
vetch
wild lettuce
purple loosestrife
waterhyacinth
waterlily
waterprimose
..
*Retreatment may be needed to achieve desired level of control. '+-,f:,
Application Methods .
Floating and Emerged Weeds
For control of waterhyacinth, alligatorweed (see specifiC directions
below), and other susceptible emerged and floating herbaceous
weeds and woody plants, apply 1 1/2 to 6 Ib ae triclopyr (2 to 8
quarts of Renovate 3) per acre as a foliar application using sur-
face or aerial equipment Use higher rates in the rate range when
plants are mature, when the weed mass is dense, or for difficult ot
control species. Repeat as necessary to control regrowth and
plants missed in the previous operation, but do not exceed a total
of 6 Ib ae tridopyr (8 quarts of Renovate 3) per acre per annual
growing season.
Use of a non-ionic surfactant in the spray mixture is recommend-
ed to improve control. Follow all directions and use precautions
on the aquatic surfactant label.
Apply when plants are actively growing.
Surface Application
Use a spray boom, handgun or other similar suitable equipment
mounted on a boat or vehide. Thorough wetting of foliage is
essential for maximum effectiveness. Use 20 to 200 gallons per
acre of spray mixture. Special precautions such as the use of low
spray pressure, large droplet producing nozzles or addition of a
labeled thickening agent may minimize spray drift in areas near
sensitive crops.
Aerial Application
Apply with a helicopter using a Microfoil or Thru-Valve boom. or a
drift control additive in the spray solution. Apply in a minimum of
10 gallons of total spray mix per acre. Do not apply when
weather conditions favor drift to sensitive areas. See label section
on aerial application directions and precautions.
Waterhyacinth (Eichhomia crassipes)
Apply Renovate 3 at 1 1/2 to 6 Ib ae tridpyr (2 to 8 quarts of
Renovate 3) per acre to control watemyacinth. Apply when plants
are actively growing. Use the higher rate in the rate range when
the weed mass is dense. It is important to thoroughly wet all
foliage with the spray mixture. Use of a non-ionic surfactant in
the spray mixture is recommended. A repeat treatment may be
needed to control regrowth or plants missed in the previous
treatment
A1ligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides)
Apply Renovate 3 at 2 to 6 Ib ae triclopyr (3 to 8 quarts of
Renovate 3) per acre to control alligatorweed. It is important to
thoroughly wet all foliage with the spray mixture. For best results.
it is recommended that an approved non-ionic aquatic surfactant
be added to the spray mixture. A1ligatorweed growing outside the
margins of a body of water can be controlled with this treatment
However, alligatorweed growing in water will only be partially
controlled. Top growth above the water will be controlled, but the
plant will likely regrow from tissue below the water surface.
Precautions for Potable Water Intakes - lakes,
Reservoirs, Ponds:
For applications of Renovate 3 to control floating and emerged
weeds in lakes, reservoirs or ponds that contain a functioning
potable water intake for human consumption, see chart below to
determine the minimum setback distances of the application from
the functioning potable water intakes.
~
. Recreational Use of Water in Treatment Area: There are no
restrictions on use of water in the treatment area for recreational
purposes, induding swimming and fishing.
. Livestock Use of Water from Treatment Area: There are no
restrictions on livestock consumption of water from the treatment
area.
Submerged Weeds
For control of Eurasian watennilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)
and other susceptible submerged weeds in ponds, lakes,
reservoirs, and in non-irrigation canals or ditches that have little or
no continuous outflow, apply Renovate 3 as either a surface or
subsurface application. Rates should be selected according to
the rate chart below to provide a triclopyr concentration of 0.75 to
2.5 ppm ae in treated water. Higher rates in the rate range are
recommended in areas of greater water exchange. These areas
may require a repeat application. However, total application of
Renovate 3 must not exceed an application rate of 2.5 ppm tri-
dopyr for the treatment area per annual growing season.
Apply in spring or early summer when Eurasian waterrnilfoil or
other submersed weeds are actively growing.
Areas near susceptible crops or other desirable broadleaf plants
may be treated by subsurface injection applied by boat to avoid
spray drift
Subsurface Application
Apply desired amount of Renovate 3 per acre directly into the
water through boat-mounted distribution systems.
Surface Application
Apply the desired amount of Renovate 3 as either a concentrate
or a spray mixture in water. However, use a minimum spray vol-
ume of 5 gallons per acre. Do not apply when weather conditions
favor drift to sensitive areas.
<4 0 200 400 500
0.7 0.9 1.4 1.8 2.3
>4-8 0 200 700 900 2 1.4 1.8 3.3 3.6 4.6
3 2.1 2.9 4.1 5.4 6.8
> 8 - 16 0 200 700 1000 4 2.7 3.6 5.4 7.2 9.1
5 3.4 4.5 6.8 9.0 11.3
> 16 0 200 900 1300 6 4.1 5.4 8.1 10.9 13.6
7 4.8 6.3 9.5 12.7 15.8
Note: Existing potable water intakes which are no longer in use, such as those 8 5.5 7.2 10.9 14.5 18.1
replaced by potable water wens or connections to a municipal water system, are not
considered to be functioning potable water intakes. These setback restrictions do not 16.3 20.4
apply to terresbial applications made adjacent to potable water intakes. 9 6.1 8.1 12.2
To apply Renovate 3 around and within the distances noted above from a functioning 10 6.8 9.0 13.6 18.1 22.6
potable water intake, the intake must be turned off unlilthe lriclopyr level in the intake
water is determined to be 0.4 parts per milflOl1 (ppm) or less by laboratory analysis or 15 10.2 13.6 20.4 27.2 33.9
immunoassay.
20 13.6 18.1 27.2 36.2 45.3
5
Precautions for Potable Water Intakes - Lakes,
Reservoirs, Ponds:
For applications of Renovate 3 to control submerged weeds in
lakes, reservoirs or ponds that contain a functioning potable water
intake for human consumption, see the chart below to detennine
the minimum setback distances of the application from the
functioning potable water intakes.
Concentration of Triclopyr Acid in Water (ppm ae)
i~i,.easetba(fk~i~nce (ft)frocll f)Qtable water intak:e
m"rreated O;1;5pPm 1.ClPPm 1.5Ppm 2.0 ppm 2.5 ppm
(acres)
< 4 300 400 600 800 1000
> 4 -8 420 560 840 1120 1400
> 8 - 16 600 800 1200 1600 2000
> 16 - 32 780 1040 1560 2080 2600
32 acres. Setback (ft) Setback (ft) Setback (ft) Setback (ft) Setback (ft)
calculate a = (800. In =(800* In = (800. In = (800. In = (800. In
setback using (acres) - (acres) - (acres) - (acres) - (acres) -
the formula tor 160)/3.33 160)/2.50 160)/1.67 160)/1.25 160)
the appropriate
rate
Example Calculation 1: to apply 2.5 ppm Renovate 3to 50 acres:
Setback in feel = (800 x In (50 acres) -160
= (800 x 3.912) -160
= 2970 feel
Example Calculation 2: to apply 0.75 ppm Renovate 3 to 50 acres:
Setback in feel = (800 x In (50 acres) -160
3.33
= (800 x 3.912)-160
3.33
= 892 feet
Note: Existing potable water intakes which are no longer in use, such as those
replaced by potable water wells or connections to a municipal water system. are not
considered to be functioning potable water intakes. These setback restrictions do not
apply to terrestrial applications made adjacent to potable water intakes.
To apply Renovate 3 around and within the distances noted above from a functioning
potable water intake, the intake must be turned off until the Iridopyr level in the intake
water is detennined to be 0.4 parts per mUfion (ppm) or less by laboratory analysis or
immunoassay.
. Recreational Use of Water in Treatment Area: There are no
restrictions on use of water in the treatment area for recreational
purposes, induding swimming and fishing.
. Uvestock Use of Water from Treatment Area: There are no
restrictions on livestock consumption of water from the treatment
area.
Wetland Sites
Wetlands include flood plains, deltas, marshes, swamps, bogs,
and transitional areas between upland and lowland sites.
Wetlands may occur within forests, wildlife habitat restoration and
management areas and similar sites as well as areas adjacent to
or surrounding domestic water supply reservoirs, lakes and
ponds.
6
For control of woody plants and broadleaf weeds in these sites,
follow use directions and application methods on this label for
terrestrial sites associated with wetland areas.
Use Precautions
Minimize overspray to open water when treating target vegetation
in and around non-flowing, quiescent or transient water. When
making applications to control unwanted plants on banks or
shorelines of flowing water, minimize overspray to open water.
Note: Consult local public water control authorities before appling
this product in and around public water. Pennits may be required
to treat such areas.
Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
Purple loosestrife can be controlled with foliar applications of
Renovate 3. For broadcast applications, a minimum of 4 1/2 to
6 Ib ae triclopyr (6 to 8 quarts of Renovate 3) per acre is
recommended. Apply Renovate 3 when purple loosestrife is at
the bud to mid-flowering stage of growth. Follow-up applications
for control of regrowth should be made the following year in order
to achieve increased control of this weed species. For all
applications, a non-ionic surfactant labeled for aquatics should be
added to the spray mixture. Follow all directions and use
precautions on the label of the surfactant Thorough wetting of
the foliage and sterns is necessary to achieve satisfactory control.
A minimum spray volume of 50 gallons per acre is recommended
for ground broadcast applications.
If using a backpack sprayer, a spray mixture containing 1 % to
1.5% Renovate 3 or 5 to 7.6 II oz of Renovate 3 per 4 gallons of
water should be used. All purple loosestrife plants should be
thoroughly wetted.
Aerial application by helicopter may be needed when treating
restoration sites that are inaccessible, remote, difficult to traverse,
isolated, or otherwise unsuited to ground aplication, or in
drcumstances where invasive exotic weeds dominate native plant
populations over extensive areas and efforts to restore native
plant diversity are being conducted. By air, apply in a minimum
spray volume of 30 gallons per acre using Thru-Valve or Microfoil
boom only.
. Recreational Use of Water in Treatment Area: There are no
restrictions on use of water in the treatment area for recreational
purposes, induding swimming and fishing.
. Livestock Use of Water from Treatment Area: There are no
restrictions on livestock consumption of water from the treatment
area.
Terrestrial Sites Associated with Wetland Areas
. Apply no more than 2 Ib ae triclopyr (213 gallon of Renovate 3)
per acre per growing season on range and pasture sites,
induding rights-of-way, fence rows or any area where grazing
or harvesting is allowed.
. On forestry sites, Renovate 3 may be used at rates up to 6 Ib ae
of triclopyr (2 gallons of Renovate 3) per acre per year.
Use Renovate 3 at rates of 3/4 to 61b ae tridopyr (1/4 to 2 gallons
of Renovate 3) per acre to control broadleaf weeds and woody
plants. In all cases use the amount specified in enough water to
give uniform and complete coverage of the plants to be controlled.
Use only water suitable for spraying. Use of a labeled non- ionic
surfactant is recommended for all foliar applications. When using
surfactants, follow the use directions and precautions listed on
the surfactant manufacturer's label. Use the higher recommend-
ed concentrations of surfactant in the spray mixture when
applying lower spray volumes per acre. The recommended order
of addition to the spray tank is water, spray thickening agent (if
used), additional herbicide (if used), and Renovate 3. A labeled
aquatic surfactant should be added to the spray tank last or as
recommended on the product label. If combined with emulsifiable
concentrate herbicides, moderate continuous adequate agitation
is required.
Before using any recommended tank mixtures, read the directions
and all use precautions on both labels.
For best results, applications should be made when woody plants
and weeds are actively growing. When hard to control species
such as ash, blackgum, choke cherry, maples, or oaks are
prevalent and during applications made in late summer when the
plants are mature and during drought conditions, use the higher
rates of Renovate 3.
When using Renovate 3 in combination with a 2,4-0 herbicide
approved for aquatic use, such as OMA 4 NM, generally the
higher rates should be used for satisfactory brush control.
Use the higher dosage rates when brush approaches an average
of 15 feet in height or when the brush covers more than 60% of
the area to be treated. If lower rates are used on hard to control
species, resprouting may occur the year following treatment.
High Volume Foliage Treatment
For control of woody plants, use Renovate 3 at the rate of 3 to 6
Ib ae tridopyr (1 to 2 gallons of Renovate 3) per 100 gallons of
spray solution, or Renovate 3 at 3/4 to 31b ae tridopyr (1 to 4
quarts of Renovate 3) may be tank mixed with 1/4 to 1/2 gallons
of 2,4-0 3.8 Ib amine, like OMA 4 IVM, diluted to make
100 gallons of spray solution. Apply at a volume of 100 to
400 gallons of total spray per acre depending on size and density
of woody plants. Coverage should be thorough to wet all leaves,
stems, and root collars. (See General Use Precautions and
Restrictions.) Do not exceed the maximum allowable use rate of
6 Ib ae of tridopyr (2 gallons of Renovate 3) per acre per growing
season.
LowVolume Foliage Treatment
To control susceptible woody plants, apply up to 151b ae tridopyr
(5 gallons of Renovate 3) in 10 to 100 gallons of finished spray.
The spray concentration of Renovate 3 and total spray volume
per acre may be adjusted according to the size and density of
target woody plants and kind of spray equipment used. With low
volume sprays, use sufficient spray volume to obtain uniform
coverage of target plants induding the surfaces of all foliage,
stems, and root collars (see General Use Precautions and
Restrictions). For best results, a labeled aquatic surfactant should
be added to all spray mixtures. Match equipment and delivery
rate of spray nozzles to height and density of woody plants.
When treating tall, dense brush, a truck mounted spray gun with
spray tips that deliver up to 2 gallons per minute at 40 to 60 psi
may be required. Backpack or other types of specialized spray
equipment with spray tips that deliver less than 1 gallon of
spray per minute may be appropriate for short, low to moderate
density brush.
Cut Sutface Treatments (Woody Plants)
To control unwanted trees and other listed woody plants, apply
Renovate 3, either undiluted or diluted in a 1 to 1 ratio with water
as directed below.
With Tree Injector Method
Applications should be made by injecting 1/2 milliliter of undiluted
Renovate 3 or 1 milliliter of the diluted solution through the bark at
intervals of 3 to 4 inches between centers of the injector wound.
The injections should completely surround the tree at any
convenient height. Note: No Worker Protection Standard
worker entry restrictions or worker notification requirements
apply when this product is injected directly into plants.
With Hack and Squirt Method
Make cuts with a hatchet or similar equipment at intervals of 3 to
4 inches between centers at a convenient height around the tree
trunk. Spray 112 mHliliter of undiluted Renovate 3 or 1 milliliter of
the diluted solution into each cut.
With Frill or Girdle Method
Make a single girdle through the bark completely around the tree
at a convenient height. Wet the rot surface with undiluted or
diluted solution.
Both of the above methods may be used successfully at any
season except during periods of heavy sap flow of certain
species-for example, maples.
Stump Treatment
Spray or paint the cut surfaces of freshly cut stumps and stubs
with undiluted Renovate 3. The cambium area next to the bark is
the most vital area to wet.
7
Terms and Conditions of Use
If toons of the following Warranty Disdaimer, Inherent Risks of
Use. and Limitation of Remedies are not acceptable, retum
unopened package at once to the seller for a full refund of
purchase price paid. Otherwise, use by the buyer or any other
user constitutes acceptance of the tenns under Warranty
Disclaimer, Inherent Risks of Use and Limitations of Remedies.
Warranty Disclaimer
SePRO Corporation warrants that the product confol111s to the
chemical description on the label and is reasonably fit for the
purposes stated on the label when used in strict accordance
with the directions, subject to the inherent risks set forth below.
SEPRO CORPORATION MAKES NO OTHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR ANY OTHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED WARRANTY.
Inherent Risks of Use
It is impossible to eliminate all risks associated with use of this
product. Plant injury, lack of perfonnance, or other unintended
consequences may result because of such factors as use of the
product contrary to label instructions (induding conditions noted
on the label such as unfavorable temperatures, soil conditions,
etc.), abnonnal conditions (such as excessive rainfall, drought,
tomadoes, hurricanes), presence of other materials, the manner
or application, or other factors, all of which are beyond the control
of SePRO Corporation as the seller. All such risks shall be
assumed by buyer.
limitation of Remedies
The exdusive remedy for losses or damages resulting from this
product (induding daims based on contract, negligence, strict
liability, or other legal theories) shall be limited to, at SePRO
Corporation's election, one of the following:
1. Refund of pun~'ase price paid by buyer or user for product
bought, or
2. Replacement of amount of product used.
SePRO Corporation shall not be liable for losses or damages
resulting from handling or use of this product unless SePRO
Corporation is promptly notified of such losses or damages in
writing. In no case shall SePRO Corporation be liable for
consequential or incidental damages or losses.
The toons of the Warranty Disdaimer above and this Limitation of
Remedies can not be varied by any written or verbal statements
or agreements. No employee or sales agent of SePRO
Corporation or the seller is authorized to vary or exceed the tenns
of the Warranty Disclaimer or Limitations of Remedies in any
manner.
FonnNo.~1(031
co Copyright 2003 SePRO Capaation.
tRenovate is a registered hldemar1t of Oow AgroSciences LtC manufadured for SePRO Corpa'ation.
~ecimen Label
eruDow AgroSciences
--
bM~ 41VM
Herbicide
*Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC
Contains Dimethylamine Salt of 2,4-Dt
For selective control of many broadleaf weeds in,
forests, non-cropland, non-crop turf, and aquatic
areas. Also for control of trees by injection.
Active Ingredient:
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid,
dimethytamine salt t................................................... 46.3%
Inert Ingredients ......................................................................... 53.7%
Total Ingredients ........................................................................ 100.0%
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid tt - 38.4% - 3.8lb/gal
tt Isomer Specific by AOAC Method No. 978.05 (15th Edition)
t Salts are the least volatile forms of 2,4-0 and do not release enough
vapors from treated areas to reduce yield of adjacent susceptible crops.
EPA Reg. No. 62719-3
Keep Out of Reach of Children
DANGER
PELIGRO
Si usted no entiende Ia etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se la
explique a usted en detalle. (If you do not understand the label, find
someone to explain it to you in detail.)
Precautionary Statements
Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals
Corrosive. Causes Irreversible Eye Damage. Harmful If Swallowed,
Inhaled or Absorbed Through The Skin.
Do not get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing. Avoid breathing vapor or
spray mist. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Applicators and other handlers must wear:
Long-sleeved shirt and long pants
Waterproof gloves
Shoes plus socks
Protective eyewear
Note: For containers of over 1 gallon, but less than 5 gallons:
Mixer and loaders who do not use a mechanical system (such as probe
and pump or spigot) to transfer the contents of this container must
wear coveralls or chemical-resistant apron in addition to other
required PPE.
Discard clothing and other absorbent materials that have been drenched
or heavily contaminated with this product's concentrate. Do not reuse
them. Follow manufacturer's instructions for cleaning/maintaining PPE.
If no such instructions for washables, use detergent and hot water. Keep
and wash PPE separately from other laundry. After each day of use,
clothing or PPE must not be reused until it has been cleaned.
Engineering Controls Statements
For containers of 5 gallons or more: A mechanical system (such as
probe and pump or spigot) must be used for transferring the contents of
this container. If the contents of a non-refillable pesticide container are
emptied, the probe must be rinsed before removal. If the mechanical
system is used in a manner that meets the requirements listed in the
Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides (40 CFR
170.240 (d) (4)], the handler PPE requirements may be reduced or
modified as specified in the WPS.
When handlers use enclosed cabs or aircraft in a manner that meets
the requirements listed in the Worker Protections Standard (WPS) for
agricultural pesticides [40 CFR 170.240 (d) (4-6)], the handler PPE
requirements may be reduced or modified as specified in the WPS.
User Safety Recommendations
Users should:
. Wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco, or
using the toilet.
. Remove clothing immediately if pesticide gets inside. Then wash
thoroughly and put on clean clothing.
. Remove PPE immediately after handling this product. Wash the
outside of gloves before removing. As soon as possible, wash
thorou hand chan e into clean cIothin .
First Aid
If in eyes: Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-
20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes,
then continue rinsing eye. Call a poison control center or doctor for
treatment advice.
If on skin or clothing: Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin
immediately with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes. Call a poison control
center or doctor for treatment advice.
If swallowed: Call a poison control center or doctor immediately for
treatment advice. Have person sip a glass of water if able to swanow.
Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by the poison control center
or doctor. Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person.
If inhaled: Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call 911
or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably by mouth-to-
mouth, if possible. Call a poison control center or doctor for further
treatment advice.
Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison control
center or doctor, or going for treatment.
Note to Physician: Probable mucosal damage may contraindicate the
use of gastric lavage.
Environmental Hazards
This product is toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Drift or runoff may
adversely affect aquatic invertebrates and non-target plants. For
terrestrial uses, do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface
water is present, or to intertidal area below the mean high water mark
Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters.
Mixing and Loading: Most cases of groundwater contamination
involving phenoxy herbicides such as 2,4-0 have been associated with
mixing/loading and disposal sites. Caution should be exercised when
handling 2,4-0 pesticides at such sites to prevent contamination of
groundwater supplies. Use of closed systems for mixing and transferring
this pesticide win reduce the probability of spills. Placement of the
mixinglloading equipment on an impervious pad to contain spills will
help prevent groundwater contamination.
Notice: Read the entire label. Use only according to label directions.
Before buying or using this product, read "Warranty Disclaimer"
and "Umitation of Remedies" elsewhere on this label.
In case of emergency endangering health or the environment involving
this product, call 1-800-992-5994. If you wish to obtain additional product
information, visit our web site at www.dowagro.com.
Agricultural Chemical: Do not ship or store with food, feeds, drugs or
clothing.
Directions for Use
It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent
with its labeling.
Read all Directions for Use carefully before applying.
Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other
persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may
be in the area during application. For any requirements specific to your
state or tribe, consult the agency responsible for pesticide regulation.
Agricultural Use Requirements
Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the
Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains
requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests,
nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It
contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and
emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and
exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal
protective equipment (PPE), and restricted'~mtry interval. The
requirements in this box only apply to uses of this product that are
covered by the Worker Protection Standard.
Do not enter or anow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted
entry interval (REI) of 48 hours.
PPE required for early entry to treated areas that is permitted under the
Worker Protection Standard and that involves contact with anything that
has been treated, such as plants, soil, or water, is:
. Coveralls
. Waterproof gloves
. Shoes plus socks
. Protective eyewear
Non-Agricultural Use Requirements
The requirements in this box apply to uses of this product that are NOT
within the scope of the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural
Pesticides (40 CFR Part 170). The WPS applies when this product is
used to produce agricultural plants on farms. forests, nurseries, or
greenhouses.
Entry Restrictions for Non-WPS Uses: When this product is applied to
non-cropland areas, non-crop turf, by tree injection method only in forest
sites, and when applied in aquatic areas, do not allow people (other than
applicator) or pets on treatment area during application. Do not enter into
treated areas until sprays have dried.
Storage and Disposal
Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal.
Storage: Keep container tightly closed when not in use. If exposed to
subfreezing temperatures, the product should be warmed to at least 4O"F
and mixed thoroughly before using.
Pesticide Disposal: Pesticide wastes are toxic. Improper disposal of
excess pesticide, spray mixture, or rinsate is a violation of Federal law
and may contaminate groundwater. If these wastes cannot be disposed
of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or
Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste Representative
at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance.
Container Disposal (Metal>>: Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for
recycling or reconditioning, or puncture and dispose of in a sanitary
landfill, or by other procedures approved by state and local authorities.
Container Disposal (Plastic containers 5-gals or less): Triple rinse
(or equivalent). Then dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or by incineration,
or, if allowed by local authorities, by burning. If burned stay out of smoke.
General: Consult federal, state, or local disposal authorities for approved
alternative procedures.
General Information
DMA * 4 IVM herbicide is intended for selective control of many broadleaf
weeds in forests, non-cropland, non-crop turf areas, and aquatic areas.
Apply DMA 4 IVM as a water or oil-water spray during warm weather
when target weeds or woody plants are actively growing. Application
under drought conditions will often give poor results. Use low spray
pressure to minimize drift. Generally, the lower dosages recommended
on this label will be satisfactory for young, succulent growth of
susceptible weed species. For less susceptible species and under
conditions where control is more difficult, use higher recommended rates.
Deep-rooted perennial weeds such as Canada thistle and field bindweed
and many woody plants usually require repeated applications for
satisfactory control. Consult your State Agricultural Experiment stations
or Extension Service Weed Specialists for recommendations from this
label that best fit local conditions.
General Use Precautions and Restrictions
Be sure that use of DMA 4 IVM confonns to all application regulations.
Chemigation: Do not apply this product through any type of irrigation
system.
Excessive amounts of 2,4-0 in the soil may temporarily inhibit seed
germination and plant growth.
2
Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01
Avoiding Injury to Non-target Plants
Spray drift produced during application is the responsibility of the
applicator and care should be taken to minimize off-target movement of
spray during application. A drift control agent suitable for agricultural use
may be used with this product to aid in reducing spray drift If used,
follow all use recommendations and precautions on the product label.
Do not appty where drift may be a problem due to proximity to
susceptible crops or other desirable broadleaf plants. Do not apply
DMA 4 IVM directly to, or otherwise pennit contact with cotton, flowers,
fruit trees, grapes, ornamentals, vegetables, or other desirable plants
which are susceptible to 2,4-0 herbicides. Do not pennit spray mist
containing 2,4-0 to contact susceptible plants since even very small
quantities of the spray, which may not be visible. can cause severe
injury during both active growth or donnant periods. Do not use in
greenhouses.
Avoid Movement of Treated Soil: Avoid conditions under which soil
from treated areas may be moved or blown to areas containing
susceptible plants. Wind-blown dust containing 2,4-0 may produce
visible symptoms when deposited on susceptible plants, however,
serious plant injury is unlikely. To minimize potential movement of 2,4-0
on wind-blown dust, avoid treatment of powdery dry or light sandy soils
until soil is settled by rainfall or irrigation or irrigate soon after application.
Do not store or handle other agricultural chemicals with the same
containers used for OMA 4 IVM. Do not apply other agricultural
'chemicals or pesticides with equipment used to apply DMA 4 IVM unless
equipment has been thoroughly cleaned to remove all traces of 2,4-0.
Spray Drift Management (Aerial Application)
Avoiding spray drift at the application site is the responsibility of the
applicator. The interaction of many equipment-and-weather-related
factors detennine the potential for spray drift. The applicator and the
grower are responsible for considering all these factors when making
decisions. The following drift management requirements must be
followed to avoid off-target drift movement from aerial applications to
agricultural field crops. These requirements do not apply to forestry
applications, public health uses or to applications using dry formulations.
1. The distance of the outer most nozzles on the boom must not
exceed 3/4 the length of the wingspan or rotor.
2. Nozzles must always point backward parallel with the air stream and
never be pointed downwards more than 45 degrees.
In certain states, additional regulations may be applicable to aerial
application of this product. .
The applicator should be familiar with and take into account the
infonnation covered in the following Aerial Drift Reduction Advisory
Infonnation section.
Aerial Spray Drift Advisory Infonnation
Importance of Droplet Size: The most effective way to reduce drift
potential is to apply large droplets. The best drift management strategy is
to apply the largest droplets that provide sufficient coverage and control.
Applying larger droplets reduces drift potential, but will not prevent drift if
applications are made improperly, or under unfavorable environmental
conditions (see Wind, Temperature and Humidity, and Temperature
Inversion section of this label).
Controlling Droplet Size:
Volume-Use high flow rate nozzles to apply the highest practical spray
volume. Nozzles with higher rated flows product larger droplets.
Pressure-Use the lower spray pressures recommended for the nozzle.
Higher pressure reduces droplet size and does not improve canopy
penetration. When higher flow rates are needed, use higher flow rate
nozzles instead of increasing pressure.
Number of nozzles-Use the minimum number of nozzles that provide
unifonn coverage.
Nozzle Orientation..Qrienting nozzles so that the spray is released
backwards, parallel to the airstream will produce larger droplets than
other orientations. Significant deflection from the horizontal will reduce
droplet size and increase drift potential.
Nozzle Type-Use a nozzle type that is designed for the intended
application. With most nozzle types, narrower spray angles produce
larger droplets. Consider using Iow-<lrift nozzles. Solid stream nozzles
oriented straight back produce larger droplets than other nozzle types.
Boom Length-For some use pattems, reducing the effective boom
length to less than 314 of the wingspan or rotor length may further
reduce drift without reducing swath width.
Application-Applications should not be made at a height greater than
10 feet above the top of the largest plants unless a greater height is
required for aircraft safety. Making applications at the lowest height
that is safe reduces exposure of droplets to evaporation and wind.
Swath Adjustment: When applications are made with a cross-wind, the
swath will be displaced downwind. Therefore, on the up and downwind
edges of the field, the applicator must compensate for this displacement
by adjusting the path of the aircraft upwind. Swath adjustment distance
should increase, with increasing drift potential (higher wind, smaller
drops, etc.).
Wind: Drift potential is lowest between wind speeds of 2-10 mph.
However, many factors, including droplet size and equipment type
detennine drift potential at any given speed. Application should be
avoided below 2 mph due to variable wind direction and high inversion
potential. Note: local terrain can influence wind patterns. Every
applicator should be familiar with local wind patterns and how they
affect drift.
Temperature and Humidity: When making applications in low relative
humidity, set up equipment to produce larger droplets to compensate for
evaporation. Droplet evaporation is most severe when conditions are
both hot and dry.
Temperature Inversions: Applications should not occur during a low
level temperature inversion, because drift potential is high. Temperature
inversions restrict vertical air mixing, which causes small suspended
droplets to remain in a concentrated cloud. This cloud can move in
unpredictable directions due to the light variable winds common during
inversions. Temperature inversions are characterized by increasing
temperatures with altitude and are common on nights with limited cloud
cover and light to no wind. They begin to fonn as the sun sets and often
continue into the morning. Their presence can be indicated by ground
fog; however, if fog is not present, inversions can also be identified by
the movement of smoke from a ground source or an aircraft smoke
generator. Smoke that layers and moves laterally in a connected cloud
(under low wind conditions) indicates an inversion, while smoke that
moves upwards and rapidly dissipates indicates good vertical air mixing.
3
Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01
Sensitive Areas: The pesticide should only be applied when the potential
for drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g., residential areas. bodies of
water, known habitat for threatened or endangered species, non-target
crops) is minimal (e.g., when wind is blowing away from the sensitive
areas).
Mixing
Mix DMA 4 IVM only with water, unless otherwise directed on this label.
Add about half the water to the mixing tank, then add the DMA 4 IVM with
agitation, and finally the rest of the water with continuing agitation.
Note: Adding oil, wetting agent, or other surfactant to the spray mixture
may increase effectiveness on weeds, but also may reduce selectivity to
crops resulting in crop damage.
Tank Mixing: When tank mixing, read and follow the label of each tank
mix product used for precautionary statements, directions for use, weeds
controlled, and geographic and other restrictions. Use in accordance with
the most restrictive of label limitations and precautions. No label dosages
should be exceeded. Do not tank mix this product with any product
containing a label prohibition against tank mixing with 2,4-D.
Tank Mix Compatibility Testing: Ajar test is recommended prior to tank
mixing to ensure compatibility of this product and other pesticides. Use a
clear glass quart jar with lid and mix the tank mix ingredients in their
relative proportions. Invert the jar containing the mixture several times
and observe the mixture for approximately 1/2 hour. If the mixture balls-
up, forms flakes, sludges, jels, oily films or layers, or other precipitates, it
is not compatible and the tank mix combination should not be used.
Sprayer Clean-Out
To avoid injury to desirable plants, equipment used to apply this product
should be thoroughly cleaned before re-use or applying other chemicals.
1. Rinse and flush application equipment thoroughly after use at least
three times with water. Dispose of an rinse water by application to
treatment area or apply to non-cropland area away from water
supplies.
2. During the second rinse, add 1 qt of household ammonia for every
25 gallons of water. Circulate the solution through the entire system
so that all internal surfaces are contacted (15-20 min). let the
solution stand for several hours, preferably ovemight.
3. Flush the solution out of the spray tank through the boom.
4. Rinse the system twice with clean water, recirculating and draining
each time.
5. Remove nozzles and screens and clean separately.
6. If equipment is to be used to apply another pesticide or agricultural
chemical to a 2,4-0 susceptible crop, additional steps may be
required to remove all traces of 2,4-0, including cleaning of
disassembled parts and replacement of hoses or other fittings
that may contain absorbed 2,4-0.
Application
Apply with calibrated air or ground equipment using sufficient spray
volume to provide adequate coverage of target weeds or as otherwise
directed in specific use directions. For broadcast application, use a spray
volume of 3 or more gallons per acre by air and 10 or more gallons per
acre for ground equipment. Where states have regulations which specify
minimum spray volumes. they should be observed. In general, spray
volume should be increased as crop canopy, height and weed density
increase in order to obtain adequate spray coverage. Do not apply less
than 3 gallons total spray volume per acre.
Rate Ranges and Application Timing
Generally, the lower dosages given will be satisfactory for young,
succulent growth of sensitive weed species. For less sensitive species
and under conditions where control is more difficult, the higher dosages
will be needed. Appty OMA 4 IVM during warm weather when weeds are
young and actively growing.
Spot Treatments
To prevent misapplication, spot treatments should be applied with a
calibrated boom or with hand sprayers using a fixed spray volume per
1,000 sq ft as indicated below.
Hand-Held Sprayers: Hand-held sprayers may be used for spot
applications of DMA 4 IVM. Care should be taken to apply the spray
uniformly and at a rate equivalent to a broadcast application. Application
rates in the table are based on the application rate for an area of
1,000 sq ft. Mix the amount of DMA 4 IVM (f1 oz or ml) corresponding to
the desired broadcast rate in 1 to 3 gallons of spray. To calculate the
amount of OMA 4 IVM required for larger areas, multiply the table value
(fl oz or ml) by the thousands of sq ft to be treated. An area of 1000 sq ft
is approximately 10.5 X 10.5 yards (strides) in size.
8
3
f10z
(88
ml)
t Conversion factors: 1ft oz = 29.6 (30) ml
4
Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01
Weeds Controlled
Annual or Biennial Weeds
Beggarticks t
Bittercress, smallflowered
bitterweed
broomweed, common t
burdock, common
buttercup, smallflowered t
carpetweed
cinquefoil. common
cinquefoil, rough
cocklebur, common
coffeeweed
copperleaf, Virginia
croton, Texas
croton, woolly
f1ixweed
galinsoga
geranium, Carolina
hemp, wild
horseweed (marestail)
jewelweed
jimsonweed
knotweed t
kochia
Iambsquarters, common
lettuce, prickly t
lettuce, wild
lupines
mallow, little t
mallow, Venice t
marshelder
momingglory, annual
momingglory, ivy
momingglory, woolly
mousetail
mustards (except blue mustard)
parsnip, wild
Pennycress, field
Pepperweed t
pigweeds (Amaranthus spp.) t
poorjoe
primrose, common
purslane, common
pusley, Florida
radish, wild
ragweed, common
ragweed, giant
rape, wild
rocket, yellow
salsify, common t
salsify, western t
shepherdspurse
sicklepod
smartweed(annualspedes)t
sneezeweed, bitter
sowthistle, annual
sowthistle, spiny
spanishneedles
sunflower
sweetclover
tansymustard
thistle, bull
thistle, musk t
thistle, Russian (tumbleweed) t
velvetleaf
vetches
Perennial Weeds
Alfalfa t
artichoke, Jerusalem t
aster, many-flower t
Austrian fieldcress t
bindweed (hedge, field
and European) t
blue lettuce
blueweed, Texas
broomweed
bullnettle t
carrot. wild t
catnip
chicory
clover, red t
coffeeweed
cress, hoary t
dandelion f
docks t
dogbanes t
goldenrod
eveningprimrose, cutleaf
garlic, wild t
hawkweed, orange t
healal
ironweed, western
ivy, ground t
Jerusalem-artichoke
loco, bigbend
nettles (including stinging) t
onion, wild t
pennywort
plantains
ragwort, tansy t
sowthistle, perennial
thistle, Canada t
vervains t
waterplantain
wormwood
t These weeds are only partially controUed and may required repeat
applications and/or use of higher recommended rates of this product
even under ideal conditions of application.
Specific Use Directions
Forestry, and Non-cropland, Uses
Agricultural Use Requirements for Forest Use (Except Tree Injection
Use): For use in forests, follow PPE and Reentry instructions in the
"Agricultural Use Requirements" section under the "Directions for Use"
heading of this label.
Agricultural Use Requirements for Forestry (Tree Injection Only) and
Non-cropland Areas: When this product is applied to non-cropland
areas, non-crop tun, and by tree injection in forest sites, follow reentry
requirements given in the "Non-Agricultural Use Requirements" section
under the "Directions for Use" heaoll1<l of this label.
5
Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01
Forestry Uses
Forest site preparation, forest roadsides, brush control, established conifer release (including Christmas trees and reforestation areas)
Treatment Site
Method of DMA 4 IVM Specific Use Directions
Application
Annual Weeds 2 to 4 ptJacre Apply when weeds are small and growing actively before the bud stage. Apply when biennial and
perennial species are in the seedling to rosette stage and before flower stalks appear. For difficult to
Biennial and perennial 4 to 8 pUacre control perennial broadleaf weeds and woody species, use up to 1 gallon DMA 4 IVM and 1 to 4 qt.
broadleaf weeds and Garton" 3A herbicide per acre.
susceptible woody For conifer release, make appHcation in early spring before budbreak of conifers when weeds are small
Dlants and activelv orowino.
Spot Treatment to See Note: To control broadleaf weeds in small areas with a hand sprayer, use an application rate equivalent
control broadleaf Instructions to the recommended broadcast rate and spray to thoroughly wet all foliage. See rate conversion table
weeds for 'Spot and instructions for .Spot Treatment" and use of hand-held sprayers under "Application".
Treatment"
Conifer Release: 1 1/2 to To control competing hardwood species such as alder, aspen, birch, hazel, and willow, apply from mid to
Species such as white 3 qUacre late summer when growth of conifer trees has hardened off and woody plants are still actively growing.
pine, ponderosa pine, Apply with ground or air equipment, using sufficient spray volume to ensure complete coverage.
jack pine, red pine, black Because this treatment may cause occasional conifer injury, do not apply if such injury cannot be
spruce, white spruce, tolerated.
red spruce, and
balsam fir
Directed Spray: Conifer 4 qU100 gal Apply when brush or weeds are actively growing by directing the spray so as to avoid contact with conifer
plantations including foliage and injurious amounts of spray. Apply in oil, oil-water, or water carrier in a spray volume of 10
Dine to 100 gallons oer acre.
Basal Spray 8 qU100 gal Thoroughly wet the base and root collar of all stems until the spray begins to accumulate around the root
(May also be collar at the ground line. Wetting stems with the mixture may also aid in control.
used in or
noncropland)
Surface of Cut Stumps 2.611 oz/gal Apply as soon as possible after cutting trees. Thoroughly soak the entire stump with the 2,4-0 mixture
(May also be used in of water including cut surface, bark and exposed roots.
noncroDlandl
Frill and Girdle Cut frills (overlapping V-shaped notches cut downward through the bark in a continuous ring around the
(May also be used in base of the tree) using an axe or other suitable tool. Treat freshly cut frills with as much of the 2,4-0
noncrooland) mixture as thev will hold.
Tree Injection (1 to 2 ml per To control unwanted hardwood trees such as elm, hickory, oak, and sweetgum in forests and other non-
Application injection site) crop areas, apply by injecting at a rate of 1 ml of undiluted DMA 4 IVM per inch of trunk diameter at
(May also be used breast height (DSH) as measured approximately 4 1/2 ft above the ground. Make injections as dose
noncropland) to the root collar as possible and the injection bit must penetrate the inner bark. Applications may be
made throughout the year, but for best results apply between May 15 and October 15. Maples should
not be treated during the spring sap flow.
For hard to control species such as ash, maple, and dogwood use 2 mI of undiluted DMA 4 IVM per
injection site or double the number of 1 ml injections.
Note: No Worker Protection Standard worker entry restrictions or worker notification
reauirements applv when this product is directlv iniected into aaricultural plants.
Precautions and Restrictions:
Do not allow sprays to contact conifer shoot growth (current year's new growth) or injury may occur.
. Do not apply to nursery seed beds.
. For conifer release, do not use on plantations where pine or larch are among the desired species.
. For broadcast applications, do not apply more than 8.42 ptJacre of DMA 4 IVM (4.0 Ib of acid equivalent) per 12 month period.
6
Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01
Non-cropland Areas
Such as fencerows, hedgerows, roadsides, drainage ditches, rights-of way, utility power lines, railroads, airports, and other non-crop areas
Treatment Site
Method of A Iication
Annual broadleaf weeds
Biennial and perennial broadleaf
weeds and susceptible woody
plants
4 t08
Spot Treatment to control
broadleaf weeds
See Instructions for
.Spot Treatment.
Tree Injection Application
Southern wild rose
Broadcast application
upt04
Spot treatment
1 gall100 gal of
spray
S ecific Use Directions
Apply when annual weeds are small and growing actively before the bud stage.
Biennial and perennial weeds should be rosette to bud stage. but not flowering at
the time of application. For difficult to control perennial broadleaf weeds and woody
species, tank mix up to 1 gallon DMA 4 IVM plus 1 to 4 qt. Garton" 3A herbicide per
acre.
For ground application: (High volume) apply a total of 100 to 400 gal per acre; (low
volume) apply a total of 10 to 100 gal per acre.
For hellco ter: I a total of 5 to 30 al r acre s ra volume.
Note: To control broadleafweeds in small areas with a hand sprayer, use an
application rate equivalent to the broadcast rate recommended for this treatment site
and spray to thoroughly wet all foliage. See rate conversion table and instructions
for.S ot Treatment" and use of hand-held ers under. lication..
See instructions for tree injection application in .Forestry Uses. section.
Broadcast: Apply in a spray volume of 5 or more gallons per acre by aircraft or 10 or
more gallons per acre by ground equipment.
Apply when foliage is well developed. Thorough coverage is required. Use 1 gallon of
DMA 4 IVM plus 4 to 8 fluid ounces of an agricultural surfactant per 100 gallons of
water. Two or more treatmel)ts may be required.
Precautions and Restrictions:
. Do not apply to newly seeded areas until grass is well established.
o Bentgrass, St. Augustine, clover, legumes and dichondra may be severely injured or killed by this treatment.
" Do not apply more than 8.42 ptJacre of DMA 4 IVM (4.0 Ib of acid equivalent) per use season.
o Db not reapply to a treated area within 30 days of a previous application.
o If grazing of meat or dairy animals or hay harvest is desired in non-crop areas, do not apply more than 4.21 ptlacre of DMA 4 IVM (2.0 Ib of acid
equivalent) and do not harvest forage for hay within 7 days of application.
Non-crop Turf Areas
Includes cemeteries and parks, airfields, roadsides, vacant lots, and drainage ditch banks
Use Requirements for Ornamental Turf Areas: When this product is applied to omamental turf areas, follow PPE and reentry instructions in the
oNon-a ricultural Use Re uirements. section of this label.
3/4 to 1
Well-established grasses
2 to 4
Biennial and perennial broadleaf
weeds
4
S ecific Use Directions
Apply when weeds are small and actively growing. For best results, apply. when soil
moisture is adequate for active weed growth.
Deep-rooted perennial weeds such as bindweed and Canada thistle may require
repeat applications.
Do not apply to newly seeded grasses until well established (five-leaf stage or later)
and then use a maximum of 1 ptlacre. Cool season grasses are tolerant of higher
rates.
Precautions, Restrictions:
Do not use on creeping grasses such as bent except as a spot treatment.
Do not use on injury-sensitive southem grasses such as St. Augustinegrass.
Do not use on dichondra or other herbaceous ground covers. Legumes may be damaged or killed.
Do not reapply within 21 days of a previous application.
Reseeding: Delay reseeding at least 30 days following application. Preferably, with spring application, reseed in the fall and with fall application,
reseed in the spring.
Do not apply more than 2 broadcast applications per year per treatment site (does not include spot treatments).
7
Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01
Aquatic Uses
Use Requirements for Aquatic Areas: When this product is appUed to aquatic areas, follow PPE and reentry instructions in the "Non-agricultural Use
R uirements" section of this label.
Control of Weeds and Brush on Banks of Irrigation Canals and Ditches
Tar et Plants
Annuat Weeds
Biennial and perennial broadleaf
weeds and susceptible wood
plants
4
S cific Use Directions
Apply using low pressure spray (10 to 40 psi) in a spray volume of 20 to 100 gallons per
. acre using power operated spray equipment. Apply when wind speed is low, 5 mph or
less. Apply working upstream to avoid accidental concentration of spray into water.
Cross-stream spraying to opposite banks is not pennitted and avoid boom spraying
over water surface. When spraying shoreline weeds, allow no more than 2 foot
overspray onto water surface with an average of less than 1 foot of overspray to
prevent significant water contamination.
Apply when weeds are small and growing actively before. the bud stage. Apply when
biennial and perennial species are in the seedling to rosette stage and before flower
stalks appear. For hard-to-control weeds, a repeat application after 30 days at the
same rate may be needed.
For woody species and patches of perennial weeds, mix 1 gallon of DMA 4 IVM per 64 to
150 gallons of total spray. Wet foliage by applying about 3 to 4 gallons of spray per
1000 ft 10.5 X 10.5 ste s .
Restrictions and Umitations:
. Do not apply more than 2 treatments per season or reapply within 30 days.
. Do not use on small canals (less than 10 cts) where water will be used for drinking purposes.
. Do not apply more than 8.42 ptlacre (4.0 Ib of acid equivalent) per use season.
Aquatic Weed Control in Ponds, Lakes, Reservoirs, Marshes, Bayous, Drainage Ditches, Canals, Rivers and
Streams that are Quiescent or Slow Moving, Including Programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority
Notice to Applicators: Before application, coordination and approval of local and state authorities may be required, either by letter or agreement or
issuance of special pennits for such use.
Emergent and Floating Aquatic Weeds: Including Water hyacinth (Eichomia crassipe)
Application Rate: 2 to 4 qtIacre.
Specific Use Directions
Application Timing: Spray weed mass only. Apply when water hyacinth plants are actively growing. Repeat application as necessary to kill regrowth
and plants missed in previous operation. Use 4 qt/acre rate when plants are mature or when weed mass is dense.
Surface Application: Use power operated sprayers with boom or spray gun mounted on boat, tractor or truck. Thorough wetting of foliage is essential
for.maximum control. Use 100 to 400 gallons of spray mixture per acre. Special precautions such as use of low pressure, large nozzles and spray
thickening agents should be taken to avoid spray drift to susceptible crops. Follow label directions for use of any drift control agent.
Aerial Application: Use drift control spray equipment or thickening agent mixed in the spray mixture. Apply 1 gallon of DMA 4 IVM per acre using
standard boom systems using a minimum spray volume of 5 gallons per acre. For Microfoir drift control spray systems, apply DMA 4 IVM in a total
spray volume of 12 to 15 gallons per acre.
8
Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01
Submerged Aquatic Weeds: Including Eurasian Water Milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum}
Maximum
Application
Treatment Site Rate t SDeciflc Use Directions
Aquatic Weed Control in 2.84 gallons Application Timing: For best results, apply in spring or early summer when aquatic
Ponds, Lakes, Reservoirs, (10.8 Ib of acid weeds appear. Check for weed growth in areas heavily infested the previous year.
Marshes, Bayous, equivalent) per A second application may be needed when weeds show signs of recovery, but no later
Drainage Ditches, Canals, acre foot than mid-August in most areas.
Rivers and Streams that Subsurface Application: Apply DMA 4 IVM undiluted directly to the water through a boat
are Quiescent or Slow mounted distribution system. Shoreline areas should be treated by subsurface injection
Moving, Including application by boat to avoid aerial drift.
Programs of the Surface Application: Use power operated boat mounted boom sprayer. If rate is less
Tennessee Valley than 5 gallons per acre, dilute to a minimum spray volume of 5 gallons per surface acre.
Authority Aerial Application: Use drift control spray equipment or thickening agents mixed with
sprays to reduce drift Apply through standard boom systems in a minimum spray
volume of 5 gallons per surface acre. For Microfoir drift control spray systems, apply
DMA 4 IVM in a total spray volume of 12 to 15 gallons per acre.
Aoolv to attain a concentration of 2 to 4 oom (see table belowl.
t DMA 4 IVM contains 3.8 Ib of acid equivalent per gallon of product.
Amount to AoDlv to Attain a Concentration of 2 to 4 Dam
2,4-0 Acid Equivalent to Amount of DMA 4 IVM
Surface Area Averaae Deoth lftl Aoolv lIb/acrel to Aoolv (gal/acrel
1 5.4 to 10.8 1.42 to 2.84
1 acre 2 10.8 to 21.6 2.84 to 5.68
3 16.2 to 32.4 4.26 to 8.53
4 21.6 to 43.2 5.68 to 11.37
5 27.0 to 54.0 7.10 to 14.21
Precautions and Restrictions for Aquatic Use:
. Do not treat areas that are not infested with aquatic weeds.
Do not exceed 10.8 Ib of acid equivalent (2.84 gallons) per acre foot of treated water.
Do not apply within 1500 It of an active potable or irrigation water intake.
. Wind Speed: Do not apply when wind speed is at or above 10 mph when making ground or surface applications. Do not aerially apply when wind
speed is greater than 5 mph. Wind speed restrictions do not apply for subsurface applications used in submerged aquatic weed control progl al 1.3.
Dissolved Oxygen Ratio: Fish require oxygen dissolved in water for lite processes and a favorable water-oxygen ratio must be maintained.
Decaying weeds use up dissolved oxygen in water. Fish kill resulting from decaying plant material can be prevented by: (1) treating the entire area
when the weed mass is sparse and the rate of decomposition will not be sufficient to disturb the water-oxygen ratio; or (2) If application is delayed
until there is a dense weed mass, treat no more than one-half of a lake or pond at one time. For large bodies of weed-infested water, apply product
in lanes, leaving buffers strips at least 100 feet wide which can be treated in 4 to 5 weeks or when vegetation in treated lanes has decomposed.
During the growing season, decomposition of treated strips will usually occur in 2 to 3 weeks.
Irrigation: Unless an approved assay indicates that the 2,4-0 concentration is 100 ppb (0.1 ppm) acid or less, do not use water from treated areas
for; (1) irrigation other than non-crop areas or those crops or plants labeled for direct application of 2,4-0; or (2) mixing sprays for agricultural or
ornamental plants.
Potable Water: Unless an approved assay indicates that the 2,4-0 concentration is 70 ppb (0.07 ppm) acid or less, do not use water from treated
areas for potable water (drinking water).
Other Uses of Treated Water: Except as stated above. there are no restrictions on use of water from treated areas for fishing, watering of livestock,
or other domestic purposes.
9
Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01
Warranty Disclaimer
Dow AgroSciences warrants that this product conforms to the
chemical description on the label and is reasonably fit for the purposes
stated on the label when used in strict accordance with the directions,
subject to the inherent risks set forth below. Dow AgroSciences
MAKES NO OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
OR ANY OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY.
Inherent Risks of Use
It is impossible to eliminate all risks associated with use of this .
product. Crop injury, lack of pelformance, or other unintended
consequences may result because of such factors as use of the
product contrary to label instructions (induding conditions noted on
the label, such as unfavorable temperatures, soil conditions, etc.),
abnormal conditions (such as excessive rainfall, drought. tornadoes,
hurricanes), presence of other materials, the manner of application, or
other factors, all of which are beyond the control of Dow AgroSciences
or the seller. All such risks shall be assumed by buyer.
Limitation of Remedies
The exclusive remedy for losses or damages resulting from this
product (including claims based on contract, negligence, strict liability.
or other legal theories), shall be limited to, at Dow AgroSciences'
election, one of the following:
(1) Refund of purchase price paid by buyer or user for product
bought, or
(2) Replacement of amount of product used.
Dow AgroSciences shall not be liable for losses or damages resulting
from handling or use of this product unless Dow AgroSciences is
promptly notified of such loss or damage in writing. In no case shall
Dow AgroSciences be liable for consequential or incidental damages
or losses.
The tenns of the Warranty Disclaimer above and this LImitation of
Remedies cannot be varied by any written or verbal statements or
agreements. No employee or sales agent of Dow AgroSciences or
the seller is authorized to vary or exceed the teons of the Warranty
Disclaimer or this Limitation of Remedies in any manner.
"Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LtC
Dow AgroSciences LLC " Indianapolis, IN 46268 U.S.A.
EPA-accepted 10/13/2000
Label Code: 002-141-001
Initial Printing
10
Specimen Label Revised 02-26-01
NA VIGA TE@
A SELECTIVE HERBICIDE FOR CONTROLLING CERTAIN UNWANTED AQUATIC PLANTS
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Butoxyethyl ester, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, ................ .... ..27.6%
INERT INGREDIENTS: .... ... .......... ........... ......... ............. ..... ..m.... .....72.4%
TOTAl 100.0%
"Isomer specific by AOAC Method, Equivalent to 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 19%
EPA Reg. No. 228-378-8959 EPA Est. No. 228-IL-1
KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN
CAUTION
For Chemical Emergency, Spill, Leak, Fire, Exposure or Accident call Chemtrec Day or Night 1-800-424-9300
PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANtMALS
CAUTION
Harmful if swallowed, absorbed through skin, or inhaled. Causes eye irritation. Avoid contact with skin, eyes or clothing. Avoid breathing dust When
handling this product, wear chemical resistant gloves. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handfing. When mixing, loading, or applying this
product or repairing or deaning equipment used with this product, wear eye protection (face shield or safety glasses), chemical resistant gloves,long-
sleeved shirt, long pants, socks and shoes. 1\ is recommended that safety glasses include front, brow and temple protection. Wash hands, face and
arms with soap and water as soon as possible atter mixing, loading, or applying this product. Wash hands, face and hands with soap and water before
eating, smoking or drinking. Wash hands and arms before using toilet. After work, remove all clothing and shower using soap and water. Do not reuse
clothing worn during the previous day's mixing and loading or application of this product without cleaning first. Clothing must be kept and washed
separately from other household laundry. Remove saturated clothing as soon as possible and shower.
IF ON SKIN:
IF INHALED:
IF IN EYES:
STATEMENT OF PRACTICAL TREATMENT
IF SWALLOWED: Call a physician or Poison Control Center. ~rink 1 or 2 glasses of water and induce vomiting by touching back of throat with finger. If
person is unconscious, do not give anything by mouth and do not induce vomiting.
Wash with plenty of soap and water. Get medical attention.
Remove victim to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth. Get medical attention.
Flush eyes with plenty of water. Call a physician if irritation persists.
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
This product is toxic to fish. Drift or runoff may adversely affect fish and non-target plants. Do not apply to water except as specified on this label. Do not
contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters. Unless an approved assay indicates the 2,4-0 concentration is 100 ppb (0.1 pnm) or iess,
or. only growing crops and non-crop areas labeled for direct treatment with 2,4-0 will be affected, do not use water from treated areas for imgating pianls
or mixing sprays for agricultural or ornamental plants. Unless an approved assay indicates the 2,4-0 concentration is 70 ppb (0.07 ppm) or less, do not
use water from treated areas for potable water (drinking water).
Clean spreader equipment thoroughly before using it for any other purposes. Vapors from this product may injure susceptible plants.
Most cases of ground water contamination involving phenoxy herbicides such as 2,4-0 have been associated with mixingJloading and disposal sites.
Caution should be exercised when handling 2,4-0 pesticides at such sites to prevent contamination of ground water supplies. Use of closed systems for
mixing or transferring this pesticide will reduce the probability of spills. Placement of the mixinglloading equipment on an impervious pad to contain spills
will help prevent ground water contamination.
STORAGE
Always use original container to store pesticides in a secure warehouse or building. Do not store near seeds, fertilizers, insecticides or fungicides. Do
not stack more than two pallets high. Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal. It is recommended that a SARA Title III emergency
response plan be created for storage facilities. Do not transport in passenger compartment of any vehicle.
PESTICIDE DISPOSAL
Pesticide wastes are toxic. If container is damaged or if pesticide has leaked, dean up spilled material. Improper disposal of excess pesticide is a
violation of Federal law and may contaminate ground water. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your
State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance.
CONTAINER DISPOSAL
Do not reuse empty bag. Completely empty bag into application equipment. Then dispose of empty bag in a sanitary landfill or by incineration, or, if
allowed by State and local authorities, by burning. If bag is burned, stay out of smoke.
MANUFACTURED FOR:
C\t) applIed bKxhemISts
Milwaukee, WI 53022
1-800-558-5106
SEE ADDITIONAL PRECAUTIONS
AND DIRECTIONS ON BACK
NAVIGATE is a trademark of Applied Biochemists
NET WT. 50 lBS. (22.68 KG)
www.app/iedbiochemists.com
13529
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
IT IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW TO USE THIS PRODUCT IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH ITS LABEUNG.
READ THIS ENTIRE LABEL BEFORE USING THIS PRODUCT
GENERAL PRECAUTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
Do not use in or near a greenhouse.
OXYGEN RATIO
Fish breathe oxygen in the water and a water-oxygen ratio must be maintained. Decaying weeds use up oxygen, but during the period when
NAVIGATE" should be used, the weed mass is fairly sparse and the weed decomposition rate is slow enough so that the water-oxygen ralio is not
disturbed by treating the entire area at one time.
If treatments must be applied later in the season when the weed mass is dense and repeat treatments are needed spread granules in lanes, leaving
buffer strips which can then be treated when vegetation in treated lanes has disintegrated. During the growing season, weeds decompose in a 2 to 3
week period following treatment.
Buffer lanes should be 50 to 100 feet wide. Treated lanes should be as wide as the buffer strips. (See illustration below)
WATER pH
Best results are generally obtained if the water to be treated has a pH less than 8. A pH of 8 or higher may reduce weed control. If regrowth occurs
within a period of 6 to 8 weeks, a second application may be needed.
PERMIT TO USE CHEMICALS IN WATER
In many states, permits are required to control weeds by chemical means in public water. If permits are required, they may be obtained from the Chief.
Fish Division, State Department of Conservation or the Slate Department of Public Health.
GENERAL INFORMATION
NAVIGATE" is formulated on special heat treated attaday granules that resist rapid decomposition in water, sink quickly to lake or pond bottoms and
release the weed killing chemical in the critical root zone area. This product is designed to selectively control the weeds listed on the label. While certain
other weeds may be suppressed, control may be incomplete. Reduced control may occur in lakes where water replacement comes from bottom springs.
WHEN TO APPLY
For best results, spread NAVIGATE" in the spring and early summer, during the time weeds slart to grow. If desired, this timing can be checked by
sampling the lake bottom in areas heavily infested with weeds the year before. If treatments are delayed until weeds form a dense mat or reach the
surface, two treatments may be necessal)'. Make the second treatment when weeds show signs of recovel)'. Treatments made after September may
be less effective depending upon water temperatures and weed growth. Occasionally, a second application will be necessal)' if heavy regrowth occurs
or weeds reinfest from untreated areas.
HOW TO APPLY
FOR LARGE AREAS: Use a fertilizer spreader or mechanical seeder such as the Gerber or Gandy or other equipment capable of uniformly applying
this product. Before spreading any chemical, calibrate your method of application to be sure of spreading the proper amount. When using boats and
power equipment, you must determine the proper combination of (1) boat speed (2) rate of delivery from the spreader, and (3) width of swath covered by
the granules.
FOR SMALL AREAS: (Around Docks or Isolated Patches of Weeds): Use a portable spreader such as the Cyclone seeder or other Bquipment capable
of uniformly applying this product. Estimate or measure out the area you want to treat. Weight out the amount of material needed and sprPilc! (his
uniformly over the area. More uniform coverage is obtained by dividing the required amount in two and covering the area twice, applying the second half
at right angles to the first.
Use the following formula to calibrate your sprea~er's delivel)' in pounds of NAVIGATE PER MINUTE:
Miles per hour X sDreader width X oounds oar acre = pounds per minute
495
Example: To apply 100 pounds of NAVIGATE per acre using a spreader that covers a 20 foot swath from a.boat traveling at 4 miles per hour, set the
spreader to deliver 16 pounds of NAVIGATE granules per minute.
4 mDh x 20 feet x 100 Lbs./A = 16 LbslMin.
495
AMOUNTS TO USE
Rates of application val)' with resistance of weed species to the chemical, density of weed mass at time of treatment, stage of growth, water depth, and
rate of water flow through the treated area. Use the higher rate for dense weeds, when water is more than. 8 feet deep and where there is a large
volume tumover. .
NAVIGATE NAVIGATE
POUNDS POUNDS PER
PER ACRE 2000 SQ. FT.
SUSCEPTIBLE WEEDS
Water MiWOIl (Myriophyllum spp.) 100 TO 200 5
Water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia)
SLIGHTLY TO MODERATELY
RESISTANT WeeDS
Bladderwort (Utricularia spp.)
White water Uly (Nymphaea spp.)
YeUow water lily . (Nuphar spp.) 150 to 200 7-1/2 to 10
Or spatterdock"
Water shield (Braserlia spp.)
Water chestnut (Trapa nalans)
Coontail" (Ceratophyflum Demersum)
'Reoeat treatments mav be needed
UMITED WARRANTY AND DISCLAIMER
The manufacturer warrants lhallt1is material conforms 10 its chemical description and is reasonably fit for the purposes stated on lhe label when used in accordance wi1h
directions under normal conditions of use and Buyer assumes all risk of any use conlrary 10 such directions. SELLER MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR
IMPLIED AS TO FITNESS OR MERCHANTABILITY, AND NO AGENT OF SELLER IS AUTHORIZED TO DO SO EXCEPT IN WRITING WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO
THJS WARRANTY. In no event shan lhe Seller's liability for any breach of warranty exceed lhe purchase price of lhe material as to which a claim is made.
NAVlGATE01J02
Specimen Label
.TMDow AgroSciences
.-
Rodeo@
Herbicide
For aquatic weed and brush control. For control of
anf:lual and perennial weeds and woody plants in and
around aquatic and other noncrop sites; also for use in
wildlife habitat areas, for perennial grass release, and
grass growth suppression.
Avoid contact of herbicide with foliage, green stems,
exposed non-woody roots or fruit of crops, desirable
plants and trees, because severe injury or destruction
may result.
Active Ingredient(s):
glyphosatet: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine,
isopropylamine salt ................................................... 53.8%
Inert Ingredients ........................................................................ 46.2%
T otallngredients.................. ...................................................... 100.0%
t Contains 504 pounds per gallon glyphosate, isopropylamine salt
(4 pounds per gallon glyphosate acid).
EPA Reg. No. 62719-324
Keep Out of Reach of Children
CAUTION PRECAUCION
Si usted no entiende la etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se Ia explique
a usted en detalle. (If you do not understand the label, find someone to
explain it to you in detail.)
Precautionary Statements
Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals
Harmful If Inhaled
Avoid breathing spray mist. Remove contaminated clothing
and wash before reuse. Wash thoroughly with soap and water
after handling.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Applicators and other handlers must wear:
. long-sleeved shirt and long pants
. Shoes plus socks.
Follow manufacturer's instructions for cleaning/maintaining PPE (Personal
Protective Equipment). If no such instructions for washables, use
detergent and hot water. Keep and wash PPE separately from
other laundry.
Engineering Controls
When handlers use closed systems, enclosed cabs, or aircraft in a
manner that meets the requirements listed in Worker Protection Standard
(WPS) for agricultural pesticides [40 CFR 170.240 (d) (4-6)], the handler
PPE requirements may be reduced or modified as specified in the WPS.
User Safety Recommendations
Users should:
. Wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco, or
using the toilet
. Remove clothing immediately if pesticide gets inside. Then wash
thoroughly and put on clean clothing.
First Aid
If inhaled: Remove individual to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial
respiration, preferably mouth-ta-mouth. Get medical attention.
Environmental Hazards
Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters.
Treatment of aquatic weeds can result in oxygen depletion or loss due
to decomposition of dead plants. This oxygen loss can cause fish
suffocation.
In case of leak or spill, soak up and remove to a landfill.
Physical or Chemical Hazards
Spray solutions of this product should be mixed, stored and applied using
only stainless steel, aluminum, fiberglass, plastic or plastic-lined steel
containers.
Do not mix, store or apply this product or spray solutions of this
product In galvanized steel or unlined steel (except stainless steel)
containers or spray tanks. This product or spray solutions of this
product react with such containers and tanks to produce hydrogen gas,
which may form a highly combustible gas mixture. This gas mixture could
flash or explode, causing serious personal injury, if ignited by open flame,
spark, welder's torch, lighted cigarette or other ignition source.
Notice: Read the entire label. Use only according to label directions.
Before buying or using this product, read "Warranty Disclaimer" and
"Umltatlon of Remedies" elsewhere on this label.
In case of emergency endangering health or the environment involving
this product, calI1-8OG-992-5994. If you wish to obtain additional product
information, visit our web site at www.dowagro.com.
Agricultural Chemical: Do not ship or store with food, feeds, drugs or
clothing.
Directions for Use
It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent
with its labeling.
Read all Directions for Use carefully before applying.
This Is an end-use product. Cow AgroSclences does not Intend
and has not registered It for reformulation. See Individual container
label for repackaging limitations.
Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other
persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in
the area during application. For any requirements SpecifIC to your state or
tribe, consult the agency responsible for pesticide regulation.
Agricultural Use Requirements
Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the
Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains
requirements tor the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests,
nUlSeries, and greenhouses, and handlelS of agricultural pesticides.
It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notifICation,
and emergency assistance. It also contains specifIC instructions and
exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal
protective equipment (PPE), and restricted entry interval. The
requirements in this box only apply to uses of this product that are
covered by the Worker Protection Standard.
Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted
entry interval (REI) of 4 houlS.
PPE required for early entry to treated areas that is permitted under the
Worker Protection Standard and that involves contact with anything that
has been treated, such as plants, soil, or water, is:
. Coveralls
. Chemical resistant gloves made of any waterproof material
. Shoes plus socks
Storage and Disposal
Do not contaminate water, food, feed or seed by storage or disposal.
Storage: Store above 10"F (-12"C) to keep product from crystallizing.
Crystals will settle to the bottom. If allowed to crystallize, place in a
warm room 6S"F (20"C) for several days to redissolve and roll or shake
container or recirculate in mini-bulk containelS to mix well before using.
Pesticide Disposal: Wastes resulting from use of this product that cannot
be used or chemically reprocessed should be disposed of in a landfill
approved for pesticide disposal or in accordance with applicable Federal,
state or local procedures.
Container Disposal: Emptied container retains vapor and product
residue. Observe all labeled safeguards until container is cteaned,
reconditioned or destroyed. Do not reuse this container. Triple rinse
(or equivalent). Then puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or by
incineration, or, if allowed by state and local authorities, by buming. If
bumed, stay out of smoke.
General Information
(How this product works)
This product herbicide is a water-soluble liquid which mixes readily with
water and nonionic surfactant to be applied as a foliar spray for the control
or destruction of many herbaceous and woody plants. Rodeo is intended
for control of annual and perennial weeds and woody plants in and around
aquatic and other noncrop sites; also for use in wildlife habitat areas, for
perennial grass release, and grass growth suppression.
The active ingredient in Rodeo.moves through the plant from the point
of foliage contact to and into the root system. Visible effects on most
annual weeds occur within 2 to 4 days, 7 days or more on most perennial
weeds, and 30 days or more on most woody plants. Extremely cool or
cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product
and ,delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting
and yellowing of the plant which advances to complete browning of above-
ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts.
Unless otherwise directed on this label, delay application until vegetation
has emerged and reached the stages described for control of such
vegetation under the "Weeds Controlled" section of this label.
Unemerged plants arising from unattached underground rhizomes or root
stocks of perennials or brush will not be affected by the spray and will
continue to grow. For this reason best control of most perennial weeds
or brush is obtained when treatment is made at late growth stages
approaching maturity.
Always use the higher rate of Rodeo and surfactant within the
recommended range when vegetation is heavy or dense.
Do not treat weeds, brush or trees under poor growing conditions such as
drought stress, disease or insect damage, as reduced control may result.
Reduced control of target vegetation may also occur if foliage is heavily
covered with dust at the time of treatment
Reduced control may result when applications are made to woody plants
or weeds following site disturbance or plant top growth removal from
grazing, mowing, logging or mechanical brush control. For best results,
delay treatment of such areas until resprouting and foliar growth has
restored the target vegetation to the recommended stage of growth for
optimum herbicidal exposure and control.
Rainfall or irrigation occurring within 6 hoUIS after application may reduce
effectiveness. Heavy rainfall or irrigation within 2 hours after application
may wash the product off the foliage and a repeat treat",sn' Tal'
be required.
Rodeo does not provide residual weed control. For subsequent residual
weed control, follow a label-approved herbicide program. Read and
carefully observe the cautionary statements and all other information
appearing on the labels of all herbicides used.
NOTE: Use of this product in any manner not consistent with this label
may result in injury to persons, animals or crops, or other unintended
consequences. When not in use, keep container closed to prevent spills
and contamination.
Buyer and all users are responsible for all loss or damage in connection
with the use or handling of mixtures of this product or other materials that
are not expressly recommended in this label. Mixing this product with
herbicides or other materials not recommended in this label may result in
reduced performance.
ATTENTION: Avoid drift. Extreme care must be used when
applyIng this product to prevent injury to desirable plants
and crops.
2
Specimen label Revised 05-29-02
Do not allow the herbicide solution to mist, drip, drift or splash onto
desirable vegetation since minute quantities of this product can cause
severe damage or destruction to the crop, plants or other areas on
which treatment was not intended. The likelihood of plant or crop injury
occurring from the use of this product is greatest when winds are gusty or
in excess of 5 miles per hour or when other conditions, including lesser
wind velocities, wHI allow spray drift to occur. When spraying, avoid
combinations of pressure and nozzle type that will result in splatter or fine
particles (mist) which are likely to drift. Avoid applying at excessive
speed or pressure.
Mixing and Application Instructions
Clean sprayer and parts Immediately after using this product by
thoroughly flushing wIth water and dispose of rlnsate according
to labeled use or disposal Instructions.
Apply these spray solutions In properiy maintained and calibrated
equipment capable of delivering desired volumes. Hand-gun
applications should be properly directed to avoid spraying desirable
plants. Note: reduced results may occur If water containing soil Is
used, such as water from ponds and unlined ditches.
Mixing
Rodeo mixes readily with water. Mix spray solutions of this product as
follows:
1. Fill the mixing or spray tank with the required amount of water while
adding the required amount of this product (see "Directions for Use"
and "Weeds Controlled" sections of this label).
2. Near the end of the filling process, add the required surfactant and
mix well. Remove hose from tank immediately after filling to avoid
siphoning back into the water source.
Note: If tank mixing with Garlon. 3A herbicide, ensure that Garlon 3A
is well mixed with at least 75 percent of the total spray volume before
adding Rodeo to the spray tank to avoid incompatibility.
During mixing and application, foaming of the spray solution may occur.
To prevent or minimize foam, avoid the use of mechanical agitators, place
the filling hose below the surface of the spray solution (only during filling),
terminate by-pass and retum lines at the bottom of the tank, and, if
needed, use an approved anti-foam or defoaming agent.
Keep by-pass line on or near bottom of tank to minimize foaming. Screen
size in nozzle or line strainers should be no finer than 50 mesh. Carefully
select correct nozzle to avoid spraying a fine mist. For best results with
conventional ground application equipment, use flat fan nozzles. Check
for even distribution of spray droplets.
IMPORTANT: When using this product, unless otherwise specified, mix
2 or more quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution.
Use a nonionic surfactant labeled for use with herbicides.
The surfactant must contain 50 percent or more active ingredient.
Always read and follow the manufacturer's surfactant label
recommendations for best results.
These surfactants should not be used in excess of 1 quart per acre when
making broadcast applications.
Carefully observe all cautionary statements and other infonnation
appearing in the surfactant label.
Colorants or marking dyes approved for use with herbicides may be
added to spray mixtures of this product. Colorants or dyes used in spray
solutions of this product may reduce perfonnance, especially at lower
rates or dilutions. Use colorants or dyes according to the manufacturer's
label recommendations.
Application Equipment and Techniques
ATTENllON: AVOID DRIFT. EXTREME CARE MUST BE EXERCISED
WHEN APPLYING THIS PRODUCT TO PREVENT INJURY TO
DESIRABLE PlANTS AND CROPS.
Do not allow the herbicide solution to mist, drip, drift, or splash onto
desirable vegetation since minute quantities of this product can cause
severe damage or destruction to crops, plants, or other areas on which
the treatment was not intended. The likelihood of plant or crop injury
occurring from the use of this product is greatest when winds are gusty
or in excess of 5 miles per hour or when other conditions, including lesser
wind velocities, will allow spray drift to occur. When spraying, avo~
combinations of pressure and nozzle type that will result in splatter or
fine particles (mist) which are likely to drift. AVOID APPLYING AT
EXCESSIVE SPEED OR PRESSURE.
Note: Use of this product in a manner not consistent with this label
may result in injury to persons, animals, or crops, or other unintended
consequences. When not in use, keep container closed to prevent spills
and contamination.
Spray Drift Management
Avoiding spray drift at the application site is the responsibility of the
applicator. The interaction of many equipment-and-weather-related
factors determine the potential for spray drift. The applicator and the
grower are responsible for considering all these factors when making
decisions. The following drift management requirements must be followed
to avoid off-target drift movement from aerial applications to agricultural
field crops. These requirements do not apply to forestry applications,
public health uses or to applications using dry formulations.
1. The distance of the outer most nozzles on the boom must not exceed
314 the length of the wingspan or rotor.
2. Nozzles must always point backward parallel with the air stream andinever be pointed downwards more than 45 degrees. Where states
have more stringent regulations, they should be observed.
The applicator should be familiar with and take into account the
information covered in the following Aerial Drift Reduction
Advisory Information:
Importance of Droplet Size: The most effective way to reduce drift
potential is to apply large droplets. The best drift management strategy is
to apply the largest droplets that provide sufficient coverage and control.
Applying larger droplets reduces drift potential, but will not prevent drift if
applications are made improperly, or under unfavorable environmental
conditions (see Wind, Temperature and Humidity, and Temperature
Inversion section of this label).
3
Specimen label Revised 05-29-02
Controlling Droplet Size: Volume-Use high flow rate nozzles to apply the
highest practical spray volume. Nozzles with higher rated flows product
larger droplets.
Pressure-Use the lower spray pressures recommended for the nozzle.
Higher pressure reduces droplet size and does not improve canopy
penetration. When higher flow rates are needed, use higher flow rate
nozzles instead of increasing pressure.
Number of nozzles-Use the minimum number of nozzles that provide
unifonn coverage.
Nozzle Orientation-Orienting nozzles so that the spray is released
backwards, parallel to the airstream will produce larger droplets than other
orientations. Significant deflection from the horizontal will reduce droplet
size and increase drift potential.
Nozzle Type-Use a nozzle type that is designed for the intended
application. Wrth most nozzle types, narrower spray angles produce
larger droplets. Consider using low-drift nozzles. Sond stream nozzles
oriented straight back produce larger droplets than other nozzle types.
Boom Length-For some use pattems. reducing the effective boom length
to less than '% of the wingspan or rotor length may further reduce drift
without reducing swath width.
Application-Applications should not be made at a height greater than
10 feet above the top of the largest plants unless a greater height is
required for aircraft safety. Making applications at the lowest height
that is safe reduces exposure of droplets to evaporation and wind.
Swath Adjustment: When applications are made with a cross-wind, the
swath will be displaced downwind. Therefore, on the up and downwind
edges of the field, the applicator must compensate for this displacement
by adjusting the path of the aircraft upwind. Swath adjustment distance
should increase, with increasing drift potential (higher wind, smaller drops,
etc.).
Wind: Drift potential is lowest between wind speeds of 2-10 mph.
However, many factors, including droplet size and equipment type
detennine drift potential at any given speed. Application should be
avoided below 2 mph due to variable wind direction and high inversion
potential. Note: Local terrain can influence wind pattems. Every
applicator should be familiar with local wind patterns and how they
affect drift.
Temperature and Humidity: When making applications in low relative
humidity, set up equipment to produce larger droplets to compensate for
evaporation. Droplet evaporation is most severe when conditions are both
hot and dry.
Temperature Inversions: Applications should not occur during a
temperature inversion, because drift potential is high. Temperature
inversions restrict vertical air mixing, which causes small suspended
droplets to remain in a concentrated cloud. This cloud can move in
unpredictable directions due to the light variable winds common during
inversions. Temperature inversions are characterized by increasing
temperatures with altitude and are common on nights with limited cloud
cover and light to no wind. They begin to fonn as the sun sets and often
continue into the moming. Their presence can be indicated by ground
fog; however, if fog is not present, inversions can also be identified by
the movement of smoke from a ground source or an aircraft smoke
generator. Smoke that layers and moves laterally in a connected cloud
(under low wind conditions) indicates an inversion, while smoke that
moves upwards and rapidly dissipates indicates good vertical air mixing.
Sensitive Areas: The pesticide should only be applied when the
potential for drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g., residential areas,
bodies of water, known habitat for threatened or endangered species,
non-target crops) is minimal (e.g., when wind is blowing away from the
sensitive areas).
Aerial Equipment
For aerial application of this product In California, refer to Federal
supplemental label for Rodeo herbicide entitled "For Aerial
Application In California Only". In Califomia, aerial application may
be made in aquatic sites and noncrop areas, including aquatic sites
present in noncrop areas that are part of the intended treatment
For control of weed or brush species listed In this label using aerial
application equipment: For aerial broadcast application, unless
otherwise specified, apply the rates of Rodeo and surfactant
recommended for broadcast application in a spray volume of 3 to
20 gallons of water per acre. See the 'Weeds Controlled" section of this
label for labeled annual and herbaceous weeds and woody plants and
broadcast rate recommendations. Aerial applications of this product
may only be made as specifically recommended in this label.
A VOID DRIFT. Do not apply during Inversion conditions, when winds
are gusty or under any other condition which will allow drift. Drift
may cause damage to any vegetation contacted to which treatment Is
not Intended. To prevent Injury to adjacent desirable vegetation,
appropriate buffer zones must be maintained.
Coarse sprays are less likely to drift; therefore, do not use nozzles or
nozzle configurations which dispense spray as fine spray droplets. Do
not angle nozzles forward into the airstream and do not increase spray
volume by increasing nozzle pressure.
Drift control additives may be used. When a drift control additive is used,
read and carefully observe the cautionary statements and al/ other
infonnation appearing in the additive label. The use of a drift control
agent for conifer and herbaceous release applications may result in
conifer injury and is not recommended.
Ensure uniform application. To avoid streaked, uneven or overlapped
application, use appropriate marking devices.
Thoroughly wash aircraft, especially landing gear, after each day of
spraying to remove residues of this product accumulated during spraying
or from spills. Prolonged exposure of this product to uncoated steel
surfaces may result In corrosion and possible failure of the part.
landing gear are most susceptible. The maintenance of an organic
coating (paint) which meets aerospace specifICation MIL -C-38413 may
prevent corrosion.
4
Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02
Ground Broadcast Equipment
For control of weed or brush species listed In this label using
conventional boom equipment: For ground broadcast application,
unless otherwise specified, apply the rates of Rodeo and surfactant
recommended for broadcast application in a spray volume of 3 to
30 gallons of water per acre. See the 'Weeds Controlled" section of this
label for labeled annual and herbaceous weeds and woody plants and
broadcast rate recommendations. As density of vegetation increases,
spray volume should be increased within the recommended range to
ensure complete coverage. Carefully select correct nozzle to avoid
spraying a fine mist For best results with ground application equipment,
use flat fan nozzles. Check for even distribution of spray droplets.
Hand-Held and High-Volume Equipment
(Use Coarse Sprays Only)
For control of weeds listed In this label using knapsack sprayers
or high-volume spraying equipment utilizing handguns or other
suitable nozzle arrangements:
High volume sprays: Prepare a 314 to 2 percent solution of this product
in water, add a nonionic surfactant and apply to foliage of vegetation to be
controlled. For specific rates of application and instructions for control of
various annual and perennial weeds, see the 'Weeds Controlled" section
in this label.
Applications should be made on a spray-to-wet basis. Spray coverage
should be uniform and complete. Do not spray to point of runoff.
Low volume directed sprays: Rodeo may be used as a 5 to 8 percent
solution in low-volume directed sprays for spot treatment of trees and
brush. This treatment method is most effective in areas where there is a
low density of undesirable trees or brush. If a straight stream nozzle is
used, start the application at the top of the targeted vegetation and
spray from top to bottom in a lateral zig-zagmotion. Ensure that at
least 50 percent of the leaves are contacted by the spray solution. For flat
fan and cone nozzles and with hand-directed mist blowers, mist the
application over the foliage of the targeted vegetation. Small, open-
branched trees need only be treated from one side. If the foliage is
thick or there are multiple root sprouts, applications must be made
from several sides to ensure adequate spray coverage.
Prepare the desired volume of spray solution by mixing the amount of this
product in water, shown in the following table:
Spray Solution
Desired Amount of Rodeo
Volume 314% 1% 1 1/4% 1 1/2% 2% 5% 8%
1 gal 1 1 1/3 12/3 2 22/3 61/2 10 1/4
ft oz f10z fI oz ftoz f10z ft oz ftoz
25 gal 1 1/2 1 qt 1 1/4 qt 1 1/2 qt 2qt 5qt 2 gal
pt
100 gal 3 qt 1 gal 11/4 11/2 2 gal 5 gal 8 gal
gal gal
2 tablespoons = 1 fluid ounce
For use in knapsack sprayers, it is suggested that the recommended
amount of this product be mixed with water in a targer container. Fill the
knapsack sprayer with the mixed solution and add the correct amount of
surfactant.
Wiper Applications
For wick or wiper applications, mix 1 gallon of this product with 2 gallons
of clean water to make a 33 percent solution. Addition of a nonionic
surfactant at a rate of 10 percent by volume of total herbicide solution
is recommended.
Wiper applications can be used to control or suppress annual and
perennial weeds listed on this label. In heavy weed stands, a double
application in opposite directions may improve results. See the 'Weed
Controlled" section in this label for recommended timing, growth stage and
other instructions for achieving optimum results
Aquatic and Other Noncrop Sites
Apply Rodeo as directed and under conditions described 10 control or
partially control weeds and woody ptants listed in the 'Weeds Controlled"
section in industrial, recreational and public areas or other similar aquatic
or terrestrial sites on this label.
Aquatic Sites
Rodeo may be applied to emerged weeds In all bodies of fresh and
brackish water which may be flowing, nonflowlng or transient. This
Includes lakes, rivers, streams, ponds, estuaries, rice levees, seeps,
Irrigation and drainage ditches, canals, reservoirs, wastewater
treatment facilities, wildlife habitat restoration and management
areas, and similar sites.
If aquatic sites are present In the noncrop area and are part of the
Intended treatment, read and observe the following directions:
. Rodeo does not control plants which are completely submerged or
have a majority of their foliage under water.
· There is no restriction on the use of treated water for irrigation,
recreation or domestic purposes.
. Consult local state fish and game agency and water control authorities
before applying this product to public water. Permits may be required
to treat such water.
5
Specimen label Revised 05-29-02
. NOTE: Do not apply this product directly to water within 1/2 mile up-
stream of an active potable water intake in flowing water (i.e., river,
stream, etc.) or within 1/2 mile of an active potable water intake in a
standing body of water such as lake, pond or reservoir. To make aquatic
applications around and within 1/2 mile of active potable water intakes, the
water intake must be turned off for a minimum period of 48 hours after the
application. The water intake may be turned on prior to 48 hours if the
glyphosate level in the intake water is below 0.7 parts per miUion as
detennined by laboratory analysis. These aquatic applications may be
made only in those cases where there are alternative water sources or
holding ponds which would pennit the turning off of an active potable
water intake for a minimum period of 48 hours after the applications. This
restriction does not apply to intermittent inadvertent overspray of water in
terrestrial use sites.
. For treatments after drawdown of water or in dry ditches, allow 7 or
more days after treatment before reintroduction of water to achieve
maximum weed control. Apply this product within 1 day after drawdown
to ensure application to actively growing weeds.
. Floating mats of vegetation may require retreatment. Avoid wash-off
of sprayed foliage by spray boat or recreational boat backwash or by
rainfall within 6 hours of application. Do not re-treat within 24 hours
following the initial treatment.
· Applications made to moving bodies of water must be made while
traveling upstream to prevent concentration of this herbicide in water.
When making any bankside applications, do not overlap more than
1 foot into open water. Do not spray in bodies of water where weeds
do not exist. The maximum application rate of 7 1/2 pints per acre must
not be exceeded in any single broadcast application that is being made
over water.
. When emerged infestations require treatment of the total surface area
of impounded water, treating the area in strips may avoid oxygen
depletion due to decaying vegetation. Oxygen depletion may result
in fish kill.
Other Noncrop Sites
Rodeo may be used to control the listed weeds In the following
terrestrial noncrop sites and/or In aquatic sites within these areas:
Habitat Restoration & Management Areas
Highways & Roadsides
Industrial Plant Sites
Petroleum Tank Fanns
Pipeline, Power, Telephone & Utility Rights-of-Way
Pumping Installations
Railroads
Similar Sites
Cut Stump Application
Woody vegetation may be controlled by treating freshly cut stumps of
trees and resprouts with this product. Apply this product using suitable
equipment to ensure coverage of the entire cambium. Cut vegetation
close to the son surface. Apply a 50 to 100 percent solution of this
product to freshly cut surface Immediately after cutting. Delay in
applying this product may result in reduced perfonnance. For best
results, trees should be cut during periods of active growth and full
leaf expansion.
When used according to directions for cut stump application, this product
will control, partially control or suppress most woody brush and tree
species, some of which are listed below:
Common Name
Alder
Coyote brush'
Dogwood'
Eucalyptus
Hickory ,
Madrone
Maple'
Oak
Poplar'
Reed, giant
Salt cedar
Sweet gum'
Sycamore t
Tan oak
Willow
Sclentlfic Name
Alnus spp.
Baccharis consanguinea
Comus spp.
Eucalyptus spp.
Carya spp.
Arbutus menziesii
Acer spp.
Quercus spp.
Populus spp.
Arundo donax
Tamarix spp.
Liquidambar styraciflua
Platanus occidentalis
Uthocarpus densiflorus
Salix spp.
t Rodeo is not approved for this use on these species in the state of
Califomia. .
Wildlife Habitat Restoration and
Management Areas
Rodeo is recommended for the restoration and/or maintenance of native
habitat and in wildlife management areas.
Habitat Restoration and Maintenance: When applied as directed,
exotic and other undesirable vegetation may be controlled in habitat
management areas. Applications may be made to allow recovery of
native plant species, to open up water to attract waterfowl, and for similar
broad-spectrum vegetation control requirements in habitat management
areas. Spot treatments may be made to selectively remove unwanted
plants for habitat enhancement. For spot treatments, care should be
exercised to keep spray off of desirable plants.
Wildlife Food Plots: Rodeo may be used as a site preparation treatment
prior to planting wildlife food plots. Apply as directed to control vegetation
in the plot area. Any wildlife food species may be planted after applying
this product, or native species may be allowed to reinfest the area If
tillage is needed to prepare a seedbed, wait 7 days after applying this
product before tining to allow for maximum effectiveness.
Injection and Frill Applications
Woody vegetation may be controlled by injection or frill application of
this product. Apply this product using suitable equipment which must
penetrate into living tissue. Apply the equivalent of 1 ml of this product per
2 to 3 inches of trunk diameter. This is best achieved by applying
25 to 100 percent concentration of this product either to a continuous
frill around the tree or as cuts evenly spaced around the tree below all
branches. As tree diameter increases in size, better results are I;Ichieved
by applying dilute material to a continuous frill or more closely spaced
cuttings. Avoid application techniques that allow runoff to occur from
frin or cut areas in species that exude sap freely after frills or cutting. In
species such as these, make frin or cut at an oblique angle so as to
produce a cupping effect and use undiluted material. For best resuhs,
applications should be made during periods of active growth and full
leaf expansion.
6
Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02
This treatment will control the following woody species:
Common Name
Oak
Poplar
Sweet gum
Sycamore
Scientific Name
Quercus spp.
Populus spp.
Uquidambar styraciflua
Platanus occidentalis
This treatment will suppress the following woody species:
Common Name
Black gum t
Dogwood
Hickory
Maple, red
Scientific Name
Nyssa sylvatica
Camus spp.
Carya spp.
Acer rubrum
t Rodeo is not approved for this use on this species in the state of
California.
Release of Bermudagrass or
Bahiagrass on Noncrop Sites
Release Of Dormant Bermudagrass and
Bahiagrass
When applied as directed, this product will provide control or suppression
of many winter annual weeds and tall fescue for effective release of
dormant bermudagrass or bahiagrass. Make applications to dormant
bermudagrass or bahiagrass.
For best results on winter annuals, treat when weeds are in an early
growth stage (below 6 inches in height) after most have germinated.
For best results on tan fescue, treat when fescue is in or beyond the
4 to 6-leaf stage.
Weeds Controlled
Rate recommendations for control or suppression of winter annuals and
tall fescue are listed below.
Apply the recommended rates of this product in 10 to 25 gallons of water
per acre plus 2 quarts nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of total
spray volume.
Weeds Controlled or Suppressed t
Note:
C = Controlled; S = Suppressed
Rate of Rodeo
(Fluid Ounces Per Acre)
Weed Species 6 9 12 18 24 48
Barley, little S C C C C C
Hordeum Dusil/um
Bedstraw, catchweed S C C C C C
Galium aoarine
Bluegrass, annual S C C C C C
Poa annua
Chervil S C C C C C
Chaerophvllum tainturieri
Chickweed, common S C C C C
Slel/aria media
Clover, crimson . S S C C C
Trifolium incamatum
Clover, large hop . S S C C C
Trifolium camoestre
Speedwell, com S C C C C C
Veronica atvensis
Fescue, tall . . . . . S S
Festuca arundinacea
Geranium, Carolina . . S S C C
Geranium carolinianum
Henblt . S C C C C
Lamium amplexicau/e
Ryegrass, Italian . . S C C C
Lolium multiflorum
Vetch, common . . S C C " I
'-'
Vicia sativa -----..J
t These rates apply only to siles where an established competitive turf
is present.
Release of Actively Growing Bermudagrass
NOTE: Use only on sites where bahlagrass or bennudagrass are
desired for ground cover and some temporary injury or yellowing of
the grasses can be tolerated.
When applied as directed, this product will aid in the release of
bermudagrass by providing control of annual species listed in the "Weeds
Controlled" section in this label, and suppression or partial control of
certain perennial weeds.
For control or suppression of those annual species listed in this label, use
3/4 to 2 1/4 pints of this product as a broadcast spray in 10 to 25 gaUons
of spray solution per acre, plus 2 quarts of a nonionic surfactant per
100 gallons of total spray volume. Use the lower rate when treating
annual weeds below 6 inches in height (or length of runner in annual
vines). Use the higher rate as size of plants increases or as they
approach nower or seedhead formation.
7
Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02
Use the higher rate for partial control or longer-term suppression of the
following perennial species. Use lower rates for shorter-term suppression
of growth.
Bahiagrass
Dallisgrass
Fescue (tall)
Johnsongrass t
Trumpetcreeper tt
Vaseygrass
t Johnsongrass is controlled at the higher rate.
tt Suppression at the higher rate only.
Use only on well-established bennudagrass. Bennudagrass injury may
result from the treatment but regrowth will occur under moist conditions.
Repeat applications in the same season are not recommended, since
severe injury may result.
Bahiagrass Seedhead and Vegetative Suppression
When apptied as directed in the "Noncrop Sites. section in this label, this
product will provide significant inhibition of seedhead emergence and
will suppress vegetative growth for a period of approximately 45 days
with single applications and approximately 120 days with sequential
applications.
Apply this product 1 to 2 weeks after full green-up of bahiagrass or after
the bahiagrass has been mowed to a uniform height of 3 to 4 inches.
Applications must be made prior to seedhead emergence. Apply 5 fluid
ounces per acre of this product, plus 2 quarts of an approved nonionic
surfactant per 100 gallons of total spray volume in 10 to 25 gallons of
water per acre.
Sequential applications of this product plus nanionic surfactant may be
made at approximately 45-day intervals to extend the period of seedhead
and vegetative growth suppression. For continued vegetative growth
suppression, sequential applications must be made prior to seedhead
emergence.
Apply no more than 2 sequential applications per year. As a first
sequential application, apply 3 fluid ounces of this product per acre
plus nonionic surfactant. A second sequential application of 2 to 3 fluid
ounces per acre plus nonionic surfactant may be made approximately
45 days after the last apptication.
Annual Grass Growth Suppression
For growth suppression of some annual grasses, such as annual
ryegrass, wild barley and wild oats growing in coarse turf on roadsides
or other industrial areas, apply 3to 4 ounces of this product in 10 to
40 gallons of spray solution per acre. Mix 2 quarts of a nonionic
surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution. Applications should be made
when annual grasses are actively growing and before the seedheads are
in the boot stage of development. Treatments made
after seedhead emergence may cause injury to the desired grasses.
Weeds Controlled
Annual Weeds
Apply to actively growing annual grasses and broad/eaf weeds.
Allow at least 3 days after application before disturbing treated vegetation.
After this period the weeds may be mowed, tilled or
burned. See "Directions for Use: "Generallnlormation" and "Mixing
and Application Instructions" for labeled uses and specific
application instructions.
Broadcast Application Rates: Use 1 1/2 pints of this product per acre
plus 2 or more quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray
solution if weeds are less than 6 inches tall. If weeds are greater than
6 inches tall, use 2 1/2 pints of this product per acre plus 2 or more quarts
of an approved nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution.
Hand-Held~High-Volume Application Rates: Usea.31~ percent solution
of this product in water plus 2 or more quarts of a nornoOlC surfactant per
. 100 gallons of spray solution and apply to foliage of vegetation to be
controlled.
When applied as directed, Rodeo plus nonionic surfactant will
control the following annual weeds:
Common Name
Balsamapple t
Barley
Bamyardgrass
Bassia, fivehook
Bluegrass, annual
Bluegrass, bulbous
Brome
Buttercup
Cheat
Chickweed, mouseear
Cocklebur
Com, volunteer
Crabgrass
Dwarfdandelion
Falseflax, smallseed
Fiddleneck
Flaxleaf fleabane
Fleabane
Foxtail
Foxtail, Carolina
Groundsel, common
HorseweedlMarestail
Kochia
Lambsquarters, common
lettuce, prickly
Momingglory
Mustard, blue
Mustard, tansy
Mustard, tumble
Mustard, wild
Oats, wild
Panicum
Pennycress, field
Pigweed, redroot
Pigweed, smooth
Ragweed, common
Ragweed, giant
Rocket, london
Rye
Ryegrass. Italian tt
Sandbur, field
Shattercane
Shepherd's-purse
Signalgrass, broadleaf
Smartweed, Pennsylvania
Sowthistle, annual
8
Scientific Name
Momordica charantia
Hordeum vulgare
Echinochloa cros-galli
Bassia hyssopifolia
Poa annua
Poa bulbosa
Bromus spp.
Ranunculus spp.
Bromus secalinus
Cerastium vulgatum
Xanthium stromarium
Zea mays
Digitaria spp.
Krigia cespitosa
Camelina microcarpa
Amsinckia spp.
Conyza bonariensis
Erigeron spp.
Setaria spp.
Alopecuros carolinianus
Senecio vulgaris
Conyza canadensis
Kochia scoparia
Chenopodium album
Lactuca serriola
Ipomoea spp.
Chorispora tenella
Descurainia pinnata
Sisymbrium altissimum
Sinapis arvensis
Avena fatua
Panicum spp.
Thlaspi arvense
Amaranthus retronexus
Amaranthus hybridus
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Ambrosia trifida
Sisymbrium irio
Secale cereale
LoIium multiflorum
Cenchros spp.
Sorghum bicoIor
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Brachiaria platyphylla
Polygonum pensyivanicum
Sonchus oleraceus
Specimen label Revised 05-29-02
Spanishneedles tt
Stinkgrass
Sunflower
Thistle, Russian
Spurry, umbrella
Velvetleaf
Wheat
Witchgrass
Bidens bipinnata
Eragrostis cilianensis
Helianthus annuus
Salsola /cali
Holosteum umbel/atum
Abutilon theophrasti
Triticum aestivum
Panicum capillare
'Apply with hand-held equipment only.
tt Apply 3 pints of this product per acre.
Annual weeds will generally continue to germinate from seed throughout
the growing season. Repeat treatments will be necessary to control later
germinating weeds.
Perennial Weeds
Apply Rodeo to control most vigorously growing perennial weeds. Unless
otherwise directed, apply when target plants are actively growing and
most have reached early head or early bud stage of growth. Unless
otherwise directed, allow at least 7 days after application before disturbing
vegetation.
NOTE: If weeds have been mowed or tilled, do not treat until regrowth has
reached the recommended stages. Fall treatments must be applied before
a killing frost.
Repeat treatments may be necessary to control weeds regenerating from
underground parts or seed.
Specific Weed Control Recommendations: For perennial weeds, apply
the recommended rate plus 2 or more quarts of a nonionic surfactant per
100 gallons of spray solution. See the "General Information", "Directions
for Use" and "Mixing and Application" sections in this label for specific
uses and application instructions.
When applied as directed, Rodeo plus nonionic surfactant will
control the following perennial weeds: (Numbers in parentheses "(-j"
following common name of a listed weed species refer to "Specific
Perennial Weed Control Recommendations" for that weed which follow
the species listing.)
Common Name
Alfalfa (31)
Alligalorweed '(1)
AniseIFennel (31)
Artichoke, Jerusalem (31)
Bahiagrass (31)
Bermudagrass (2)
Bindweed, field (3)
Bluegrass, Kentucky (12)
Blueweed, Texas (3)
Brackenfem (4)
Bromegrass, smooth (12)
Canarygrass, reed (12)
Cattail (5)
Scientific Name
Medicago sativa
Altemanthera philoxeroides
Foeniculum vulgare
Helianthus tuberosus
Paspalum notatum
Cynodon dactylon
Convolvulus arvensis
Poa pratensis
Helianthus ciliaris
Pteridium spp.
Bromus inermis
Phalaris arundinacea
Typha spp.
Clover, red (31)
Clover, white (31)
Cogongrass (6)
Cordgrass (7)
Cutgrass, giant' (8)
Dallisgrass (31 )
Dandelion (31)
Dock, curly (31)
Dogbane, hemp (9)
Fescue (31)
Fescue, tall (10)
Guineagrass (11)
Hemlock, poison (31)
Horsenettle (31)
Horseradish (9)
Ice Plant (22)
Johnsongrass (12)
Kikuyugrass (21)
Knapweed (9)
Lantana (13)
Lespedeza, common (31)
Lespedeza, sericea (31)
Loosestrife, purple (14)
Lotus, American (15)
Maidencane (16)
Milkweed (17)
Muhly, wirestem (21 )
Mullein, common (31)
Napiergrass (31)
Nightshade, silverleaf (3)
Nutsedge, purple (18)
Nutsedge, yellow (18)
Orchardgrass (12)
Pampasgrass (19)
paragrass (16)
Phragmitestt (20)
Quackgrass (21)
Reed, giant (22)
Ryegrass, perennial (12)
Smartweed, swamp (31)
Spatterdock (23)
Starthistle, yellow (31)
Sweet potato, wild '(24)
Thistle, artichoke (25)
Thistle, Canada (25)
Timothy (12)
Torpedograss '(26)
Tules, common (27)
Vaseygrass (31)
Velvetgrass (31)
Watemyacinth (28)
Waterlettuce (29)
Waterprimrose (30)
Wheatgrass, western (12)
Trifolium pratense
Trifolium repens
Imperata clylindrica
Spartina spp.
Zizaniopsis miliacea
Paspafum dilatatum
Taraxacum officinale
Rumex crispus
Apocynum cannabinum
Festuca spp.
Festuca arundinacea
Panicum maximum
Conium macufatum
Solanum carolinense
Armoracia rusticana
Mesembryanthemum crystallinum
Sorghum ha/epense
Pennisetum c/andestinum
Centaurea repens
Lantana camara
Lespedeza striata
Lespedeza cuneata
Lylhrum sa/iearia
Nelumbo lutea
Panicum hematomon
Asclepias spp.
Muhlenbergia frondosa
Verbascum thapsus
Pennisetum purpureum
Solanum elaeagnifolium
Cyperus rotundus
Cyperus escufentus
Dactylis glomerata
Cortaderia jubata
Brachiaria mutica
Phragmites spp.
Agropyron repens
Arundo donax
Lolium perenne
Polygonum coccineum
Nuphar luteum
Centaurea solstitial is
Ipomoea pandurata
Cynara cardunculus
Cirsium arvense
Phleum pratense
Panicum repens
Scirpus aculus
Paspafum urvillei
Holcus spp.
Eichomia crassipes
Pistia stratiotes
Ludwigia spp.
Agropyron smithii
'Partial control.
ttpartial control in southeastern states. See "Specific Weed Control
Recommendations" below.
9
Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02
Specific Perennial Weed Control Recommendations:
1. AlIIgatorweed: Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast
spray or as a 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment to
provide partial control of alligatorweed. Apply when most of the
target plants are in bloom. Repeat applications will be required to
maintain such control.
2. Bermudagrass: Apply 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 11/2 percent solution with hand-held
equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and when
seedheads appear.
3. Bindweed, field I Sllverleaf Nightshade I Texas Blueweed: Apply
6 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray west of
the Mississippi River and 41/2 to 6 pints of this product per acre east
of the Mississippi River. With hand-held equipment, use a
1 1/2 percent solution. Apply when target plants are actively growing
and are at or beyond full bloom. For silverleat nightshade, best
results can be obtained when application is made atter berries are
formed. Do not treat when weeds are under drought stress. New
leaf development indicates active growth. For best results apply in
late summer or fall.
4. Brackenfern: Apply 4 1/2 to 6 pints of this product per acre as a .
broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 percent solution with hand-held
equipment. Apply to fully expanded fronds which are at least
18 inches long.
5. Cattail: Apply 4 1/2 to 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast
spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply
when target plants are actively growing and are at or beyond the
early-to-full bloom stage of growth. Best results are achieved when
application is made during the summer or fall months.
6. Cogongrass: Apply 4 1/2 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray. Apply when cogongrass is at least 18 inches tall
and actively growing in late summer or fall. Allow 7 or more days
atter application before tillage or mowing. . Due to uneven stages ot
growth and the dense nature ot vegetation preventing good spray
coverage, repeat treatments may be necessary to maintain control.
7. Cordgrass: Apply 4 1/2 to 71/2 pints of this product per acre as
a broadcast spray or as a 1 to 2 percent solution with hand-held
equipment. Schedule applications in Older to allow 6 hours before
treated plants are covered by tidewater. The presence of debris
and silt on the cordgrass plants will reduce perfonnance. It may be
necessary to wash targeted plants prior to application to improve
uptake of this product into the plant.
8. Cutgrass, giant: Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 1 percent solution with hand-held equipment
to provide partial control of giant cutgrass. Repeat applications will
be required to maintain such control, especially where vegetation is
partially submerged in water. Allow for substantial regrowth to the
7 to lQ-leaf stage prior to relreatment.
9. Dogbane, hemp I Knapweed I Horseradish: Apply 6 pints of this
product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution
with hand-held equipment: Apply when target plants are actively
growing and most have reached .the late bud-to-flower stage of
growth. For best results, apply in late summer or fall.
10. Fescue, tall: Apply 41/2 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 1 percent solution with hand-held equipment.
Apply when target plants are actively growing and
most have reached the boot-to-head stage of growth. When applied
prior to the boot stage, less desirable control may be obtained.
11. Gulneagrass: Apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held
equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and when
most have reached at least the 7-leaf stage of growth.
12. Johnsongrass 1 Bluegrass, Kentucky I Bromegrass, smooth I
Canarygrass, reed I Orchardgrass 1 Ryegrass, perennial 1
Timothy I Wheatgrass, western: Apply 3 to 4112 pints 01 this
product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution
with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively
growing and most have reached the boot-to-head stage 01 growth.
When applied prior to the boot stage, less desirable control may
be obtained. In the fall, apply before plants have turned brown.
13. Lantana: Apply this product as a 3/4 to 1 percent solution with hand-
held equipment. Apply to actively growing lantana at or beyond the
bloom stage of growth. Use the higher application rate for plants that
have reached the woody stage of growth.
14. Loosestrife, purple: Apply 4 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 1 to 1 1/2 percent solution using hand-held
equipment. Treat when plants are actively growing at or beyond the
bloom stage of growth. Best results are achieved when application is
made during summer or fall months. Fall treatments must be applied
before a killing frost
15. Lotus, American: Apply 4 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held
equipment Treat when plants are actively growing at or beyond
the bloom stage of growth. Best results are achieved when
application is made during summer or fall months. Falltreatments
must be applied before a killing frost. Repeat treatment may be
necessary to control regrowth Irom underground parts and seeds.
16. Maldencane I Paragrass: Apply 6 pints of this product per acre
as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held
equipment Repeat treatments will be required, especially to
vegetation partially submerged in water. Under these conditions,
allow for regrowth to the 7 to 1 Q-leaf stage prior to retreatment.
17. Milkweed, common: Apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre
as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-he'd
equipment Apply when target plants are actively growing and most
have reached the late bud-ta-f1ower stage ot growth.
.18. Nutsedge: purple, yellow: Apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre
as a broadcast spray, or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held
equipment to control existing nutsedge plants and immature m:tk.l'o
attached to treated plants. Apply when target plants are in flower or
when new nutlets can be found at rhizome tips. NuUets which have
not germinated will not be controlled and may germinate following
treatment. Repeat treatments will be required lor long-term control.
19. Pampasgrass: Apply a 1 1/2 percent solution of this product with
hand-held equipment when plants are actively growing.
20. Phragmltes: For partial control of phragmites in Aorida and the
counties of other states bordering the Gulf of Mexico, apply
7 1/2 pints per acre as a broadcast spray or apply a 1 1/2 percent
solution with hand-held equipment. In other areas ot the U.S., apply
4 to 6 pints per acre as a broadcast spray or apply a 3/4 percent
solution with hand-held equipment for partial control. For best resuhs,
treat during late summer of fall months when plants are actively
growing and in full bloom. Due to the dense nature of the vegetation,
which may prevent good spray coverage and uneven stages of
growth, repeat treatments may be necessary-to maintain control.
Visual control symptoms will be slow to develop.
21. Quackgrass I Kikuyugrass I Muhly, wirestern: Apply 3 to
4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a
3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment when most
quackgrass or wirestem muhly is at least 8 inches in height (3 to
4-leaf stage of growth) and actively growing. Allow 3 or more days
atter application before tillage.
22. Reed, giant I ice plant: For control of giant reed and ice plant, apply
a 1 1/2 percent solution of this product with hand-held equipment
when plants are actively growing. For giant reed, best results are
obtained when applications are made in late summer to fall.
10
Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02
23. Spatterdock: Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast
spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply
when most plants are in full bloom. For best results. apply during the
summer or fall months.
24. Sweet potato, wild: Apply this product as a 1 1/2 percent solution
using hand-held equipment. Apply to actively growing weeds that
are at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. Repeat applications will
be required. Allow the plant to reach the recommended stage of
growth before retreatment.
25. Thistle, Canada I artichoke: Apply 3 to 4 1/2 pints of this product
per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with
hand-held equipment for Canada thistle. To control artichoke thistle,
apply a 2 percent solution as a spray-to-wet application. Apply when
target plants are actively growing and are at or beyond the bud stage
of growth.
26. Torpedograss: Apply 6 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held
equipment to provide partial control of torpeclograss. Use the lower
rates under teri"estrial conditions, and the higher rates under partially
submerged or a floating mat condition. Repeat treatments will be
required to maintain such control.
27. Tules, common: Apply this product as a 1 1/2 percent solution with
hand-held equipment. Apply to actively growing plants at or beyond
the seedhead stage of growth. After application, visual symptoms
will be slow to appear and may not occur for 3 or more weeks.
28. Waterhyaclnth: Apply 5 to 6 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or apply a 314 to 1 percent solution with hand-held
equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and at or
beyond the early bloom stage of growth. After application, visual
symptoms may require 3 or more weeks to appear with complete
necrosis and decomposition usually occurring within 60 to 90 days.
Use the higher rates when more rapid visual effects are desired.
29. Waterlettuce: For control, apply a 314 to 1 percent solution of this
product with hand-held equipment to actively growing plants. Use
higher rates where infestations are heavy. Best results are obtained
from mid-summer through winter applications. Spring applications
may require retreatment.
30. Waterprlmrose: Apply this product as a 3/4 percent solution using
hand-held equipment. Apply to plants that are actively growing at or
beyond the bloom stage of growth, but before fall color changes
occur. Thorough coverage is necessary for best control.
31. Other perennial weeds listed above: Apply 41/2 to 71/2 pints
of Rodeo per acre as a broadcast spray or apply as a 314 to
1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment.
Woody Brush and Trees
NOTE: If brush has been mowed or tilled or trees have been cuI, do not
treat until regrowth has reached the recommended stage of growth.
Application Rates and Timing
When applied as a 5 to 8 percent solution as a directed application as
described in the "Hand-Held and High-Volume Equipment" section, this
product will control or partially control all wood brush and tree species
listed in this section of this label. Use the higher rate of application for
dense stands and larger woody brush and trees.
Specific Brush or Tree Control Recommendations: Numbers in
parentheses "(-)" following the common name of a listed brush or tree
species refer to .Specific Brush or Tree Control Recommendations" which
follow the species listing. See this section for specific application rates
and timing for listed species.
For woody brush and trees, apply the recommended rate plus 2 or more
quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution when
plants are actively growing and, unless otherwise directed, after full-leaf
expansion. Use the higher rate for larger plants and/or dense areas of
growth. On vines, use the higher rate for plants that have reached the
woody stage of growth. Best results are obtained when application is
made in late summer or fall after fruit formation.
In arid areas, best results are obtained when application is made in the
spring or early summer when brush species are at high moisture content
and are flowering. Ensure thorough coverage when using hand-held
equipment Symptoms may not appear prior to frost or senescence with
fall treatments.
Allow 7 or more days after application before tillage, mowing or removal.
Repeat treatments may be necessary to control plants regenerating
from underground parts or seed. Some autumn colors on undesirable
deciduous species are acceptable provided no major leaf drop has
occurred. Reduced perfonnance may result if fall treatments are made
following a frost.
See the .Directions for Use" and "Mixing and Application Instructions"
sections in this label for labeled use and specific application instructions.
When applied as directed, Rodeo plus nonlonic surfactant will
control the following woody brush plants and trees: (Numbers in
parentheses .(-)" following common name of a listed brush or tree species
refer to .Specific Brush or Tree Control Recommendations. for that
species which follow the species listing.)
Common Name
Alder (1)
Ash t (20)
Aspen, quaking (2)
Bearclover, Beannat (20)
Birch (3)
Blackberry (1)
Broom, French (4)
Broom, Scotch (4)
Buckwheat, California t (5)
Cascara t (20)
Catsclaw t(6)
Ceanothus (20)
Chamise (17)
Cherry, bitter (7)
Cherry, black (7)
Cherry, pin (7)
Coyote brush (8)
Creeper, Virginia t (20)
Dewberry (1)
Dogwood (9)
8derberry (3)
Elm t (20)
Eucalyptus, bluegum (10)
Hasardia t (5)
Hawthorn (2)
Hazel (3)
Hickory (9)
Holly, Rorida (11)
(Brazilian peppertree)
Honeysuckle (1)
Hombeam, American (20)
Kudzu (12)
Locust, black t (20)
Manzanita (20)
11
Scientific Name
Alnus spp.
Fraxinus spp.
Populus tremuloides
Chamaebatia foliolosa
Betula spp.
Rubus spp.
Cytisus monspess:;/anc IS
Cytisus scoparius
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Rhamnus purshiana
Acacia greggi
Ceanothus spp.
Adenostoma fascicuJatum
Prunus emarginata
Prunus serotina
Prunus pensytvanica
Baccharis consanguinea
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Rubus trivialis
Comus spp.
Sambucus spp.
Ulmus spp.
Eucalyptus globulus
Haplopappus squamosus
Crataegus spp.
Cory/us spp.
Cal}'a spp.
Schinus terebinthifo/ius
Lonicera spp.
Carpinus caroliniana
Pueraria lobata
Robinia pseudoacacia
Arctostaphylos spp.
Specimen label Revised 05-29-02
Maple, red '(13)
Maple, sugar (14)
Maple, vine' (20)
Monkey flower '(5)
Oak, black' (20)
Oak, northern pin (14)
Oak, post (1)
Oak, red (14)
Oak, southern red (7)
Oak, white t (20)
Persimmon t (20)
Poison-ivy (15)
Poison-oak (15)
Poplar, yellow t (20)
Prunus (7)
Raspberry (1)
Redbud, eastern (20)
Rose, multiflora (16)
Russian-olive (20)
Sage: black (17), white
Sagebrush, California (17)
Salmonbeny (3)
Salt cedar t (9)
Saltbush, sea myrtle (18)
Sassafras (20)
Sourwood t (20)
Sumac, poison t (20)
Sumac, smooth' (20)
Sumac, winged t (20)
Sweetgum (7)
Swordfem t (20)
Tallowtree, Chinese (17)
Thimblebeny (3)
Tobacco, tree t (5)
Trumpetcreeper (2)
Waxmyrtle, southern' (11)
Willow (19)
Acer rubrum
Acer saccharum
Acer cireinatum
Mimulus guUatus
Quercus velutina
Quercus palustris
Quercus stellata
Quercus rubra
Quercus falcata
Quercus alba
Diospyros spp.
Rhus radicans
Rhus toxicodendron
Liriodendron tulipifera
Prunus spp.
Rubus spp.
Gereis canadensis
Rosa multiflora
Elaeagnus angustifolia
SaMa spp.
Artemisia caJifomica
Rubus spectabilis
Tamarix spp.
Baccharis halimifo/ia
Sassafras aibidum
Oxydendrum arboreum
Rhus vemix
Rhus glabra
Rhus copal/ina
Liquidambar styraciffua
Po/ystichum munitum
Sapium sebiferum
Rubus parvifforus
Nicotiana glauca
Campsis radicans
Myrica cerifera
Salix spp.
t Partial control (See below for control or partial control instructions.)
Specific Brush or Tree Control Recommendations:
1. Alder I Blackberry / Dewberry I Honeysuckle' Oak, Post I
Raspberry: For control, apply 4 1/2 to 6 pints per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 314 to 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held
equipment.
2. Aspen, Quaking' Hawthorn I Trumpetcreeper: For control, apply 3
to 4 1/4 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a
314 to 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment.
3. Birch I Elderberry' Hazell Salmonberry' Thimbleberry: For
control, apply 3 pints per acre of this product as a broadcast spray or
as a 314 percent solution with hand-held equipment.
4. Broom, French' Broom, Scotch: For control, apply a 1 1/4 to
1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment.
5. Buckwheat, California' Hasardia' Monkey flower' Tobacco,
tree: For partial control of these species, apply a 314 to 1 1/2 percent
solution of this product as a foliar spray with hand-held equipment.
Thorough coverage of foliage is necessary for best results.
6. Catsclaw: For partial control, apply a 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution
with hand-held equipment when at least 50 percent of the new
leaves are fully developed.
7. Cherry, bitter / Cherry, black' Cherry, pin /Oak, southern red,
Sweetgum I Prunus: For control, apply 3 to 7 1/2 pints of this
product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 to 1 1/2 percent
solution with hand-held equipment.
8. Coyote brush: For control. apply a 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution
with hand-held equipment when at least 50 percent of the new
leaves are fully developed.
9. Dogwood' Hickory' Salt cedar: For partial control, apply a
1 to 2 percent solution of this product with hand-held equipment or
6 to 7 1/2 pints per acre as a broadcast spray.
10. Eucalyptus, b1uegum: For control of eucalyptus resprouts, apply a 1
1/2 percent solution of this product with hand-held equipment when
resprouts are 6 to 12.feet tall. Ensure complete coverage. Apply
when plants are actively growing. Avoid application to drought-
stressed plants.
11. Holly, Aorlda I Waxmyrtle, southern: For partial control, apply this
product as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment.
12. Kudzu: For control, apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held
equipment. Repeat applications will be required to maintain control.
13. Maple, red: For control, apply as a 3/4 to 1 1/4 percent solution with
hand-held equipment when leaves are fuUy developed. For partial
control, apply 2 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast
spray.
14. Maple, sugar I Oak: northern pin' Oak, red: For control. apply as a
314 to 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment when at least
50 percent of the new leaves are fully developed.
15. Poison-lvy' Polson-oak: For control, apply 6 to 71/2 pints of this
product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution
with hand-held equipment. Repeat applications may be required to
maintain control. Fall treatments must be applied before leaves lose
green color.
16. Rose, multiflora: For control, apply 3 pints of this product per acre
as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held
equipment. Treatments should be made prior to leaf deterioration by
leaf-feeding insects.
17. Sage, black' Sagebrush, California I Chamlse , Tal!owtroc
Chinese: For control of these species, apply a 314 percent solution of
this product as a foliar spray with hand-held equipment. Thorough
coverage of foliage is necessary for best results.
18. Saltbush, sea myrtle: For control, apply this product as a 1 percent
solution with hand-held equipment.
19. Willow: For control, apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 314 percent solution with hand-held
equipment.
20. Other wOody brush and trees listed above: For PCirtial control,
apply 3 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or
as a 314 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment.
12
Sped men Label Revised 05-29-02
Warranty Disclaimer
Dow AgroSciences warrants that this product conforms to the chemical
description on the label and is reasonably fit for the purposes stated on
the label when used in strict accordance with the directions, subject to the
inherent risks set forth below. Dow AgroSciences MAKES NO OTHER
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR ANY OTHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED WARRANTY.
Inherent Risks of Use
It is impossible to eliminate all risks associated with use of this product.
Crop injury, lack of performance, or other unintended consequences may
result because of such factors as use of the product contrary to label
instructions (including conditions noted on the label, such as unfavorable
temperatures, soil conditions, etc.), abnormal conditions (such as
excessive rainfall, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes), presence of other
materials, the manner of application, or other factors, all of which are
beyond the control of Dow AgroSciences or the seller. All such risks
shall be assumed by buyer.
Limitation of Remedies
The exclusive remedy for losses or damages resulting from this product
(including claims based on contract, negfigence, strict liability, or other
legal theories), shall be limited to, at Dow AgroSciences' election, one of
the following:
(1) Refund of purchase price paid by buyer or user for product bought, or
(2) Replacement of amount of product used.
Dow AgroSciences shall not be liable for losses or damages resulting from
handling or use of this product unless Dow AgroSciences is promptly
notified of such loss or damage in writing. In no case shall
Dow AgroSciences be liable for consequential or incidental damages
or losses.
The terms of the Warranty Disclaimer above and this Umitation of
Remedies cannot be varied by any wrillen or verbal statements or
agreements. No employee or sales agent of Dow AgroSciences or
the seller is authorized to vary or exceed the terms of the Warranty
Disclaimer or this Umitation of Remedies in any manner.
'Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC
Dow AgroSciences LLC -Indianapolis, IN 46268 U.S.A.
Label Code: 002-148-002
Replaces Label: 002-148-001
EPA-accepted 05/1512002
Revisions:
1. Update of specific uses allowed in the state of Cafifomia.
13
Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02
This sample label is current as of 10127199. The product descriptions and recommendations provided in this sample label are for
background infonnation only. Always refer to the label on the product before using Monsanto or any other agrichemical product.
21195YH/CG
3.0
3.1
PRECAUTIONARY
STATEMENTS
Hazards to Humans and
Domestic Animals
Complete Directions for Use
in Aquatic and Other
Noncrop Sites.
Keep out of reach of children.
CAUTION!
Remove contaminated clothing and wash clothing before
reuse.
Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling.
3.2 Environmental Hazards
Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment
wash waters. Treatment of aquatic weeds can result in oxygen
depletion or loss due to decomposition of dead plants. This
oxygen loss can cause fish suffocation.
In case of: SPill or lEAK, soak up and remove to a landfill.
~lJAMASTERrM
H.:rbicide b.r .11oIls<mto
EPA Reg. No. 524-343
3.3 Physical or Chemical
Hazards
AVOID CONTACT OF HERBICIDE WITH FOLIAGE,
GREEN STEMS, EXPOSED NON-WOODY ROOTS
OR FRUIT OF CROPS, DESIRABLE PLANTS AND
TREES. BECAUSE SEVERE INJURY OR DESTRUC-
TION IS LIKELY TO RESULT.
Spray solutions of this product should be mixed, stored and
applied using only stainless steel, aluminum, fiberglass.
plastic or plastic-lined steel containers.
DO NOT MIX. STORE OR APPLY THIS PRODUCT OR SPRAY
SOLUTIONS OF THIS PRODUCT IN GALVANIZED STEEL OR
UNLINED STEEL (EXCEPT STAINLESS STEEl) CONTAINERS
OR SPRAY TANKS. This product or spray solutions of this
product react with such containers and tanks to produce
hydrogen gas which may form a highly combustible gas
mixture. This gas mixture could flash or explode, causing
serious personal injury, if ignited by open flame, spark,
welder's torch, lighted cigarette or other ignition source.
AQuaMaster is a trademark of Monsanto Company.
2000-1
Read the entire label before using this product.
Use only according to label instructions.
It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in any
manner inconsistent with its labeling.
Not all products recommended on this label are registered for
use in Califomia. Check the registration status of each
product in California before using.
Read the "LIMIT OF WARRANTY AND LIABILITY" statement
at the end of the label before buying or using. If terms are not
acceptable, return at once unopened.
THIS IS AN END-USE PRODUCT. MONSANTO DOES NOT
INTEND AND HAS NOT REGISTERED IT FOR REFORMULA-
TION OR REPACKAGING. SEE INDIVIDUAL CONTAINER
LABEL FOR REPACKAGING LIMITATIONS.
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in any
manner inconsistent with its labeling. For any requirements
specific to your State or Tribe. consult the ago"CY f,Sf,;;"
ble for pesticide regulations.
n.lls PRODUCT, OR
T. DAY OR NIGHT,
4.0 STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
00 not contaminate water, foodstuffs, feed or seed by stor-
age or disposal.
STORAGE: STORE ABOVE 100F (-120C) TO KEEP PRODUCT
FROM CRYSTALLIZING. Crystals will setUe to the bottom. If
allowed to crystallize, place in a warm room 680F (20OC) for
several days to redissolve and roll or shake container or
recirculate in mini-bulk containers to mix well belore using.
DISPOSAl: Wastes resulting from the use of this product
that cannol be used or chemically reprocessed should be
disposed of in a landfill approved for pesticide disposal or in
accordance with applicable Federal, state, or local proce-
dures.
Emptied container retains vapor and product residue.
Observe all labeled safeguards until container is cleaned,
reconditioned, or destroyed.
FOR REFilLABLE PORTABLE CONTAINERS: 00 not reuse
this container except for refill in accordance with a valid
Monsanto Repackaging or Toll Repackaging Ag reemen!. If
not refilled or returned to the authorized repackaging facility,
triple rinse container, then puncture and dispose of in a
sanitary landfill, or by incineration, or, if allowed by state and
local authorities, by buming. If bumed, stay out of smoke.
FOR METAL CONTAINERS (non-aerosol): Triple rinse (or
equivalent). Then offer for recycling or reconditioning, or
puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or by other
procedures approved by state and local authorities.
FOR BULK CONTAINERS: Triple rinse emptied bulk container.
Then offer for recycling or reconditioning, or dispose of in a
manner approved by state and local authorities.
1.0 INGREDIENTS
ACTIVE INGREDIENT:
'Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine,
In the form of its isopropylamine salt .......... 53.8%
OTHER INGREDIENTS: ......,...............~
100.0%
'Contains 648 grams per litre or 5.4 pounds per U.S. gallon
01 the active ingredient. glyphosate, in the form of its
isopropyJamine salt. Equivalent to 480 grams per litre or 4
pounds per U.S. gallon of the acid, glyphosate.
2.0 IMPORTANT PHONE
. NUMBERS
1. FOR ~anl!l.l:er;INe~tl!ilti/;OR ASSISTANCE IN USING
THIS PRODUCT, CAll TOLL-FREE,
:t#~boi33~#31;1jj>
1
FOR PLASTIC 1-WAY CONTAINERS ANO BOTTLES: Do not
reuse container. Triple rinse container, then puncture and dis-
pose of in a sanitary landfill, or by incineration, or, if allowed
by state and local authorities, by burning. If burned. stay out
of smoke.
FOR DRUMS: 00 not reuse container. Return container per
the Monsanto container return program. If not returned, triple
rinse container, then puncture and dispose of in a sanitary
landfill, or by incineration, or, if allowed by state and local
authorities, by burning. If burned, stay out of smoke.
5.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
This product, a water-soluble liquid, mixes readily with water
and nonionic surfactant to be applied as a foliar spray for the
control or destruction of many herbaceous and woody plants.
This product moves through the plant from the point of
foliage contact to and into the root system. Visible effects on
most annual weeds occur within 2 to 4 days but on most
perennial brush species may not occur for 7 days or more.
Extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may
slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of
control. Visible effects are a gradual wilting and yellowing of
the plant which advances to complete browning of above-
ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts.
Unless otherwise directed on this labet, delay application until
vegetation has emerged and reached the stages described for
control of such vegetation under the "WEEDS CONTROLLED"
secllon of this label.
Unemerged plants arising from unattached underground
rflizomes or root stocks of perennials or brush will not be
affected by the spray and will continue to grow. For this
reason best control of most perennial weeds or brush is
obtained when treatment is made at late growth stages
approaching maturity.
Always use the higher rate of this product per acre within the
recommended range when vegetation is heavy or dense.
Do not treat weeds or brush under poor growing conditions
such as drought stress, disease or insect damage. as reduced
control may result. Reduced results may also occur when
treating weeds or brush heavily covered with dust.
Reduced control may result when applications are made to
any weed or brush species that have been mowed, grazed or
cut. and have not been allowed to regrow to the recom-
mended stage for treatment.
Rainfall or irrigation occurring within 6 hours after application
may reduce effectiveness. Heavy rainfall or irrigation within 2
hours after application may wash the product off the foliage
and a repeat treatment may be required.
When this product comes in contact with soil (on the soU
surface or as suspended soil or sediment in water) it is bound
to soil particles. Under recommended use situations, once
this product is bound to soil particles, it is not available for
plant uptake and will not harm off-site vegetation where roots
grow into the treatment area or if the soil is transported off-
site. Under recommended use conditions. the strong affinity
of this product to soil particles prevents this product from
leaching out of the soil profile and entering ground water. The
affinity between this product and soil particles remains until
this product is degraded, which is primarily a biological
degradation process carried out under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions by soil micronora.
This product does not provide residual weed control. For
subsequent residual weed control, follow a label-approved
herbicide program. Read and carefully observe the cautionary
statements and all other information appearing on the labels
of all herbicides used.
Buyer and all users are responsible for all loss or damage in
connection with the use or handling of mixtures of this
product or other materials that are not expressly recom-
mended in this label. Mixing this product with herbicides or
other materials not recommended in this label may result in
reduced performance.
ATTENTION
AVOID DRIFT. EXTREME CARE MUST BE USED WHEN
APPLYING THIS PRODUCT TO PREVENT INJURY TO DESIR-
ABLE PlANTS AND CROPS.
00 not allow the herbicide solution to mist, drip, drift or
splash onto desirable vegetation since minute quantities of
this product can cause severe damage or destruction to the
crop, plants or other areas on which treatment was not
intended. The likelihood of plant or crop injury occurring from
the use of this product is greatest when winds are gusty or in
excess of 5 miles per hour or when other conditions, includ-
ing lesser wind velocities, will allow spray drift to occur.
When spraying, avoid combinations of pressure and nozzle
type that will result in splatter or fine particles (mist) which
are likely to drift. AVOID APPLYING AT EXCESSIVE SPEED
OR PRESSURE
NOTE: Use of this product in any manner not consistent with
this label may result in injury to persons, animals or crops, or
other unintended consequences. Whim not in use, keep con-
tainer closed to prevent spills and contamination.
6.0 MIXING
Clean sprayer parts immediately after using this product by
thoroughly flushing with water.
NOTE: REDUCED RESULTS MAY OCCUR IF WATER CON-
TAINING SOIL IS USED, SUCH AS VISIBLY MUDDY WATER
OR WATER FROM PONDS AND DITCHES THAT IS NOT
CLEAR.
6.1 Mixing with Water and
Surfactant
This product mixes readily with wateL Mix spray solutions of
this product as follows: Fill the mixing or spray tank with the
required amount of water. Add the recommended amount of
this product and the required surfactant near the end of the
filling process and mix well. Use caution to avoid siphoning
back into the carrier source_ Use approved anti-back-
siphoning devices where required by state or local regula.
tions. During miXing and application, foaming of the spray
solution may occur. To prevent or minimize foam, avoid the
use of mechanical agitators, terminate by.pass and return
lines at the bottom of the tank and, if needed, use an approved
anti-foam or defoaming agenL
Maintain good agitation at all times until the contents of the
tank are sprayed. If the spray mixture is allowed to settle,
thorough agitation may be required to resuspend the mixture
before spraying is resumed.
Keep by-pass line on or near the bottom of the tank to mini.
mile foaming. Screen size in nozzle or line strainers should be
no finer than 50 mesh_
When using this product, mix 2 or more quans f)' 3 ncnio"'..
surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution. Use a nonionic
surfactant labeled for use with herbicides. The surfactant
must contain 50 percent or more acllve ingredient.
These surfactants should not be used in excess of 1 quart per
acre when making broadcast applications.
Always read and follow the manufacturer's surfactant label
recommendations for best results. Carefully observe all
cautionary statements and other information appearing in the
surfactant label.
6.2 Mixing for Hand-Held
Sprayers
1 Gal 1 oz. 1113 oz. 12/30Z. 2 oz. 6 oz. 10'/40Z.
25 Gal 1'/2 pt. 1 qt. 11/4 qt. 1112 qt. 5 qt. 2 gal.
100 Gal 3 qt. 1 gal. 11/4gal. l'/2gal. 5 gal. 8 gal.
For use in backpack, knapsack or pump-up sprayers, it is sug-
gested that the recommended amount of this product be
mixed with water in a larger container. Fill sprayer with the
mixed solution and add the correct amount of surfactant.
6.3 Colorants or Dyes
Agriculturally-approved colorants or marking dyes may be
added to this product. Colorants or dyes used in spray solu-
tions of this product may reduce pertormance, especially at
2
lower rates or dilution. Use colorants or dyes according to the
manufacturer's recommendations.
7.0 APPUCATlON EQUIPMENT
AND TECHNIQUES
Do not apply this product through any type of irrigation system.
APPLY THESE SPRAY SOLUTIONS IN PROPERLY MAIN-
TAINED AND CALIBRATED EQUIPMENT CAPABLE OF
DELIVERING DESIRED VOLUMES.
SPRAY DRIFT MANAGEMENT
AVOID DRIFT. EXTREME CARE MUST BE USED WHEN
APPLYING THIS PRODUCT TO PREVENT INJURY TO DESIR-
ABLE PlANTS AND CROPS.
Do not allow the herbicide solution to mist, drip, drift or
splash onto desirable vegetation since minute quantities of
this product can cause severe damage or destruction to the
crop, plants or other areas on which treatment was not
intended.
Avoiding spray drift at the application site is the responsibility
of the applicator. The interaction of many equipment-and-
weather.related factors determine the potential lor spray drift.
The applicator and the grower are responsible for consider-
1ng all these factors when making decisions.
AERIAL SPRAY DRIFT MANAGEMENT
The follOWing drift management requirements must be
followed to avoid ofHarget drift movement from aerial appli-
cations to agricultural field crops. These requirements do not
apply to forestry applications or to public health uses.
1. The distance of the outermost nozzles on the boom must
not exceed 3/4 the length of the wingspan or rotor.
2. Nozzles must always point backward parallel with the air
stream and never be poinled downwards more than 45
degrees. Where states have more stringent regulations,
they should be observed.
Importance 01 Droplet Size
The most effective way to reduce drift potential is to apply
large droplets. The best drift management strategy is to apply
the largest droplets that provide sufficient coverage and con-
trol. Applying larger droplets reduces drift potential, but will
not prevent drift if applications are made improperly. or under
unfavorable environmental conditions (see the "WIND",
"TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY", and "TEMPERATURE
INVERSION" sections of this label).
Controlling Droplet Size
. Volume: Use high flow rate nozzles to apply the highest
practical spray volume. Nozzles with the higher rated nows
produce larger droplets.
· Pressure: Use the lower spray pressures recommended for
the nozzle. Higher pressure reduces droplet size and does
not improve canopy protection. When higher flow rates are
needed, use higher flow rate nozzles instead of increasing
pressure.
. Number of nozzles: Use the minimum number of nozzles
that provide uniform coverage.
. Nozzle orientation: Orienting nozzles so that the spray is
released backwards, parallel to the airstream, will produce
larger droplets than other orientations. Significant deflec-
tion from the horizontal will reduce droplet size and
increase drift potential.
. Nozzle type: Use a nozzle type that is deSigned for the
intended application. With most nozzle types, narrower
spray angles produce larger droplets. Consider using low-
drift nozzles. Solid stream nozzles oriented straight back
produce larger droplets than other nozzle types.
· Boom length: For some use patterns, reducing the effective
boom length to less than 3/4 of the wingspan or rotor
length may further reduce drift without reducing swath
width. .
· Application height: Applications should not be made at a
height greater than 10 feet above the top of the largest
plants unless a greater height is required for aircraft safety.
Making applications at the lowest height that is sale
reduces 1he exposure of the droplets to evaporation and
wind.
Swath Adjustment
When applications are made with a crosswind, the swath will
be displaced downward. Therefore, on the up and downwind
edges 01 the field, the applicator must compensate lor this
displacement by adjusting the path of the aircraft upwind.
Swath adjustment distance should increase, with increasing
drift potential (higher wind, smaller droplets, etc.).
Wind
Drift potential is lowest between wind speeds of 2 to 10 mph.
However, many factors, including droplet size and equipment
type determine drift potential at any given speed. Application
should be avoided below 2 mph due to variable wind direc-
tion and high inversion potential. NOTE: Local terrain can
influence wind patterns. Every applicator should be familiar
with local wind pattems and how they affect drift
Temperature and Humidity
When making applications in low relative humidity, set up
equipment to produce larger droplets to compensate for
evaporation. Droplet evaporation is most severe when condi-
tions are both hot and dry.
Temperature tnversions
Applications should not occur during a temperature inversion
because drift potential is high. Temperature Inversions
restrict vertical air mixing, which causes small suspended
droplets to remain in a concentrated cloud. This cloud can
move in unpredictable directions due to the light variable
winds common during inversions. Temperature inversions
are characterized by increasing temperatures with altitude
and are common on nights with limited cloud cover and light
to no wind. They begin to form as the sun sets and often con-
tinue into the moming. Their presence can be indicated by
ground fog; however, if fog is not present, inversions can
also be identified by the movement 01 smoke from a ground
source or an aircraft smoke generator. Smoke that layers and
moves laterally in a concentrated cloud (under low wind
conditions) indicates an inversion, while smoke that moves
upward and rapidly dissipates indicates good vertical air
mixing.
Sensitive Areas
The pestiCide should only be applied when the potential for
drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g., residential areas, bodies
of water, known habitat for threatened or endangered
species, non-target crops) is minimal (e.g., when wind is
blowing away from the sensitive areas).
7.1 Aerial Equipment
00 NOT APPLY THIS PRODUCT USING AERIAl SPRAY
EQUIPMENT EXCEPT UNDER CONDITIONS AS SPECifiED
WITHIN THIS LABEL
fOR AERIAL APPUCATlON IN CAUfORNIA, REfER TO THE
FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTAL LABEL fOR AERIAL APPliCA-
TIONS IN THAT STATE FOR SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS,
RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.
AVOID DRIFT-oO NOT APPLY DURING LOW-LEVEL
INVERSION CONDITIONS, WHEN WINDS ARE GUSTY OR
UNDER ANY OTHER CONDITION WHICH fAVORS DRIFT.
DRIFT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO ANY VEGETATION
CONTACTED TO WHICH TREATMENT IS NOT INTENDED. TO
PREVENT INJURY TO ADJACENT DESIRABLE VEGETATION.
APPROPRIATE BUFFER ZONES MUST BE MAINTAINED.
Use the recommended rates of this product and surfactant in
3 to 20 gallons of water per acre as a broadcast spray, unless
otherwise specified.
Coarse sprays are less likely to drift; therefore, do not use
nozzles or nozzle configurations which dispense spray as fine
.spray droplets. 00 not angle nozzles forward into the
airstream and do not increase spray volume by increasing
nozzle pressure.
Drift control additives may be used. When a drift control
additive is used, read and carefully observe the cautionary
statements and all other information appearing on the addi.
tive label.
Ensure uniform application-To avoid streaked, uneven or
overlapped application, use appropriate marking devices.
PROLONGED EXPOSURE OF THIS PRODUCTTO UNCOATED
STEEL SURFACES MAY RESULT IN CORROSION AND
POSSIBLE fAILURE OF THE PART. The maintenance of an
organic coating (paint) which meets aerospace specification
3
MIL-c-38413 may prevent corrosion. To prevent corrosion of
exposed parts, thoroughly wash aircraft after each day of
spraying to remove residues of this product accumulated
during spraying or from spills. Landing gear are most sus-
ceptible.
7.2 Ground Broadcast
Equipment
Use the recommended rates of this product in 3 to 40 gallons
of water per acre as a broadcast spray unless otherwise
specified. See the "WEEDS CONTROLLED" section of this
label for specific rates. As density of weeds increases. spray
volume should be increased within the recommended range
to ensure complete coverage. Carefully select proper nozzles
to avoid spraying a fine mist. For best results with ground
application equipment, use flat fan nozzles. Check for even
distribution of spray droplets.
7.3 Hand-Held and High-
Volume Equipment
Use Coarse Sprays Only
For control of weeds listed in this label using backpack or
knapsack sprayers or high-volume spraying equipment
utilizing handguns or other suitable nozzle arrangements-
Prepare a 3/4 to 2 percent solution of this prOduct in water,
add a nonionic surfactant and apply to fOliage of vegetation to
be controlled. For specific rates of application and instruc-
tions for control of various annual and perennial weeds. see
the "WEEDS CONTROLLED" section in this label.
Applications should be made on a spray-ta-wet basis. Spray
coverage should be uniform and complete. Do not spray to
point of runoff.
This product may be used as a 5 to 8 perrent solution for
low-volume directed sprays for spot treatment of trees and
brush. It is most effective in areas where there is a low den-
sity of undesirable trees or brush. If a straight stream nozzle
is used. start the application at the top of the targeted vege-
tation and spray from top to bottom in a lateral zig-zag
motion. Ensure that at least 50 percent of the leaves are con-
tacted by the spray solution. For flat fan and cone nozzles and
with hand-directed mist blowers. mist the application over
the foliage of the targeted vegetation. Small; open..IJranched
trees need only be treated from one side. If the foliage is thick
or there are multiple root sprouts, applications must be made
from several sides to ensure adequate spray coverage.
7.4 Selective Equipment
(Wiper Applications)
A wiper or sponge applicator applies the herbicide solution
onto weeds by rubbing the weed with an absorbent material
containing the herbicide solution.
Wiper applications can be used to control or suppress annual
and perennial weeds listed on this label. In heavy weed
stands, a double application in opposite directions may
improve results. See the "WEEDS CONTROllED" section in
this label for recommended timing, growth stage and other
instructions for achieving optimum results.
AVOID CONTACT OF HERBICIDE WITH DESIRABLE VEGETA-
TION AS SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH IS lIKEI. Y TO OCCUR.
For wick or wiper applications. mix 2 1/2 gallons of this
product plus 1 quart of a nonionic surfactant with 7 1/4
gallons of clean water to prepare a 25 percent solution.
Mix only the amount of solution to be used during a 1-day
period. as reduced activity may result from use 01 leftover
solutions. Clean wiper parts immediately after using this
product by thoroughly flushing with water.
8.0 SITE AND USE
RECOMMENDATIONS
Detailed instructions follow alphabetically. by site.
Unless otherwise specified, applications may be made to con-
trol any weeds listed in the annual. perennial and woody
brush tables. Refer also to the "SELECTIVE EQUIPMENT"
section.
8.1 Aquatic and Other
Noncrop Sites
When applied as directed and under the conditions described
in the "WEEDS CONTROLLED" section in this label, this prod-
uct will control or partially control the labeled weeds growing
in the following industrial. recreational and publiC areas or
other similar aquatic and terrestrial sites.
Aquatic Sites
This product may be applied to emerged weeds in all bodies
of fresh and brackish water which may be flowing. nonnow-
ing or transient This includes lakes, rivers, streams, ponds,
estuaries, rice levees, seeps. irrigation and drainage ditches,
canals. reservoirs. wastewater treatment facilities, wildlife
habitat restoration and management areas, and similar sites.
If aquatic sites are present in the noncrop area and are part
of the intended treatment, read and observe the following
directions:
This product does not control plants which are completely
submerged or have a majority of their foliage under water.
There is no restriction on the use of treated water for irriga-
tion. recreation or domestic purposes.
Consult local state fish and game agency and water control
authorities before applying this product to public water.
Pennits may be required to treat such water.
NOTE: 00 not apply this product direcUy fo water within 1/2
mile up-stream of an active potable water intake in flowing
water (i.e.. river, stream, etc.) or within 1/2 mile of an active
potable water intake in a standing body of water such as lake,
pond or reservoir. To make aquatic applications around and
within 1/2 mile of active potable water intakes, the water
intake must be tumedoff for a minimum period of 48 hours
alter the application. The water intake may be turned on prior
to 48 hours if the glyphosate level in the intake water is below
0.7 parts per million as detennined by laboratory analysis.
These aquatic applications may be made ONLY in those cases
where there are altemative water sources or holding ponds
which would perinit the turning 011 of an active potable water
intake for a minimum period of 48 hours after the applica-
tions. This restriction does NOT apply to intermittent in-
advertent overspray of water in terrestrial use sites.
For treatments after drawdown of water or in dry ditches.
allow 7 or more days after treatment before reintroduction of
water to achieve maximum weed control. Apply this product
within 1 day after drawdown to ensure application to actively
growing weeds.
Floating mats of vegetation may require retreatment. Avoid
wash-oll of sprayed foliage by spray boat or recreational boat
backwash or by rainlall within 6 hours of application. Do not
re-treat within 24 hours following the initial treatment
Applications made to moving bodies of water must be made
while traveling upstream to prevent concentration of lt1is
herbicide in water. When making any bankslde applications.
do not overlap more than 1 foot into open water. Do not spray
in bodies of water where weeds do not exist. The maximum
application rate of 7 1/2 pints per acre must not be exreeded
in any single broadcast application that is being made over
water.
When emerged infestations require treatment of the total
surface area of impounded water. treating the area in strips
may avoid oxygen depletion due to decaying vegetation.
Oxygen depletion may result in fish kill.
Other Noncrop-Type Sites-This product may be used to
control the listed weeds in terrestrial noncrop sites and/or in
aquatic sites within these areas:
Airports
Golf Courses
Habitat Restoration & Management Areas
Highways
Industrial Plant Sites
Lumberyards
Natural Areas
Par1<ing Areas
Parks
Petroleum Tank Farms
Pipeline. Power. Telephone & Utility Rights-ol-Way
Pumping Installations
Railroads
Roadsides
Schools
Storage Areas
Similar Industrial and Non-crop Sites
4
8.2 Cut Stump Application
Cut stump treatments may be made on any site listed on this
label. This product will control many types of woody brush
and tree species, some of which are listed below. Apply this
product using suitable equipment to ensure coverage of the
entire cambium. Cut trees or resprouts close to the soil sur-
lace. Apply a 50 10 100 percent solution of this product to
the freshly-cut surface immediately after culling. Delays in
application may result in reduced performance. For besl
results, applications should be made during periods of active
growth and fult leaf expansion.
When used according to directions for cut stump application,
this product wilt CONTROL, PARTIALLY CONTROL or SUP-
PRESS most woody brush and tree species, some of which
are listed below:
Alder
Alnus spp.
Coyote brush"
Baccharis consanguinea
Dogwood"
Comus spp.
Eucalyptus
fucalyptus spp.
Hiclory"
Carya spp.
Madrune
Arbutus menziesii
Maple"
Acer spp.
Oak
Quercus spp.
Poplar"
Populus spp. .
Reed, gianl
Arundo donax
Sail cedar
ramarix spp.
Sweet gum"
Liquidambar styraciOua
Sycamore .
Platanus occidentalis
Tan oak
Lithocarpus densinorus
Willow
Salix spp.
"This product is not approved for this use on these species
in the State of California.
DO NOT MAKE CUT STUMP APPLICATIONS WHEN THE
ROOTS OF DESIRABLE WOODY BRUSH OR TREES MAY BE
GRAFTED TO THE ROOTS OF THE CUT STUMP. INJURY
RESULTING FROM ROOT GRAFTING IS LIKELY TO OCCUR
IN ADJACENT WOODY BRUSH OR TREES.
8.3 Habitat Restoration and
Management
This product is recommended for the restoration and/or
maintenance of native habitat and in wildlife management
areas.
Habitat Restoration and Management
This product may be used to control exotic, alien and other
undesirable vegetation in habitat management and natural
areas, including riparian and estuarine areas, and wildlife
refuges. Appfications can be made to allow recovery of native
plant species, prior to planting desirable native species, and
for similar broad spectrum vegetation control requirements.
Spot treatments can be made to selectively remove unwanted
plants for habitat management and enhancement.
Wildlife Food Plols
This product may be used as a site preparation treatment
prior to planting wildlife food plots. Any wildlife food species,
including natives, may be planted after applying this prOduct,
or native species may be allowed to repopulate the area. If
tillage is needed to prepare a seedbed, wait 7 days after appli-
cation before tillage to allow translocation into underground
plant parts.
8.4 Injection and Frill
Applications
Woody vegetation may be controlled by injection or frill appli-
cation of this product. Apply this product using suitable
equipment which must penetrate into living tissue. Apply the
equivalent of 1 ml.of this product per 2 to 3 inches of trunk
diameter. This is best achieved by applying 25 to 100 percent
concentration of this product either to a continuous frill
around the tree or as cuts evenly spaced around the tree
below all branches. As tree diameter increases in size, better
results are achieved by applying dilute material to a con-
tinuous Irill or more closely spaced cuttings. Avoid applica-
tion techniques that allow runoff to occur from frill or cut
areas in species thai exude sap freely after frills or cutting. In
species such as these, make frill or cut at an oblique angle so
as to produce a cupping effect and use undiluted material. For
best results, applications should be made during periods of
active growth and full leaf expansion.
This treatment WILL CONTROL the following woody species:
Oak Sweet gum
Quercus spp. Liquidambar styraciflua
Poplar Sycamore
Populus spp. Platanus occidentalis
This treatment WILL SUPPRESS the follOWing WOOdy
species:
Black gum" . Hickory
Nyssa sylvatica Carra spp.
Dogwood Maple, red
Comus spp. Acer rubrum
00 NOT MAKE INJECTION OR FRIll APPLICATIONS WHEN
THE ROOTS OF DESIRABLE WOODY BRUSH OR TREES MAY
BE GRAFTED TO THE ROOTS OF THE TREATED TREES.
INJURY RESULTING FROM ROOT GRAFTING IS UKEL Y TO
OCCUR IN ADJACENT WOODY BRUSH OR TREES.
"This product is not approved for this use on this species in
the State of California.
8.5 Roadsides
RELEASE OF OORMANT BERMUOAGRASS ANO BAHIAGRASS
When applied as directed. this product Will provide control or
suppression of many winter annual weeds and tall fescue for
effective release of dormant bennudagrass or bahiagrass.
Make applications to donnant bennudagrass or bahiagrass.
For best results on winter annuals, treat when weeds are in
an early growth stage (below 6 inches in height) after most
have germinated. For best results on tall fescue. treat when
fescue is in or beyond the 4- to 6-leaf stage.
WEEDS CONTROllED
Rate recommendations for control or suppression of winter
annuals and tall fescue are listed below.
Apply the recommended rates of this product in 10 to 25
gallons of water per acre plus 2 quarts nonionic surfactant
per 100 gallons of total spray volume.
WEEDS CONTROLLED OR SUPPRESSED'
NOTE: C = Control
S = Suppression
AOUAMASTER fLUID OZlACRE
6 9 12 18 24 48
S C C C C C
WEED SPECIES
Barley,lillle
Hordeum pusillum
Bedstraw, catcllweed S C C C C C
Galium aparine
Bluegrass, annual
Poa annua
Chervil
Chaerophy/lum
tainturieri
Chickweed, common
Stellaria media
Clover, crimson
Trifolium incamatum
Clover, large hop
Trifolium campestre
Speedwell, corn
Veronica arvensis
Fescue, tall
Festuca arundin;u;ea
Geranium, Carolina
Geranium carolinianum
Henbit
Lamium amplexicaule
Ryegrass, Italian
Lolium multiflorum
Vetch, common
Vicia sativa
"These rates apply only to sites where an established com-
petitive turf Is present.
S
C
C
C
C
C
S
C
C
C
C
C
S
C
C
C
C
C
s
S
C
C
C
S
S
C
C
C
S
C
c
C
C
C
S
S
S
S
C
C
S
C
C
C
C
S
C
c
C
S
C
C
C
5
RELEASE Of ACTIVELY GROWING BERMUOAGRASS
NOTE: USE ONLY ON SITES WHERE BAHIAGRASS OR
BERMUDAGRASS ARE DESIRED FOR GROUND COVER AND
SOME TEMPORARY INJURY OR YEllOWING OF THE
GRASSES CAN BE TOLERATED.
When applied as directed, this product will aid in the release
of bermudagrass by providing control of annual species
listed in the "WEEDS CONTROllED" section in this label. and
suppression or partial control of certain perennial weeds.
For control or suppression of those annual species listed in
this label. use 3/4 to 2 1/4 pints of this product as a broad-
cast spray in 10 to 25 gallons of spray solution per acre, plus
2 quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of total
spray volume. Use the lower rate when treating annual weeds
below 6 inches in height (or length of runner in annual vines).
Use the higher rate as size of plants increases or as they
approach flower or seedhead formation.
Use the higher rate for partial control or longer-term sup-
pression of the fOllowing perennial species. Use lower rates
for shorter-term suppression of growth.
Bahiagrass Johnsongrass"
Dallisgrass Trumpetcreeper'
Fescue (tall) Vaseygrass
'Suppression at the higher rate only.
" Johnsongrass is controlled at the higher rate.
Use only on well-established bermudagrass. Bermudagrass
injury may result from the treatment but regrowth will occur
under moist conditions. Repeat applications in the same
season are not recommended. since severe injury may result.
BAHIAGRASS SEEOHEAD AND VEGETATIVE SUPPRESSION
When applied as directed in the "NONCROP SITES" section in
this label. this prOduct will provide significant inhibition of
seed head emergence and will suppress vegetative growth lor
a period 01 approximately 45 days with single applications
and approximately 120 days with sequential applications.
Apply this product 1 to 2 weeks after full green-up 01 bahia-
grass or after the bahiagrass has been mowed to a unilorm
height of 3 to 4 inches. Applications must be made prior to
seedhead emergence. Apply 5 fluid ounces per acre of this
product. plus 2 quarts 01 an approved nonionic surfactant per
100 gallons of total spray volume in 10 to 25 gallons of water
per acre.
Sequential applications of this product plus nonionic surfac-
tant may be made at approximately 45-day intervals to extend
the period of seedhead and vegetative growth suppression.
For continued vegetative growth suppression. sequential
applications must be made prior to seedhead emergence.
Apply no more than 2 sequential applications per year. As a
first sequential application, apply 3 fluid ounces of this prod-
uct per acre plus non ionic surfactant. A second sequential
application of 2 to 3 fluid ounces per acre plus nonionic sur-
factant may be made approximately 45 days after the last
application.
ANNUAL GRASS GROWTH SUPPRESSION
For growth suppression of some annual grasses, such as
annual ryegrass, wild barley and wild oats growing in coarse
turf on roadsides or other industrial areas. apply 3 to 4
ounces of this product in 10 to 40 gallons of spray solution
per acre. Mix 2 quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100
gallons of spray solution. Applications should be made when
annual grasses are actively growing and before the seed-
heads are in the boot stage of development. Treatments made
after seedhead emergence may cause injury to the desired
grasses.
9.0 WEEDS CONTROLLED
9.1 Annual Weeds
Apply to actively growing annual grasses and broadleaf
weeds.
Allow at least 3 days after application before disturbing
treated vegetation. After this period the weeds may be
mowed. tilled or burned. See "DIRECTIONS FOR USE",
"GENERAlINFORMATlON" and "MIXING AND APPlICATION
INSTRUCTIONS" for labeled uses and specific application
instructions.
Broadcast Application-Use 1 1/2 pints of this product per
acre plus 2 or more quarts 01 a nonionic surfactant per 100
gallons 01 spray solution il weeds are less than 6 inches tau.
If weeds are greater than 6 inches tall. use 2 1/2 pints of this
product per acre plus 2 or more quarts 01 an approved non-
ionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution.
Hand-Held. High.Volume Application-Use a 3/4 to 1 1/2
percent solution of this product in water plus 2 or more
quarts of a non ionic surfactant per 100 gallons 01 spray solu'
tion and apply to foliage of vegetation to be controlled. Use
the higher rate for tough-to-control species or for weeds over
24 inches tall.
When applied as directed under the conditions described in
this label. this product plus nonionic surfactant Will CON.
TROl the following ANNUAL WEEDS:
Balsamapple" Mustard. tansy
Momordica charantia Descurainia pinnata
Barley Mustard, tumble
Hordeum vulgare Sisymbrium altissimum
Barnyardgrass Mustard, wild
Echinochloa crus-galli Sinapis alVensis
Bassia. livehook Oats, wild
Bassia hyssopifolia Avena fatua
Bluegrass. annual Panicum
Poa annua Panicum spp.
Bluegrass. bulbous Pennycress, field
Poa bulbosa Thlaspi alVense
Brome Pigweed, redrool
Bromus spp. Amaranthus retroflexus
Buttercup Pigweed, smooth
Ranunculus spp. Amaranthus hybridus
Cheat Puncturevine
Bromus secalinus Tribulus terrestris
Cheeseweed Ragweed, common
Malva palViflora Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Chickweed, mouseear Ragweed, giant
Cerastium vulgatum Ambrosia trifida
Cocklebur Rocket, london
Xanthium stmmarium Sisymbrium irio
Corn. volunteer Rye
lea mays Secale cereal!!
Crabgrass Ryegrass, lI~liafl'
Digitaria spp. Lolium multifiD. tlm
Dwarfdandelion Sandbur. field
Krigia cespitosa Cenchms spp.
Fatseflax, smallseed Shattercane
Camelina microcarpa Sorghum bicolor
fiddleneck Shepherd's-purse
Amsinckia spp. Capsella bursa-pastoris
Aaxleaf fleabane Signalgrass, broadleal
Conyza bonariensis Brachiaria platyphylla
Aeabane Smartweed, Pennsylvania
Erigeron spp. PO/ygonum
Foxtail pensylvanicum
Setaria spp. Sowthistle. annual
Foxtail, Carolina Soncllus oleraceus
Alopecums carolinianus Spanishneedles.
Groundsel, common Bidens bipinnata
Senecio vulgaris Stinkgrass
HorseweedIMarestail Eragrostis cilianensis
Conyza canadensis Sunflower
Kochia Helianthus annuus
Kochia scoparia Thistle. Russian
Lambsquarters. common Salsola -killi
Chenopodium album Spurry, umbrella
lettuce, prickly Holosteum umbellatum
Lactuca serriola Velvetleaf
Morningglory Abutilon theophrasti
Ipomoea spp. Wheat
Mustard, blue . Triticum aestivum
Chorispora tenella Witchgrass
Panicum capillare
'Apply 3 pints of this product per acre.
*' Apply with hand-held equipment only.
6
Annual weeds will generally continue to germinate from seed
throughout the growing season. Repeat treatments will be
necessary to control later germinating weeds.
9.2 Perennial Weeds
Apply a 3/4 to 11/2 percent solution of this product to con-
trol or destroy most vigorously growing perennial weeds.
Add 2 or more quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons
of spray solution to the rates of this product given in this list
See the "GENERAL INfORMATION,' "DIRECTIONS FOR USE"
and "MIXING AND APPUCATION" sections in this label for
specific uses and application instructions.
Ensure thorough coverage when using spray-to-wet treat-
ments using hand-held eq uipment. When using hand-held
equipment for low volume directed spot treatments, apply a
5 to 8 percent solution of this product.
Unless otherwise directed. allow at least 7 days after applica-
tion before disturbing vegetation. If weeds have been mowed
or tilled, do not treat until regrowth has reached the recom-
mended slages. fall treatments must be applied before a
killing frost.
Repeat treatments may be necessary to control weeds regen-
erating from underground parts or seed.
When applied as recommended under the conditions
described, this product plus surfactant WILL CONTROL the
fOllowing PERENNIAL WEEDS:
Allalla
MOOicago sativa
AlIigatorweed"
Altemanthera
philoxeroides
AniselFennel
Foeniculum vulgare
Artichoke, Jerusalem
Helianthus tuberosus
Bahiagrass
Paspalum notatum
Beachgrass, European
Ammophifa arenaria
Bermudagrass
Cynodon dactylon
Bindweed, field
Convolvulus arvensis
Bluegrass, Kentucky
Poa pratensis
Blueweed, Texas
HeOanthus ciliaris
Brackenlem
Pteridium spp.
Bromegrass, smoolh
Bromus inermis
Canarygrass, reed
Phafaris arundinacea
Catlail
Typha spp.
Clover, red
Trifolium pratense
Clover, while
Trifolium repens
Cogongrass
Impera13 cylindrica
Cordgrass
Spartina spp.
Cutgrass, giant"
Zizaniopsis mifiacea
Dallisgrass
Paspalum dilatatum
Dandelion
Taraxacum officinale
Dock, curly
Rumex crispus
Dogbane. hemp
Apocynum cannabinum
Fescue
Festuca spp.
FeSClle, tall
Festuca arundinacea
Guineagrass
Panicum maximum
Hemlock, poison
Conium macufatum
Horsenetlle
Solanum carolinense
Horseradish
Armoracia ruslicana
Ice Plant
Carprobrotus adulis
Ivy, Gennan, cape
Senecio mikanoides
Delairea odorata
Johnsongrass
Sorghum halepense
Kikuyugrass
Pennisetum cfandestinum
Knapweed, Russian
Centaurea repens
Lanlana
Lantana camara
Lespedeza: common,
serices
Lespedeza striata
Lespedeza cunea13
Looseslrlle, purple
Lythrum salicarla
Lotus, American
Nelumbo lulea
Maidencane
Panicum hematomon
Milkweed
ASClepias spp.
Muhly, wirestem
Muhlenbergia frondosa
Mullein, common
Verbascum thapsus
Napiergrass
Pennisetum purpureum
Nightshade, silverieal
So/anum elaeagnifolium
Nulsedge:
purple
Cyperus rotundus
yellow
Cyperus esculentus
Orchardgrass
Dactylis glomera13
Pampasgrass
Cortaderia jubata
Paragrass
Brachiaria mutica
Pepperweed, perennial
Lepidium lalilo/ium
Phragmiles. "
Phragmites spp.
Quackgrass
Agropyron repens
Reed, giant
Arundo donax
Ryegrass, perennial
Lolium perenne
Smartweed, swamp
Polygonum coccineum
SpaUerdock
Nuphar Meum
Starthistle, yellow
Centaurea solslilialis
Sweel polato, wild.
Ipomoea pandurata
TbisUe, artichoke
Cynara cardunculus
TbisUe, Canada
Cirsium arvense
Timothy
Phleum pratense
Torpedograss"
Panicum repens
Tules, common
Scirpus acutus
Vaseygrass
Paspalum urviffei
Velvelgrass
Holcus spp.
Waterhyaclnth
Eichomia crassipes
Walerlefluee
Pistia sttatiotes
Walerprimrose
Ludwigia spp.
Whealgrass, western
Agropyron smithii
.Partial control.
.. Partial conlrol in southeastern states. See specific recom-
mendations below.
A1ligatorweed-Apply 6 pints 01 this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 11/4 percent solution with hand-held
equipment to provide partial control of a1ligatorweed. Apply
when most of the target plants are in bloom. Repeat applica-
tions will be required to maintain such control.
Bermudagrass-Apply 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as
a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-
held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively grow-
ing and when seed heads appear.
Bindweed, field/Silverleal Nighlshade/Texas Blueweed-
Apply 6 to 7 112. pints of this product per acre as a broadcast
spray west of the Mississippi River and 4 1/2 to 6 pints of this
product per acre east of the Mississippi River. With hand-
held equipment. use a 1 1/2 percent solution. Apply when
target plants are actively growing and are at or beyond full
bloom. For sllverleaf nightshade, best results can be obtained
when application is made after berries are formed 00 rot
treat when weeds are under drought stress. New leaf
development indicates active growth. For best results apply in
late summer or tall.
Srackenlem-Apply 4 1/2 to 6 pints 01 this product per acre
as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 percent solution with
hand-held equipment. Apply to tully expanded Ironds which
are at least 18 inches long.
Cauall-Apply 4 1/2 to 6 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held
equipment. Apply when target planls are actively growing and
are at or beyond the early-to-Iull bloom stage 01 growth. Best
resulls are achieved when application is made during the
summer or fall months.
Cogongrass-Apply 4 1/2 to 7 1/2 pinls of this product per
acre as a broadcast spray. Apply when cogongrass is at least
18 inches lall and actively growing in late summer or lall.
Allow 7 or more days after application before tillage or
mowing. Due to uneven stages of growth and the dense
nature of vegetation preventing good spray coverage, repeat
treatments may be necessary to mainlain control.
Cordgrass-Apply 4 1/2 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per
acre as a broadcast spray or as alto 2 percent solution with
hand-held equipment. Schedule applications in order to allow
6 hours before treated plants are covered by tidewater. The
presence of debris and silt on the cord grass plants will
reduce performance. It may be necessary to wash targeted
plants prior to application to improve uptake 01 this product
into the plant.
Cutgrass, giant-Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 1 percent solution with hand-held
equipment to provide partial control of giant cutgrass. Repeat
applications will be required to maintain such control,
especially where vegetation is partially submerged in water.
Allow for substantial regrowth to the 7- to 1o-1eaf stage prior
to retreatment.
7
Dogbane, hemp / Knapweed I Horseradish-Apply 6 pints
of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2
percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when
target plants are actively growing and most have reached the
late bud-to-f1ower stage of growth. For best results, apply in
late summer or fall.
fescue, tall-Apply 4 112 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 1 percent solution with hand-held
equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and
most have reached the boot-te-head stage of growth. When
applied prior to the boot stage, less desirable control may be
obtained.
Guineagrass-Apply 4 1/2 pints of this prOduct per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held
equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing and
when most have reached at least the 7 -leaf stage of growth.
Johnsongrass I Bluegrass, Kentucky / Bromegrass, smooth
/ Canarygrass, reed I Orchardgrass I Rvegrass. perennial I
Tlmothv / Wheatgrass, weSlem-Apply 3 to 4 1/2 pints of
this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent
solution with hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants
are actively growing and most have reached the boot-to-head
stage of growth. When applied prior to the boot stage, less
desirable control may be obtained. In the fall. apply before
plants have turned brown.
lantana-Apply this product as a 3/4 to 1 percent solution
with hand.held equipment. Apply to actively growing lantana
at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. Use the higher appli-
cation rate for plants that have reached the woody stage of
growth.
loosestrile, purple-Apply 4 pints 01 this product per acre
as a broadcast spray or as a 1 to 11/2 percent solution using
hand-held equipment. Treat when plants are actively growing
at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. Best results are
achieved when application is made during summer or fall
months. Fall treatments must be applied before a killing frost.
lotus, American-Apply 4 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held
equipment. Treat when plants are actively growing at or
beyond the bloom stage of growth. Best results are achieved
when application is made during summer or fall months. Fall
treatments must be applied before a killing frost. Repeat
treatment may be necessary to control regrowth from under-
ground parts and seeds.
Maidencane I Paragrass-Apply 6 pints of this prOduct per
acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solutiOll with
hand-held equipment. Repeat treatments will be required,
especially to vegetation partially submerged in water. Under
these conditions, allow lor regrowth to the 7- to to-leaf stage
prior to retreatment.
Milkweed, common-Apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per
acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 112 percent solution with
hand-held eqUipment. Apply when target plants are actively
growing and most have reached the late bud.to-nower stage
of growth.
Nutsedge: purple, yellow-Apply 4 1/2 pints of this product
per acre as a broadcast spray, or as a 3/4 percent solution
with hand-held equipmentto control existing nutsedge plants
and immature nutlets attached to treated plants. Apply when
larget plants are in flower or when new nutlets can be found
at rhizome tips. Nutlets which have not germinated will not be
controlled and may germinate fOllowing treatment. Repeat
treatments will be required for long-term control.
Pampasgrass-Apply a 1 1/2 percent solution of this product
with hand-held equipment when plants are actively growing.
Phragmites-for partial control of phragmites in Aorida and
the counties of other slates bordering the Gulf of Mexico,
apply 7 1/2 pints per acre as a broadcast spray or apply a
1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. In other
areas of the U.S., apply 4 to 6 pints per acre as a broadcast
spray or apply a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equip-
ment for partial control. for best results, treat during lale
summer 01 fall months when plants are actively growing and
in full bloom. Due to the dense nature of the vegetation,
which may prevent good spray coverage and uneven stages
of growth, repeat treatments may be necessary to maintain
control. Visual control symptoms will be slow to develop.
Quackgrass / Kikuvugrass I MUhly, wirestem-Apply 3 to
4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as
a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment when most
quackgrass or wirestem muhly is at least 8 inches in height
(3-to 4-leaf stage of growth) and actively growing. Allow 3 or
more days after application belore tillage.
Reed. giant/Ice Plant-For control 01 giant reed and ice
plant, apply a 1 1/2 percent solution of this product with
hand-held equipment when plants are actively growing. For
giant reed, best results are obtained when applications are
made in late summer to lall.
Spatterdock-Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held
equipment. Apply when most plants are in full bloom. for
best results, apply during the summer or fall months.
Sweet potato, wild-Apply this product as a 1 1/2 percent
solution using hand-held equipment. Apply to actively grow-
ing weeds that are at or beyond the bloom stage of growth.
Repeat applications will be required. Allow the plant to reach
the recommended stage of growth before retreatment.
Thistle: Canada, arlichoke-Apply 3 to 4 1/2 pints of this
product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent
solution with hand-held equipment for Canada thistle. To
control artichoke thistle. apply a 2 percent solution as a
spray-to-wet application. Apply when larget plants are
actively growing and are at or beyOlld the bud stage 01
growth.
Torpedograss-Apply 6 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per
acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution
with hand-held eqUipment to provide partial control of
torpedograss. Use the lower rates under terrestrial condi-
tions, and the higher rates under partially submerged or a
floating mat condition. Repeat treatments will be required to
maintain such control.
Tules, common-Apply this product as a 1 1/2 percent
solution with hand-held equipment. Apply to actively growing
plants at or beyond the seedhead stage of growth. After appli-
cation, visual symptoms will be slow to appear and may not
occur for 3 or more weeks.
Waterhyacinlh-Apply 5 to 6 pints of this product per acre
as a broadcast spray or apply a 3/4 to 1 percent solution with
hand-held equipment. Apply when target plants are actively
growing and at or beyond the early bloom stage of growth.
After application, visual symptoms may require 3 or more
weeks to appear with complete necrosis and decomposition
usually occurring within 60 to 90 days. Use the higher rates
when more rapid visual effects are desired.
WaterleUuce-for control. apply a 3/4 to 1 percent solution
01 this product with hand-held equipment to actively growing
plants. Use higher rates where infestations are heavy. Best
results are obtained from mid-summer through winter appli-
cations. Spring applications may require retreatment.
Waterprimrose-Apply this product as a 3/4 percent solu-
tion using hand-held equipment. Apply to plants that are
actively growing at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. but
before fall color changes occur. Thorough coverage is neces-
sary lor best control.
Other perennials "Sled on ibis labe!-Apply 4 112 to 7 1/2
pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4
to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply
when target plants are actively growing and most have
reached early head or early bud stage 01 growth.
9.3 Woody Brush and Trees
Apply a 1 to 2 percent solution of this product to control or
partially control the woody brush and tree species listed
below. Add 2 or more quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100
gallons 01 spray solution to the rafes of this product given in
this list. See the "GENERAlINFORMATlON", "DIRECTIONS
FOR USE" and "MIXING AND APPLICATION" sectiOlls in this
label for specific uses and application instructions.
Ensure thorough coverage when using spray-te-wet treat-
ments using hand-held equipment. When using hand-held
equipment for low volume directed spot treatments. apply a
5 to 8 percent solution of this product.
When applied as recom:nended under the conditions
described, this product plus surfactant CONTROLS or
PARTIALLY CONTROLS the following woody brush plants
and trees:
8
Alder
Alnus spp.
Ash"
Fraxinus spp.
Aspen, quaking
Populus tremuloides
Bean:lover, Beannat
Chamaebafia foliolosa
Birch
Betula spp.
BlacldJeny
Rubus spp.
Broom:
French
Cytisus monspessulanus
Scotch
Cytisus scoparius
Buckwheat, California"
Eriogonum fasciculatum
ClI$C8ra *
Rhamnus purshiana
Castor bean
Ricinus communis
Catselaw"
Acacia greggi
Ceanothus
Ceanothus spp.
Chamise
Adenostoma faseieulatum
Cheny:
Bitter
Prunus emarginata
Black
Prunus serotina
Pin
Prunus pensy/vanica
Cottonwood, easlern
Populus deltoides
Coyote brush
Baccharis consanguinea
Creeper, Virginia *
Parthenocissus
quinquefolia
Cypress, swamp, bald
Taxodium distichum
Deerweed
Lotus scoparius
Dewberry
Rubus trivia/is
Dogwood
Comus spp.
Elderbeny
Sambucus spp.
Elm*
Ulmus spp.
Eucalyptus, bluegum
Eucalyptus globulus
Gallbeny
llex glabra
Hackbeny, weslern
Celtis occidentalis
Hasardia *
Haplopappus squamosus
Hawthorn
Ctataegus spp.
Hazel
Cory/us spp.
Hickory
Cal}'8 spp.
Honeysuclde
Lonicera spp.
Hornbeam, American
Carpinus caroliniana
Hucklebeny
Vaccinium spp.
Kudzu
Puetaria /obata
Locusl, b1ack*
Robinia pseudoacacia
Magnolia, sweelbay
MagnOlia virginlana
Manzanila
Arctostaphylos spp.
Maple:
Red**
Acer rubrum
Sugar
Acer saccharum
Vine"
Acer circinatum
Monkey Rower*
Mimulus guttatus
Oak:
Black"
Quercus velufina
Northern pine
Quercus paJustris
Posl
Quercus stel/ata
Red
Quercus rubra
Southern red
Quercus talcata
Whlte*
Quercus alba
Orange, Osage
Mac/uta pomifeta
Peppertree, Brazilian-
(Florida Holly)
5chinus terebinthifolius
Persimmon"
Oiospyros spp.
Poison Ivy
Rhus tadicans
Poison Oak
Rhus toxicodendron
Poplar, yellow*
Uriodendron tulipifera
Pronus
Prunus spp.
Raspbeny
Rubus spp.
Redbud, eastern
Cercis canadensis
Redcedar, eastern
Juniperus virginlana
Rose, mullinora
Rosa multillota
Russian-olive
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Sage: black, white
Salvia spp.
Sagebrush, California
Artemisia califomica
Salmonbeny
Rubus spectabifis
Salleedar, Iamarisk*
Tamarix spp.
Sallbush, Sea myrtle
Baccharis halimifolia
Sassafras
Sassafras aibidum
Sourwood"
Oxydendrum arboreum
Sumac:
Laurel"
Rhus toxicodendron
Poison*
Rhus vernix
Smooth"
Rhus g/abra
Sugarbush"
Rhus ovata
Winged"
Rhus copal/ina
Sweel gum
Uquidambar styraciffua
Swordfern"
Po/ystichum munitum
"Partial control
"See below for conlrol or partial conlrol instruction.
NOTE: If brush has been mowed or mled or trees have been
cuI. do not treal unlil regrowth has reached the recom-
mended stage of growth.
Apply the recommended rale of this product plus 2 or more
quarts of a non ionic surfaclant per 100 gallons of spray solu-
tion when plants are actively growing and. unless otherwise
directed. alter full-leaf expansion. Use the higher rale for
larger plants and/or dense areas of growth. On vines, use the
higher rate for plants that have reached the woody Slage of
growth. Best results are oblained when application is made in
late summer or fall alter fruil formation.
In arid areas, besl results are oblained when application is
made in Ihe spring or early summer when brush species are
at high moisture content and are Dowering. Ensure Ihorough
coverage when using hand-held equipmenl. Symptoms may
not appear prior to frost or senescence with fall treatments.
Allow 7 or more days after application before tillage. mowing
or removal. Repeat treatments may be necessary to control
plants regeneraling from underground parts or seed. Some
autumn colors on undesirable deciduous species are accept-
able provided no major leaf drop has occurred. Reduced per-
formance may resun if fall treatments are made followHig a
frost.
See the "DIRECTIONS FOR USE" and "MIXING AND APPLI-
CATION INSTRUCTIONS" sections in this label for labeled
use and specific application instructions.
Applied as a 5 to 8 percent solution as a directed application
as described in the "HAND-HELD AND HIGH-VOLUME
EQUIPMENT" section, this product will control or partially
control all species lisled in this section of this label. Use the
higher rate of application for dense stands and larger woody
brush and trees.
Apply the product as follows to control or partially control the
following woody brush and trees.
Alder I BlacldJeny I Dewberry I Honeysuckle I Oak, Posll
Raspberry-for control. apply 4 112 10 6 pints per acre as a
broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 1/4 percent solution with
hand-held equipment.
Aspen, Quaking I Hawthorn I Trumpelcreeper-for control,
apply 3 to 4 1/4 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast
spray or as a 3/4 to 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held
equipment.
Birch I Elderbeny I Hazell Salmonbeny IThlmbleberry-for
control, apply 3 pints per acre of this product as a broadcast
spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment.
Broom: french, Scolch-for control, apply a 1 1/4 to 1 112
percent solution with hand-held equipment.
Buckwheat, California I Hasardia I Monkey flower I
Tobacco, Tree-For partial control of these species. apply a
3/4 to 1 112 percent solution of this prOduct as a foliar spray
with hand-held equipment. Thorough coverage of foliage is
necessaty for best results.
Castorbean-For control, apply a 1 112 percent solution of
this product with hand-held eqUipment.
Cals&law-for partial control, apply a 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 percent
solution with hand-held equipment when at feasl 50 percent
of the new leaves are fully developed.
Tallowlree, Chinese
Sapium sebiferum
Thimbleberry
Rubus parvillorus
Tobacco, tree"
NicoYana glauca
Toyon"
Herteromefes arbufifofia
T rumpelcrellJler
Campsis radicans
Waxmyrlle, soulhern"
Myrica cerifeta
Willow
Sa/Ix spp.
Verbasenla, California
Eriodictylon californicum
9
Cheny: Bitter, Black, Pin I Oak, Southern Red I Sweet Gum
I Prunus-for control, apply 3 to 7 112 pints of this product
per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 to 1 112 percent solu-
tion with hand-held equipment.
Coyote brush-for control. apply a 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 percent
solution with hand.held equipment when at least 50 percent
of the new leaves are fully developed.
Dogwood I Hickory / Salt cedar-for partial control. apply a
1 to 2 percent solution of this product with hand-held equip-
ment or 6 to 7 1/2 pints per acre as a broadcast spray.
Eucalyptus, bluegurn-For control of eucalyptus resprouts,
apply a 1 112 percent solution of this product with hand-held
equipment when resprouts are 6- to 12~feet tall. Ensure com-
plete coverage. Apply when plants are actively growing. Avoid
application to drought-stressed plants.
Kudzu-for control, apply 6 pints 01 this product per acre as
a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-
held equipment. Repeat applications will be required to main-
tain control.
Maple, Red-For control, apply.as a 3/4 to 1 1/4 percent
solution with hand-held equipment when leaves are fully
developed. For partial control, apply 2 to 7 1/2 pints of this
product per acre as a broadcast spray.
Maple, Sugar I Oak: Northern Pin, Red-for control, apply
as a 3/4 to 1 1/4 percent solulion with hand-held equipment
when at least 50 percent of the new leaves are fUlly devel-
oped.
Peppertree, Brazilian (Holly, Florida)! Waxmyrtle, south-
em-for partial control, apply this product as a 1 1/2 percent
solulion with hand-held equipment.
Poison Ivy! Poison Oak-for control, apply 6 to 7 1/2 pints
of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2
percent solution with hand-held equipment. Repeat applica-
tions may be required to maintain control. Fall treatments
must be applied belore leaves lose green color.
Rose, multiftora-for control, apply 3 pints of this product
per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution
with hand-held equipment Treatments should be made prior
to leaf deterioration by leaf-feeding insects.
Sage, black I Sagebrush, California! Chamise ! Tallowtree,
Chinese-for control of these species, apply a 3/4 percent
solution of this product as a foliar spray with hand-held
equipment. Thorough coverage of foliage is necessary for
best results.
Saltbush, Sea myrtle-for control, apply this product as a 1
percent solution with hand-held equipment.
Willow-for control. apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per
acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with
hand-held equipment.
Other WOOdy brush and trees listed in this label-for par-
tial control, apply 3 to 7 112 pints of this product per acre as
a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 1/2 percent solution with
hand-held equipment.
10.0 LIMIT OF WARRANTY
AND LIABILITY
Monsanto Company warrants that this product conforms to
the chemical description on the label and is reasonably fit for
the purposes set forth in the Complete Directions for Use
label booklet ("Directions") when used in accordance with
those Directions under the conditions described therein. NO
OTHER EXPRESS WARRANlY OR IMPLIED WARRANlY OF
FITNESS FOR PARTICUlAR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABIL-
IlY IS MADE. This warranty is also subject to the conditions
and limitations stated herein.
Buyer and all users shall promptly notify this Company of any
claims whether based in contract. negligence, strict liability,
other tort or otherwise.
Buyer and all users are responsible for all loss or damage
from use or handling which results from conditions beyond
the control of this Company, including, but not limited to,
incompatibility with products other than those set forth in the
Directions, application to or contact with desirable vegeta-
tion, unusual weather, weather conditions which are outside
the range considered normal at the application site and for
the time period when the product is applied. as well as
weather conditions which are outside the application ranges
set forth in the Directions, application in any manner not
explicitly set forth in the Directions, moisture conditions out-
side the moisture range specified in the Directions, or the
presence of products other than those set forth in the
Directions in or on the soil, crop or treated vegetation.
This Company does not warrant any product reformulated or
repackaged from this product except in accordance with this
Company's stewardship requirements and with express writ-
ten' peonission of this Company.
THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE USER OR BUYER, AND
THE LIMIT OF THE lIABIlIlY OF THIS COMPANY OR ANY
OTHER SEllER FOR ANY AND All LOSSES, INJURIES OR
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF
. THIS PRODUCT (INClUDING CLAIMS BASED IN CONTRACT,
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT lIABIlIlY, OTHER TORT OR OTHER-
WISE) SHALL8E THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID BY THE USER
OR BUYER FOR THE QUANTllY OF THIS PRODUCT
INVOLVED, OR, AT THE ELECTION OF THIS COMPANY OR
ANY OTHER SElLER, THE REPLACEMENT OF SUCH QUAN.
TIlY, OR, IF NOT ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE, REPLACEMENT
OF SUCH QUANTITY. IN NO EVENT SHAll THIS COMPANY
OR ANY OTHER SElLER BE lIABlE FOR ANY INCIDENTAl,
CONSEQUENTiAl OR SPECIAL DAMAGES.
Upon opening and using this product, buyer and all users are
deemed to have accepted the teons of this LIMIT OF WAR-
RANlY AND lIABIlIlY which may not be varied by any ver-
bal or written agreement If teons are not acceptable. return
at once unopened.
EPA Reg. No. 524-343
In case of an emergency involving this prodUCt,
or for medical assistance,
Call Collect, day or night. (314) 694-4000.
@2000 MONSANTO .COMPANY
ST. lOUIS, MISSOURI, 63167 U.S.A.
10
APPENDIX D
Appendix D contains some historical documents regarding work done on North Lake over the
years. The Rotenone records were requested from the Washington State Department ofFish
and Wildlife, documenting application since 1950. Records of King County Noxious Weed
Control Galerucella beetle release forms for purple loosestrife control. This appendix
concludes with the herbicide application notices from the Whitworth Pest Solutions
distributed to the lakeside residents in the summer of 2004 for fragrant waterlily control work.
North Lake IA VMP - Appendix D
D-l
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard. Mill Creek. Washington 98012. (425) 775-1311 FAX (425) 338-1066
15 September 2004
Wendy Honey
3800 S. 328th Street
Auburn W A 98001
RE: - North Lake, King County. Your request for copies of official records per telephone
conversation 01 September 2004. Copies will be used in support of the North Lake
IA VMP submitted to Department of Ecology.
Dear Ms. Honey:
Enclosed are the documents that you requested. These include the following:
a. Post-rehabilitation record dated July 28, 1950.
b. " " "dated September 7, 1954.
c. " " "dated October 31, 1963.
d. Lake rehabilitation September 18, 1968. No pre-/post-rehabilitation record found.
Referenced on pre-rehabilitation record for September, 1972, rotenone application
(Refer to "e").
e. Post-rehabilitation record dated September 29, 1972.
f Lake rehabilitation October 5, 1979. No pre~/post-rehabilitation record found.
Referenced in Department of Game internal memorandum dated September 12,
1979.
g. Letter from Department of Game to North Lake Improvement Club, Auburn, W A,
March 12, 1951. Re available herbicides to control water lilies along North Lake
shoreline.
h. Letter from Department of Game to North Lake Weed Control Committee,
Auburn, W A, July 6, 1966. Response to inquiry re Department of Game support
and funding to manage the water lily situation.
In light of the periodic nature of these lake rehabilitation events, I suspect that there may have
been a lake rehabilitation in 1958, but I was unable to find any corroborating documentation in the
historical files.
15 Sep 2004
North Lake rehabilitation records
P 2 of 2
Please contact me at 425-775-1311, extension #116, if you have any questions or additional
requests for copies of records to include in the documentation packet supporting the North Lake
Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP).
Si:e~:~~'. ~
L~;~oda
Area Fish Biologist
Region 4 - King, Island, and south Snohomish Counties
Enclosures
SEP 15 '1214 08:08FtM WDFW PUBLIC AFFAIRS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WilDLIFE
Maihng Addl'e$S: 600 Capitol Way North
Office Location: I J II Washington Street S.E.
Olympia, Washington 9850 J -1091
Telephone (360)902-2253 · FAX (360)902-2171
P.2/2 ()t1 3$?'
Request No. ~ V/
(Department Use Only)
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORD
NOTE: The Department of Fish and Wildlife may impose a charge for
providing copies of public records (ReW 42.17.300)
I.IllQlJ.sroR's NAMe /z?4 1:: H/k)/
FIRM: Mrli &--1-,.. - -r;.~ f>/?fl/)d.n?~/l .;
, i
. MAILING ADDRESS: e j; .3 fc:1::J . c;$, .32 Y f.
TELEPHONE; t;::<.6'gS~';::2' ?.2 K? FAX: --
Chh (' NL/I!. .)
A/~tLfn 11//1 LJfcJ;J/
City/State Zip Code
n -:2:1YPE OF RecORo(sfoRSPECtFIC ReCORD REQU6TEo:
/bp~ o.fJ-Ik, Mrfj La-I:-. r~"flL,;// ~-:'t(H? r?>f"Jdd:::;
'{br~~~/l/i~ d~d /9~ I f';l-"L.? /C}~~ ~ t-J:--- A/Llt'__
3. PROVIDE INFORMAT.JON BY:
. clnspeaion ~ot'OCopy OList
cMlI8netic: tape CDlskeue - Size:
Cl..1bels cComputer PrintOUt
cOther
AGREEMENT TO PROTECT USrS-OF..JNDIVIDUALS -
FROM USE FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSe
As defined in RON 42.17.~60(7). I hereby agree that the list of ind"lViduals-provided me by the Department of Fish and Wildlife
shall not be used for any commercial purpose by myself or by any other individual or organization I represent and I will protect
the information from access by anyone who ma)" use it for purposes of contacting the individuals named therein or otherwise
personally affecting them in the furtherance of any profit-seeJdng aCtivity_
I dedare under penalty of rjury under the laws of the State ofWashiogton that the foregoing is true.and correa.
. .' - iA '?v{T _ 9'11S:..:7~
Si ~'. NL.r~ ;;~s,j)4v' Date
FOR DEPARTMENT USEONLY:
Request No.
~q3<?\
Date Received
q - 15 -04-
Date Completed
Approved v
Denied
Reason for denial
Account #
Invoice iF
Amount $
--
~~ 01~tl~ Lei: s.
KiLg Cc.
.to;' ~.'
LAKE';'-~ , 'g;J
NCR Tn
COUNTY King, See. 15,'l'wp. 2111.,
/
DATE "~6IsoNED . .~jillY':2'e')'1950'
'. .:-.~:.:.":~.;.,.;.';;;. ':':~ ,,(.'~
.....-_.:.. ;-'..
Jige. ..'4l'B~'.'
Fill.inthe fpllowing information accurately;
:dfid:c.:.;::'~
1.
Surface acreage
56
., ''.::e.(ir6$:;~'i.
.;, ~~;'..;:- :". ;~i{ ~. - 'J';~, .;
. -;~" :~,:':' e;;::r=: ,..L
34
feet'; a,,~r~gO.dePth..
"13 .'<..
,L~~'.i:~!~!"':jl~:. . ..~.
relir. ..
2. Maximum depth
.... .;_".'... ;.~:!~r:: ::
3. Volume of water in the lake 3~t5~2,.OO~ cu. fect';.:.
c....;'.... .;..,..~ '. " .'.....~~ _'.,.:~ . .
4: '. ~icightni ','11;'.;'11 fit" :~II ~;,!:!,; "2.220"'125,'OOO:'::~:.....~~~.~,: ...:.~',l~'
. ","", ";:;,.:~ ...-.
. .'" .-- - --..- " '-- .
5. Rotanen., prcduct required to PoJ._~l,1,~e~akO
2700
poundspa~ed on, 1
pa5~roi~;'~br::~.}';';tJi~t;~.~.:' ;~;"".:::, " ..;,..".."..:....1
~'r '-~'-:. -_,~->.. "":./"'1.,.. -,-.r.r':()~r.....~...iv .,_r;:-- : f:-"'.'~. __j,';'
6. . C6~t o,f,poi:scn.@ lJ.-' ";29. ~"por.pound:..$ . '783.'
..' p~~ts:t'~tel1?~e , to
~,OOO, QqQ., ,
f:.--.;I.:~ .f.
~tr:,;: ; f~,;::-C::'t~ ..'1
_ ,~_! :~! ".:' t!-_W.;';::,. .!
. ..l, ':':A ~
~I '.' ~, ~h~t .l.;
!~t~~ Jon -.:~ ~::G ~
7.
'. ~.". i:: -
}.fan hc.urs effort e:<pended in survey .'16"
Ua.'1 h9urs e.(f.ort :~end~<L'~~';i;iS~~~' .64 ....
"'-.. -::...:.~:;;.. :'f'.' ';:_'_-;.~-r~'. -:-. p"t-~..c" "_J>,:'" p, '~-:'-,,-,~,-\,:'-L,,":",:. rl:'; -........\;
9.Conditicns i.tlt.he lake,~n~d.~ of poi~O~B:;~':'!,:;,_"
., ".'.:. -' ""- ".'-.... .;., -- ',.' ._,.\. .', - . --- : -
Depth in Feet'.:.:. :;r~m~~at~' pH
", : -'::".::' ,!~
..
8.
". . j ,.
";:i
:_ .' '~: .;~ ;_.- ':J
:. j',,;~'
. 1 -- . -.~ _~~ \---.f ':'" -.- .-'
DissolVe~,:: .... ~':' . i.' ;
QXJ'gel!Conte~~_~~: ..2 ,.. ...
0
.:s.. .
[" ':10
15
20
-'2~
30
35
40
,75
7.9
..+<..1...
7.8..
;'~ f~r'
~.O";iv~( U.n.
~~'-: .1
7C:r
J.
8;8
60
"'54
---2.~
5.6
( {.
~~
3';te ~ - i~
;;, 'il. '
r f J..,
1,'2.
"50
,~_ ~'" '''1"',. 'l"~," :..
~;'5~;:~:
:?~~~~.-....L L'
..I'_...~~: ~:~':J.1:~b ~~..... ;,_J..~'
45
50
10. Uumbers and species of .fish eradicated:
L.M. Bass '75~000 1"-17"
Perch 100,000 1"-7l"
Sunfish 25'.200 1"_5"
Crappie 5.000 1 "_13"
Rainbow Trout 25 8"-12"
Catfish .1.000 4"-3!lbs.
e"~.
'..............;....:..........
"
~-~-."-;.
(o~f')
-'.--'_._--~~~-_...
. " . -',. , .' .,' - ,,,'-"
. _<"'--'....:.....,;._.. ....._.O:~....:.....~-"'-_._'......_.~_---._.__....._~""':'--"'___
. ,
".J!l~~;Y;; ::
rlf&ci; ;' 61) .
( :::~=::'~:~:::i:::~~t~:TY,~..
-i:;~;"\;i->" .
'~'. -~, '\.~
1. Surface acreage
"
'II
. 'a'tres.
.;
'~.i-'
-." - (~':'.
.~- ~.'.r'
2. Maxirnum deRth
: . -~'-:::";,,~ ;~~:..'
I "':~~;'..'
t:e.e~fa~el'a~e '~e.Pth" 14.8
feet.
4."~ieightll
pounds.
,€., , .I
Rotenclle prcduct required to poison the lake '~goo'n.. Pllll)OOl~.. .ap....,. arld dUet.
-.- -> . ~..~ I. - . . _ _, _' _ '.:
parts rotenone to 1;000,000
"II 'i."';. If . i'1(
"U 1
'~..J.2t_": ..
J - . :" :.;'~ 0: ..~ ~ :. ; '. '
l,nO,llf'GOO. 'C',
"
3. Volume of meter in tho lal<e
cu. feet. ,
5.
pounds basod on
~>:~.. -. ,.) ~
parts o:flv.?tC!r-b~'weight.
.6. Cost of.poiseD @$ '''l."~ound$
0IIl.
7. Man hours efforte;<pended in survey
77S.00
16
8. Man.ho':tNfeffort~endedin po~solling " . ~
9. Conditicns in the lake ondate'or po~son~g:
Depth in Fef.'t
'femperai; itre
pH
Dissolved
o.xygen Content
.~ 11.4
0.
5
10.
15
", ~ c~
u.o
----
-~.---
20.
s,
n
s.,
25-6
]0.
35
-.....--
0.8
40.
45
50
10.. Numbers and species of nsh eradicated:
20,000 ,eretl
j.. .8 inob. a...... W 12 UlOhe$
: 10,000 ..ttbh 6... 1 tcob ......... 1U1nlJllllUl,Xh'UllI ..an
'200 ri1RbOww.ut. lO .. .1' !neb..
.11. Possibility of a complete kill
gClOCl
'u:'&i;ri~n~-=~';:~citi&i-~~~~d;:":~.~~': ~,:: :;!}'.,'
(ow l' )
r.........................................-...--
,)~. .',.' " .
~o.... ;, ..
f-}.-:.:.; ..'.
--. ---CIIIIf'-------....----
---
FOiUl 65
..
LAm
NORTH
COUNTf
KING
t ....~. .~;l ;;-
DATE POISONED
1"6-- 3l-6'f-
~
, . ~: . -.... - " -. . - .
FU1 in the t:':::'M'l: int.Jm;l.t1on accuratel7'
- -
1. sU~Z~"v3 a':":'eage...-==-:'"2~.~ aC~8~ -,
2. Ms..::'::um d"J:t~___~ ,3.4...-~.~~e-t; aveJ'ae~ iep'~: _ --'!4~8_.._ .~.__~:=ee.:..
, . .
:3 Vol".:,'" of \ <i"er :'.1 th,,, 2..ik~::':..:.:..:..-1S. 522:" 000" .-_. .__ _._, ". ~'Ju.:~s.;.
4. Weight If
II 'I II
. .
.. ~_<'..:.. .~. .t-- _". ..... .".~. ..... .
II 2.220.12S'.000.. ..__ _._.__.~,1t~S.
. "" . ,
5. Rotenone product !"~~.:;c<:i to p~::son the leke1800.-1Jl.ql~.:HU:.?.:r.~~.~st
poU1~..:is bas~ on
1
. _. .-- .. . .. ..
___'larts rotenone t-o.;.....l..QQ.Q.,P.Q!L.._... .......
pari;s of Wt'.ter L:;- welg~,t..
6. ()c)si. ot P(,~.3on@ $ .16lt.
O)e:'." po-.rad $
295.QL.. ._.
. -.
1. Man hours dfort expended:in f,:!1"'1,,-'.l' ~.~ . .. 'i~~~.
8. Man hours <.:for'.. 3XpOn6.ed in poisoni.rut
12
'to . ..........
9. Coneitions in tb lake on d'1te of F:'30nir...'J1
Depth in Feet
Teillpe:o.ature
pH
]lir.:.O::.v.;d
~gen Content.
o
49
6.8
7.00
,-: ~
5
10
3ecchi Disk R~~8e -
---1Ij_ _.JW..._
6.90
15
~;v
-la._
J..:L..
6 a84--...
. ~~S
':0
h.Q .
7.0::>
.. -
,..
.;J
;~5
=-0
In,. NumJ;a::-s ar.O: ;;pec.:,oo of ~'3h <"'I'....di.c?-~..,,:
G~2.q.i?-=10~ _,;. __.?2..00Q.___
R~~~-l;J,. II') ..__.___....220._.,
---~--_.._--_....- .
_....- ......._......~....--_-..... .-......... -_..._'.-_-.-_~.
y. Pos' .i~:j:l:.~ cr r ~"..np~,; .'. :d1;._.....Q.~9.<f~~..lonE...~j.~~.D. .in.J:sm.ilm.<}t;i..9n
~1~ tl~.~~_!?.~.~~.1!:~~to ..fJ:9<l!!.J!l].illq~~L-_.__. .......,.....-_ ___
.i2. Ro':;s~O!le prcd.uct~3ec1
_~t1Jf:.<W~2.2.L--_.---- ..-
(oner)
./
form #65
PRE-REHABILITATION fORM
I. Name of Water
Norttl
County
11n<<
Section
l'
Tp.
2l1f
Range
It I:
Neares t Town Auburn
2. Surface Acres
56
Maximum depth
34'
\ICXIlt. (Wt.) 2.220.125iOOO 1..
3. Oate of last previous rehabi litation Sept. 18, 1968 Toxicant used Botenone- Pro-nox
(earl1)
4. Anticipated treatment date Sept., 19'12 Estimated replanting date October. 19'12
5.' Proposed toxicant Rot.DOIIe
Concentrati on 1.1.000.000
Amount 2.200 lba.
Method of application
Boat
6. Objectives: Complete ki II
Yes
Target species Percb. Cattiab
Partial ki II
(Percent)
7. .~Procedures . for sal vage and di sposa I of dead fi sh None
8. Type of outlet: P~rmanent
.Intemi ttent
x
Ory
Hi les. of stream
Stream flow
9. Does affected area contain rare, endangered or endemic species No
measures to be taken for their protection
if so, descri:
10. Measure to protect downstream resources Kay beed to IlaDdbag OIIUet due to Weyerbaewser
pond below WI.
(if none, sped fy why) a&tl.t d~ at t1ae of application
II. Will detoxicant be used
.0
Type
12. Expected duration of beneficial effects
13. Public access
Yea
Developed
Long te1'lll
Yee
Pub Ii c
Major land ownership: Private ' X
Other
14. Established resorts:
RoM. eUll operat1Ds
IS. Public attitude: local res'idents '!'boa. ClOlltaoted Sports Club Favorable
l'aVOftQle
Pub Ii c Head ng 1'(0
16. Is water used locally for domestic, industrial or irrigation purposes No
If so, clearance required
17.
Five-Year Planting Record:
S88 other .140
~
Sf ;e
Sped es
18. Catch i nformati on: 1;68 fi sh~men No. Fish Speci es Averal~2 Catch
~( lUS
,. .&.9 8~ 1'(8 4.(
-u?O tA;, ....~ ~ 6.~
-xm: ii ;: MU ~.(j(
-n72 D :5.1
19. Remarks: Toxicant used is based on ~ active ingredient.
. 7 Fisher i e~~!~l Og1
Reg.H_______ Date
F~6S.A
POST REHABILIT.ATION FORM
1. lake or Stream
Norib
County
IiI2R
.Secti on
15
Township
21.
Range
4Jll
2; O~te Treated 9-29-'12
3. Surface .Acreage 56 .
4. Hflesof Stream
Federal Project No.
Date submi tted
Miles of tributary or outlet treated
Miles of tributaries
~.
Haxi mUll clept h )It ( ft. )
VolUllle of water fn lake",,22,OOOcu.ft.
.Average depth 15'
Weight of water in lake 2.22>.125.000
.~.
7. Toxicant used to rehabf 1i tate lake IotenoDe
Jlmount used
1,650
( I bs. ~ JfaqC)
8. Pounds based on
1
parts of BoteuoDe
tol,OOO,OOO pts. of water by wt.
9. CoSt of matedal at $
per lb or gal. Total cost of material~
10. Han hours effort expended in treatement ao
11. Conditions in the lake on date of treatments
Dep~h in Ft; Temperature ~ Dissolved Oxygen Total Dissolved Solids
0'
62,0
8.4
12. Numbers and species of fish eradicated:
Yellow Peroh
IQslllOlltb .....
3-9"
8-16"
I
~. Jlaiabow ~t
~
8,000
100
100
150
Brow .11b_4
8-12"
8-14"
13.
14.
Possibility of a complete kill: Good
Oetoxf fi cati on
If so, report on effects recorded on downstream fishery.
IS. Period of toxicity:
!~. Fish Stocking:
~
1fOD-~ b11foy_~r ao, 19'12
Species
Size
Pound~
~
Number
'1 Fish~~109ist
Region N-----Pate .
STATE OF WASHINGTON
North Lake
King Co.
~-
.-, '.
c..... ..'_
. -'"~
./' -,;~>
\ r-'0;/~,--:;i~::;,~~~..
J..:;., , \:::)/;~
I ;, .. ~ 4iJ.''':-;'''' A
,.#,. "'__..,-/~.."</'Jt..t'-
.- .~. r ....;
- :1" ~ :..~ ; .;"~-1r(~f;;~'\
THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME
DON W. CLARKE. D.._.
1509 FAIRVIIlW AVIENUIE NORTH
SEA TTLIC ..
March 12 t 1961
"<',~
, ,
liorth Lake Improvement. C1ub t
Route 3, Box 1387
Aubarn, Washington
Dear Sirs:
'... '/
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter requesting
ini'ormation on the control of water-lllies.
The ?enite-6 mentioned in ou~' Game Bulletin is used
mainly for the control of submerged aquatic plants ani
would not be too effective in the control of water-
lilies. Researchers in vr.rious ;)ar'bG of' the. co~.,..-have
not been successful in finding a sure method lot co-ntrol
for these p~ant.s. However the fo~lowing have had some
form o~ success.
1. 25', 24D containing an 011 carrier or detergent.
2. 2"; 24D (2 Lbs 24D, 1 'it Triethanolamine, and
25 gellonswater)
3 . 245T
tiater1i1ies have waxy coverings requ:tr:.i..as _~.,.....:.........1_
strong &olutioDsc~nteining oil carriers Q~ ae~erEent6
rv~ ~-~~-~,nenetr~tion 2nd cOTerage. .Theref~~e your ~
tr:lals witn OOWoereu .::.-:=' ,",.::IYe 1oI.l-vvll:r...:LDef'fec"t1.ve. One 01:
the most effective formulLtion3 of & 24L used to date on
waterlilies and other waxy-coated p1ants is a.cormnercial
solution consisting of 35.0% 24D end 17.5% phe~~acetic
acid. .!of you could get t.his mat.erial inmaldng u;J your
solutions, you might. have bet t.er success. T'o not be
discouraged if you do not acb~e control atter the first
applica.tion. Continued applications shouJ.d be made and
it might take two to t.hree seasons to get complete control.
Ilone of the above mat.eriaJ.s should be harmful to fish.
lithe Department can be of further assistance please
:30 not besi t.ate to vr.r1 te' . we appreciate your efforts to
protect the fish in the lake in trying to solve yourbroblem.
Kindly keep us in:forme:j.on the success of your proje'ct.
Very t~ yours,
:: ~:r~AME
... F. :I. Det t.mer, Aquatic Chemist
COJP>Y
,
~
STATE OF WASmNGTON
DEPARTMENT OF GAME
Memo for
March 6, 1951
Herb Dettmer
Aqua tic Chemist
Dear Herb:
Enclosed is a letter from the North
Lake Improvement Club regarding weed control.
would you answer this and send me a copy of
your reply.
Very ~<mrs,
Clarence F. Pautzke, Chief
Fishery Management Division
CFP:c
~
/'
dUJ~ A>> '
MEETINGS .=....UI'IU . OF EACH MONTH AT e:~r~~
~ "'1~
NORTH LAKE IMP~~~MEN~~~"YB~
ROUTE 3. BO~. 1-. . \. h .~~
AUBURN, WASHINGTON ~ro' ...~ :~,.h
~ 'v . .,'1J
"?r-1 <;>b~Y
~ <r
f)~~_. ,
Jl~~~ ~/9-.5-/~ ,X-<..~. . '
~~~a ' ~ '.
~ ~-c'u-~7asdl.t1s),
~,~~JI~;(..~
~~~/~/tz:~. ~4
La~~'- ~~
J~CL~~7~~'
I~ ~{//J'// ,/ .
~ ~ . t5J.-z-~-e-t/
~~~~ ',-' , ~,
~"~~~ .' · "~~~'eJ-~:'8
~4~. (/
~ .~Z-C
r~~:Z'
)
~~-.~
'.~
7&Z-L
~
U~~
~~. ~&
'ifo'f f/'1
r;a~e Cor..mis.roncrf I Harold A, Pebbles, ChaiNn4n, Ol,mpi4
. . ArlhMf' S. Coffin, Y.lima; I_mes H. Rails, Wilson C,.cek;
Alberl T. Prieh,.,.J, K"'-u; CUu4e Bekins, SUllie;
uson Dow, WenMchee
Dif'ectof' ,jf 6am'? / !':Jh.l A. Biggs
State of Washington
DEP.A.RT~ENT OF G.A:M:E
" ~-' ~ ':~. . - ~. < ., . ;'~~--1r:-':~<~k~J:2t.f.~~;: J ....
509 FIIirriew Nt1tIh / &4rJk, W mh. 9110J
July 6. 1966
Mrs. Vi v1anBeaudo1n
Borth Lake Weed Control Committee
33453 33rd P1acs South
Auburn, Washington 98002
Dear Mrs. Beaudoin:
It would be extremely difficult for the Game
Department to justi!'y the expenditure of monies for the
purpose you have suggested. This is true even though the
amount involved is not large.
We are of course, charged wi th producing and m.a1n-
ta~g populations or fish in North Lake and the removal
of' Water Ll11ies woUld in no way enhance this program.
In fact the complete removal of vegetative life mi~t have
Just the opposite ertect.
This does not mean that we are not sympathetic with
your problem and we hope that the l111y control operation
1s successful. We know Mr. Ca.rsner and respect his ability
and accomplishments.
EAC:vj
/
cc - H11lenbach v
Knott
Ayerst
Supervisor,
# 7
CCXQl1PY
~"3
(. -
, . i
S~LE
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT R8LEA.'SH FORM
Target Weed tJ. W[)~ Loa ~ ~;.(L
~mon na;t) .
Agent Gto.J..QJ( u.~ t ~ ~ dll (t:S .
(Scientific name)
County ~~ T 1-1
Township N S
Dale 7 !25/~ '>
Number released 2 (eAAJo 1 ~
R Ra~W
Sec I~ 1/4~
Section
Lat.
latitude
Long.
longitude
BlM _ USFS ~ PRI J'E _ USFWS _ STATE ~ OTHER
.....
GPS Derived? Yes~ No
.Land Owner:
Land Manager:
(8 riel & Ranger At, I National Forest & r" I Refuge Dept. of Transportation I City I County I Rancher, etc.)
Site Name: N(~-~_JD.\<f) ~9~ Lav.~~
(Use geographical reference: mountain, nver, valley, road, campground, powerline, etc.)
r
~
Nearest town Road
Weather: Clear _ Pardy cJoudly. .,.. CIC>U<'W',
.~. Slope: None -JlI Slight~ Mnttf3. ....$t~QP
.... SOli: Sandy .____loant---=-,s.iIJ ____~OlV~.....:;: .
..,~,::Terraln:.. Valley ____ FoOtt1i1I~~ou!1tain .c%'
>Xi;;"Yegetatlon::ct3rass1and.. ..>> i:.Si1~Itl: . .'. \.
: /.DeOIduousforest-(' ->MixEK:tf~ .
Plant Covel': (estimate %) Target weed \< .FoltiS(tlOJirjQIUdingtatg~fr"'",~':g~;..:.!<;.
Grasses Shrubs . treeS C,. .'t.itterSare9fquil(f;....
Dominant Plant Species: ..... ..'. .... .... . ... ..... .. . ..... ..... ......... .....;.:):;.y;i
Land Use: Aange ~~Timber ----,Wildlif~.,.:/>ftightotWay~ P$~ture.~':;<~~}?:::;,,;. .>....
DlstUm:~~~..~... .... ... .._i~~t~t;..~~~('!~~'i~~~I'&;';;iif~k~;y~;;'
CultIVation ___ Construction ~ .. . .,. ,.. ..... ... .... ..., , . .'n,
-<'-""-~':' ";'-'-~,-f/t3:':K;.'," :::",'
:,.::":---\,'- ", .
-. ,~ '
"
. ,
&;\
u
SAMPLE
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENf RELEASE FORM
TargelWeed ~~ 11')o~~:"~. Date 7- A-u.<J () 2-
(. ) . ~~~
Agent Gu..l.J2Xu..~u.c..... MvY\C4r\an<)d&.mberreleased.' . ~
(Scientilic name) I
County Y.l~
T 2JJ.J Rm~ See
Township N S Range E W Section
1/4 1J/;;.
Lat. Long. GPS Derived? Yes No
latitude Longitude
Land Owner: BlM _ USFS _ PRIVATE ~SFWS _ STATE )( OTHER
Land Manager: ~"~L~~ I,~ (flPW @~
(BlM District & ~ ~~ Forest & Ranger District I Refuge I Oept. of Transportation I City I County I Rancher. etc.) 11;ef>'\J
SlteName:J.)(}('~ latQ - WtfC~ -/S71(~ll.)(
(Use geographical reference: mountain, river. valley. road. ~ound. powerline. etc.)
.<.-.......
~: y"
......
SITE DATA Check all items that apply and fill in blanks. (Draw map on back of form.)
-- ~~ ~ Road~ "~OlllP'O'~IePost~ '/iF. .
Weather: Clear_Partly cloudly Cloudy _ Temp i.JJ So. Wind ... ~. ..... . . .
. . Slope: None ~ Slight~ Moderate _ Steep _ Aspect: S---..:..E--"- ~ N__._
.'.i.>..SOIl: Sandy_ Loam_ Silt~Gravel_ C1a.Y_ ... . EleVa!i9t'. ...., i ., .
.;~;~";<";;-r'Terraln:"alleY---2F1>Othill . . Mountain Plain............ .R~tii.'\. ...~~~L
.'/~;;.':2\~,;~~f',VegetatlCH1: .GICiSSIand .>:. .... Shrub land"-,- Crop land.' . .~!P~:ujAA.~~ffeHf~(e$t~ ...... ... .
- /''':. ..DeOiduousforest?( Mixedfotest_ OIlier ' .. ".' . f..cr">", .
. Plant CoVer: (esti)J1~ %) Targ~t weed. fntJ <7Jo Fo (no~inCludingtarget5
Grasses z~ Shrubs-. . Trees 0.. ,Litter ~ Bare ground
Dominant Plant Species: . . er. ~~ -,-,,(
LandUse:.Range-,-- Timber . ... Wildlife _ight ofWay-,-- asture ---'---"- Crop.:_~_
/,bi" ........VaCant~Wetland~ecreation~Mining--.--- Other .. . . .. '.i'i
l~~ft.7::=~~~~~~~7.~ .
::-;".i.'>~.f:"::-SIze Oflilft!5.t.ation: ...(Acres) ..~t.~. ......2..10___. 11-5()~.51-99______~1~.~
;1J11:< '.. . . . .8tv<lI..' . ..~ (fee'l,"'l,l'~.!,! !';;~1' '~f;t"~"~ 7~,;> ..;~~;j! ...
:'$;:.~-,
IMPORTANT NOl1FICATION
Tentatively, Whitworth Pest Solutions is scheduled to begin treatment of North Lake's Jillypad
eradication on June 1'fh and June 18th, pending weather conditi9ns. Prior to beginning treatment,
Whitworth will be posting signs on the shoreline where applications will be made. There will
also be notification posted at ~ public boat Iaunch area. .It is important that these signs remain
in place for 48 hours after treatment. Also, anyone who uses water fur watering etc. should
refrain from using lake water for any pwpose for at least 48 hours after spraying has OCCUrred.
Members of the North Lake Steering Committee will be collecting these signs to be used again in
future treatment applications.
It is ~o important to mention that Whitworth Pest Solutions has received permission from the
county to use a gas powered motor on their boat for applying treatment to the Iilly pads. TheyIwere on the lake on June ']'h assessing the amount of Lilly pads for treatment and did receive a
visit from the Sheriff. Please, if you see them on the 1']'h and 181h of June; do not contact the
Sheriff department.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel to contact members of the Steering Committee
or Whitworth Pest Solutions directly.
Thank you all fur your support of this project.
North Lake Steering Committee
Wendy Honey 952.5283 Tom Jovanovich
Debra Hansen 921.7789 Chuck Gibson
Julie Cleary 874-9138
874-8238
661..()490
WHITWORTH PEST SOLUTIONS INC.
2533 INTE.R AVE.
PUYALLUP, WASHINGTON 98372
Pierce Co. (253) 845-1818 · King Co. (206) 248-2222 . Toll Free 1-888-959-1818
Fax Line (253) 845-1133 · E-mail: wpctwbug@aol.com
HERBICIDE APPLICATION
RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS NOTICE
North Lake will be treated with an aquatic herbicide between June 1 and
September 30, 2004 by Whitworth Pest Solutions, phone #253-845-1818.
Attached is a map of the areas to receive treatment.
Notices will be posted .on the shoreline at the public boat raunch and on
shorelines within 150 feet of treatment areas prior to each treatment.
The herbicide used is Rodeo and the active ingredient is glyphosate.
The only restriction after treatment is potable water intakes must be shut off for
48 hours.
It is expected that 2 or 3 treatments will be performed, one in June,
possibly one in July or August, and one in September.
This herbicide treatment is regulated under a permit issued by Department
of Ecology, Water Quality Program and administered by the Washington
Department of Agriculture. These herbicides have been approved for this
purpose by Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department of
Agriculture.
I
j
_1. - - -~ -,- - r-
, .
I I
-"1-----..I...L_L
/ 4t:t--- - T" '7-r
~ ~:'~l- .:y:.- _l -~ _1-_
- -~\ ~..(:":.'<;'-' - -:
--f-1- -. - - - - ~
~~r,L. -;- -_~
I I
'L_r--'r ~'--r'
: f I I
,
I
S 328 ~(,
f f , , I I
_.J_-! : ~ J_.1
r -. -~-
----I
~ - -+-- ---- - --'::.:.
./-:. -..f
I
~!..~
----f
I
---~
VJ ,-----
-----I
ell
t.<.:
~..":'~
(\J
<<:-
. "'"',' -'. . .
.' ".' .... '--~'-.' .
..\;:;;':t;~4~IF"
...J.. . :~i...:~~...~~:.;.~;i.h. ~_~~
-' -:" /. .';~. , " '
". ..
,
,vi /
~
( CONTINUED ON SOUTH
-
X J'~TrfttJ1 (Nt of
c.t rUo t> be iY Cttt~
~~,;\
o
~
t----<
500' ,
1---1
NY""-fhac.a oJ('>ftd Q
1000'
I
1500'
J
I
I
&, f, lJ. f ":'1' t:
C'
, I
'll-DC ~ gOD
J.:J
1.
./
'f '?)~},1 ( 'J' (
\ /~~IC
~~:~. (l'{ tlef!
\,.t
o\k ~ t,j \ ( (I
\--0 , .\ 0'
\ . '.
f
.1.t~-j
n
-.l,- rv e('<..
f; I t L\ C/'<'
y~- t1-c~.~
... . '-\ t' .~.; (1'\ /L~
. \ "'-./"- C,._,( fl' ,
(11.' f ~
l+ '5 (I' " .
~4
If..-i,'. -.;;
.....
f I { S
..\
.'
i
"
".
-.
NORTH LAKE
Aquatic Weed Management Program
2005 Final Report
Prepared by:
City of Federal Way
Public Works Department
Surface Water Management Division
Author: Dan Smith
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ ................................................................ 1
2.0 BACK G ROUND ........ .................................................... ............................................................................... 2
U LAKE COMMUNITY HISTORy........................................................ ................................................................ 2
2.2 1995 NORTH LAKE SURVEY ............................................................... .......................... ................................ 2
2.3 1996 WATER LILY TREATMENT ................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 NORTH LAKE 2002................... ................................ ............................ ........................................................ 3
2.4 NORTH LAKE 2003 .... ......................... ...................................... .............. ...................................................... 3
2.5 NORTH LAKE 2004................................. ................. ..................................................................................... 4
3. 0 DOE GRANT AGREEMENT ............................ ............ ................... .......................................................... 5
4.0 NPDES AOUA TIC NOXIOUS WEED PERMIT ...................................................................................... 6
5.0 2005 AOUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................... 7
~ CONTRACT FOR AOUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 7
5.2 INITIAL SYSTEMATIC SURVEY ...................................................................................................................... 7
5.2.1 Eurasian Watermi/foi/.... ............... ............... ....................................... .... .............. ...... ..... ............... 7
5.2.2 Fragrant Water Li/v........................................................................................................................ 8
5.2.3 Yellow Flag Iris ...............................................................................................................................8
5.2.4 Purple Loosestrife ...........................................................................................................................8
5.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS........................................................................................................................ ..... 9
5.3.1 Eurasian Watermi/foi/ Treatment.............................................................................................. 10
5.3.2 Fragrant Water Li/v Treatment.................................................................................................. 10
5.3.3 Yellow Flag Iris Treatment......................................................................................................... 11
5.3.4 Purple Loosestrife Treatment..................................................................................................... 11
5.4 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 12
5.5 SECOND SYSTEMATIC SURVEY .................................................................................................................. 13
5 .6 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL.................................................................................................................. 15
5.7 BOTTOM BARRIER INST ALLATION.............................................................................................................. 16
5.8 WEED RAKEs ............................................................................................................................................. 16
6.0 WATER OUALITY MONITORING ...................................................................................................... 16
Q.,1 2005 WATER OUALITYMONITORING......................................................................................................... 16
7.0 EDUCA TIONIPUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................. 19
1.J. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ..................................... ................................................................................. 19
7.1.1 First North Lake Meeting............................................................................................................19
7.1.2 Formation of Steering Committee.............................................................................................. 20
7.1.3 Development of 2005 Work Plan ............................................................................................... 20
7.1.4 Plant ID WorksholJ.......................................................................................................................21
7.1.5 Boater Education... ....................................................... .................. ..... .......................... ............... 21
7.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION .. ....... ................................ ........................................... ............................................... 22
7.2.1 Quarterlv Newsletter.... ........ ............ ........................................ ....... .............. ............... ................ 22
7.2.2 Public Notices ............................................................................................................................... 22
7.2.3 Educational Fivers and Signs..................................................................................................... 22
7.2.4 Web Page DevelolJment............................................................................................................... 23
7.2.5 Annual RelJort............................................................................ ....... .......................... ............ ....... 23
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
8.0 2005 BUDG E T RE VEIW ............... ........ .............. ........................ .............................................................. 23
tl TASKS I & 2 BUDGET. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION'VEGETATIONMANAGEMENT...................................... 24
8.2 TASK 3 BUDGET. PUBLIC EDUCATION ........................................................................................................ 24
9.0 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2006.................................................. 25
2J. 2005 EVALUATION ...................................................... ............................................................................... 25
9.1.1 Aquatic Vegetation Management ................................................................................................ 25
9.1.2 Contract Management.... ................. .................................. ....... ........... .................. .... ....... ............ 25
9.1.3 Public Education ........................................................................................................................... 25
9.1.4 Algae.... ......................................................................... ............... ..... ................. .................. ....... ..... 26
9.1.5 Other....................... ................................... ........... ................................................... .............. .......... 26
9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2006 .................... .............. .................. .............................................. ................ 26
9.2.1 Aquatic Vegetation Management ................................................................................................ 26
9.2.2 Contract Management .................................................................................................................. 26
9.2.3 Public Education ...........................................................................................................................27
9.2.4 Algae... ......... ....... .......... ..... ..... ......... .... ..... ......... ............ ............. ....... .... .... ..... ........... .... ..... ..... ........ 27
9.2.5 Other.... .......... .......... ....... .,. ... ............ ... ........ .... .... .......... ...... ..... .... ..... ...... ........... ....... ........... ..... ...... 27
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. 2005 North lake 2,4-D Water Sampling............................17
Table 2. 2005 North lake Glyphosate Water Sampling...................18
Table 3. 2005 North lake Budget Overview..................................23
Table 4. 2005 North lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2..............................24
Table 5. 2005 North lake Budget, Task 3......................................24
THE FOLLOWING INFOF'<MAJION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE
(http://www.citvoffede.:atwav.com/Paae.aspx?paae=1 061)
North lake Grant Agreement
2005 WSDA Extension of Coverage
2005 DOE Aquatic Noxious Weed Control NPDES Permit
AquaTechnex North lake 2005 Year End Report
2005 North lake YFI & Pl Right of Entry Parcel Map
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The City of Federal Way wishes to acknowledge the significant contribution provided by the
members of the North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC). Through 2005, the members of the
NLSC helped prioritize lake management activities, and provided input regarding the
implementation of the annual work plan.
The NLSC includes the following members:
. Lake residents: Wendy Honey (Chairperson), Chuck Gibson (Co-Chair), Julie Cleary,
Debra Hansen, Barry James, and James Chastain.
. Weyerhaeuser is represented by Jennifer Hale and Alex Juchems.
. Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Don Robinett (ESA &
NPDES Coordinator).
The backing of the City Council and City Manager is also appreciated. The collective support
received by Surface Water Management staff - beginning with the acceptance of the Ecology
Grant followed by approval to proceed with the request for proposals from aquatic weed
management firms - helped move the project forward in a timely fashion.
This project was made possible through the development of an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan (IA VMP). King County staff developed the IA VMP, and applied for Aquatic
Weeds Management Grant funding from the Department of Ecology in 2004. Recognition is
awarded to the following individuals who were instrumental with these efforts: Kathy Hamel
(Department of Ecology); Sally Abella (King County Water and Land Resources Division); and
Beth Cullen (King County Water and Land Resources Division).
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The end of 2005 marks a very successful year in the continuing efforts to eradicate noxious
aquatic weeds in North Lake. This annual report summarizes the steps taken by the Surface
Water Management staff and the North Lake Steering Committee during 2005 to conform to the
aquatic weed management program established in the 2004 Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan (IA VMP).
The IA VMP is a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and strategies for
on-going noxious weed control efforts in North Lake. The IA VMP also forms the basis for the
scope of work outlined in the North Lake Aquatic Weeds Control Project Grant. This grant
funding was offered to the city in 2005 by the Department of Ecology (DOE) through the
Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (A WMF).
Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are
generally of limited distribution, tend to be invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's
waterbodies such as North Lake if left unchecked. Because non-native plants have few natural
controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out-competing native plant and animal habitats,
and degrading recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds
has the potential to lower values oflakefront properties (Ecology, 2005).
The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage
of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: prevent small infestations
from becoming large infestations; to contain already established infestations to regions of the
state where they occur, and to prevent their movement to un-infested areas of Washington. The
following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the seriousness of the threat
they pose to the state, or a region of the state:
Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new
infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by
law.
Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are
designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide-spread. Preventing new infestations
in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is
decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal.
Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread
in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option, depending
upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas.
1 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
The joint efforts undertaken by the North Lake Steering Committee, lake residents, and SWM
staff are described in this year-end report. The document also outlines the work completed to
eradicate the following four noxious weed species detected in 2005:
Common Name
Eurasian watermilfoil
Purple loosestrife
Fragrant water lily
Yellow flag iris
Scientific Name
Myriophyllum spicatum
Lythrum salicaria
Nymphaea spp.
Iris pseudacorus
Weed Class
B
B
C
C
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 lake Community History
In 1942, the North Lake Improvement Club (NLIC) was formed with the goal to maintain and
improve the waterbody. Since then, the club membership has been active in monitoring the
development of the properties around North Lake, ensuring that improvements are consistent
with the neighborhood desires.
Up until incorporation by the City of Federal Way, the NLIC was a participant in the King
County's Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program. By participating in the program on and off for
approximately 19 years, the group demonstrated a significant commitment to the overall health of
North Lake.
There are presently 54 single-family homes primarily on the 55-acre lake, located primarily on
the eastern shoreline. Weyerhaeuser owns most of the undeveloped property on the west side of
the lake that contains approximately 52 acres of second growth forest. The Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) continues to own and operate the public boat launch
located at the northwest side of the lake.
2.2 1995 North lake Survey
Under the King County Lake Stewardship program, a boat survey was conducted on North Lake
in July of 1995. The lake's littoral zone was split into seven individual sections. Each section
was then characterized by community type, species present, percent cover of community ~ and
relative species density within a community type. Community types were defined as emergent,
floating, or submergent.
Among the nineteen aquatic plant species present, four noxious aquatic plants were identified.
Fragrant water lily and purple loosestrife were each inhabiting all seven sections. Although
yellow flag iris was detected, it's location was listed as "unidentified".
2 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
The plant Myriophyllum spp was also detected. (The abbreviation "spp." is used to denote
species). Because it was not precisely identified, it is not known whether the 1995 survey is
referring to an infestation of the noxious plant Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil) or
the native milfoil species. Myriophyllum spp was found inhabiting all seven littoral zone
sections.
2.3 1996 Water Lily Treatment
To address the increasing populations of water lilies in North Lake, lakefront property owners
contracted with an aquatic weed applicator to control the noxious weed in 1996. Two separate
herbicide applications were made on the residential side of the lake. Treatment only took place in
areas that individual property owners arranged to make payment directly to the contractor.
Costing was determined by the amount of lake front footage treated.
The control measure appeared to be successful, but was limited to only the east side of the lake.
The lake residents intended for the contractor to return again the following year, but apparently
the firm went out of business.
2.3 North lake 2002
In 2002, two consulting firms, AquaTechnex and Envirovision Corporation, produced a Regional
Eurasian Milfoil Control Plan for King County in 2002. North Lake was included as part of this
counfy-wide lake survey effort that inspected only for milfoil. The survey for North Lake did not
document the presence of Eurasian water milfoil.
Also in 2002, personnel from King County Noxious Weed Control Program released
approximately 200-300 beetles (Galerucella calmariensis) at the boat launch in August in an
effort to build a population of bugs that might control the spread of purple loosestrife (PL).
Several years were planned for this control measure before any desired results would become
evident.
2.4 North lake 2003
The King County Noxious Weed Control Board requires property owners to control and prevent
the spread ofPL (Class B species) on private and public lands throughout the county. In 2003,
King County assisted North Lake residents with the containment of PL infestations through the
program that helps homeowners to implement actions to stop seed production using manual
control efforts.
Each noxious weed species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide
spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority for King County. Where
Class. B species are already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment
being the primary goal.
3 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
In 2003, King County provided public education to all lake residents concerning the control of
PL. In addition, the program also offered residents vouchers toward proper disposal of the plant
waste for those willing to participate.
Following evaluation of the 2002 beetle release, no visible damage was noted to purple
loosestrife colonies. Beetles were again released (approximately 400-500) by King County staff
in July of 2003 at the boat launch. Despite these control efforts, the plant was reported to
increase in density.
2.5 North lake 2004
The North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) was formed in early 2004 and began a concerted
effort to begin a formal aquatic plant management program in the early part of the year. The
Steering Committee partnered with Weyerhaeuser representatives and King County Lake
Stewardship personnel to begin this process.
King County Lake Stewardship staff and a member of the King County Noxious Weed Program
conducted a preliminary survey in the spring of 2004. The survey characterized the aquatic weed
populations throughout the entire littoral zone of the lake. The effort was completed by a three-
person team (one in the boat, and two divers).
The following is an outline of the 2004 survey:
· Several floating fragments of milfoil were found in the lake, along with a few scattered
rooted milfoil plants. The majority of the milfoil infestation was found at the boat launch
on the north end of the lake.
· Fragrant waterlily was covering the majority of the littoral zone and was reported to be
spreading into the middle of the lake.
. Purple loosestrife was noted as having colonized the shoreline
· Yellow flag iris was also documented to have colonized the lake's shoreline.
A short-term strategy to control fragrant water lily during the 2004 growing season was
developed. The NLSC and Weyerhaeuser devised a plan to work together to treat the majority of
the existing fragrant water lily infestation on the lake. The herbicide treatment would be
performed by Whitworth Pest Solutions (a local contractor working under an agreement with
Weyerhaeuser). In addition, the work would be covered under Weyerhaeuser's Noxious Weed
Permit.
Because treatment would now include areas along the residential shoreline, the expanded scope
would require an additional funding source. The funding came in the form of a $2,000 Small
Change for a Big Difference grant from the King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks (KCDNRP). This grant allowed a more extensive fragrant water lily herbicide treatment
program to take place in North Lake.
Whitworth treated approximately ten (10) acres of fragrant water lily on the Weyerhaeuser side
of the lake; and approximately three (3) acres on the residential side. The work required two
4 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
separate applications of glyphosate (RODEO) to effectively eradicate the targeted areas of
infestation.
In order to be considered for future grant funding from Department of Ecology (DOE), a long-
term strategy for developing an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) was
planned. In addition, it was also reasoned that an Ecology-approved IA VMP would be necessary
to receive DOE Noxious Weed Permit coverage (a requirement if herbicides are to be applied to
the lake).
With assistance from the NLSC, King County Lake Stewardship staff began developing the
IA VMP. Concurrently, the options for grant funding from the DOE Aquatic Weeds Management
Fund (A WMF) were explored. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer in order to
gather public comment, and to finalize the IA VMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City
of Federal Way, Surface Water Management staff were brought into the process.
The King County (KC) Noxious Weed Control Program continued to support the purple
loosestrife control efforts on North Lake. The KC Program pledged a maximum of $1,000 for
treatment of purple loosestrife during the first full year of IA VMP implementation (2005}
The IA VMP was submitted on September 16, 2004. DOE issued final approval for the plan on
October 8. With an approved IA VMP, application was made to DOE for a long-term A WMF
grant (King County listed as the recipient of the funding).
The grant application proposed a multi-year effort to fully eradicate milfoil, fragrant water lily,
purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris. The plan included a combined approach of annual
surveys, treatment, control, and public education. The proposal grant budget totaled
approximately $80,000.
During the year, lake residents continued to participate in purple loosestrife control and disposal
through the program managed by the King County Noxious Weed Control Board.
3.0 DOE GRANT AGREEMENT
Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal
Way. As a result, DOE provided the city a draft of the Aquatic Weeds Management Fund
(A WMF) Grant Agreement that was modified by SWM staff. Following internal review by legal
staff, a final version of the Grant Agreement was submitted to DOE.
On January 20, the Department of Ecology formally offered the City of Federal Way funding for
the North Lake Aquatic Weeds Control Project through the Aquatic Weeds Management Fund
(A WMF). The application for this project was one of twelve state-wide projects selected for
funding. DOE offered the city up to 75 percent of the eligible project costs.
5 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
The Grant Agreement was formally initiated on May 26 totaling $80,210, with a 25 percent
($20,052) of in-kind contributions and cash matching funds. The Agreement
(http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1061) is scheduled to expire no later than
December 31, 2009. The Scope of Work is broken out into the following four tasks:
Task 1 - Project AdministrationlManagement
Task 2 - Vegetation Management
Task 3 - Public Education
Task 4 - Reporting
Task 1 (Project AdministrationlManagement) involves the maintenance of project records;
submittal of payment vouchers, fiscal forms and project reports; compliance with procurement
and contracting requirements; attainment of all permits, licenses, easements of property rights;
and submittal of all required performance items.
Task 2 (Vegetation Management) and Task 3 (Public Education) are action items specifically
required by this agreement, and are outlined and described in the 2005 North Lake Work Plan.
Task 4 (Reporting) involves the preparation of a final report summarizing the actions taken
during the entire period of the Grant Agreement.
4.0 NPDES AQUATIC NOXIOUS WEED PERMIT
Coverage under a general NPDES Aquatic Noxious Weed Permit is required for all noxious
weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of
Washington. The permitting agency is the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE).
Discharges from aquatic weed control and eradication activities may contain pollutants in
excessive amounts that have a reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to, violations of state
water quality standards. Violations may be due to the presence of toxic materials (herbicides) or
may result from the effects of dying vegetation (low oxygen levels). DOE has determined
through a risk assessment that, when properly applied and handled in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the general permit, aquatic weed control and eradication activities will: comply
with state water quality standards; will maintain and protect the existing characteristic beneficial
uses ofthe surface waters ofthe state; and will protect human health (Ecology, 2005).
The 2005 permit process required that the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA)
obtain coverage under the NPDES Noxious Weed Permit from DOE. Under contract with
WSDA, the city agreed to comply with all terms, conditions, and requirements described in the
DOE Aquatic Noxious Weed Permit (http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1061).
6 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
5.0 2005 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
5.1 Contract for Aquatic Vegetation Management
On February 28, the City of Federal Way Land Use and Transportation Committee recommended
that the City Manager authorize the Surface Water Utility to prepare and advertise a Request for
Proposal (RFP) for aquatic vegetation management for both Steel Lake and North Lake. Action
was approved by City Council on March 15,2005.
Following a review of submitted proposals, a two-year (2005 to 2006) Professional Services
Agreement (contract) was executed between the City of Federal Way and AquaTechnex to
perform aquatic plant management activities in Steel Lake and North Lake pursuant to the Scope
of Services contained therein.
5.2 Initial Systematic Survey
On June 21, 2005, AquaTechnex performed the first part of the initial systematic aquatic plant
survey of North Lake. On this day the survey team operated from a mapping vessel (equipped
with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), to record the location and extent of the plant
communities discovered in and around the lake.
A boat survey was performed to map submerged, floating, and emergent noxious weeds.
Observations of milfoil populations, if visible, were made from the vessel. Although the initial
survey detected Najas sp. and Chara as the primary native vegetation the team decided that
additional native plant colonies would most likely be found during the second survey (see
Section 5.5 for more detailed native plant information).
The second part of the initial survey resumed on June 27, utilizing a diver team to perform a
more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. In addition to making a visual
inspection, a number of rake samples were collected at various GPS points. These points were
collected to define each treatment area through diver communication to the mapping vessel team.
The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis
using Arc View GIS software.
The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the initial survey. More
detailed information and maps may be found in the 2005 AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year
End Report (http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page= 1 061).
5.2.1 Eurasian Watermilfoil
The initial survey presented a complicated situation due to the lack of any known milfoil
treatments. As a result, milfoil plants were distributed throughout the littoral area in the northern
and central part of the lake. While there were no plants observed in the south basin, it was
deemed likely that milfoil fragments had probably dispersed into this area, and would emerge as
viable plants in the future.
7 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
The areas of milfoil infestation were estimated to be ten (10) acres in size. AquaTechnex agreed
with the IA VMP and recommended aquatic herbicide to target this species. The contractor noted
the possibility for additional herbicide treatments later in the summer if the second survey
detected surviving milfoil plants.
5.2.2 Fragrant Water Lily
The initial survey located fragrant water lily growth in the North Lake system representative of
one-year post treatment. Some areas displayed obvious misses and skips in treatment from the
prior year, such as a linear patch to the right ofthe public access boat launch.
More common were scattered lily colonies emerging in areas where there had been dense lily
growth the previous year. The contractor recommended targeting this species as necessary based
on discussions with the City, and the requirements outlined in the DOE Grant Agreement that
specified complete eradication using glyphosate.
The creation of water lily "mud islands" was also discussed. These structures generally occur
where large areas of lilies have been treated and the sediments are organic or peat in nature. As
the plants die, the decomposition of the roots. and rhizomes can cause these areas to lift to the
surface and float for some time. These islands can also move around the lake.
Due to the extensive 2004 treatment of lilies, a number of these islands were located in the south
end of the lake. The features of these islands were mapped, but the contractor noted that some of
the features would change based upon their potential mobility.
5.2.3 Yellow Flag Iris
The initial survey indicated yellow flag iris (YFI) to be scattered along the shoreline in a number
of locations. The species was reported by AquaTechnex to be relatively easy to control. The
contractor recommended using glyphosate, an aquatic herbicide that provides an effective long-
term control of this weed. Applications are generally made in mid to late summer to maximize
translocation of the herbicide into the root system, insuring longer-term control.
A plan was devised by SWM staff to obtain permission from landowners around the lake to treat
this weed. The proposed control action involved herbicide application to YFI on those properties
where permission was granted (see Public Notices, section 7.2.2).
5.2.4 Purple Loosestrife
An aquatic plant survey provides a snapshot of the conditions present in the lake at the time of
the survey. As the summer progresses, purple loosestrife (PL) seedlings can emerge from 1he lake
sediments along the shorelines.
PL was observed at North Lake during the initial June survey. As with YFI, PL was reported to
be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake. It was determined that the survey would
resume in early July when the plant flowers. The contractor noted that any mapping completed
8 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
prior to flowering may lead to errors and omissions in areas where the weed is mixed with dense
native wetland plant communities. This would be especially true where there are a significant
number of seedlings present.
5.3 Herbicide Treatments
The herbicide treatment program was designed to meet the requirements of both the DOE Grant
Agreement and NPDES permit. Within this framework, Year I Integrated Treatment Plan
benchmarks were followed where practical.
The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine-list weed control activities that
discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting
herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water
bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator
must also comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures.
GlvDhosate
Glyphosate (either Rodeo or AquaPRO) was used to treat fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris and
purple loosestrife on North Lake in 2005. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) for aquatic applications.
The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into
the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within 2 to 4 days, 7 days on more
on most perennial weeds, and 30 days or more on most woody plants.
Extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and
delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant,
which will advance to complete browning of above-ground growth and deterioration of
underground plant parts.
The advantages of glyphosate include:
. The product is a fast-acting systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with
no impact to plants not treated.
. It's application can be conducted in a spot-treatment or isolated area fashion.
. There are no water use restrictions.
2.4-D
DMA4*IVM was the post-emergent aquatic herbicide chosen to control milfoil on North Lake in
2005. DMA4*IVM (active ingredient 2,4-D) is a systemic herbicide registered by the USEPA for
freshwater applications.
Herbicides containing 2,4-D can be effectively used for spot-treatment programs in lakes.
Effectiveness of the treatment is dependent upon the timing of the application and density of the
target plant community. Following application, the targeted plants begin to show signs of injury
in approximately two weeks, followed by plant breakdown and death.
9 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
The advantages of2, 4-D include:
. It is a fast-acting systemic herbicide, effective in removing selected plants (especially
milfoil) with little to no impact on native plants at labeled rates.
. The application can be conducted in a spot-treatment or isolated area.
. Treated waters can be used for swimming following a 24 hour advisory.
. There are no fish consumption restrictions.
5.3.1 Eurasian Watermilfoil Treatment
Based upon the initial survey results, approximately ten (l0) acres of lake area were infested
with Eurasian Watermilfoil. The areas of the lake targeted for milfoil herbicide treatment using
2,4-D are illustrated in the AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year End Report.
Application of 2,4-D was completed on August 2. 2,4-D (DMA4*IVM) was injected into the
water column (at the rate specified) directly over the submerged milfoil plant populations. The
herbicide was applied from a motorboat equipped with a 50 gallon spray tank connected to an
array of weighted drop hoses. The treatment areas were applied with 2,4-D at a rate of7-gallons
per acre, for a concentration of 2.0 ppm. A total of 70 gallons of herbicide was used for this
treatment.
5.3.2 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment
All fragrant water lily colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the
requirements outlined in the DOE Grant Agreement. Complete eradication would allow for the
gradual replacement of native vegetation in treated areas over time. This is an important step
toward fish habitat preservation that will improve boater access and provide safer recreation
opportunities. Because the treatment areas were smaller than in 2004, the potential for extensive
floating mud island formation was expected to be less likely.
In addition, defined treatment of water lily colonies would achieve the following:
. The gradual replacement of native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish
habitat.
. A reduction in the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would
contribute to increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms).
. A reduction in the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a
demand on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life.
The areas designated for white water lily treatment are illustrated in the AquaTechnex North
Lake 2005 Year End Report.
Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the lily pads by a two-person crew using boat-
mounted low-pressure spray equipment. The aquatic herbicide and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in
the spray tank to achieve a 1.75 percent solution, and applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly
over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process was repeated a second time to
10 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
touch up any areas that did not uptake a sufficient amount of enough herbicide. The individual
treatment areas totaled approximately one-and-one-haIf(I.5) acre.
The first glyphosate application of fragrant water lily was conducted on August 2. The weather
was sunny, but the application was suspended later in the afternoon due to windy conditions. A
second application was attempted the morning of August 10. Due to precipitation, wind and
wave action, this application effort was ended in mid-morning. By August 15, areas of treatment
were evidenced by the appearance of yellow and brown lily pads on the surface of the lake.
AquaTechnex visited the lake a third time on August 26 to complete glyphosate touch-up
treatment of the surviving water lily colonies. (To effectively eradicate white water lily
populations, it is characteristic to perform a second treatment during the growing season).
5.3.3 Yellow Flag Iris Treatment
Yellow flag iris (YFI) colonies were treated by a licensed applicator using glyphosate. The
noxious weeds were either sprayed from the lake-side from a motorboat, or from the land-side by
a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact
adjacent ornamental plants or grasses.
The aquatic herbicide and Ll700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank to achieve a 1.75 percent
solution, and applied in the same fashion as fragrant water lily. The individual YFI-treated areas,
identified on the 2005 North Lake YFI Right of Entry Parcel Map
(http://www.cityoffederalway.comlPage.aspx?page=106I). totaled less than 0.25 acres.
In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry
from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to
complete the YFI work from the land-side of the lake. The AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year
End Report shows the locations of all yellow flag iris (YFI) infestations identified in the initial
survey.
The first application of glyphosate to YFI colonies began on the morning of August 10, but wind
and rain caused the effort to conclude before midday. AquaTechnex returned on August 16, and
completed the remainder of work that was accessible by motorboat. The final treatment of YFI
took place on August 26 when the crew, using an airboat, finished up areas of the lake that were
more difficult to access.
5.3.4 Purple Loosestrife Treatment
Glyphosate was also used to control purple loosestrife (PL) colonies. The Vegetation
Management Plan, outlined in the DOE Grant Agreement, required "wicking" each PL plant with
herbicide to achieve desired results.
On August 10, the AquaTechnex crew was observed spraying both PL and YFI colonies. The
spraying efforts were implemented in a fashion that took care not to impact native, and/or
desirable plants. As with yellow flag iris treatment, some of the emergent noxious weeds (PL)
were treated directly from a motorboat from the lake-side. The hard to reach areas were treated
11 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
from the land-side by crew, and individually wicked and/or directly sprayed using a backpack
unit.
SWM staff informed the crew that "wicking" was the preferred DOE method (per Grant
Agreement) for treating PL with herbicide on North Lake. On August 16, AquaTechnex returned
with equipment to wick the remaining PL plants on the residential side of the lake (east shore)
that were easily accessible from land.
Terry McNabb with AquaTechnex consulted with Kathy Hamel, Department of Ecology,
concerning the pros and cons of wicking. It was determined that wicking would be more
effective in the treatment of monocultures (single PL plants) where they were easily accessible;
and either method could be used (spraying or wicking) as long as the techniques used were
proven to be effective given the issues of work efficiency and accessibility.
On August 26 the crew used an airboat to mobilize to the remaining areas of the lake that were
difficult to access (primarily Weyerhaeuser property on the west shore). Here, the PL plants
were sprayed with herbicide.
The aquatic herbicide and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank to achieve a 1.75 percent
solution, and applied in the same fashion as that for YFI. The individual PL-treated areas,
identified on the 2005 North Lake PL Right of Entry Parcel Map, totaled less than 0.25 acres.
Following the herbicide application, SWM staff sent out notices to lake residents regarding PL
seed head removal to help prevent the propagation of new plants. Flyers described methods that
homeowner could undertake to cut off, bag up, and dispose ofPL seed heads. Fourteen residents
contributed 44 volunteer hours removing PL seed heads and disposing of the plant waste.
5.4 Post Control Visual Assessment
On September 1, an AquaTechnex biologist/diver team returned to North Lake to determine the
effectiveness of the 2,4-D and glyphosate herbicide treatments. Through visual inspection and
plant grab sampling, the viability of the four targeted species (milfoil, fragrant water lily,YFI,
and PL) were assessed by the biologist.
Eurasian Milfoil responded very well to the Dow DMA 4 IVM application. At two weeks and at
four weeks post treatment the target vegetation showed injury symptoms and dropped out of the
water column.
The first application to fragrant water lily was noted to be chiefly effective, but there were some
areas where weather caused the herbicide to be washed off the plants. Results were excellent
where the herbicide was re-applied in missed areas.
YFI takes a slightly longer duration for control to be evident. At the time of the visual
assessment, all of the treated areas showed advanced symptoms of glyphosate injury, with
control expected to be in excess of95%.
12 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
Targeted purple loosestrife plants responded very well to the herbicide treatment. In all cases, the
plants showed injury symptoms in a two-week time frame, and were dead by four weeks post
treatment.
5.5 Second Systematic Survey
The second survey was performed on August 15 to document the presence of native aquatic
weeds. The objective was to quantify the vegetation present and to provide a continued baseline
of the condition of the plant communities.
DOE protocol was utilized for the survey (the collection of at least one sampling point per acre
of littoral area in the lake). A rake is tossed at each sampling point around the lake as determined
along selected transects. The survey ended up generating four points along each of 22 transects,
for a total of 88 sampling points.
A biologist separated and identified the collected plants by species at each site, and logged the
points into a GPS database. The information was returned to the mapping laboratory and
processed, where the points and the associated species were converted into shape files. Maps
were then created that illustrated the frequency and location of each species detected.
The species observed during this sampling effort were:
Common Name
Muskgrass
Water nymph
Big leaf pondweed
Slender leaf pondweed
Common waterweed
Fanwort
Scientific Name
Chara sp.
Najas sp.
Potamogeton Amplifoious
Potamogeton filiformis
Elodea Canadensis
Cabomba caro/iniana
Weed Class
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
B
Also observed, but not present at any of the sampling sites was Potamogeton illinoensis and
Utricularia. P. illinoensis was located in deeper water along the 10 foot contour in scattered
small patches from the Public Access south along the west shoreline to where the lake narrows
prior to the south basin. Utricularia was noted in two small locations mixed in the water lilies on
the west shoreline in the south basin. There were also a few locations in the lake where the native
yellow water lily (Nuphar polysepala) were observed. Plant population locations are displayed
on maps in the AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year End Report.
The dominant species observed through the point sampling protocols and through visual
observation was Najas sp. This native aquatic plant was present at 56 of 88 sampling points and
was observed at many locations between these transects. Najas sp. (or Naiad) is an annual
aquatic plant. It reproduces from seed each year unlike most other aquatic plants that are
perennials. It generally will grow rapidly in the spring, produce seeds and drop the seeds to the
lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank will develop and this weed can expand to the
point of excluding other native plants as well as causing a weed problem in shallower areas of
the lake.
13 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
The second most dominant species in the lake was Potamogeton amplifolious. This native
member of the Pondweed family occurred in small clumps where sampled. It also was observed
in some areas throughout the remaining littoral areas in similar density. It occurred at 5 of 88
sampling sites.
The third most dominant species in the lake is Cabomba caroliniana, a state of Washington Class
B Weed. This plant can be invasive and it not native to this region. It was sampled at 5 of 88 sites
in the southern portion of the lake. This plant should be carefully monitored from this point
forward to insure it does not become a weed problem in this system. Although Cabomba has
developed into a major weed problem in a number of lakes in the southeastern United States, it
has caused limited problems in this region (see Note below).
The fourth most dominant species in the lake was Potamogeton filiformis, occurring at 2 of 88
sampling locations. This plant occurred sporadically elsewhere in the littoral area of the lake, as
did Potamogeton Amplifoious.
Elodea was the fifth most dominate species in the lake, occurring at 2 of 88 sampling locations.
This plant also occurred sporadically elsewhere in the littoral area of the lake.
Chara is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. This plant is low growing
and will occupy space on the lake bottom without in most cases posing a weed problem to lake
users. Chara was found at 2 of 88 sampling points and is not considered dominant at this point.
NOTE: Native milfoil was also observed in North Lake by SWM staff and residents,
but was not included in the AquaTechnex plant survey. Because of the possible
existence of another noxious weed species (Cabomba caroliniana), and due to possible
plant identification confusion with native milfoil, a brief survey was performed late in
the season.
On January 6, 2006, SWM staff and King County Noxious Weed Specialist Roy
Brunskill performed a cursory lake survey in an attempt to locate native milfoil and/or
Cabomba caroliniana. A few surviving native milfoil were located at both the north end
and south end ofthe lake. This aquatic plant was tentatively identified from an emailed
image as Myriophyllum hippuroides by Jennifer Parsons, DOE. This native species
(Western milfoil) provides habitat and food to aquatic animal species.
Due to these findings, SWM and King County will use the GPS coordinates generated
by AquaTechnex to either confirm or refute the existence of Cabomba caroliniana early
during the 2006 growing season. If detected, an action plan can be developed to combat
this invasive noxious weed.
AquaTechnex reported that approximately 35 percent of the lake bottom is covered with native
aquatic vegetation. These species are generally fairly low growing in the water column and will
not pose a weed problem except in shallower waters.
The dominant species in this area are Naiad; with very small patches of the pondweed species
and elodea. In their professional opinion, these species are not interfering with the beneficial uses
14 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
of the lake at this point; but some areas could benefit from native plant control efforts in future
years should they continue to expand.
5.6 Water Lily Island Control
Following water lily treatment in 2004, North Lake witnessed the emergence of floating masses
of roots and muck, primarily along the south shore. The Steering Committee discussed water lily
island removal options during the preparation of the 2005 Work Plan. Because of unknowns, a
budget figure necessary to fund such action was not established.
Although mud island removal is action approved and funded by the DOE Grant for North Lake,
no firm methods were adopted by the Steering Committee concerning this type of work. In
addition, there is no known reliable methodology in the aquatic weed management industry for
mud island removal.
During a number of visits throughout the summer, AquaTechnex surveyed the extent and nature
ofthe mud islands. On August 26, a crew pushed some of the larger masses at the south end with
an airboat in an attempt to determine their potential for mobility. On September 1, during the
Post Control Visual Survey, a diver assessed the thickness of these masses.
Following these exercises to evaluate the mud island situation, SWM staff requested a scope of
work from AquaTechnex. It was expected that control methods selected would be refined over
time as field experience is obtained. The following outlines the initial thoughts regarding the
problem:
. Following the exercise with the airboat, it was determined that lower tech approaches
(hand work or grappling with hooks and anchors) would not be efficient and cost
effective to impact these larger "beached" masses.
. A harvester, in combination with hydro-blasting, could be a method employed to remove
and transport the muck and dead vegetation in selected areas in order to gain lake access
for affected property owners. In this case, WDFW approval would have to be obtained
due to work being conducted outside of the timing window established by the WDFW
Aquatic Plants & Fish pamphlet. For this method, waste disposal options would also
have to be explored.
. If the harvester was not successful, larger equipment could be employed. This would
involve greater expense.
During this period, Chuck Gibson, lake resident, accumulated over 21 volunteer hours
performing manual hand-work on the floating masses. His work created a narrow channel from
the lake to the shoreline. This action caused some larger sections of the floating mass to drop out
where the cross section of the material was thin, but was not entirely successful in mitigating the
problem.
In October of 2005, SWM staff requested an exception from WDFW to conduct mud island
removal outside of the timing window specified within the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish
pamphlet. After several rounds of communication, WDFW determined that a formal HP A would
be required to due to downstream habitat concerns.
15 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
Upon review of the HP A application, WDFW notified SWM staff that given the proposed scope
of work, a HP A would not be required if the work was carried out between October 15th and
May 15th. This notice was received on December 2,2005.
However, since the time of HP A submittal, SWM staff has decided to delay island removal until
July of 2006, when the habitat window re-opens. Water lily island removal will be included as a
scope of work item for 2006 and may be planned to be completed as a volunteer effort. If
warranted, the contractor may be requested to perform the work using mechanical equipment
where necessary.
5.7 Bottom Barrier Installation
The DOE Grant Agreement included the requirement for bottom barrier installation in the winter
of 2005 at the public boat launch area to deter the invasion of milfoil into the lake. A bottom
barrier covers the sediment like a blanket, compressing aquatic plants while reducing or blocking
light. In addition to controlling nuisance weeds, bottom screening has become an important tool
to help eradicate and contain early infestations of noxious weeds such as milfoil.
Bottom barrier installation, although a 2005 Work Plan item, was not completed this year.
Efforts to immediately perform aquatic plant surveys and to begin herbicide treatment were given
top priority to control the current noxious weed infestations. To meet the Grant Agreement
timetable, this control measure is planned to be completed before the onset of the 2006 growing
season.
5.8 Weed Rakes
Two styles of weed rakes were purchased in 2005. One is used for floating plants and algae; and
one is designed for submerged weeds. They were not offered for resident use because lake
surveys were initiated late in the season; and also due to the presence of noxious weed species.
The Committee could not begin the weed rake loan program until the lake community had
adequate information to determine whether noxious weeds were present in the area they were
planning on raking. Because herbicide treatments did not take place until late July, and post
visual inspections of the treatment efficiency did not occur until September 1, weed rakes were
not provided for lake resident use in 2005.
6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING
6.1 2005 Water Quality Monitoring
Per the DOE Grant Agreement, SWM Water Quality personnel collected samples from North
Lake to determine both glyphosate and 2,4-D concentrations before and after treatment. The
16 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
sampling procedure was undertaken to determine lake concentrations of herbicides and to
provide an analytical measurement of the contractor's performance.
Background samples (before treatment) and post treatment samples were collected at time
intervals prescribed in the Grant Agreement. Samples were taken in the middle of the lake
(outside the treatment areas), and inside the two individual treatment sites: one for fragrant water
lily (glyphosate) and one for milfoil (2,4-D).
All samples were collected using a Wildco Alpha 2.2 liter Van Dorn style water bottle. The
samples were retrieved from various depths and combined into individual composite samples.
Samples were chilled and delivered the same day to Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. (STL
Seattle). Sampling times were adjusted to accommodate weekends and staff schedules.
2,4-D samples were analyzed by STL (DOE accredited laboratory #CI226) using USEPA
Chromatography Method 8151 GC/MS Modified.
Glyphosate samples were submitted to STL, and subcontracted to Coffey Labs in Portland
through Edge Analytical in Burlington. Coffey Labs (DOE accredited laboratory #CI264) used
USEP A Chromatography Method 547.
Tables 1 and 2 below outline the results of the sampling.
Table 1. 2005 North Lake 2,4-0 Water Sampling
Date Pre/Post Inside/Outside Location Concentration (ppb)
Treatment Zone
7/21/05 Pre Inside In littoral zone, approximately 300' south of Non Detect
public boat launch
7/21/05 Pre Outside In middle of lake, approximately 200' from Non Detect
outer edge of expected treatment plot, directly
west of 3610 S. 334th St.
8/3/05 Post Inside In littoral zone, approximately 300' south of 330
24-hours public boat launch
8/8/05 Post Inside In littoral zone, approximately 300' south of 188
6-days public boat launch
17 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
Table 2. 2005 North Lake Glvphosate Water Samplina
Date Pre/Post Inside/Outside Location Concentration (ppb)
Treatment Zone
7/21/05 Pre Inside In littoral zone, approximately 700' south of Non Detect
public boat launch
7/21/05 Pre Outside In littoral zone, approximately 700' south of Non Detect
public boat launch, immediately adjacent to
expected treatment plot
8/2105 Post Inside In littoral zone, approximately 700' south of 19
1-hour public boat launch
8/3/05 Post Inside In littoral zone, approximately 700' south of Non Detect
21-hours public boat launch
The following outlines several key sample result observations:
. Specific use directions from the EP A label establish application concentrations for 2,4-D
DMA4 *IVM of 2,000 to 4,000 ppb for treatment of submerged aquatic weeds (including
Eurasian watermilfoil).
. 2,4-D samples remained above the EPA drinking water standard of 70 ppb (0.07 ppm)
for at least six days (no additional sampling was conducted after 6 days).
. By day-six, the results were near the EPA irrigation water restriction of 100 ppb (0.1
ppm).
. Note that post treatment sampling did not occur outside of the treatment zones.
The analytical findings, combined with observations made during the Post Control Visual
Assessment, indicate that 2,4-D and glyphosate were applied in sufficient concentrations to
achieve the intended results. In addition, there were no reports of damage to lawns or gardens
from irrigated water.
Water quality monitoring at several other Washington lakes in 2004 (Steel, Sacheen, Hideaway,
Washington) and 2005 (Serene) indicated that 2,4-D DMA4*IVM also persisted for some time at
detectable concentrations post treatment (Ecology, 2005). From an aquatic weed control aspect
this is good - milfoil is more effectively impacted by the herbicide. Although the lake is not a
source of drinking water, the city recommended an additional 24-hour wait (for a total of 96-
hours) until using treated water for domestic irrigation purposes.
18 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
7.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The elements of the Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake are based
primarily on the IA VMP - a dynamic document initially prepared by King County staff in 2004.
The DOE Grant Agreement incorporates the information in the IA VMP, and forms two primary
components for Education and Public Involvement (which are also mirrored by the 2005 North
Lake Work Plan). The two components focus on prevention and detection of noxious aquatic
and emergent weeds, and lake stewardship.
7.1 Community Involvement
North Lake Community Involvement program for 2005 involved the following:
7.1.1 First North Lake Meeting
The North Lake Community Meeting was held on March 16, 2004 at City Hall. SWM staff
outlined the proposed 2005 Work Plan, the DOE Grant, and the Noxious Weed Permit
requirements. Various questions from lake residents were addressed and citizen feedback was
solicited. The meeting was attended by approximately 16 lake residents.
The North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC) was also elected at this public meeting. The
following NLSC members were appointed by a majority vote of the lake community residents in
attendance:
Lake Residents
Wendy Honey - (Chair) *
Chuck Gibson - (Co-Chair)*
Debra Hansen
Barry James
* Appointed to their respective positions on April 21, 2005
James Chastain
Julie Cleary
Weyerhaueser Representitives * *
Jennifer Hale
Alex Juchems
** Lake residents and SWM staff agreed to make a Committee position available to aWeverhaueser
Representitive
City of Federal Way
Dan Smith, Surface Water Management
Don Robinett, Surface Water Management
Per the consensus of the North Lake Steering Committee, the Annual Spring Meeting was
waived for 2005. In lieu of a Spring Meeting, a copy of the proposed 2005 Work Plan was
mailed to all lake residents requesting comments.
19 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
7.1.2 Formation of Steering Committee
The NLSC is charged with setting the lake management priorities and providing input on the
implementation of the annual Work Plan. The NLSC is comprised of North Lake Improvement
Club members, Weyerhaeuser representatives, and Surface Water Management staff.
The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities ofthe NLSC:
. Reviews annual plant survey information.
. Develops an annual aquatic plant management Work Plan based upon the information
revealed in the annual plant surveys. The Work Plan prioritizes aquatic weed problem areas,
identifies preferred control methods for each species, and develops the anticipated budget.
. Assists the City of Federal Way with oversight of control work to keep contractors
accountable.
. Participates in preparation of an annual evaluation report that summarizes plant control
activities, lake user's perspectives on the plant community, and recommendations for the
next year's control strategy.
. Assists with presentation of aquatic plant management efforts to lake residents at an annual
community meeting and Plant ID Workshop.
. Helps the City of Federal Way to ensure that all lake residents receive proper notification
pursuant to the requirements of the NPDES Noxious Weed Permit.
. Determines and participates in other annual community involvement/education strategies and
plant control efforts as needed.
The NLSC met two times in 2005. The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the
web page devoted to North Lake publications at
(http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=713). The following are brief abstracts from
each NLSC meeting:
April 21 - The group met at the North Lake Club House to discuss several topics, including but
not limited to: Boater/Milfoil Education, Role of Committee Members and the 2005 Work Plan.
Julv 14 - The NLSC met in City Council Chambers to review the results of the Initial Aquatic
Plant Survey conducted in June, treatment strategies and recommendations, and tracking
volunteer time for DOE grant. The meeting was also used for a joint session with the Steel Lake
Advisory Committee to coordinate the Plant ID Workshop.
7.1.3 Development of 2005 Work Plan
On April 21, the NLSC discussed both the structure and content of the 2005 North Lake Aquatic
Plant Management Draft Work Plan (Work Plan). Following the meeting, SWM staff finalized
the Work Plan, which included the goals and anticipated budget for the up-coming year. The
goals and budget were based upon both the requirements outlined in the IA VMP and the specific
requirements prescribed by the pending DOE Grant Agreement.
20 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
Because an accurate and systematic plant survey was not performed in recent years, approximate
acreages for the four primary aquatic weeds in the lake were used. Estimated costs for control
and/or treatment activities were derived for the Work Plan. Other Work Plan budget items, such
as public education efforts, were more easily identifiable based upon similar work completed
recently for the Steel Lake Management District.
On May 2, SWM staff sent a letter with the Annual Work Plan to all lake residents requesting
feedback concerning the planned aquatic plant management program. No comments were
received.
The following is a brief outline of the 2005 Work Plan:
Task 1: Aquatic Veeetation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for
effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water
lily, purple loosestrife, and yellow flag iris), and other problematic aquatic plant issues (i.e. mud
island removal) for the year. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to
accomplish the task. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 5.0.
Task 2: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake residents
and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items included in Task 2 include: annual
community meeting (spring) and annual Plant ID Workshop (summer); quarterly newsletter ([he
Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers; improved
signage at boat launch; web site development; and development of an annual report.
7.1.4 Plant ID Workshop
A joint North Lake-Steel Lake Plant ID Workshop was held on July 23 at Steel Lake Park. This
event provided an atmosphere of learning within a social setting. Residents from both lakes were
presented information describing each aquatic plant management program. They were also able
to pose questions to both Surface Water Management (SWM) staff and individual NLSC
members. Over 25 households, totaling more than 35 people, attended the event.
North Lake residents were afforded the opportunity to review the Work Plan and examine maps
depicting noxious weed infestation areas and proposed treatment locations. In addition, various
public education displays provided hands-on opportunities for individuals to view both native
and noxious plants (good and bad) retrieved from their lake. Both SWM staff and lake residents
harvested the live plant specimens found in North Lake for the displays.
7.1.5 Boater Education
On April 30, a local Boy Scout troop volunteered to hand out the milfoil education brochures at
the public boat launch on the opening day of fishing season. A total of 22 volunteers contributed
over 65 hours to distribute the brochures. Due to poor weather, boater turn-out was low. As a
result, the group passed out approximately 40 brochures.
21 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
7.2 Public Education
The North Lake Public Education program for 2005 involved the following:
7.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter
SWM staff began issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all North
Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an email
subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Management District, includes
updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, as well as
education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management.
7.2.2 Public Notices
Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via email prior to contractor activities
including surveys and treatments. Also, lake residents were informed concerning all public
meetings.
A total of six formal public notices were mailed out to all lake property owners during 2005. In
addition to these mailings, the information was posted on the North Lake web page and e-mailed
to lake residents and interested parties. In July of 2005, SWM staff established an "Aquatic
Weed Management" E-Subscribe account where lake residents could receive electronic updates
regarding current lake activities, as well as other aquatic weed management information. In
addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work plan activities were e-
mailed to E-Subscribe participants approximately 24 hours prior to the activity on the lake.
7.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs
SWM staff developed and distributed the following lake-related informational flyers:
. Milfoil
. The Lake Friendly Landscape
. Good Plants/Bad Plants
. Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal
. Blue Green Algae
. Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese
Noxious weed identification signs were also installed at the public boat launch. The improved
signage includes: (1) "Remember to Check Your Boat for Milfoil", and (2) a new DOE/WDFW
sign that alerts the public that North Lake waters contain the non-native plant milfoil and the non-
native animal red swamp crayfish. The signs visually identify the species of concern, and illustrate
how boat owners should clean their boats before entering and when leaving the lake.
22 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
7.2.4 Web Page Development
In 2005, SWM staff developed a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management
activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the year. Web
site information includes:
. Current IA VMP (with figures and maps)
. 2005 Work Plan
. Chronology and description of important 2005 North Lake activities
. North Lake publications such as: The Lake View; informative flyers (milfoil, blu~green
algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plants/bad plants); public
notices; and NLSC Meeting notes.
7.2.5 Annual Report
SWM staff develops a final year-end report to all lake residents and parties of interest that
describes the activities of the prior year; and provides a budget overview.
8.0 2005 BUDGET REVEIW
The 2005 Work Plan budget was derived from the scope of aquatic weed management expected
to be accomplished during the year. Table 3 below provides an overview of the final North Lake
aquatic plant management budget costs for 2005:
Table 3. 2005 North Lake Budaet Overview
TASK Estimates Actual Expenses
Task 1 & 2, Project
AdministrationNegetation Management $17,800.00 $21,859.25
Task 3, Public Education $1,674.00 $5,423.88
King County Grant (-) $ 1,000.00 (-) $618.75
YEAR END $ 18,474.00 $ 26,664.38
The following sections outline the estimated expenses compared to the actual end-of-year
expenses for each task:
23 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
8.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administrationl Vegetation Management
Table 4 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2.
Table 4. 2005 North Lake Budaet, TASK 1 & 2, Proiect AdministrationNeaetation Mamt.
GOAL 2005 Work Plan Actual Expenses
Estimated Expenses
Two diver survevs (Sprina & Summer) $4,225.00 $4,596.80
Milfoil herbicide treatment $1,500.00 $2,992.00
Fraarant water lilv herbicide treatment $1,500.00 $448.30
Yellow f1aa iris; purole loosestrife treatment $4,100.00 $2,244.00
Bottom barrier installation $250.00 0
Water IiIv island removal 0 0
Water auality monitoring $1,600.00 $1,400.00
NPOES notifications $625.00 $680.00
Post control survev $850.00 $924.80
Contractor letter report $700.00 $380.80
Contractor final report $500.00 $544.00
Yellow flag iris public education $100.00 0
Electric boat motor $210.00 $199.08
Weed rakes $160.00 $182.04
Refreshments and supplies for NlSC $160.00 $15.69
auarterly meetinas
SWM staff waaes and benefits * 0 $6,269.24
Lake volunteer time* 0 $982.50
TOTALS $17,800.00 $21,859.25
*
The expenses related to SWM staff wages and benefits and volunteer time was not accounted for in the initial
development of the 2005 Work Plan
8.2
Task 3 Budget, Public Education
Table 5 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3.
T
N h L k B
S
br Ed
abieS. 2005 ort a e udget, TA K3Pu IC ucation
GOAL 2005 Work Plan Actual Expenses
Estimated Expenses
Quarterlv newsletter $400.00 $163.52
Annual evaluation report* $200.00 0
Community Meetina $50.00 $15.69
Plant 10 workshoo/cookout $200.00 0
Public education printina $300.00 $102.13
Boater outreach proaram $100.00 0
New signs at boat launch $200.00 $114.46
Materials for Plant 10 workshop $100.00 $58.00
City LMO web paae 0 0
SWM staff waaes and benefits - 0 $4,617.58
Lake volunteer time- 0 $352.50
Taxes $124.00 N/A
TOTALS $1,674.00 $5,423.88
*
The cost to print, bind and deliver full-color copies of this report to all North Lake property owners will be
charged to the 2006 budget.
The expenses related to SWM staff wages and benefits and volunteer time was not accounted for in the initial
development of the 2005 Work Plan
**
24 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
9.0 ANNUAL EVALUATION AN) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2006
The following provides an evaluation of the 2005 aquatic vegetation management program for
North Lake, and recommendations offered for 2006:
9.1 2005 Evaluation
9.1.1 Aquatic Vegetation Management
. Because contact aquatic herbicides cause a burning back of treated plants, they have a
potential to adversely affect dissolved oxygen concentrations within a water body. As a
result of a massive aquatic plant die-off in a specific area, there may be a rapid expansion
of bacterial populations feeding on the dying plants. SWM staff inspected areas of the
lake undergoing contractor herbicide treatments during and after application activities.
No observations were made of stress conditions or death exhibited by fish or fauna
within or adjacent to treatment areas. In addition, no individual reported any toxic
and/or allergic response as a result ofthe treatments.
. Post Control Visual Surveys indicated that herbicide treatment was effective this year
for milfoil, fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris and purple loosestrife. All colonies of
targeted plants showed expected stress.
. Due to contractor scheduling of treatments and follow-ups, the evaluation process for
water lily island removal was delayed. In addition, there were additional delays with the
receipt of approvals from WDFW for this action. In the meantime, SWM staff was able
to monitor the mud island removal techniques employed by the contractor on Steel Lake
and decided that these methods would not be successful on the large island masses
adhering to the south shore of North Lake (see Section 5.6).
. Large colonies of native milfoil were missed during the survey effort (see Section 5.5).
9.1.2 Contract Management
. On a number of instances throughout the 2005 plant management season, the contractor,
AquaTechnex, provided poor communication to SWM staff. Communication issues
resulted in SWM staff not being able to furnish lake residents timely information as
designed by the scope of the work in the contract.
9.1.3 Public Education
. The public education program (various efforts accomplished through email notifications,
web site information, aquatic weed workshop event and direct mailing of educational
materials) was effective in 2005. Through this program, North Lake property owners
were provided many different avenues to access important information about their lake
investment and performance of the aquatic weed management program under the DOE
Grant Agreement.
. The summer aquatic weed workshop - attended by both North Lake and Steel Lake
communities - was a great opportunity for education. The Steel Lake LMD Advisory
Committee made an observation that it could have been better attended by all lake
25 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
residents. Complacency by Steel Lake LMD members (a general attitude that the
program is successful and does not need their input or cooperation) was one reason
suggested. Also, it was noted that many residents may have been out of town during that
particular weekend.
9.1.4 Algae
. Due to aquatic plants dying in the lake following herbicide treatment, phosphorous may
be released into the water column. The rapid release of phosphorous can trigger algae
blooms, which can adversely impact human and environmental health. Although some
Committee members commented on the growth of filamentous algae (pond scum), SWM
did not receive any reports of toxic algae blooms on North Lake in 2005.
9.1.5 Other
. Bottom barrier installation at the boat launch did not occur in 2005 due to the focus on
the completion of herbicide treatment surveys and treatment scheduling.
9.2 Recommendations for 2006
9.2.1 Aquatic Vegetation Management
. Continue an aggressive strategy per the DOE Grant Agreement targeting all discovered
colonies of milfoil, fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris, and purple loosestrife. Pursue
Right of Entry from lakefront residents for emergent vegetation treatment on private
property .
. The densities of native aquatic weeds should be determined as early as possible by the
contractor in the initial survey in order to educate SWM staff and North Lake residents on
how the plants are impacting beneficial uses. This information would be used to teach
residents how the plants can be manually controlled using hand pulling techniques or weed
rakes.
. North Lake Steering Committee members agreed to consider volunteer mud island
control and removal efforts due to the lack of success seen on Steel Lake in 2005, and
the expected high costs proposed by the contractor for mechanical removal. SWM staff
will assist with communication and scheduling. Proper WDFW HP A permitting will be
followed to ensure that aquatic habitat is not degraded due to mud island removal
methods.
. SWM staff will coordinate with King County staff in spring of 2006 to attempt to locate
possible fanwort colonies.
9.2.2 Contract Management
. Due to the communication and performance concerns with the contractor in 2005, the
North Lake Steering Committee will meet with AquaTechnex prior to the
commencement of the 2006 program. The Committee will stress the importance of the
required advance notices, firm scheduling, timely reporting and accurate invoicing.
26 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
9.2.3 Public Education
. Continue the successful public education program in 2006. Efforts may be implemented
to boost aquatic plant ID Workshop attendance if possible and to expand the lake
resident email data base. The Committee suggested that the Spring Meeting be held at
the North Lake Club House to improve attendance.
. The City's 2006 Natural Yard Care Program will be targeting the North Lake watershed
and surrounding communities.
9.2.4 Algae
. Due to the new housing development in the North Lake watershed, and the potential for
increased nutrient loading, the emergence of algae blooms will be closely monitored and
followed up with timely public education when warranted.
9.2.5 Other
. The North Lake Improvement Club (through the North Lake Management Fund)
continues to be committed to an annual in-kind cash contribution of $500.00 per the
2004 IA VMP and the DOE Grant Agreement budget.
. Also, the lake group is also committed to contributing a minimum of 135 volunteer hours
per year toward aquatic weed management efforts; and will track appropriate hours on
time sheets provided by SWM staff
27 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2005 FINAL REPORT
NORTH LAKE
Aquatic Weed Management Program
2006 Final Report
Prepared by:
City of Federal Way
Public Works Department
Surface Water Management Division
Author: Dan Smith
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 BACK G ROUND ................................................... ................................... ..................................................... 1
2.1 IA VMP DEVELOPMENT ................................................. .............................................................................. I
2.2 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM ...................................................................................................................2
3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT .....................................................................................3
4.0 2006 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................... 3
4.1 CONTRACT FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 3
4.2 INITIAL SYSTEMATIC SURVEY ...................................................................................................................... 4
4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily................................................................................................................................ 4
4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris....................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife ..... ...... ....... ......... ... ...... ....... ....... ... .... ..... ........ ....... ........ .................... ... ...... ........ .... ..... 5
4.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS ......................... .............. ...................................................................................... 5
4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment..............................................................................................................6
4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment.................................................................................. 7
4.4 YFI AND PL MANuAL CONTROL.................................................................................................................. 8
4.5 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL......... ........................................................................................................... 8
4.6 BOTTOM BARRIER INSTALLA TION................................................................................................................ 9
4.7 WEED RAKEs ............................................................................................................................................... 9
4.8 SECOND SYSTEMATIC SURVEY .................................................................................................................... 9
4.9 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SURVEY .......................................................................................................... II
4.10 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 12
4.11 ALGAE................................................................ ........................................................................................ 13
5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ...................................................................................................... 13
5. I 2006 WATER QUALITY MONITORING....................................................................... .................................. 13
6.0 EDUCA TION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................. 15
6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................................................... IS
6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC).............................................................................................. 15
6.1.2 Development of2005 Work Plan ......................................................................................................... 17
6.1.3 Annual Spring Meeting........................................................................................................................ 17
6.1.4 Plant ID Workshop .............................................................................................................................. 17
6.1.5 Boater Education... ....... ..... ..... ...... ....... ....................... ........ ..... ........... ..... ....... ...... .... ..... ........... ....... .... 18
6.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................... 18
6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter............................................................................................................................ 18
6.2.2 Public Notices...... ..................................................... ....... ........................ ................. ...... ............... ...... 18
6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs .............................................................................................................. 18
6.2.4 Web Page Development....................................................................................................................... 19
6.2.5 Annual Report......... ................... .... ............................ ............... ......... .................. ................. ................ 19
7.0 2006 BUDGET RE VIEW ........................................................................................................................... 19
7.1 TASKS I & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION' VEGETATION MANAGEMENT...................................... 20
7.2 TASK 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION .......................................................................................................................20
7.3 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET REVIEW ...........................................................................................................21
8.0 2006 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2007......................................... 21
8.1 2006 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARy............................................................................ 21
8.2 2007 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 22
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
8.3 2006 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARY .........................................................................................................23
8.4 2007 PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 23
8.5 2006 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 23
8.6 2006 ALGAE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 23
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. 2006 North lake Glyphosate Water Sampling...................14
Table 2. 2006 North lake Budget Overview..................................19
Table 3. 2006 North lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2..............................20
Table 4. 2006 North lake Budget, Task 3......................................20
Table 5 North lake Grant Running Balance..................................21
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE
(http://www.citvoffederalwav.com/Paae.aspx?paae=1219)
North Lake Grant Agreement
2006 DOE Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit
AquaTechnex North lake 2006 Year End Report
2006 North lake YFI & Pl Right of Entry Parcel Map
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided by all North Lake
Steering Committee (NLSC) members and the lake community who contributed to the successful
2006 aquatic plant management program. The Committee includes the following members:
· Lake residents: Wendy Honey (Chairperson), Chuck Gibson (Co-Chair), Julie Cleary,
Debra Hansen, Barry James, and James Chastain.
. Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Jennifer Hale.
· City of Federal Way: Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Don
Robinett (ESA & NPDES Coordinator).
In addition, Surface Water Management (SWM) staff wishes to-thank the City Council and City
Manager for their collective support of our aquatic weed management efforts. We also recognize
Kathy Hamel, Department of Ecology (Ecology), for her continuing aquatic plant management
advice and encouragement.
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2006, the aquatic vegetation management actions and public education goals outlined in the
North Lake 2006 Work Plan were successfully implemented. Noxious aquatic plants -fragrant
water lily, purple loosestrife, and yellow flag iris - were targeted for control at as Iowa density
as was environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that did not impact public safety
or the beneficial uses of the lake.
In addition, an effective public education program was conducted that helped to prevent the
introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake. This
program also aided in the early detection of aquatic weed re-infestations by continuing to involve
the North Lake community in the aquatic plant management process.
This annual report summarizes the steps taken by North Lake during 2006 to conform to the
aquatic weed management program established in the 2004 Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan (IA VMP) - a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and
strategies for on-going noxious weed eradication efforts in North Lake.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 IA VMP Development
An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) is a comprehensive document that
defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed control efforts. In 2004,
the North Lake community coordinated with the King County Lake Stewardship group to
develop an IA VMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up-
to-date IA VMP was required by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to be submitted prior to
seeking future grant funding from the State.
With assistance from King County, the lake community began developing an IA VMP. During
this period, efforts began to prepare an Ecology Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (A WMF)
grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public
comment and to finalize the IA VMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way,
Surface Water Management staff began participating in the process.
The IA VMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the
plan on October 8. With an approved IA VMP, application was made to Ecology for an A WMF
grant.
Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal
Way. As a result, an A WMF grant was awarded to the city that included a multi-year effort to
fully eradicate the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and
yellow flag iris. The action plan included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment,
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
control, and public education. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75%
of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology.
The Grant Agreement is scheduled to expire no later than December 31, 2009. The Scope of
Work is broken out into the following four tasks:
Task I - Project AdministrationlManagement
Task 2 - Vegetation Management
Task 3 - Public Education
Task 4 - Reporting
Task 1 (Project AdministrationlManagement) involves the maintenance of project records;
submittal of payment vouchers, fiscal forms and project reports; compliance with procurement
and contracting requirements; attainment of all permits, licenses, easements of property rights;
and submittal of all required performance items.
Task 2 (Vegetation Management) and Task 3 (Public Education) are action items specifically
required by this agreement, and are outlined and described in the 2006 North Lake Work Plan.
Task 4 (Reporting) involves the preparation of a final report summarizing the actions taken
during the entire period of the Grant Agreement.
2.2 The Aquatic Weed Problem
Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are
generally of limited distribution, tend to be invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's
water bodies - such as North Lake - if left unchecked. Because non-native plants have few
natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out-compete native plant and animal
habitats, and degrade recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater
weeds may lower values of lake front properties (Ecology, 2006).
The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage
of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small
infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to
regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un-infested areas of
Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the
seriousness of the threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state:
Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washingtop. Preventing new
infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by
law.
Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are
designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide-spread. Preventing new infestations
in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is
decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal.
2 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are
widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option,
depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas.
The joint efforts undertaken by the North Lake Steering Committee, lake residents, and SWM
staff are described in this year-end report. The document also outlines the work completed to
eradicate the following three noxious weed species detected in 2006:
Common Name
Fragrant water lily
Yellow flag iris
Purple loosestrife
Scientific Name
Nymphaea odorata
Iris pseudacorus
Lythrum sa/icaria
Weed Class
C
C
B
3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT
On March 31, 2006, an application for coverage under the State of Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste
Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae in North Lake
was submitted. The permit combined and replaced portions of the Aquatic Noxious Weed
Control General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the
Aquatic Nuisance Weed and Algae Control General NPDES Permit that was issued prior to
2006.
The permit (#WAG-994094) was issued to the City's aquatic plant management contractor
AquaTechnex on June 2, 2006. It governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications,
residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The five-year permit
expires on April 1, 2011.
Ecology's new permit is issued under the authority ofRCW 90.48. Such issuance complies with
state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings.
Ecology decided to issue a permit that is based solely on state authority to regulate the discharge
of waste materials into waters of the state.
4.0 2006 AQUATIC WEED MANAG8VlENT ACTIVITIES
4.1 Contract for Aquatic Vegetation Management
In 2006, AquaTechnex, Inc. operated under the last year of a two-year Professional Services
Agreement (contract) with the City of Federal Way that is managed by SWM staff. The scope of
the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to
target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom
barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology-approved
aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, reports as required, and attending meetings as required.
3 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
4.2 Initial Systematic Survey
On June 2, 2006, AquaTechnex performed an initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North
Lake. The survey team mapped all submerged, floating and emergent noxious weeds from a
vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location
and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver
also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone.
In addition to making a visual inspection, the survey team collected a number of rake samples at
various GPS points. These points were collected to define each treatment area through diver
communication to the mapping vessel team. The GPS information obtained in the field was later
processed for map creation and analysis using Arc View GIS software. Plant location maps may
be found in the AquaTechnex 2006 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page).
Native plant information may be found in Section 4.8.
Although colonies of Eurasian watermilfoil (milfoil) were distributed throughout the littoral area
in the northern and central part of North Lake in 2005, no milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) was
detected during the 2006 initial systematic survey. Herbicide treatment with 2,4-D in 2005
appeared to be successful in completely eradicating this State of Washington Class B Weed from
North Lake.
It is important to note that Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana), a state of Washington Class B
Weed, also was not found in 2006, contrary to the 2005 initial systematic survey results.
Additionally, a survey performed by Ecology in 2006 also confirmed that Fanwort was not
present (see Section 4.9). Based on these findings, it is probable that the plant was misidentified.
Noxious weeds found during the North Lake initial systematic survey include:
. Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odroata)
. Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus)
. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the initial survey.
4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily
Fragrant waterlily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins, and
can be recognized by the fragrant white, pink to purple, many-petaled flowers that float on the water
surface. Their large, round, floating leaves have a distinctive slit on one side. Due to its
attractiveness, this nonnative plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has been introduced to
many lakes in Washington, but can be invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas (Ecology
2006).
The June 2 survey located FWL growth in North Lake, and as with prior years, the colonies were
noted to be emerging in areas along the shoreline perimeter. In 2006, the densities of FWL were
reported to be less than in 2005. Based on the survey results, AquaTechnex recommended
4 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
targeting this species with the aquatic herbicide glyphosate (Rodeo) as necessary for complete
eradication.
4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris
When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable with its showy yellow flowers colorfully
displayed along the edge of water and in wetlands. The flowers occur in late spring or early
summer. The noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed), including flower stalk,
will grow up to nearly five feet tall. The rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense
stands that exclude native wetland species (W A State Noxious Weed Control Board).
The initial survey found YFI populating the shoreline perimeter, but scattered in selected
locations. Because the proposed control action would involve herbicide application to YFI on
private property, permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see
Section 4.3.2).
Identical to the control plan implemented in 2005, glyphosate (Rodeo) would be utilized for YFI
treatments. Glyphosate provides effective long-term control, with applications generally made in
mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide into the root system.
AquaTechnex indicated that populations of the noxious weed decreased in- density from that
identified in 2005.
4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife
Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple-pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This
erect, robust, square-stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense
stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an invasive, rapidly-spreading European species that
is a State of Washington Class C Weed (Ecology, 2006).
PL was observed at North Lake during the initial June survey and was reported to be in lesser
densities than what was recorded in 2005. Identical to YFI treatment, the proposed control
action for PL would involve herbicide application on private property. Therefore, permission
(right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see Section 4.3.2).
The noxious emergent plant was reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake,
although the survey occurred early in the growing season for this perennial weed. Because an
aquatic plant survey only provides a snapshot of the conditions present in the lake at the time of
the inspection, it was expected that additional PL seedlings would emerge from the lake
sediments along the shorelines later in the growing season.
4.3 Herbicide Treatments
The herbicide treatment program was designed to meet the requirements of both the Ecology
Grant Agreement and NPDES permit. Within this framework, Year Two Integrated Treatment
Plan benchmarks were followed where practical.
5 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine-list weed control activities that
discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting
herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water
bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator
also must comply all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures.
Glvphosate
Glyphosate (Rodeo) was used to treat FWL, YFI and PL on North Lake in 2006. Glyphosate is a
systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A)
for aquatic applications.
The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into
the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days, seven days
on more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody plants.
It is known that extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of
this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and
yellowing of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above-ground growth and
deterioration of underground plant parts.
The advantages of glyphosate include:
. The product is a fast-acting systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with
no impact to plants not treated.
· Application can be conducted in a spot-treatment or isolated area fashion.
. There are no water use restrictions.
4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment
All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined
in the Ecology Grant Agreement. Eradication will improve boater access and provide safer
recreation opportunities. Because the treatment areas were smaller than in 2005, the potential for
extensive floating mud island formation was expected to be less likely.
In addition, defined treatment of water lily colonies would achieve the following:
. The gradual replacement of native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish
habitat.
· A reduced possibility that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would contribute to
increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms).
. A reduction in the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a
demand on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life.
The AquaTechnex 2006 North Lake Year End Report (found on the SWM website) contains
maps with locations of FWL colonies. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the
lily pads by a two-person crew using boat-mounted low-pressure spray equipment. The aquatic
herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied
6 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
(by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This
process included reapplication to areas that did not uptake enough herbicide because of weather
or plant wash off. The total area treated equaled less than one acre.
The first glyphosate application of FWL was conducted on the morning of August 11. Due to
high winds, the application was suspended. A second application was attempted on August 29,
but windy conditions prevented further treatment activity.
To effectively eradicate FWL populations, it is characteristic to perform additional treatments
during the growing season. A third spot treatment was scheduled for the last week of August, but
SWM staff voiced concern about predicted wet weather and possible community disruptions due
to the upcoming Labor Day weekend. AquaTechnex agreed to postpone treatment. Because of
the treatment postponement, AquaTechnex was required to obtain approval from Ecology to
apply herbicide beyond the last day (September I) that was indicated on the residential notices.
The Department of Ecology granted approval for treatment date extension, and the third
application took place on September 5, 2006. The contractor reported that wind again became a
limiting factor in herbicide effectiveness.
4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment
Following the requirements outlined in the Grant Agreement, eradication of all YFI and PL
continued in 2006. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained
Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents
(AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds. Maps showing YSI and
PL colony locations and all lake parcels granting access for treatment may be found on the SWM
website.
YFI and PL colonies were treated on August 11 with glyphosate, but the application was
suspended due to high winds. The crew returned on August 29, focusing on the residential side
of the lake, but poor weather conditions again stopped applications.
A follow-up spot treatment was scheduled for the last week of August. As with the fragrant
water lily follow-up treatment described above, herbicide application was postponed due to
advancing wet weather and the holiday weekend. With Ecology approval, the last application
took place on September 5, 2006 during windy conditions when AquaTechnex accessed the
south end of the lake via airboat. The YFI and PL-treated areas in 2006 totaled less than one acre.
During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (Rodeo). The noxious
weeds were either sprayed from the lake-side off of a motorboat, or from the land-side by a
worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent
ornamental plants or grasses. For PL, spraying individual plant was deemed the most effective
application method (versus wicking) given the issues of work efficiency and accessibility. The
aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and
applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for FWL.
7 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
4.4 YFI and PL Manual Control
The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform
lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake to help control the
spread of both YFI and PL. SWM staff issued notices to all lake residents regarding proper hand
pulling and digging techniques for YFI. For PL, hand removal methods (digging up the roots or
cutting back the stalks) were offered as effective options, including proper disposal of all organic
debris (roots, seed heads and stems). Three residents contributed 21 volunteer hours removing
PL seed heads and stalks on private parcels around the lake.
On September 19, Washington Department of Wildlife personnel (contracted by King County
Noxious Weed Control Program) performed manual removal and treatment of PL at the public
boat launch property. All seed heads were removed and properly disposed of, and the remaining
stalks were treated with glyphosate. This work was not included in the scope of work covered by
the Ecology A WMF Grant Agreement.
On October 6, Mark Braverman with McKinstry (Weyerhaeuser contractor) reported that all PL
was removed from the Weyerhaeuser property as part of their annual weed control efforts. PL
was hand-removed on upland areas adjacent to the lake that are not included as part of the city's
Grant Agreement scope of work.
AquaTechnex also undertook controls to manually remove PL seed heads. On October 12, the
contractor removed a large amount of surviving PL plants (some flowering and some with intact
seed heads). A total of three 40-gallon bags of plant waste were removed, primarily from the
south side of the lake (on the floating masses and on the Weyerhaeuser property side). Because it
appeared that many of these plants had not been properly treated with herbicide, AquaTechnex
did not charge the city for the manual removal effort.
4.5 Water Lily Island Control
North Lake continued to experience the emergence of floating masses of dead FWL roots and
muck, primarily along the south shore. Early in the year, the NLSC agreed that floating FWL
island removal action would continue to be implemented on an as-needed basis if the masses
interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake.
The NLSC assessed all of the control options and costs provided by AquaTechnex and agreed to
proceed only with volunteer mud island removal efforts this year. As a result, Chuck Gibson and
Terry Thomas, lake residents, began limited manual hand-work on the floating masses at the
south end of North Lake during the spring. Similar to the year before, they continued to chop at
the islands (ranging in thickness from one to four feet) with lawn edgers. This action released
trapped gases and allowed some of the sediment to sink. They were also able to push small
pieces (ten to twelve feet across) to deeper water, where they broke up and sank after prodding
with an oar. Their work was successful in creating additional narrow channels from the lake to
the shoreline
On August 26, a larger mud island removal volunteer effort took place at the south end of the
lake. A total of nine lake residents, piloting six different boats, were able to destroy large
8 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
portions of the floating masses using manual methods. The work helped to deepen and expand
the open water into several lake residents' dock areas. A total of thirty-three volunteer hours
were completed for this effort.
4.6 Bottom Barrier Installation
The Ecology Grant Agreement included the requirement for bottom barrier installation at the
public boat launch area. A bottom barrier covers the sediment like a blanket, compressing aquatic
plants while reducing or blocking light. Bottom screening can be an important tool to help
eradicate and contain early infestations of noxious weeds such as milfoil.
Because the boat launch area is not infested with milfoil, and given the possibility that the mat
may interfere with boat navigation and fishing activities, SWM staff requested that Ecology
waive this requirement. On May 18, Kathy Hamel, Aquatic Weed Specialist with Ecology,
granted the waiver.
4.7 Weed Rakes
The weed rake loan program continued in 2006, providing North Lake residents an opportunity to
borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes
were used as necessary through the summer to maintain the beneficial uses of the shoreline for
fishing, boating and swimming.
Weed rakes can only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the
shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length often linear feet), as specified in the WDFW Aquatic
Plants and Fish Pamphlet. Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two
different styles of rakes depending on the type of plant targeted: a rake with a sharp cutting blade
for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged
plants.
Because milfoil was not detected during the June 2 initial survey, weed rakes were loaned out
immediately to lake residents impacted only by native weed infestations. Rakes were checked out
to approximately eleven households until September 15 when the program was shut down for the
season pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and
Fish pamphlet requirements.
4.8 Second Systematic Survey
The second survey was performed on October 3. The objective was to quantify the vegetation
present and to provide a continued baseline of the condition of the lake plant communities.
Methods used were identical to the initial survey. Plant location maps may be found in the
AquaTechnex 2006 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page).
Due to the warm and sunny summer, the growth of all aquatic vegetation in North Lake was
reported to be vigorous. In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section
4.0, the native species documented during the second systematic survey included:
9 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
EMERGENT PLANTS
Common Name
Cattail
Spike Rush
Bull Rush
FLOATING PLANTS
Common Name
Yellow pond lily
Spatterdock
Watershield
SUBMERSED PLANTS
Common Name
Muskgrass
Naiad
Large leaf pondweed
Clasping-leaf pondweed
American elodea
Bladderwort
Northern watermilfoil
Scientific Name
Typha spp.
Eleocharis sp.
Scirpus spp.
Scientific Name
Nuphar spp.
Nuphar polysepalum
Brasenia schreberi
Scientific Name
Chara sp.
Najas sp.
Potamogeton Amplifoious
Potamogeton richardsonii
Elodea Canadensis
Utricularia sp.
Myriophyllum sibericum
Weed Class
Native
Native
Native
Weed Class
Native
Native
Native
Weed Class
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Emer!!ent Plants
Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species,
Typha spp. (Cattail), Eleocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush), that grow in the
shallow margins of a lake. The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and
mammals, and Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese. All North
Lake's emergent vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and help to stabilize
shorelines.
Floatin!! Plants
Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in
the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and
provides spawning habitat for fish.
Nuphar polysepalum (Spatterdock) is a perennial waterlily-like plant that forms extensive stands
in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. When mature, spatterdock has large elephant-ear-
shaped leaves and yellow flowers.
Brasenia schreberi (Water-shield) was reported to be increasing in density. The native plant,
similar to water lily, are identified by their long reddish leaf stalks attached to the centers of the
floating oval leaves, giving them an umbrella-like appearance. Water-shield flowers are small,
purplish, and rise slightly above the water.
10 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
Submersed Plants
Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that was reported to have increased in density
from 2005. Unlike most other perennial aquatic plants, it reproduces from seed each year. The
aquatic plant generally grows rapidly in the spring, producing seeds, and then dropping them to
the lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed
population to the point of excluding other native plants. Although they have the potential to
cause problems for swimmers and boaters in shallow waters, the absence of complaints indicate
that beneficial uses of the lake have not yet been adversely impacted by this species.
Other submerged plant species in the lake included Potamogeton amplifolious (Large leaf
pondweed) and Potamogeton richardsonii (Clasping leaf pondweed). These native members of
the pondweed family occur in small clumps where mapped, and were observed in similar density
throughout the remaining littoral lake zones. Of these two plant species, P. richardsonii was
reported to be increasing in density from the previous year, but not to the point of becoming
problematic.
The native aquatic plant Elodea was also reported to be increasing in density. It is found as an
under story or secondary plant in the lake, and can expand to the point of causing major
problems. The absence of complaints from lake residents concerning this species indicate that
beneficial uses were not impacted.
Chara (Muskgrass) is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases,
this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem
to lake users.
Utricularia sp or Bladderwort was also present. Bladderworts are unique in the aquatic
environment in that they are carnivorous, with a number of small bladders along the stems and
leaves. The is plant similar to milfoil, but the bladders distinguish it from that species.
The AquaTechnex 2006 North Lake Year End Report states that approximately 65% of the lake
littoral zone is covered by both floating and submerged aquatic plants. Based upon these figures,
North Lake is well within the WDFW and Ecology criteria for a minimum of 35% native
vegetation littoral zone coverage to support good fish habitat.
4.9 Department of Ecology Survey
On July 6, Ecology personnel performed an aquatic survey of North Lake by collecting rake
samples from a boat and observing the entire shoreline and littoral zone for plant species
identification. The field work was completed per their Environmental Assessment Program as a
means to follow up on lakes that received Ecology grant funding for aquatic plant management
activities.
In addition, Ecology field staff were concerned about the possible presence of Fanwort
(Cabomba Carolinian), a state of Washington Class B Weed, that was documented by
AquaTechnex in 2005 as populating North Lake. Ecology did not find this plant species during
their survey effort.
11 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
Aquatic plants identified in 2006 by Ecology, but not by AquaTechnex , included:
EMERGENT PLANTS
Common Name
Spreading rush
Naked-stemmed bulrush
Purple marshlocks
Narrow leaf cattail
Scientific Name
Juncus sp.
Schoenoplectus sp.
Comarum palustre
Typha angustifolia
Weed Class
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
FLOATING PLANTS
Common Name
Water-purslane
Scientific Name
Ludwigia palustris
Weed Class
Native
It is important to note that Jennifer Parsons, Ecology Aquatic Plant Specialist, made a second
visit to North Lake at the end of September. The additional survey work was required in order to
make a positive identification of Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) during the late summer
period when the plant's mature flower spikes finally emerged. Parsons positively confirmed the
presence of the non-native weed, which was isolated on a single property near the north end of the
lake.
Narrow leaf cattail is currently on the noxious weed monitor list. According to Parsons, it has
caused considerable problems in the Midwest, and can hybridize with native cattail to form an
even more invasive strain. Due to these factors, Ecology has approved the addition of this
noxious plant to the North Lake Grant Agreement scope of work. Narrow leaf cattail will be
targeted for herbicide treatment in 2007, provided that affected property owners grant permission
for entry.
4.10 Post Control Visual Assessment
During the Second Systematic Survey on September 29, AquaTechnex personnel performed a
visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the glyphosate herbicide treatments and
control methods conducted in 2006 on the three targeted species (FWL, PL and YFI).
AquaTechnex reported that weather prevented maximum control of FWL, reducing their
densities but not fully eradicating the noxious weed. In addition, visual observations provided by
lake residents (Debra Hansen and Chuck Gibson) concerning FWL survivability at both ends of
the lake indicated that the treatments were not fully effective (lack of browning vegetation). The
contractor recommends follow up control, and projects that 99% or greater of the original FWL
population will be eradicated by the end of 2007.
The AquaTechnex Final report also states that the 2006 PL and YFI control efforts provided
good results in all areas treated. However, many surviving and emerging PL and YFI plants were
observed by lake residents along shoreline areas presumed to be treated. During an October 12
return visit, AquaTechnex staff commented that an unusual number of PL plants were thriving
along the west side of the lake and throughout the floating mats at the south end. As a result, a
manual control effort was implemented to remove PL before additional seed heads dropped from
the surviving plants (See Section 4.4).
12 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
4.11 Algae
Many common fresh water blue-green algae species are known to produce toxins at varying
concentrations depending on the lake conditions. Because of possible toxic algal blooms with the
potential of producing toxins at levels dangerous to small children and animals, SWM staff
issued an algae alert flyer to all North Lake residents during the summer. The caution warned of
the possible presence of algal blooms during warmer months, and recommended safe actions
designed to prevent exposure.
AquaTechnex identified both filamentous green algae (Cladophora spp.) and filamentous blue-
green algae (Anabaena spp.) to be present during the systematic aquatic plant surveys, although
the distribution or density of the algae species were not recorded in the survey report. In 2006, no
complaints were received by SWM staff concerning the presence of blue-green algal blooms or
other problematic algae concentrations in North Lake.
In 2005, the Washington State Legislature established funding for an algae control program and
asked Ecology to develop the program. The program focuses on providing local governments
with the tools they need to manage algae problems. A total of $250,000 will be earmarked each
year to target blue-green algae due to the health risks posed to humans, pets, and livestock.
Ecology will begin funding small grants to local governments in fall 2007. In the interim, the
Washington Department of Health (DOH) will develop statewide guidelines for toxic algae
blooms under a grant provided by Ecology. These guidelines will help local governments make
decisions about when to post health advisories and when to close waters to recreation. In
addition, DOH will provide and post educational signs and outreach materials concerning algal
blooms for all troubled waterbodies.
5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING
5.1 2006 Water Quality Monitoring
Per the Ecology Grant Agreement, SWM Water Quality personnel collected samples from North
Lake to determine glyphosate concentrations before and after treatment. North Lake was not
treated with 2.4-D in 2006.
The sampling procedure was undertaken to determine lake concentrations of herbicides, and to
provide an analytical measurement of the contractor's pelformance. Background samples (before
treatment) and post treatment samples were collected at time intervals prescribed in the Grant
Agreement. Samples were taken in the middle of the lake (outside the treatment areas), and
inside an individual FWL treatment site and analyzed for glyphosate.
All samples were collected using a Wildco Alpha 2.2 liter Van Dorn style water bottle. The
samples were retrieved from various depths, and combined into individual composite samples.
13 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
Each sample was immediately chilled, refrigerated, and shipped within holding time to Columbia
Analytical Services, Inc. in Kelso, Washington (Ecology accredited laboratory #CI203) and
analyzed by USEPA Chromatography Method 547.
Table I below outlines the results of the sampling.
Table 1. 2006 North Lake Glyphosate Water Sampling
Oate Pre/Post Inside/Outside Location Concentration (ppb)
Treatment Zone
Background in littoral zone,
6/30/06 Pre Inside approximately 700' south of Non Oetect
public boat launch, inside
water lily populated area
Background outside littoral
zone, approximately 700'
6/30/06 Pre Outside south of public boat launch, Non Oetect
outside water lily populated
area
Outside littoral zone,
8/11/06 Post Outside approximately 700' south of Non Oetect
1-hour public boat launch, outside
water lily populated area
Inside littoral zone,
8/11/06 Post Inside approximately 700' south of 26
1-hour public boat launch, inside
water lily treated area
Outside littoral zone,
8/11/06 Post Outside approximately 700' south of Non Detect
4.5-hours public boat launch, outside
water lily populated area
Inside littoral zone,
8/11/05 Post Inside approximately 700' south of Non Oetect
4.5-hours public boat launch, inside
water lily treated area
No water use restrictions are indicated for glyphosate, however Ecology recommends a 24-hour
swimming advisory for areas treated with this herbicide. In addition, the product's label
restrictions and requirements in the NPDES permit do not allow application directly to water
within 0.5 mile of a potable water intake. (Note, North Lake is not known to be a source of
drinking water).
The USEP A Safe Drinking Water Act determines safe levels of chemicals in drinking water
which do or may cause health problems. These non-enforceable levels, based solely on possible
14 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
health risks and exposure, are called Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLG). The MCLG
for glyphosate has been set at 700 parts per billion (ppb).
The analytical findings above demonstrate that glyphosate concentrations in the water column
(26 ppb) were well below the USEPA MCLG levels (700 ppb) immediately after treatment (one
hour), and appear to have completely dissipated before the end of the 24-hour swimming
advisory. In addition, there were no reports of damage to lawns or gardens from the application
of irrigated water.
6.0 EDUCA TION/PUBLlC INVOLVEMENT
The elements of the Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake are based
primarily on the Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP). The Ecology Grant
Agreement incorporates the information in the IA VMP, forming two primary components for
Education and Public Involvement The two components focus on prevention and detection of
noxious aquatic and emergent weeds, and lake stewardship. The North Lake Steering Committee
(NLSC) oversees the implementation of the Ecology Grant Agreement, which is outlined in the
2006 North Lake Work Plan.
6.1 Community Involvement
North Lake Community Involvement program for 20CX> involved the following:
6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC)
The NLSC is charged with setting the aquatic plant management priorities and providing input
on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. The NLSC is comprised of North Lake
residents, Weyerhaeuser representatives and City of Federal Way staff. The Committee meets
quarterly, or more often as necessary to implement Work Plan goals.
The following members comprise the NLSC:
Lake Residents
Wendy Honey - (Chair)
Chuck Gibson - (Co-Chair)
Julie Cleary
Debra Hansen
Barry James
James Chastain
Weverhaueser Representitive
Jennifer Hale
City of Federal Way
Dan Smith, Surface Water Management
Don Robinett, Surface Water Management
15 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities of the NLSC:
. Reviews annual plant survey information.
. Develops an annual aquatic plant management Work Plan based upon the information
revealed in the annual plant surveys. The Work Plan prioritizes aquatic weed problem areas,
identifies preferred control methods for each species, and develops the anticipated budget.
. Assists the City of Federal Way with oversight of control work to keep contractors
accountable.
. Participates in preparation of an annual evaluation report that summarizes plant control
activities, lake-user's perspectives on the plant community, and recommendations for the
next year's control strategy.
. Assists with presentation of aquatic plant management efforts to lake residents at an annual
community meeting and Plant ID Workshop.
. Helps the City of Federal Way to ensure that all lake residents receive proper notification
pursuant to the requirements of the Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit.
. Participates in other annual community involvement/education strategies and plant control
efforts as needed.
The NLSC met four times in 2006. The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the
SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. The following are brief abstracts from each
NLSC meeting:
February 9. 2006
. Reviewed new committee member roles and duties.
. Reviewed Grant Agreement requirements.
. Discussed 2005 Work Plan and budget, and offered recommendations for 2006.
. Reviewed grant-related volunteer service and recordkeeping.
. Began crafting 2006 Work Plan.
March 21. 2006
. Met jointly with Steel Lake Steering Committee and aquatic plant management contractor
(AquaTechnex) representative.
. Discussed new NPDES permit requirements and legal issues.
. Reviewed contractor issues: communication problems and expectations for 2006.
Mav 4. 2006
. Annual Spring Meeting was conducted to formally review the 2005 program and to review
the 2006 Work Plan with lake residents.
October 12. 2006
. End-of-season review of 2006 survey results and herbicide treatment effectiveness.
. Reviewed public education program.
. Reviewed status of Ecology Grant budget to-date.
. Discussed contractor performance issues and plans for a new contract in 2007.
16 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
6.1.2 Development of 2005 Work Plan
On February 9, the NLSC discussed both the structure and content of the 2006 North Lake
Aquatic Plant Management Draft Work Plan (Work Plan). The goals and budget were based
upon both the requirements outlined in the IA VMP and the specific requirements prescribed by
the Ecology Grant Agreement. Following the meeting, SWM staff finalized the Work Plan,
which included the goals and anticipated budget for the up-coming year.
The following is a brief outline of the 2006 Work Plan:
Task 1: Aquatic Ve2etation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for
effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water
lily, purple loosestrife, and yellow flag iris), and other problematic aquatic plant issues (i.e. mud
island removal) for the year. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to
accomplish the goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 4.0.
Task 2: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake residents
and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items included in Task 2 include: annual
community meeting (spring) and annual Plant ID Workshop (summer); quarterly newsletter (The
Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers; web site
development; and development of an annual report.
6.1.3 Annual Spring Meeting
The North Lake Spring Community Meeting was held on May 4, 2006 at the North Lake
Clubhouse. SWM staff reviewed the efforts undertaken in 2005, and outlined the proposed 2006
Work Plan and budget, implications of new NPDES Permit, weed treatment options, right-of-
entry procedures, and recordkeeping/reporting of volunteer hours. Various questions from lake
residents were addressed and citizen feedback was solicited. The meeting was attended by
approximately eighteen lake residents.
6.1.4 Plant ID Workshop
A joint Steel Lake-North Lake Plant ID Workshop was held on July 8 at Steel Lake Park. This
event provided an atmosphere of learning within a social setting. Residents from both lakes were
presented information describing each aquatic plant management program. They were also able
to pose questions to both SWM staff and individual NLSC members. Over thirteen households,
totaling more than nineteen residents, attended the event.
At the Workshop, North Lake residents were afforded the opportunity to review the 2006 Work
Plan and examine maps depicting noxious weed infestation areas and proposed treatment
locations. In addition, various public education displays provided hands-on opportunities for
individuals to view both native and noxious plants (good and bad) retrieved from their lake. Both
SWM staff and lake residents harvested the live plant specimens found in North Lake for the
displays.
17 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
6.1.5 Boater Education
On April 28 (Opening Day of Fishing Season), a local Boy Scout Troop handed out
approximately 20 Milfoil Education Brochures to boaters at the North Lake Boat Ramp.
Although boater turnout was low due to inclement weather, the brochure outlined the detrimental
effect milfoil has on fresh water lakes, the propagation of the noxious plant, and how to properly
clean vessels prior to entering or leaving the boating area.
6.2 Public Education
The North Lake Public Education program for 2006 involved the following:
6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter
SWM staff continued issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all
North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an
email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee,
includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, and
education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management.
6.2.2 Public Notices
Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via mail and email prior to contractor
activities, including surveys and treatments. Lake residents were also sent notices prior to all
public meetings.
During the course of 2006, SWM staff mailed out four formal public notices and emailed
approximately six supplemental notices to lake residents. All public notices were posted on the
North Lake web page. In addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work
plan activities were e-mailed to E-Subscribe participants approximately 24 hours prior to the
activity on the lake.
6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs
SWM staff developed and distributed the following lake-related informational flyers:
. Milfoil
. Good PlantslBad Plants
. Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal
. Blue Green Algae
. Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese
. Aquatic Weed Rake Program
18 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
6.2.4 Web Page Development
In 2006, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant
management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the
year. Web site information includes:
. Current IA VMP (with figures and maps)
. 2006 Work Plan
. Chronology and description of important 2006 North Lake activities
. North Lake publications such as: The Lake View; informative flyers (milfoil, blue-green
algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plantslbad plants); public
notices; and NLSC Meeting notes.
6.2.5 Annual Report
SWM staff develops a final year-end report to all lake residents and parties of interest that
describes the activities and a budget review of the prior year.
7.0 2006 BUDGET REVIEW
The 2006 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the scope of aquatic weed management
expected to be accomplished during the year. Table 2 below provides an overview of the final
North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2006:
T bl 2 2006 N rth L k B d t 0
a e . 0 a e uIge vervlew
TASK Estimates Actual Expenses
Task 1 & 2, Project
AdministrationNegetation Management 22,044 13,967
Task 3, Public Education 5,450 5,834
YEAR END $ 27,494 $19,801
19 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
7.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administrationl Vegetation Management
Table 3 below illustrates the grant-eligible budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2.
Table 3. 2006 North Lake Budget, TASK 1 & 2, Proiect AdministrationNeaetation Mgmt.
GOAL 2006 Work Plan Actual Expenses
Estimated Expenses (includes taxes)
2006 Permit Public Notice requirement 150.00 163.00
Two diver surveys (Sprino & Summer) 4,597.00 4,597.00
Milfoil herbicide treatment 1,500.00 0
Fraarant water IiIv herbicide treatment 500.00 224.00
Yellow flag iris and purple loosestrife 980.00 224.00
treatment
Advance resident notifications & shoreline 680.00 680.00
postino
Water auality monitorina 1,400.00 990.00
Water sample shipping 0 43.00
Post control survey 925.00 0
Contractor letter report 381.00 0
Contractor final report 544.00 544.00
Bottom barrier installation 250.00 0
Water IiIv island control 3,000.00 0
Miscellaneous water Quality issues (Le. alaae) 300.00 7.00
Refreshments and supplies for NLSC 60.00 12.00
auarterlv meetinas
Grant-eligible SWM staff waaes and benefits 4,500.00 5,070.00
Grant-elioible lake volunteer time 2,250.00 1,413.00
TOTALS $ 21,717.00 $13,967.00
Note: The 2006 Weed Permit & Application fee ($327.00) and the 2007 Weed Permit Fee ($338.00) were
not grant eligible expenses.
7.2 Task 3 Public Education
Table 4 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3.
T bl 4 2006 N rth L k B d t TASK 3 P br Ed
a e 0 a e u lae, u IC ucatlon
GOAL 2006 Work Plan Actual Expenses
Estimated Expenses (includes taxes)
Quarterlv newsletter 350.00 309.00
Annual evaluation reoort 100.00 96.00
Annual Sprino Community Meetino 50.00 0
Plant ID workshop/cookout 300.00 88.00
Public education orintina 150.00 51.00
Boater outreach proaram 100.00 102.00
City LMO web Dace 0 0
Grant-eliaible SWM staff waaes and benefits 3,500.00 4,753.00
Grant-elioible lake volunteer time 900.00 435.00
TOTALS 5,450.00 5,834.00
20 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
7.3 Ecology Grant Budget Review
Table 5 below summarizes the running balance of the Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund
grant for North Lake, set to expire December 31, 2009:
T
N h L k G
R
abieS. ort a e rant unnmg Balance
Year Grant Funds Used Running Balance
Start N/A $60,158
2005 18,882 $41,276
2006 14,849 $26,427
8.0 2006 ANNUAL EVALUATION AN) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2007
The following discussion summarizes the 2006 North Lake program, and outlines
recommendations for 2007:
8.1 2006 Aquatic Vegetation Management Summary
The NLSC agreed that the aquatic vegetation management actions included in the 2006 Work
Plan were fully implemented and that program spending did not exceed the beginning of the year
budget estimates. Targeted weeds - FWL, PL and YFI - continued to be controlled. The
following outlines the major 2006 developments worth noting:
. The on-going success of the zero-tolerance milfoil eradication program was evidenced by
the absence of the noxious weed found during the survey. As a result, 2,4-D (or
equivalent) was not applied, saving program funds and eliminating concerns regarding
ecological impacts of the herbicide.
. Both SWM staff and NLSC Committee members agreed that herbicide treatments for
FWL, YFI and PL were not completely effective in 2006. Despite a meeting held early in
the year to discuss communication and staffing issues, AquaTechnex still fell behind
schedule. Due to the contractor's workload, treatments for FWL, YFI and PL took place
late in the season. The delay was further complicated toward the end of summer when
the amount of available calendar days became limited, and weather (wind and rain)
became a factor. This resulted in reduced herbicide effectiveness.
. Because of the time constraints experienced toward the end of the growing season, SWM
granted AquaTechnex approval to proceed with herbicide treatments with less than the
normal advance notification. Due to this, SWM staff was not able not provide the
necessary contractor oversight on such short notice. Thereby, observations of key weed
management activities did not occur as planned.
21 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
. The final visual evaluation of FWL and YFI treatment effectiveness by the contractor
was questionable. There was some doubt as to whether the browning of targeted plants
observed by SWM staff and lake residents was due to effects of herbicide application or
by the normal end of season die back.
. Admission by the contractor supported the observations made by residents concerning
the survival of PL plants at the south end of the lake, indicating that the plants were not
properly treated. Due to this, it is probable that PL seed heads were allowed to mature
and drop before being manually removed in this area on October 12.
. Approximately 90% of affected lake properties submitted Rights of Entry for permission
to treat YFI. Although maps were provided to the contractor, there was question whether
the contractor utilized them to accurately treat required areas. A visual method to mark
properties was recommended for implementation in 2007.
. Comments were received that the aquatic weed eradicator rake (with sharp blade used for
cutting), was not useful. Also, concerns were raised regarding the difficulty in obtaining
the rakes for use on weekends and holidays.
. The waiving of the requirement to install a bottom barrier at the boat launch resulted in
cost savings.
. AquaTechnex missed the identification of Narrow leaf cattail during their two separate
survey efforts. Fortunately, the Department of Ecology discovered this plant. This will
allow the noxious plant to be included in the 2007 Work Plan,
. Because of the explosive growth of Naiad (Najas sp.) reported in Washington lakes in
2006, Ecology plans to return to North Lake to monitor the situation concerning native
weed populations.
8.2 2007 Aquatic Vegetation Management Recommendations
The majority of the problems encountered in 2006 revolved around contractor performance -
primarily communication and staffing-related issues. Many of these issues will be addressed in
new 2007 contract language requiring specific calendar dates for control actions and timetables
for notification. The following outlines recommendations for 2007:
. Following the evaluation of proposals, and the selection of an aquatic plant management
firm for 2007, contract language should be developed that requires: (1) earlier growing
season treatments to allow for adequate follow-up applications, (2) all herbicide
treatment completion by date-certain timetables, (3) strict 48-hour prior notification from
contractor for all lake-related work so that SWM staff can provide oversight, and (4) a
means to visually mark shorelines by the contractor that properly identifies emergent
plant colonies targeted for herbicide treatment.
. Narrow leaf cattail will be added to the Work Plan scope of action.
. Continue to stress open, frequent, and accurate communication with the selected
contractor.
22 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
. Continue to solicit contractor oversight assistance and follow-up observations from lake
residents so that issues concerning poor treatment effectiveness can be addressed in a
timely manner.
. Due to demand, the NLSC agreed to purchase one more 36-inch wide weed rake (with
tines), and to have one of the lake residents handle the storage and loaning of the rakes to
facilitate use on weekends and holidays.
8.3 2006 Public Education Summary
The wide variety of Public Education products offered and distributed in 2006 appeared to be
effective. The following outlines the major 2006 developments:
. The annual Plant ID Workshop functioned as a great public education tool. SWM staff
received positive feedback from attendees regarding the event and the material presented.
8.4 2007 Public Education Recommendations
. Continue aggressive public education effort targeting all lake properties identified as
being infested with noxious weeds in order to prevent their spread.
. Implement more efficient volunteer time sheet recordkeeping and submittal procedure.
. Because there were problems with lake residents submitting volunteer hours in a timely
fashion, a better system needs to be implemented in order for Grant Payment Request to
be submitted to Ecology on time on a bi-annual basis.
8.5 2006 Ecology Grant Budget Summary
North Lake completed the second year of the Ecology A WMF Grant. At the end of 2006,
$26,427 was left out of the initial $60,000 grant. Based on the expected annual expenditures for
aquatic plant management, it is likely that all grant funds will be used after the 2008 season.
Throughout 2006, the NLSC began preliminary discussions concerning possible Lake
Management District (LMD) formation after grant expiration. The committee benefited by
participating in joint-meetings with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, learning that utility
formation takes months of public process. It is expected that the NLSC will continue considering
LMD formation, and begin a formal plan of action by year end.
8.6 2006 Algae Summary
SWM staff were well prepared in 2006 to alert lake residents to possible blue-green algae
blooms. SWM staff will continued to follow development of the evolving Department of
Ecology algae program throughout 2007 to keep informed concerning funding options, sampling
protocols, and the development of new public health standards.
23 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2006 FINAL REPORT
NORTH LAKE
Aquatic Weed Management Program
2007 Final Report
Prepared by:
City of Federal Way
Public Works Department
Surface Water Management Division
Author: Dan Smith
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARy........ ............................ .............. ........................................................................ 1
2.0 BACK G ROUND ................................ .......................................... ................................................................. 1
2.1 IA VMP DEVELOPMENT ........................... ......................... ........... ......................... ......................... .............. 1
2.2 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM ...................................................................................................................2
3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT .....................................................................................3
4.0 2007 AQUA TIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................... 4
4.1 CONTRACT FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................4
4.2 INITIAL SYSTEMATIC SURVEY ...................................................................................................................... 4
4.2.] Fragrant Water Lily.................... ............................................................................................................ 5
4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris...... .......................... ..................................................................... ................ ..... ....... ...... 5
4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife......... ...... ................. ............................... .......... ......... ......... ................ ........... ....... ...... 5
4.2.4 Narrow leaf cattail.................................................................................................................................. 6
4.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS ........................................... .................................................................................. 6
4.3.] Fragrant Water Lily Treatment.............................................................................................................. 7
4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris and Purple Loosestrife Treatment............................................................................... 7
4.3.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment.............................................................................................................. 8
4.4 YFI AND PL MANUAL CONTROL.................................................................................................................. 8
4.5 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL.................................................................................................................... 9
4.6 WEED RAKEs ............................................................................................................................................... 9
4.7 SECOND SYSTEMATIC SURVEy.............................. ....... ........... ........ ............................................................ 9
4.8 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ II
4.9 ALGAE... .... ......................................................................................................................... .................... .... 12
5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ...................................................................................................... 12
6.0 EDUCA TION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................. 13
6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ..... ................. ............... ....... ................. ......................................................... 13
6.]. I North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC).............................................................................................. ]3
6.1.2 Development of2007 Work Plan............................................................................ ............................. ]4
6. ].3 Annual Spring Meeting ........................................................................................................................ ]4
6. ].4 Plant ID Workshop .............................................................................................................................. ]5
6. ].5 Boater Education ................................................................................................................................. ]5
6.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION ...................................... ...... ............ ............... ............................................................ 15
6.2.] Quarterly Newsletter............................................................................................................................ ]5
6.2.2 Public Notices ...................................................................................................................................... ]5
6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs .............................................................................................................. 16
6.2.4 Web Page Development....................................................................................................................... 16
6.2.5 Annual Report................ ............. ................................... ...................................................... ................. 16
7.0 2007 BUDGET REVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 17
7.1 TASKS I & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION' VEGETATIONMANAGEMENT...................................... 17
7.2 TASK 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION ....................................................................................................................... 18
7.3 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 18
8.0 2007 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2007......................................... 19
8.1 2007 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARy............................................................................ 19
8.2 2008 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ....... ............................. ........................ 19
8.3 2007 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARy................. ........... ..... ................................. ....................................... 20
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
8.4 2008 PUBLIC EDUCA nON RECOMMENDATIONS ............. ............................................................................ 20
8.5 2007 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 20
8.6 2007 ALGAE SUMMARy........ ........... ...... ............... ............. ....................................... ..................... ....... ..... 20
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. 2007 North lake Budget Overview..................................17
Table 2. 2007 North lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2..............................17
Table 3. 2007 North lake Budget, Task 3......................................18
Table 4 North lake Grant Running Balance..................................18
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE
(htto:/Iwww.citvoffederalwav.com/Paae.asox?oaae=1219)
North lake Grant Agreement
2006 DOE Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit
AquaTechnex North lake 2007 Year End Report
2007 North lake YFI & Pl Right of Entry Parcel Map
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution by all North Lake Steering
Committee (NLSC) members and the lake community who contributed to a successful aquatic
plant management program in 2007. The Committee includes the following members:
. Lake residents: Wendy Honey (Chairperson), Chuck Gibson (Co-Chair), Julie Cleary,
Debra Hansen, Barry James, and James Chastain.
. Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Jennifer Hale.
. City of Federal Way: Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Don
Robinett (ESA & NPDES Coordinator).
In addition, Surface Water Management (SWM) staff wishes to thank the City Council and City
Manager for their collective support of our aquatic weed management efforts. We also recognize
Kathy Hamel, Department of Ecology (Ecology), for her continuing aquatic plant management
advice and expertise.
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The aquatic vegetation management actions and public education goals outlined in the North
Lake 2007 Work Plan were successfully implemented. Noxious aquatic plants -fragrant water
lily, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris and narrow leaf cattail - were targeted for control at as
Iowa density as was environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that did not impact
public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake.
In addition, an effective public education program was conducted that helped to prevent the
introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake. This
program also aided in the early detection of aquatic weed re-infestations by continuing to involve
the North Lake community in the aquatic plant management process.
This annual report summarizes the steps taken by North Lake during 2007 to conform to the
aquatic weed management program established in the 2004 Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan (IA VMP).
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 IA VMP Development
An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) is a comprehensive document that
defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed control efforts. In 2004,
the North Lake community coordinated with the King County Lake Stewardship group to
develop an IA VMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up-
to-date IA VMP was required by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to be submitted prior to
seeking future grant funding from the State.
With assistance from King County, the lake community began developing an IA VMP. During
this period, efforts began to prepare an Ecology Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (A WMF)
grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public
comment and to finalize the IA VMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way,
Surface Water Management staffbegan participating in the process.
The IA VMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the
plan on October 8. With an approved IA VMP, application was made to Ecology for an A WMF
grant.
Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal
Way. As a result, an A WMF grant was awarded to the city that included a multi-year effort to
fully eradicate the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and
yellow flag iris. The action plan included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment,
control, and public education. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75%
of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology.
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
The Grant Agreement is scheduled to expire no later than December 31, 2009. The Scope of
Work is broken out into the following four tasks:
Task 1 - Project AdministrationlManagement
Task 2 - Vegetation Management
Task 3 - Public Education
Task 4 - Reporting
Task I (Project AdministrationlManagement) involves the maintenance of project records;
submittal of payment vouchers, fiscal forms and project reports; compliance with procurement
and contracting requirements; attainment of all permits, licenses, easements of property rights;
and submittal of all required performance items.
Task 2 (Vegetation Management) and Task 3 (Public Education) are action items specifically
required by this agreement, and are outlined and described in the 2007 North Lake Work Plan.
Task 4 (Reporting) involves the preparation of a final report summarizing the actions taken
during the entire period of the Grant Agreement.
2.2 The Aquatic Weed Problem
Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are
generally of limited distribution, tend to be invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's
water bodies, such as North Lake, if left unchecked. Because non-native plants have few natural
controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out-compete native plant and animal habitats,
and degrade recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds
may lower values of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2006).
The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage
of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small
infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to
regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un-infested areas of
Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the
seriousness of the threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state:
Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new
infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by
law. Class A Weeds detected in North Lake in 2007:
. None
2 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are
designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide-spread. Preventing new infestations
in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is
decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class B Weeds detected in
North Lake in 2007:
. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread
in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option, depending
upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. Class C Weeds detected in North
Lake in 2007:
. Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata)
. Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus)
In addition to the weeds listed above, Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) was positively
identified as populating a single property near the north end of the lake. Although the Washington
State Noxious Weed Control Board has not classified this noxious weed, Narrow leaf cattail is
currently on the noxious weed monitor list because it has caused considerable problems in the
Midwest, and can hybridize with native cattail to form an even more invasive strain. Due to
these factors, Ecology approved the addition of this noxious plant to the North Lake Grant
Agreement scope of work, and it was targeted for herbicide treatment in 2007.
3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT
On March 31, 2006, an application for coverage under the State of Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste
Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae in North Lake
was submitted. The permit combined and replaced portions of the Aquatic Noxious Weed
Control General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the
Aquatic Nuisance Weed and Algae Control General NPDES Permit that was issued prior to
2006.
The NPDES permit (#WAG-994094) was issued to the City's aquatic plant management
contractor AquaTechnex on June 2, 2006. It governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide
applications, residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The five-
year permit expires on April 1, 2011.
Ecology's new permit is issued under the authority ofRCW 90.48. Such issuance complies with
state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings.
Ecology decided to issue a permit that is based solely on state authority to regulate the discharge
of waste materials into waters of the state.
3 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
4.0 2007 AQUATIC WEED MANAGENlENT ACTIVITIES
4.1 Contract for Aquatic Vegetation Management
In 2007, AquaTechnex, Inc. operated under the first year of a new two-year Professional Services
Agreement (contract) with the City of Federal Way that is managed by SWM staff. The scope of
the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to
target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom
barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, and treatment with Ecology-
approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, reports as required, and attending meetings as
required.
4.2 Initial Systematic Survey
On June 12,2007, AquaTechnex performed an initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North
Lake. The survey team mapped all submerged, floating and emergent noxious weeds from a
vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment). The location and extent of
the plant communities discovered in and around the lake were recorded from the surface and
subsurface.
The plant survey on North Lake consisted of deploying a diver to perform a detailed underwater
inspection of the littoral zone while a crew member collected a number of rake samples (point
intercept method) from the surface at various GPS points. The GPS information obtained in the
field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant
location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex 2007 North Lake Year End Report, (located on
SWM web page). Native plant information may be found in Section 4.7.
The point intercept sampling method consisted of using the W A Department of Ecology (DOE)
protocols to sample aquatic plants. A rake toss was made using a double sided sampling rake at
various GPS sampling stations across the littoral area of the lake. On retrieval of each toss, the
plants present and species abundance were noted and recorded using a Trimble GeoXT
datalogging GPS receiver
Noxious weeds found during the North Lake initial systematic survey included:
. Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odroata)
. Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus)
. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
. Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia)
The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the initial survey.
4 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily
Fragrant waterlily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins, and
can be recognized by the fragrant white, pink to purple, many-petaled flowers that float on the water
surface. Their large, round, floating leaves have a distinctive slit on one side. Due to its
attractiveness, this nonnative plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has been introduced to
many lakes in Washington, but can be invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas (Ecology
2006).
The June 12 survey located FWL growth in North Lake, and as with prior years, the colonies
were noted to be emerging in areas along the shoreline perimeter. AquaTechnex recommended
targeting this species with the aquatic herbicide glyphosate as necessary for complete
eradication.
4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris
When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable with its showy yellow flowers colorfully
displayed along the edge of water and in wetlands. The flowers occur in late spring or early
summer. The noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed), including flower stalk,
will grow up to nearly five feet tall. The rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense
stands that exclude native wetland species (WA State Noxious Weed Control Board).
The initial survey found YFI populating the shoreline perimeter, but scattered in selected
locations. Because the proposed control action would involve herbicide application to YFI on
private property, permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was required (see
Section 4.3.2).
Identical to the control plan implemented in 2005 and 2006, glyphosate was utilized for YFI
treatments. Glyphosate provides effective long-term control, with applications generally made in
mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide into the root system to ensure
longer term control.
4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife
Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple-pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This
erect, robust, square-stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense
stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an emergent, invasive, rapidly-spreading European
species that is a State of Washington Class C Weed (Ecology, 2006).
PL colonies were reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake, although the
survey occurred early in the growing season for this perennial weed. Because an aquatic plant
survey only provides a snapshot of the conditions present in the lake at the time of the inspection,
it was expected that additional PL seedlings would emerge from the lake sediments along the
shorelines later in the growing season.
5 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
Identical to YFI treatment, the proposed control action for PL would involve herbicide
application on private property. Therefore, permission (right of entry) from landowners around
the lake was required (see Section 4.3.2).
4.2.4 Narrow leaf cattail
Narrow leaf cattail is a herbaceous, rhizomatous, perennial plant with long, slender, green stalks
topped with brown, fluffy, sausage-shaped flowering heads. It spreads both vegetatively and by
seed, particularly under drawdown conditions, and is generally found in deeper water than native
cattail.
Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) is a non-native aquatic weed currently on the
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board "monitor list". This plant has not been
classified yet based on the species stage of invasion, but the Board is keeping watch to see if it
warrants addition to the Noxious Weed list.
The initial survey found narrow leaf cattail populating a singular private shoreline at the north
west corner of the lake. Permission (right of entry) from landowners around the lake was
required (see Section 4.3.2) because the proposed control action would involve herbicide
application (glyphosate) on private property.
4.3 Herbicide Treatments
The herbicide treatment program was designed to meet the requirements of both the Ecology
Grant Agreement and NPDES permit. Within this framework, the Integrated Treatment Plan
benchmarks were followed where practical.
The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine-list weed control activities that
discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting
herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water
bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator
also must comply with .all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures.
Glvphosate
Glyphosate (AquaPro) was chosen as the preferred herbicide to treat FWL, YFI, PL and narrow
leaf cattail on North Lake in 2007. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) for aquatic applications.
The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into
the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days, seven days
on more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody plants.
It is known that extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of
this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and
6 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
yellowing of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above-ground growth and
deterioration of underground plant parts.
The advantages of glyphosate include:
· The product is a fast-acting systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with
no impact to plants not treated.
· Application can be conducted in a spot-treatment or isolated area fashion.
· There are no water use restrictions.
4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment
All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined
in the Ecology Grant Agreement. This aggressive plan was designed to achieve the following:
· Gradually replace FWL with native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish
habitat.
· Improve boater access and provide safer recreation opportunities,
· Reduce the possibility of excessive amounts of dying vegetation that could contribute to
increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms).
· Reduce the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a demand
on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life.
The initial and follow-up glyphosate treatments of FWL were conducted on July 25, August 7, 8,
and 15. It is characteristic to perform additional treatments such these during the growing season
to effectively eradicate FWL populations.
The AquaTechnex 2007 North Lake Year End Report (found on the SWM website) contains
maps with locations of FWL colonies. Glyphosate (AquaPro), a liquid, was applied directly on
the lily pads by a two-person crew using boat-mounted low-pressure spray equipment. The
aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and
applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment
areas. This process included reapplication to areas that did not uptake enough herbicide because
of weather or plant wash off. The total area treated was approximately one acre.
4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris and Purple Loosestrife Treatment
Following the requirements outlined in the Grant Agreement, eradication of all YFI and PL
continued in 2007. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained
Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents
(AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds. Maps showing YFI and
PL colony locations and all lake parcels granting access for treatment may be found on the SWM
website.
7 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
YFI and PL colonies were treated on July 25, August 7, 8, and 15 with glyphosate. A final PL
treatment was conducted on September 18. The YFI and PL-treated areas equaled approximately
two acres.
During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (AquaPro). The noxious
weeds were either sprayed from the lake-side off of a motorboat, or from the land-side by a
worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent
ornamental plants or grasses. For PL, spraying individual plant was deemed the most effective
application method (versus wicking) given the issues of work efficiency and accessibility. The
aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and
applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for FWL.
4.3.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment
Pursuant to an approval received from the Department of Ecology to include Narrow leaf cattail to
the North Lake treatment plan, a single stand of this invasive aquatic weed was treated on
September 18 with glyphosate (less than one acre). During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed
applicators used glyphosate (AquaPro). The noxious weeds were sprayed from the lake-side off of
a motorboat and from the land-side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. The aquatic
herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by
licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for the other targeted noxious species.
4.4 YFI and PL Manual Control
The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform
lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake to help control the
spread of both YFI and PL. SWM staff issued notices to all lake residents regarding proper hand
pulling and digging techniques for YFI. For PL, hand removal methods (digging up the roots or
cutting back the stalks) were offered as effective options, including proper disposal of all organic
debris (roots, seed heads and stems).
On July 16, King County Noxious Weed Control Program staff performed manual removal of
approximately 100 square feet of small vegetative PL plants along the shoreline near the WDFW
public boat launch property. All plants (including most roots) were removed and properly
disposed of.
In addition, Weyerhaeuser also actively removes PL from upland areas of their property as part
of their annual weed control efforts. This effort is conducted outside of the city's Grant
Agreement scope of work.
AquaTechnex also undertook controls to manually remove PL seed heads. On August 8, the
contractor removed accessible PL plants (some flowering and some with intact seed heads) all
along the lake shoreline.
8 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
4.5 Water Lily Island Control
Water lily islands have diminished in size and scope since 2005, particularly at the south end of
the lake. As a result, lake access has improved tremendously following the volunteer efforts
beginning in 2006 that eventually permanently opened and deepened water access for a number
of lake residents.
The NLSC agreed that floating FWL island removal action would continue to be implemented on
an as-needed basis if floating masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the lake. In 2007, limited
manual hand-work was conducted on several floating islands during the year. A total of nine (9)
volunteer hours were completed by lake residents.
4.6 Weed Rakes
The weed rake loan program continued in 2007, providing North Lake residents an opportunity to
borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes
were used as necessary through the summer to maintain the beneficial uses of the shoreline for
fishing, boating and swimming.
Weed rakes were only to be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the
shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length often linear feet), as specified in the WDFW Aquatic
Plants and Fish Pamphlet. Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two
different styles of rakes depending on the type of plant targeted: a rake with a sharp cutting blade
for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged
plants.
Because milfoil was not detected during the initial survey, weed rakes were loaned out
immediately to lake residents impacted only by native weed infestations. Rakes were checked out
to households until September 15 when the program was shut down for the season pursuant to
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet
requirements.
4.7 Second Systematic Survey
The second survey was performed on September 12. The objective was to quantify the
vegetation present and to provide a continued baseline of the condition of the lake plant
communities. Methods used were identical to the initial survey. Plant location maps may be
found in the AquaTechnex 2007 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page).
In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section 4.0, the following native
species have been known to inhabit North Lake:
EMERGENT PLANTS
Common Name
Cattail
Spike Rush
Bull Rush
Scientific Name
Typha spp.
Eleocharis sp.
Scirpus spp.
Weed Class
Native
Native
Native
9 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
FLOATING PLANTS
Common Name
Yellow pond lily
Spatterdock
Watershield
SUBMERSED PLANTS
Common Name
Muskgrass
Naiad
Large leaf pondweed
Clasping-leaf pondweed
American elodea
Bladderwort
Northern watermilfoil
Scientific Name
Nuphar spp.
Nuphar polysepalum
Brasenia schreberi
Scientific Name
Chara sp.
Najas sp.
Potamogeton Amplifoious
Potamogeton richardsonii
Elodea Canadensis
Utricularia sp.
Myriophyllum sibericum
Weed Class
Native
Native
Native
Weed Class
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Emel1!:ent Plants
Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species,
Typha spp. (Cattail), Eleocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush), that grow in the
shallow margins of a lake. The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and
mammals, and Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese. All North
Lake's emergent vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and help to stabilize
shorelines.
Floatin!!: Plants
Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in
the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and
provides spawning habitat for fish.
Nuphar polysepalum (Spatterdock) is a perennial waterlily-like plant that forms extensive stands
in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. When mature, spatterdock has large elephant-ear-
shaped leaves and yellow flowers.
Brasenia schreberi (Water-shield) is a native plant, similar to water lily. It is identified by their
long reddish leaf stalks attached to the centers of the floating oval leaves, giving them an
umbrella-like appearance. Water-shield flowers are small, purplish, and rise slightly above the
water.
Submersed Plants
Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that reproduces from seed each year. The
aquatic plant generally grows rapidly in the spring, producing seeds, and then dropping them to
the lake sediments. Over time, a substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed
population to the point of excluding other native plants. Although they have the potential to
cause problems for swimmers and boaters in shallow waters, the absence of complaints indicate
that beneficial uses of the lake have not yet been adversely impacted by this species.
10 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
Other submerged plant species in the lake included Potamogeton amplifolious (Large leaf
pondweed) and Potamogeton richardsonii (Clasping leaf pondweed). These native members of
the pondweed family occur in small clumps, and have been historically observed in similar
density throughout the littoral lake zones. No negative reports from lake residents or users were
received concerning increasing densities of these species.
The native aquatic plant Elodea is found as an under story or secondary plant in the lake and has
the potential to expand to the point of causing major problems.
Chara (Muskgrass) is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases,
this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem
to lake users.
Utricularia sp or Bladderwort was also present. Bladderworts are unique in the aquatic
environment in that they are carnivorous, with a number of small bladders along the stems and
leaves. The is plant similar to milfoil, but the bladders distinguish it from that species.
The AquaTechnex 2007 North Lake Year End Report states that the submerged aquatic plant
growth present at the time of the survey did not appear to be interfering with the water uses
designated for this lake community. The plants were observed to be well below the lake surface,
with good bottom coverage. The plants were also noted to be generally low growing and not
forming surface mats.
4.8 Post Control Visual Assessment
During the Second Systematic Survey on September 12, AquaTechnex personnel performed a
visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the glyphosate herbicide treatments and
control methods conducted in 2007 on the three targeted species (FWL, PL and YFI).
A review of the aquatic plant communities on North Lake shorelines focused on the results ofthe
control effort. The majority of treatment areas showed good signs of herbicide injury and the
treatments were considered a success. Some additional Purple Loosestrife plants had flowered
and were now visible and this was a concern. Most of them were small seedlings that had grown
since the last visit to the lake. There were also a few larger plants now visible in the dense
wetland growth on the undeveloped west shoreline that had not been visible in prior. inspections.
These were mapped and targeted for control. One solitary colony of the invasive thin leaf cattail
was still present on the northwest corner of the lake and was scheduled for treatment.
Milfoil plants were not observed at any location in the lake during the detailed boat survey. The
native plant communities had not changed from the time of the first treatment. In addition, no
areas in the littoral area of the lake populated by native aquatic weeds plant were impacting the
recreational use of the lake.
11 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
4.9 Algae
Cyanobacteria are common in freshwater lakes, frequently forming dense populations or water
blooms in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development
of algae blooms are light, temperature, pH, and nutrient concentrations.
Because of the potential that the blooms may occur, SWM staff issues annual algae information,
and algae alerts when present, to all North Lake residents. The alerts caution residents and users
of the presence of toxic-producing algae and recommends safe action to prevent exposure. In
addition, the information concerning the Department of Ecology Algae Control Program is
provided - a program that focuses on providing local governments with the tools they need to
manage algae problems. A total of $250,000 will be earmarked each year to target blue-green
algae due to the health risks posed to humans, pets, and livestock.
In mid-April, SWM received a complaint concerning an unusual murkiness of North Lake. At the
request of SWM staff, Department of Ecology DOE conducted an algal bloom test on North Lake
in response to residents concerns over the persistent murky water condition in North Lake. A
sample was collected by Department of Ecology staff on April 26, 2007.
The testing indicated that more than a dozen different species of freshwater micro-organisms
(including algae and diatoms) were detected and identified by the King County Environmental
Lab, but none were at concentrations of concern for Ecology or the Department of Health. The
murky nature of North Lake appears to have been due to a natural spring bloom of diatoms.
5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING
During the first two years of the Ecology Grant Agreement (2005 and 2006), SWM Water
Quality personnel collected herbicide samples from North Lake in the water column before and
after treatment (2,4-D and glyphosate in 2005, and glyphosate only in 2006). The sampling effort
was required by the Grant Agreement, and was undertaken to determine lake concentrations of
herbicides, and to provide an analytical measurement ofthe contractor's performance.
Background samples (before treatment) and post treatment samples were collected at time
intervals prescribed in the Grant Agreement. Samples were taken in the middle of the lake
(outside the treatment areas), and inside an individual treatment site and analyzed for the targeted
herbicides.
The sampling results obtained during the first two years of monitoring detected very low
concentrations. Additionally, there was limited persistence of the herbicides in the water column
after initial application. For these reasons, sampling in 2007 per the Grant Agreement was
waived by Ecology.
12 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
6.0 EDUCA TION/PUBLlC INVOLVEMENT
The elements of the Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake are based
primarily on the Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP). The Ecology Grant
Agreement incorporates the information in the IA VMP, forming two primary components for
Education and Public Involvement The two components focus on prevention and detection of
noxious aquatic and emergent weeds, and lake stewardship. The North Lake Steering Committee
(NLSC) oversees the implementation of the Ecology Grant Agreement, which is outlined in the
2007 North Lake Work Plan.
6.1 Community Involvement
North Lake Community Involvement program for 2007 involved the following:
6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC)
The NLSC is charged with setting the aquatic plant management priorities and providing input
on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. The NLSC is comprised of North Lake
residents, Weyerhaeuser representatives and City of Federal Way staff. The Committee meets
quarterly, or more often as necessary to implement Work Plan goals.
The following members comprise the NLSC:
Lake Residents
Wendy Honey - ( Chair)
Chuck Gibson - (Co-Chair)
Julie Cleary
Debra Hansen
Barry James
James Chastain
Weverhaueser Representitive
Jennifer Hale
City of Federal Way
Dan Smith, Surface Water Management
Don Robinett, Surface Water Management
The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities of the NLSC:
. Reviews annual plant survey information.
. Develops an annual aquatic plant management Work Plan based upon the information
revealed in the annual plant surveys. The Work Plan prioritizes aquatic weed problem areas,
identifies preferred control methods for each species, and develops the anticipated budget.
· Assists the City of Federal Way with oversight of control work to keep contractors
accountable.
13 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
. Participates in preparation of an annual evaluation report that summarizes plant control
activities, lake-user's perspectives on the plant community, and recommendations for the
next year's control strategy.
. Assists with presentation of aquatic plant management efforts to lake residents at an annual
community meeting and Plant ID Workshop.
. Helps the City of Federal Way to ensure that all lake residents receive proper notification
pursuant to the requirements of the Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit.
· Participates in other annual community involvement/education strategies and plant control
efforts as needed.
The NLSC met two times in 2008. The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the
SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. The following are brief abstracts from each
NLSC meeting:
6.1.2 Development of 2007 Work Plan
In May, the draft 2007 North Lake Aquatic Plant Management Draft Work Plan (Work Plan) was
sent to all committee members via email for their comment The goals and budget were based
upon both the requirements outlined in the IA VMP and the specific requirements prescribed by
the Ecology Grant Agreement. No comments were received, therefore SWM staff finalized the
Work Plan, which included the goals and anticipated budget for the up-coming year.
The following is a brief outline of the 2007 Work Plan:
Task 1: Aquatic Ve2etation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for
effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water
lily, purple loosestrife, and yellow flag iris), and other problematic aquatic plant issues (i.e. mud
island removal) for the year. It also includes an estimate of all associated expenses necessary to
accomplish the goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in Section 4.0.
Task 2: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake residents
and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items included in Task 2 include: annual
community meeting (spring) and annual Plant ID Workshop (summer); quarterly newsletter (The
Lake View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers; web site
development; and development of an annual report.
6.1.3 Annual Spring Meeting
The annual North Lake Spring Community Meeting was waived in 2007 due to historically poor
attendance at this event. In lieu of the meeting, SWM staff mailed out copies of the final 2007
North Lake Work Plan to all lake residents, with a letter explaining the 2007 program.
Comments were also requested, however no comments were received.
14 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
6.1.4 Plant ID Workshop
A joint Steel Lake-North Lake Plant ID Workshop was held on July 8 at Steel Lake Park. This
event provided an atmosphere of learning within a social setting. Residents from both lakes were
presented information describing each aquatic plant management program. They were also able
to pose questions to Surface Water Management (SWM) staff, AquaTechnex personnel and
individual NLSC members.
North Lake residents were afforded the opportunity to review the 2007 Work Plan and examine
maps depicting noxious weed infestation areas and proposed treatment locations. In addition,
various public education displays provided hands-on opportunities for individuals to view both
native and noxious plants (good and bad) retrieved from their lake. Both SWM staff and lake
residents harvested the live plant specimens found in North Lake for the displays.
6.1.5 Boater Education
On opening day of fishing season, a local Boy Scout Troop handed out Milfoil Education
Brochures to boaters at the North Lake Boat Ramp. Although boater turnout was low due to
inclement weather, the brochure outlined the detrimental effect milfoil has on fresh water lakes,
the propagation of the noxious plant, and how to properly clean vessels prior to entering or
leaving the boating area.
6.2 Public Education
The North Lake Public Education program for 2007 involved the following:
6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter
SWM staff continued issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all
North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an
email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee,
includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, and
education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management.
6.2.2 Public Notices
Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via mail and email prior to contractor
activities, including surveys and treatments. Lake residents were also sent notices prior to all
public meetings.
During the course of 2007, SWM staff mailed out formal public notices and em ailed
supplemental notices to lake residents. All public notices were posted on the North Lake web
page. In addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work plan activities
were e-mailed to E-Subscribe participants approximately 24 hours prior to the activity on the lake.
15 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs
SWM staff developed and distributed the following lake-related informational flyers:
. Milfoil
· Good Plants/Bad Plants
· Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal
. Blue Green Algae
· Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese
. Aquatic Weed Rake Program
6.2.4 Web Page Development
In 2007, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant
management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the
year. Web site information includes:
. Current IA VMP (with figures and maps)
· 2007 Work Plan
· Chronology and description of important 2006 North Lake activities
. North Lake publications such as: The Lake View; informative flyers (milfoil, blue-green
algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plantslbad plants); public
notices; and NLSC Meeting notes.
6.2.5 Annual Report
SWM staff develops a final year-end report to all lake residents and parties of interest that
describes the activities and a budget review of the prior year.
16 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
7.0 2007 BUDGET REVIEW
The 2007 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the scope of aquatic weed management
expected to be accomplished during the year. Table I below provides an overview of the final
North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2007:
Table 1. 2007 North Lake Budaet Overview
TASK Estimates Actual Expenses
Task 1 & 2, Project $11,995 $10,936
AdministrationNegetation Management
Task 3, Public Education $4,230 $4,347
YEAR END $16,225 $15,283
7.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administrationl Vegetation Management
Table 2 below illustrates the grant-eligible budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2.
Table 2. 2007 North Lake Budget, TASK 1 & 2, Proiect AdministrationNegetation Mamt.
GOAL 2007 Work Plan Actual Expenses
Estimated Expenses (includes taxes)
Annual Permit Fee (for 2008 coveraae) $338.00 $357.00
New contract RFP Advertisement $0 $43.82
Two diver survevs (Sorina & Summer) $2,024.00 $1.012.16
Weed rake $0 $97.91
Milfoil herbicide treatment $762.00 $0
Fraorant water IiIv herbicide treatment $480.00 $2,111,33
Yellow flag iris, purple loosestrife and narrow $480.00 $2,111.33
leaf cattail treatment
Oiver removal of milfoil $590.00 $0
Advance resident notifications & shoreline $705.00 $606.89
postina
Native weed manual removal $1,350.00 $0
Water IiIv island control $0 $0
Post control visual inspection $751.00 $750.72
Contractor final reoort $0 $0
Contractor attendance at meetinas $915.00 $0
Grant-elioible SWM staff waaes and benefits $2,250.00 $1,692.00
Grant-elioible lake volunteer time $1,350.00 $2.153.00
TOTALS $11,995.00 $10,936.16
Note: The 2008 Weed Permit Fee ($357.00) was not a grant eligible expense.
17 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
7.2 Task 3 Public Education
Table 3 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3.
T bl 3 2007 N rth L k B d t TASK 3 P br Ed f
a e 0 a e u Ige, u IC ucalon
GOAL 2007 Work Plan Actual Expenses
Estimated Expenses (includes taxes)
Refreshments & supplies for quarterly $60.00 $10.63
meetinas
Quarterly newsletter (LakeV;ew) $350.00 $309.08
SWM Annual Lake Report $120.00 $0
Annual Serina Community Meeting $0 $0
Plant 10 workshop/cookout $200.00 $0
Public education printinas $150.00 $80.47
Boater outreach erogram $0 $9.41
City LMO web paoe $0 $0
Grant-elioible SWM staff waaes and benefits $2,750.00 $3,022.00
Grant-elioible lake volunteer time $600.00 $915.00
TOTALS $4,230.00 $4,346.59
7.3 Ecology Grant Budget Review
Table 5 below summarizes the running balance of the Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund
grant for North Lake, set to expire December 31,2009:
T bl 4 N rth L k G
a e 0 a e rant unnmg a ance
Year Grant Funds Used Running Balance
Start N/A $60,158
2005 $18,882 $41,276
2006 $14,849 $26,427
2007 $11,246 $15,181
R
BI
18 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
8.0 2007 ANNUAL EVALUATION AN) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2007
The following discussion summarizes the 2006 North Lake program, and outlines
recommendations for 2008:
8.1 2007 Aquatic Vegetation Management Summary
The NLSC agreed that the aquatic vegetation management actions included in the 2007 Work
Plan were fully implemented and that program spending did not exceed the beginning of the year
budget estimates. Targeted weeds - FWL, PL and YFI - continued to be controlled. The
following outlines the major 2007 developments worth noting:
. The on-going success of the zero-tolerance milfoil eradication program was evidenced by
the absence of the noxious weed found during the survey. As a result, 2,4-D (or
equivalent) was not applied, saving program funds and eliminating concerns regarding
ecological impacts of the herbicide.
. Both SWM staff and NLSC Committee members agreed that herbicide treatments for
FWL, YFI and PL were mostly effective in 2007.
8.2 2008 Aquatic Vegetation Management Recommendations
The following outlines recommendations for 2008:
. Continue implementing annual Work Plan, including conducting annual surveys and
controlling noxious plants when documented.
. Due to a Grant fund balance, the North Lake community should begin to seriously
consider moving forward with LMD formation. Grant funds should only be enough to
carry the aquatic weed management efforts through 2008.
. Continue to stress open, frequent, and accurate communication with the contractor.
. Continue to solicit contractor oversight assistance and follow-up observations from lake
residents so that issues concerning poor treatment effectiveness can be addressed in a
timely manner.
. Conduct a more aggressive outreach to the property owners with purple loosestrife and
yellow flag iris who have not granted access to treat.
. Hold a Plant ID Workshop every two years instead of annually.
19 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
8.3 2007 Public Education Summary
A wide variety of Public Education products were offered and distributed in 2007. In addition to
the quarterly newsletter, the LMD distributed a blue/green algae program public notice, milfoil
boater education brochures, good plant/bad plant flyers, Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or
Geese flyers, and a newly developed Be a Lake Steward flyer. The lake steward flyer describes
everyday practices lake residents can adopt to help improve aquatic weed control and water
quality of the lake.
8.4 2008 Public Education Recommendations
. Continue aggressive public education effort targeting all lake properties identified as
being infested with noxious weeds in order to prevent their spread.
. Implement more efficient volunteer timesheet recordkeeping and submittal procedure.
. Because there were problems with lake residents submitting volunteer hours in a timely
fashion, a better system needs to be implemented in order for Grant Payment Request to
be submitted to Ecology on time on a bi-annual basis.
8.5 2007 Ecology Grant Budget Summary
North Lake completed the third year of the Ecology A WMF Grant. At the end of 2007, $15,181
was remaining from the initial $60,000 grant. Based on the expected annual expenditures for
aquatic plant management, it is likely that all grant funds will be used after the 2008 season.
Throughout 2007, the NLSC continued discussions concerning possible Lake Management
District (LMD) formation after grant expiration. The committee benefited by participating in
joint-meetings with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, learning that utility formation takes
months of public process. It is expected that the NLSC will continue considering LMD
formation, and begin a formal plan of action in 2008.
8.6 2007 Algae Summary
SWM staff were well prepared in 2007 to alert lake residents to possible blue-green algae
blooms. SWM staff will continued to follow development of the evolving Department of
Ecology algae program throughout 2008 to keep informed concerning funding options, sampling
protocols, and the development of new public health standards.
20 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2007 FINAL REPORT
NORTH LAKE
Aquatic Weed Management Program
2008 Final Report
Prepared by:
City of Federal Way
Public Works Department
Surface Water Management Division
Author: Dan Smith
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ................................................................................................. ................... 1
2.0 BACK G ROUND ........................... ................................................................................................................ 1
2.1 IA VMP DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM ................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT ..................................................................................... 3
4.0 2006 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................... 4
4.1 CONTRACT FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 4
4.2 INITIAL SYSTEMATIC SURVEY ................................................... ................................................................... 4
4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily........... ..................................................................................................................... 4
4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris....................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife.. ....................... ....... ............................................ ........... .............. ........... .......... ......... 5
4.2.4 Narrow leaf cattail............................. ....................................................... ..... ......... .............. .................. 6
4.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS .......... ................................................................................................................... 6
4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment.............................................................................................................. 7
4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment.................................................................................. 7
4.3.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment.............................................................................................................. 8
4.4 YFI AND PL MANuAL CONTROL................................................................................................................... 8
4.5 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL...... .............................................................................................................. 8
4.6 WEED RAKEs .......................... ..................................................................................................................... 8
4.7 SECOND SYSTEMATIC SURVEY .................................................................................................................... 9
4.8 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 11
4.11 ALGAE........................................................................................................................................................ 11
5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ...................................................................................................... 12
6.0 ED U CA TI 0 N/PUBLI C INV 0 L VEMENT .............................................................................................. 12
6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT .. ............................... ..................................................................................... 12
6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC).............................................................................................. 12
6.1.2 Development of2008 Work Plan ......................................................................................................... 14
6.1.3 Spring Meeting... ................................. ...................................... ....... ..................... .......... ............. ........ 14
6.1.4 Plant 1D Workshop .............................................................................................................................. 15
6.1.5 Boater Education ................................................................................................................................. 15
6.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION ................................. ...................................................... ............................................ 15
6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter............................................................................................................................ 15
6.2.2 Public Notices ...................................................................................................................................... 15
6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs .............................................................................................................. 15
6.2.4 Press Releases...................................... ..................................... ............... .......... ....... .................. ......... 16
6.2.5 Web Page Development....................................................................................................................... 16
6.2.6 Annual Report.. ... ....... .......... ......... ....... ..... .... ...................... ....... ..... ....... .... ... ....... .......... ........ ....... ........ 16
7.0 2008 BUDGE T REVIEW.................................................. ...... ................................................................... 17
7 .1 TASKS I & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION' VEGETATION MANAGEMENT...................................... 17
7.2 TASK 3 PUBLIC EDUCATION ....................................................................................................................... 18
7.3 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET REVIEW........................ ...................... ............................................................. 18
8.0 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 18
9.0 2008 ANNUAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2009......................................... 21
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
9.1 2008 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARy............................................................................ 21
9.2 2009 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 21
9.3 2008 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 22
9.4 2009 PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............. ........................... ..... ............................................ 22
9.5 2008 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 22
9.6 2008 ALGAE SUMMARy.......................... ............. ............ ..................... ......... .......................... .................. 22
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. 2008 North lake Budget Overview...................................17
Table 2. 2008 North lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2...............................17
Table 3. 2008 North lake Budget, Task 3.......................................18
Table 4. North lake Grant Running Balance..................................18
Table 5. lMD Assessment....... ........................... ............ ............. 20
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE
(http://www.citvoffederalwav.com/Paae.aspx?paae=713 )
North lake Grant Agreement
2006 DOE Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit
AquaTechnex North lake 2008 Year End Report
2008 North lake YFI & Pl Right of Entry Parcel Map
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The City of Federal Way acknowledges the significant contribution provided by all North Lake
Steering Committee (NLSC) members and the lake community who contributed to the successful
2008 aquatic plant management program. The Committee includes the following members:
. Lake residents: Wendy Honey (Chairperson), Chuck Gibson (Co-Chair), Julie Cleary,
Debra Hansen, Barry James, and James Chastain
. Weyerhaeuser Corporation: Megan Lum
. City of Federal Way: Dan Smith (Surface Water Quality Program Coordinator) and Don
Robinett (ESA & NPDES Coordinator)
In addition, Surface Water Management (SWM) staff wishes to thank the City Council and City
Manager for their collective support of our aquatic weed management efforts. We also recognize
Kathy Hamel, Department of Ecology (Ecology), for her continuing aquatic plant management
advice and encouragement.
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2008, the aquatic vegetation management actions and public education goals outlined in the
North Lake 2008 Work Plan were successfully implemented. Noxious aquatic plants -fragrant
water lily, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris and narrow leaf cattail- were targeted for control at
as low a density as was environmentally and economically feasible, and at levels that did not
impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake.
In addition, an effective public education program was conducted that helped to prevent the
introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the lake. This
program also aided in the early detection of aquatic weed re-infestations by continuing to involve
the North Lake community in the aquatic plant management process.
This annual report summarizes the steps taken by North Lake during 2008 to conform to the
aquatic weed management program established in the 2004 Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan (IA VMP) - a comprehensive document that defines the management goals and
strategies for on-going noxious weed eradication efforts in North Lake.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 IA VMP Development
An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) is a comprehensive document that
defines the management goals and strategies for on-going noxious weed control efforts. In 2004,
the North Lake community coordinated with the King County Lake Stewardship group to
develop an IA VMP. In addition to laying the groundwork for future aquatic weed work, an up-
to-date IA VMP was required by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to be submitted prior to
seeking future grant funding from the State.
With assistance from King County, the lake community began developing an IA VMP. During
this period, efforts began to prepare an Ecology Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (A WMF)
grant application. A series of meetings were held throughout the summer of 2004 to gather public
comment and to finalize the IA VMP. Anticipating future annexation by the City of Federal Way,
Surface Water Management staffbegan participating in the process.
The IA VMP was submitted on September 16, 2004, and Ecology issued final approval for the
plan on October 8. With an approved IA VMP, application was made to Ecology for an A WMF
grant.
Early in 2005, the North Lake community officially became incorporated into the City of Federal
Way. As a result, an A WMF grant was awarded to the city that included a multi-year effort to
fully eradicate the following noxious weeds: milfoil, fragrant water lily, purple loosestrife and
yellow flag iris. The action plan included a combined approach of annual surveys, treatment,
NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
control, and public education. The grant budget totaled approximately $80,000, with up to 75%
of the eligible project costs reimbursed by Ecology.
The Grant Agreement is scheduled to expire no later than December 31, 2009. The Scope of
Work is broken out into the following four tasks:
Task 1 - Project Administration/Management
Task 2 - Vegetation Management
Task 3 - Public Education
Task 4 - Reporting
Task I (Project Administration/Management) involves the maintenance of project records;
submittal of payment vouchers, fiscal forms and project reports; compliance with procurement
and contracting requirements; attainment of all permits, licenses, easements of property rights;
and submittal of all required performance items.
Task 2 (Vegetation Management) and Task 3 (Public Education) are action items specifically
required by this agreement, and are outlined and described in the 2008 North Lake Work Plan.
Task 4 (Reporting) involves the preparation of a final report summarizing the actions taken
during the entire period of the Grant Agreement.
2.2 The Aquatic Weed Problem
Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are
generally of limited distribution, tend to be invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's
water bodies - such as North Lake - if left unchecked. Because non-native plants have few
natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out-compete native plant and animal
habitats, and degrade recreational opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater
weeds may lower values of lake front properties (Ecology, 2006).
The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage
of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: (1) prevent small
infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations to
regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un-infested areas of
Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the
seriousness of the threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state:
Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new
infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by
law.
Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are
designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide-spread. Preventing new infestations
in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is
decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal.
2 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are
widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option,
depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas.
The joint efforts undertaken by the North Lake Steering Committee, lake residents, and SWM
staff are described in this year-end report. The document also outlines the work completed to
eradicate the following three noxious weed species detected in 2008:
Common Name
Fragrant water lily
Yellow flag iris
Purple loosestrife
Scientific Name
Nymphaea odorata
Iris pseudacorus
Lythrum salicaria
Weed Class
C
C
B
In addition to the weeds listed above, Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) was positively
identified as populating a single property near the north end of the lake in 2007. Although the
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board has not classified this noxious weed, Narrow leaf
cattail is currently on the noxious weed monitor list because it has caused considerable problems
in the Midwest, and can hybridize with native cattail to form an even more invasive strain. Due
to these factors, Ecology approved the addition of this noxious plant to the North Lake Grant
Agreement scope of work. It was targeted for herbicide treatment in 2007, and again in 2008.
3.0 NPDES AQUATIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT
On March 31, 2006, an application for coverage under the State of Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste
Discharge General Permit (permit) for the management of aquatic plants and algae in North Lake
was submitted. The permit combined and replaced portions of the Aquatic Noxious Weed
Control General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the
Aquatic Nuisance Weed and Algae Control General NPDES Permit that was issued prior to
2006.
The permit (#W AG-994094) was issued to the City's aquatic plant management contractor
AquaTechnex on June 2, 2006. It governs activities such as: aquatic herbicide applications,
residential postings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The five-year permit
expires on April 1, 2011.
Ecology's new permit is issued under the authority ofRCW 90.48. Such issuance complies with
state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings.
Ecology decided to issue a permit that is based solely on state authority to regulate the discharge
of waste materials into waters of the state.
3 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
4.0 2006 AQUATIC WEED MANAGBIIENT ACTIVITIES
4.1 Contract for Aquatic Vegetation Management
In 2008, AquaTechnex, Inc. operated under the last year of a two-year Professional Services
Agreement (contract) with the City of Federal Way that is managed by SWM staff. The scope of
the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to
target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom
barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology-approved
aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, reports as required, and attending meetings as required.
4.2 Initial Systematic Survey
Due to a late start to the growing season, AquaTechnex did not complete the initial systematic
aquatic plant survey of North Lake until July 11,2008. The survey team mapped all submerged,
floating and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System
[GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in
and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater
inspection of the littoral zone.
In addition to making a visual inspection, the survey team collected a number of rake samples at
various GPS points. These points were collected to define each treatment area through diver
communication to the mapping vessel team. The GPS information obtained in the field was later
processed for map creation and analysis using Arc View GIS software. Plant location maps may
be found in the AquaTechnex 2008 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page).
Native plant information may be found in Section 4.7.
Although colonies of Eurasian watermilfoil (milfoil) were distributed throughout the littoral area
in the northern and central part of North Lake in 2005, no milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) has
been detected since. The 2005 herbicide treatment with 2,4-D appeared to be successful in
completely eradicating this State of Washington Class B Weed from North Lake.
Noxious weeds found during the North Lake initial systematic survey include:
. Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odroata)
. Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus)
. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
. Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia)
The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the initial survey.
4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily
Fragrant waterlily (FWL) is a familiar aquatic plant that commonly grows around lake margins, and
can be recognized by the fragrant white, pink to purple, many-petaled flowers that float on the water
surface. Their large, round, floating leaves have a distinctive slit on one side. Due to its
attractiveness, this nonnative plant (State of Washington Class C Weed) has been introduced to
4 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
many lakes in Washington, but can be invasive in lakes with extensive shallow areas (Ecology
2006).
The July 11 survey located sparse FWL growth in North Lake, and as with prior years, the
colonies were noted in selected areas along the shoreline perimeter. The population densities of
FWL were reported to be declining in response to treatments, and nearly eliminated in developed
shoreline areas at the north end of the lake. Based on the survey results, AquaTechnex
recommended targeting this species with the aquatic herbicide glyphosate (Rodeo) as necessary
for complete eradication.
4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris
When flowering, yellow flag iris (YFI) is unmistakable with its showy yellow flowers colorfully
displayed along the edge of water and in wetlands. The flowers occur in late spring or early
summer. The noxious aquatic plant (State of Washington Class C Weed), including flower stalk,
will grow up to nearly five feet tall. The rhizomes of this nonnative plant spread to form dense
stands that exclude native wetland species (WA State Noxious Weed Control Board).
The initial survey found YFI populating the shoreline perimeter, but scattered in selected
locations, primarily where permission to treat was not provided by the land owners (see Section
4.3.2).
Identical to the control plan implemented during the last three seasons, glyphosate (Rodeo)
would be utilized for YFI treatments. Glyphosate provides effective long-term control, with
applications generally made in mid to late summer to maximize translocation of the herbicide
into the root system.
4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife
Purple loosestrife (PL) has vivid purple-pink flowers and blooms in summer and early fall. This
erect, robust, square-stemmed noxious plant crowds out native wetland species to form dense
stands in shallow water and wet soil. PL is an invasive, rapidly-spreading European species that
is a State of Washington Class C Weed (Ecology, 2006).
The noxious emergent plant was reported to be widely scattered along the shorelines of the lake,
although the survey occurred early in the growing season for this perennial weed. Because an
aquatic plant survey only provides a snapshot of the conditions present in the lake at the time of
the inspection, it was expected that additional PL seedlings would emerge from the lake
sediments along the shorelines later in the growing season.
Identical to YFI treatment, the proposed control action for PL would involve herbicide
application on private property. Therefore, permission (right of entry) from landowners around
the lake was required (see Section 4.3.2).
5 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
4.2.4 Narrow leaf cattail
Narrow leaf cattail is a herbaceous, rhizomatous, perennial plant with long, slender, green stalks
topped with brown, fluffy, sausage-shaped flowering heads. It spreads both vegetatively and by
seed, particularly under drawdown conditions, and is generally found in deeper water than native
cattail.
Narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) is a non-native aquatic weed currently on the
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board "monitor list". This plant has not been
classified yet based on the species stage of invasion, but the Board is keeping watch to see if it
warrants addition to the Noxious Weed list.
The initial survey found a dwindling stand of narrow leaf cattail populating a singular private
shoreline at the northwest corner of the lake. The 2007 herbicide treatment was effective at the
margins of the stand, but internal plant sections were noted to be surviving in 2008. This was
supported by observations made by Jenifer Parsons (Department of Ecology) during a survey the
first week of June.
4.3 Herbicide Treatments
The herbicide treatment program was designed to meet the requirements of both the Ecology
Grant Agreement and NPDES permit. Within this framework, Year Two Integrated Treatment
Plan benchmarks were followed where practical.
The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine-list weed control activities that
discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting
herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water
bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator
also must comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures.
GlvDhosate
Glyphosate (Rodeo) was used to treat FWL, YFI, PL and narrow leaf cattail on North Lake in
2006. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide registered by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEP A) for aquatic applications.
The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into
the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days, seven days
on more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody plants.
It is known that extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of
this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and
yellowing of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above-ground growth and
deterioration of underground plant parts.
6 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
The advantages of glyphosate include:
. The product is a fast-acting systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with
no impact to plants not treated.
. Application can be conducted in a spot-treatment or isolated area fashion.
. There are no water use restrictions.
4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment
All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined
in the Ecology Grant Agreement. The plan was designed to achieve the following:
. Gradually replace FWL with native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish
habitat.
. Improve boater access and provide safer recreation opportunities,
. Reduce the possibility of excessive amounts of dying vegetation that could contribute to
increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms).
. Reduce the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a demand
on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life.
The AquaTechnex 2006 North Lake Year End Report (found on the SWM website) contains
maps with locations of FWL colonies. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the
lily pads by a two-person crew using boat-mounted low-pressure spray equipment. The aquatic
herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied
(by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This
process included reapplication to areas that did not uptake enough herbicide because of weather
or plant wash off. The total area treated equaled less than one acre.
The first glyphosate application of FWL was conducted on the morning of August 1. A second
and final application occurred August 28.
4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment
Following the requirements outlined in the Grant Agreement, eradication of all YFI and PL
continued in 2008. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained
Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents
(AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds. Maps showing YSI and
PL colony locations and all lake parcels granting access for treatment may be found on the SWM
website.
YFI and PL colonies were treated on August 1, follow-up spot treatment occurred on August 28.
The YFI and PL-treated areas in 2008 totaled less than one acre.
During treatment, AquaTechnex licensed applicators used glyphosate (Rodeo). The noxious
weeds were sprayed from the lake-side off of a motorboat and from the land-side by a worker on
foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent
7 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
ornamental plants or grasses. For PL, spraying individual plant was deemed the most effective
application method (versus wicking) given the issues of work efficiency and accessibility. The
aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and
applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion as that for FWL.
4.3.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment
The single stand of this invasive aquatic weed was treated on August 1 with glyphosate.
Permission (right of entry) from the affected landowner was obtained because the proposed
control action would involve herbicide application (glyphosate) on private property. The noxious
weeds were sprayed from the lake-side off of a motorboat and from the land-side by a worker on
foot using a backpack mounted unit. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700
surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied (by licensed applicators) in the same fashion
as that for the other targeted noxious species.
4.4 YFI and PL Manual Control
The North Lake aquatic weed management program utilizes public education materials to inform
lake residents about effective manual removal efforts they may undertake to help control the
spread of both YFI and PL. SWM staff issued notices to all lake residents regarding proper hand
pulling and digging techniques for YFI. For PL, hand removal methods (digging up the roots or
cutting back the stalks) were offered as effective options, including proper disposal of all organic
debris (roots, seed heads and stems).
4.5 Water Lily Island Control
Water lily islands have decreased considerably around the lake, particularly at the south end of
the lake. As a result, lake access has improved tremendously following the volunteer efforts
beginning in 2006 that eventually permanently opened and deepened water access for a number
of lake residents. The NLSC agreed that floating FWL island removal action would continue to
be implemented on an as-needed basis if floating masses interfered with the beneficial uses of the
lake.
4.6 Weed Rakes
The weed rake loan program continued in 2008, providing North Lake residents an opportunity to
borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic vegetation. The rakes
were used as necessary through the summer to maintain the beneficial uses of the shoreline for
fishing, boating and swimming.
Weed rakes can only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the
shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length often linear feet), as specified in the WDFW Aquatic
Plants and Fish pamphlet. Lake residents were able to control native aquatic plants using two
different styles of rakes depending on the type of plant targeted: a rake with a sharp cutting blade
8 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
for submerged vegetation, and a rake with large tines for control of floating or slightly submerged
plants.
Because milfoil was not detected during the initial survey, weed rakes were loaned out
immediately to lake residents impacted only by native weed infestations. Rakes were checked out
to approximately three households until September 15 when the program was shut down for the
season pursuant to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Aquatic Plants and
Fish pamphlet requirements.
4.7 Second Systematic Survey
The second survey was performed on August 21. The objective was to quantify the vegetation
present and to provide a continued baseline of the condition of the lake plant communities.
Methods used were identical to the initial survey. Plant location maps may be found in the
AquaTechnex 2008 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page).
In addition to the noxious species identified and discussed in Section 4.0, the native species
documented during the second systematic survey was reported to be identical to 2007
populations and included:
EMERGENT PLANTS
Common Name
Cattail
Spike Rush
Bull Rush
FLOATING PLANTS
Common Name
Yellow pond lily
Spatterdock
Watershield
SUBMERSED PLANTS
Common Name
Muskgrass
Naiad
Large leaf pondweed
Clasping-leaf pondweed
American elodea
Bladderwort
Northern watermilfoil
Scientific Name
Typha spp.
Eleocharis sp.
Scirpus spp.
Scientific Name
Nuphar spp.
Nuphar polysepalum
Brasenia schreberi
Scientific Name
Chara sp.
Najas sp.
Potamogeton Amplifoious
Potamogeton richardsonii
Elodea Canadensis
Utricularia sp.
Myriophyllum sibericum
Weed Class
Native
Native
Native
Weed Class
Native
Native
Native
Weed Class
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Emel1!ent Plants
Scattered along the shoreline in moderate to dense patches are a number of emergent species,
Typha spp. (Cattail), Eleocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush), that grow in the
shallow margins of a lake. The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and
mammals. Cattail rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese. All of North
9 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
Lake's emergent vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and help to stabilize
shorelines.
Floatine: Plants
Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily) is a perennial waterlily plant that can form extensive stands in
the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. It is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and
provides spawning habitat for fish.
Nuphar polysepalum (Spatterdock) is a perennial waterlily-like plant that forms extensive stands
in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds. When mature, spatterdock has large elephant-ear-
shaped leaves and yellow flowers.
Brasenia schreberi (Water-shield) is a native plant, similar to water lily. They are identified by
their long reddish leaf stalks attached to the centers of the floating oval leaves which give them
an umbrella-like appearance. Water-shield flowers are small, purplish, and rise slightly above the
water.
Submersed Plants
Najas sp. (Water nymph) is an annual aquatic plant that dominates the lake bottom. Unlike most
other perennial aquatic plants, it reproduces from seed each year. The aquatic plant generally
grows rapidly in the spring, produces seeds that drop them to the lake sediments. Over time, a
substantial seed bank may develop that can expand the weed population to the point of excluding
other native plants.
AquaTechnex reports that the areas in the northern area of the lake that were dominated by Najas
sp. become extremely dense by mid summer. Although these plants have the potential to cause
problems for swimmers and boaters in shallow waters, the absence of complaints indicate that
beneficial uses of the lake have not yet been adversely impacted by this species.
Other submerged plant species in the lake include Potamogeton amplifolious (Large leaf
pondweed) and Potamogeton richardsonii (Clasping leaf pondweed) and Potamogeton
praelongus (White stemmed pondweed). These native members of the pondweed family occur in
small clumps and were observed in similar density throughout the remaining deeper littoral lake
zones. Because of their depth, these plants did not appear to be impacting beneficial uses of the
lake.
The native aquatic plant Elodea acts as an under story or secondary plant in the lake, and can
expand to the point of causing major problems. The absence of complaints from lake residents
concerning this species indicate that beneficial uses were not impacted.
Chara (Muskgrass) is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. In most cases,
this plant is low growing and occupies space on the lake bottom without posing a weed problem
to lake users.
Utricularia sp or Bladderworts are unique in the aquatic environment in that they are
carnivorous, with a number of small bladders along the stems and leaves. The plant is similar to
milfoil, but the bladders distinguish it from that species.
10 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
Assuming that there are no changes in the plant density from 2007, North Lake remains well
within the WDFW and Ecology criteria for a minimum of 35% native vegetation littoral zone
coverage to support good fish habitat.
4.8 Post Control Visual Assessment
During the Second Systematic Survey on August 21, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual
assessment to determine the effectiveness of the glyphosate herbicide treatments and control
methods conducted in 2008 on the four targeted species (FWL, PL, YFI and narrow leaf cattail).
The cool and prolonged spring weather prevented a normal start to aquatic plant management
activities in 2008. In addition, continued wet weather throughout the summer delayed
treatments. As a result, maximum control may have not been achieved compared to past years.
In all, the densities of all targeted species have been reduced, but not fully eradicated.
The AquaTechnex Final report states that the 2008 control efforts provided good results in all
areas treated, with visible signs of herbicide injury:
· FWL is close to being eliminated.
· YFI continues to remain on properties not providing rights of entry for treatment.
· Shoreline stands of PL are close to being eliminated, but the presence of seedlings each
year indicate that a seed bank has been established.
· The stand of Narrow leaf cattail showed signs of extreme browning.
4.11 Algae
Cyanobacteria are common in freshwater lakes, frequently forming dense populations or water
blooms in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development
of algae blooms are light, temperature, pH, and nutrient concentrations.
Because of the potential that the blooms may occur, SWM staff issues annual algae information,
and algae alerts when present, to all North Lake residents. The alerts caution residents and users
of the presence of toxic-producing algae and recommends safe action to prevent exposure. In
addition, the information concerning the Department of Ecology Algae Control Program is
provided - a program that focuses on providing local governments with the tools they need to
manage algae problems. A total of $250,000 will be earmarked each year to target blue-green
algae due to the health risks posed to humans, pets, and livestock.
In late June, SWM received a complaint from a lakefront owner concerning a possible toxic
algae bloom. Upon review of electronic photographs, it was determined to be filamentous algae
- ha~less but unsightly. No further testing was conducted.
11 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING
During the first two years of the Ecology Grant Agreement (2005 and 2006), SWM Water
Quality personnel collected herbicide samples from North Lake in the water column before and
after treatment (2,4-D and glyphosate in 2005, and glyphosate only in 2006). The sampling effort
was required by the Grant Agreement, and was undertaken to determine lake concentrations of
herbicides, and to provide an analytical measurement of the contractor's performance.
Background samples (before treatment) and post treatment samples were collected at time
intervals prescribed in the Grant Agreement. Samples were taken in the middle of the lake
(outside the treatment areas), and inside an individual treatment site and analyzed for the targeted
herbicides.
The sampling results obtained during the first two years of monitoring detected very low
concentrations. Additionally, there was limited persistence of the herbicides in the water column
after initial application. For these reasons, sampling in 2007 and 2008 per the Grant Agreement
was waived by Ecology.
6.0 EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The elements of the Education and Public Involvement Program for North Lake are based
primarily on the Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP). The Ecology Grant
Agreement incorporates the information in the IA VMP, forming two primary components for
Education and Public Involvement The two components focus on prevention and detection of
noxious aquatic and emergent weeds, and lake stewardship. The North Lake Steering Committee
(NLSC) oversees the implementation of the Ecology Grant Agreement, which is outlined in the
2008 North Lake Work Plan.
6.1 Community Involvement
North Lake Community Involvement program for 2000 involved the following:
6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC)
The NLSC is charged with setting the aquatic plant management priorities and providing input
on the implementation of the annual Work Plan. The NLSC is comprised of North Lake
residents, Weyerhaeuser representatives and City of Federal Way staff. The Committee meets
quarterly, or more often as necessary to implement Work Plan goals.
12 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
The following members comprise the NLSC:
Lake Residents
Wendy Honey - (Chair)
Chuck Gibson - (Vice Chair)
Julie Cleary
Debra Hansen
Barry James
James Chastain
Weyerhaeuser Representative
Megan Lum
City of Federal Way
Dan Smith, Surface Water Management
Don Robinett, Surface Water Management
The following outline includes, but is not limited to, the responsibilities of the NLSC:
. Reviews annual plant survey information.
. Develops an annual aquatic plant management Work Plan based upon the information
revealed in the annual plant surveys. The Work Plan prioritizes aquatic weed problem areas,
identifies preferred control methods for each species, and develops the anticipated budget.
. Assists the City of Federal Way with oversight of control work to keep contractors
accountable.
. Participates in preparation of an annual evaluation report that summarizes plant control
activities, lake-user's perspectives on the plant community, and recommendations for the
next year's control strategy.
. Assists with presentation of aquatic plant management efforts to lake residents at an annual
community meeting and Plant ID Workshop.
. Helps the City of Federal Way to ensure that all lake residents receive proper notification
pursuant to the requirements of the Aquatic Plant & Algae NPDES Permit.
. Participates in other annual community involvement/education strategies and plant control
efforts as needed.
The NLSC met two times in 2008. The minutes for each meeting may be accessed through the
SWM web page devoted to North Lake publications. The following are brief abstracts from each
NLSC meeting:
May 8. 2008
. Review of Ecology Grant funding balance (expires December 31, 2009).
. Discussion of LMD development process. Committee representatives III attendance
reaffirm their intention to form a LMD by the end of 2009.
. Review of proposed 2008 Work Plan and budget.
13 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
October 8. 2008
· Update information presented concerning balance of Ecology Grant funding.
· Review of 2008 Work Plan accomplishments.
. Committee agrees to offer a one-year contract extension to AquaTechnex.
· Begin deciding key first elements of LMD formation, including: (1) scope, (2) costs, (3)
boundary, and (4) rate structure.
6.1.2 Development of 2008 Work Plan
On May 8, the NLSC discussed both the structure and content of the 2008 North Lake Aquatic
Plant Management Draft Work Plan (Work Plan). The goals and budget were based upon both
the requirements outlined in the IA VMP and the specific requirements prescribed by the Ecology
Grant Agreement. Following the meeting, SWM staff finalized the Work Plan, which included
the goals and anticipated budget for the up-coming year.
The following is a brief outline ofthe 2008 Work Plan:
Task 1: Aquatic Veeetation Control and Treatment identifies and describes the goals for
effectively controlling and/or treating targeted invasive aquatic weeds (milfoil, fragrant water
lily, purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris, and narrow leaf cattail), and other problematic aquatic
plant issues (i.e. mud island removal) for the year. It also includes an estimate of all associated
expenses necessary to accomplish the goals. A detailed description of Task 1 may be found in
Section 4.0.
Task 2: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake residents
and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items included in Task 2 include:
community meetings (spring) and Plant ID Workshops (summer); quarterly newsletter (The Lake
View); boater outreach program; printing and distribution of educational flyers and press
releases; web site development; and development of an annual report.
6.1.3 Spring Meeting
Due to historically poor attendance, the North Lake Spring Community Meeting was not held
this year. In year's past, the meeting was used to allow staff to review the efforts undertaken the
previous year, allowing questions from lake residents to be addressed. In lieu of the meeting,
SWM staff mailed out copies of the final 2008 North Lake Work Plan to all lake residents, with a
letter eXplaining the 2008 program. Comments were also requested, however no comments were
received.
14 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
6.1.4 Plant ID Workshop
At the end of 2007, the North Lake committee agreed to hold the Plant ID Workshop every other
year. This was due to declining attendance (most of the attendees are committee members that
do not necessarily benefit from the education). It was noted that the poor attendance may have
been a reflection of the program's success. As a result, the next Plant ID Workshop would not be
held until 2009. In the interim, educational materials typically distributed during the workshop
(Good PlantlBad Plant) were made available on North Lake's web site year round and were
discussed in the July 2008 issue ofthe newsletter.
6.1.5 Boater Education
On April 26 (Opening Day of Fishing Season), five lake resident volunteers handed out
approximately 30 Milfoil Education Brochures to boaters at the North Lake Boat Ramp. The
brochure outlines the detrimental effect milfoil has on fresh water lakes, the propagation of the
noxious plant, and reminds boaters to properly clean their vessels prior to entering or leaving the
boating area.
6.2 Public Education
The North Lake Public Education program for 2008 involved the following:
6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter
SWM staff continued issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all
North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an
email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee,
includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, and
education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management.
6.2.2 Public Notices
Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via mail and email prior to contractor
activities, including surveys and treatments. Lake residents were also sent notices prior to all
public meetings.
During the course of 2008, SWM staff mailed out three formal public notices and emailed
approximately four supplemental notices to lake residents. All public notices were posted on the
North Lake web page. In addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work
plan activities were e-mailed to E-Subscribe participants approximately 24 hours prior to the
activity on the lake.
6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs
SWM staff developed and/or distributed the following lake-related informational flyers and
brochures:
15 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
. Milfoil Boater Education
. Good Plants/Bad Plants
. Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal
. Washington State Department of Health - Toxic Blue Green Algae
. Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese
. Aquatic Weed Rake Program
. Be Lake Steward
6.2.4 Press Releases
At the request of the North Lake Steering Committee and Steel Lake Advisory Committee, SWM
staff developed and distributed a press release on every day practices City residents can adopt
which will help improve the water quality in the lake and reduce the propagation of invasive
aquatic plants. The goal of the press release was to expand the publication education target
audience to include lake users and City residents in the watershed. The press release was
distributed on June 24, 2008.
6.2.5 Web Page Development
In 2008, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant
management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the
year. Web site information includes:
. Current IA VMP (with figures and maps)
. 2008 Work Plan
. Chronology and description of important 2008 North Lake activities
. North Lake publications such as: The Lake View; informative flyers (milfoil, blu~green
algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plantslbad plants); public
notices; and NLSC Meeting notes.
6.2.6 Annual Report
SWM staff develops and distributes a final year-end report for all lake residents and parties of
interest that describes the activities and a budget review of the prior year.
16 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
7.0 2008 BUDGET REVIEW
The 2008 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the scope of aquatic weed management
expected to be accomplished during the year. Table I below provides an overview of the final
North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2008:
T bl 1
2008N rthL k B d to
a e . 0 a e ulge vervlew
TASK Estimates Actual Expenses
Task 1 & 2, Project $10,935 $6,069
AdministrationNegetation Management
Task 3, Public Education $4,200 $1,161
YEAR END $15,135 $7,230
7.1 Tasks 1 & 2 Budget, Project Administration/ Vegetation Management
Table 2 below illustrates the grant-eligible budgeted elements for Task 1 and 2.
T bl 2 2008 N h L k B d
TASK 1 & 2 P
Ad . .
N
M t
a e . ort a e U Iget, , roject ministration egetatlon ~am .
GOAL 2008 Work Plan Actual Expenses
Estimated Expenses (includes taxes)
Annual Permit Fee (for 2009 coverage) 338 397
Two diver surveys (Sprino & Summer) 2,024 2,029
Milfoil herbicide treatment 762 0
Fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris, purple 2,000 442
loosestrife and narrow leaf cattail treatment
Oiver removal of milfoil 590 0
Advance resident notifications & shoreline 705 353
postino
Native weed manual removal 1,350 0
Water IiIv island control 0 0
Post control visual inspection 751 752
Contractor attendance at meetinas 915 126
Contractor final report 0 0
Grant eliaible SWM staff time 1,500 1,970
TOTALS 10,935 6,069
Note: The 2008 Weed Permit Fee ($397.00) was not a grant eligible expense.
17 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
7.2 Task 3 Public Education
Table 3 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3.
T bl 3 2008 N rth L k B d t TASK 3 P br Ed f
a e . 0 a e u lae, u IC ucalon
GOAL 2008 Work Plan Actual Expenses
Estimated Expenses (includes taxes)
Meetina refreshments 50 16
Quarterlv newsletter 500 255
Annual evaluation report 150 0
Annual Sprina CommunltV-Meetina 0 0
Plant 10 workshoo/cookout 600 0
Public education orintina 150 165
Boater outreach oroaram 0 0
City LMO web paoe 0 0
Grant-eliaible SWM staff waaes and benefits 2,750 725
TOTALS 4,200 1,161
7.3 Ecology Grant Budget Review
Table 4 below summarizes the running balance of the Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund
grant for North Lake, set to expire December 31,2009:
T bl
NrthLkG tR
BI
a e4. 0 a e ran unnma a ance
Year Grant Funds Used Running Balance
Start N/A $60,158
2005 $18,882 $41,276
2006 $14,849 $26,427
2007 $11,246 $15,181
2008 $5,623 $9,558
8.0 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT
In mid 2007, SWM staff began preparing the NLSC for the development of a Lake Management
District (LMD) with a series of committee meetings. With the expectation that grant funding
would be exhausted by the end of 2009, it was stressed that the process for LMD formation
should begin near the end of 2008 in order to provide a continuous funding source.
18 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
The NLSC benefited by participating in joint-meetings with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee,
learning that utility formation takes months of public process. During the May 8, 2008 meeting,
SWM staff requested that a formal letter from lake residents be issued to the City Manager which
expresses their interest in forming a LMD for North Lake. A letter signed by 16 lake residents
was received by Public Works on August 25.
Soon after, SWM staff began assembling information concerning other Washington State LMDs.
From this information, several assessment rate structure options were developed that reflected
the various zoning types and quantity of parcels surrounding the lake.
This information was presented to the NLSC on October 8. The committee was able to agree
upon the following: scope, annual cost, boundary, and duration.
Scope
The NLSC agreed that the primary scope would include a continuation of the present aquatic
weed management activities (annual surveys, selected control, and public education), and also
include a limited water quality monitoring program based loosely on the previously discontinued
King County Lake Stewardship program which was disbanded in 2005 when the city annexed
North Lake. In addition, other items could be added as needed pursuant to the broader scope
outlined in RCW 36.61.020.
Annual Cost
The annual cost was derived from the expected contractor services, printing and laboratory fees.
In addition, SWM staff time would also be built into the annual expenses.
Boundary
It was agreed that the boundary only include lakefront properties.
Duration
The duration of the LMD would be for ten (10) years.
The following is the LMD rate structure developed by SWM staff and presented at a public
meeting on February 24, 2009:
On December 8, SWM staff and NLSC Vice-Chair Chuck Gibson met with a Weyerhaeuser
representative to provide basic LMD information and proposed assessment rates.
It is anticipated that a draft petition (pursuant to RCW 36.61.030) that addresses the items listed
above will be developed early in 2009.
19 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
Table 5. LMD Assessment
Assessment Category Rate Revenue ($)
Single Family Residential (RS9.6),
Lakefront property
Developed property (53 units) X $100.00 per unit $5,300
Vacant property (168 ft) X $0.70 per lakefront foot $118
Single Family Residential (RS9.6),
Non-Iakefront property with deeded
lake access
Developed property (1 unit) X $75.00 per unit $75
Vacant property (1 unit) X $15.00 per unit $15
Weyerhaeuser (RS9.6)
Vacant property (82 ft) X $0.70 per lakefront foot $ 57
Weyerhaeuser (CP-1)
Commercial property (3,714 ft) X $0.80 per lakefront foot $2,971
WDFW Public Boat Launch Single annual assessment $4,000
TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT $12,536
City of Federal Way Zoning Designations:
Office Zone
CP-l Corporate Park-l
Single Family Residential
RS9.6 (1 unit/9,600 square feet)
20 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
9.0 2008 ANNUAL EVALUATION AN) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2009
The following discussion summarizes the 2008 North Lake program, and outlines
recommendations for 2009:
9.1 2008 Aquatic Vegetation Management Summary
The NLSC agreed that the aquatic vegetation management actions included in the 2008 Work
Plan were fully implemented. Targeted weeds - FWL, PL, YFI, and Narrow leaf cattail -
continued to be controlled. The following outlines the major 2008 developments worth noting:
. The NLSC
· The on-going success of the zero-tolerance milfoil eradication program was evidenced by
the absence of the noxious weed found during the survey. As a result, 2,4-D (or
equivalent) was not applied, saving program funds and eliminating concerns regarding
ecological impacts of the herbicide.
. Both SWM staff and NLSC Committee members agreed that herbicide treatments for
FWL, YFI and PL were not completely effective in 2008 due to the late start (cool
spring) and other wet weather delays.
· GPS shape files locating properties giving rights of entry were provided to the
contractor. This method proved to be a much better way to identify properties to be
treated, and ensured that all targeted plants were properly sprayed with herbicide.
· The Department of Ecology approved that SWM staff time hours spent toward LMD
development in 2008 and 2009 may be submitted for grant reimbursement
9.2 2009 Aquatic Vegetation Management Recommendations
The following outlines recommendations for 2009:
. Continue implementing annual Work Plan, including conducting annual surveys and
controlling noxious plants when documented.
. Continue moving forward with LMD formation. Grant funds should only be enough to
carry the aquatic weed management efforts through 2009.
· Continue to stress open, frequent, and accurate communication with the contractor.
.. Continue to solicit contractor oversight assistance and follow-up observations from lake
residents so that issues concerning poor treatment effectiveness can be addressed in a
timely manner.
· Conduct a more aggressive outreach to the property owners with purple loosestrife and
yellow flag iris who have not granted access to treat.
. Hold a Plant ID Workshop every two years instead of annually.
21 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
9.3 2008 Public Education Summary
A wide variety of Public Education products were offered and distributed in 2008. In addition to
the quarterly newsletter, the LMD distributed Washington Department of Health Toxic Blue
Green Algae brochure, milfoil boater education brochures, good plant/bad plant flyers, Four
Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese flyers, and a Be a Lake Steward flyer and press release.
The lake steward flyer and press release describe everyday practices lake residents can adopt to
help improve aquatic weed control and water quality of the lake.
9.4 2009 Public Education Recommendations
. Continue aggressive public education effort targeting all lake properties identified as
being infested with noxious weeds in order to prevent their spread.
. Implement more efficient volunteer timesheet recordkeeping and submittal procedure.
. Because there were problems with lake residents submitting volunteer hours in a timely
fashion, a better system needs to be implemented in order for Grant Payment Request to
be submitted to Ecology on time on a bi-annual basis.
9.5 2008 Ecology Grant Budget Summary
North Lake completed the fourth year of the Ecology A WMF Grant. At the end of2008, $9,558
was left out of the initial $60,000 grant. Based on the expected annual expenditures for aquatic
plant management, it is likely that all grant funds will be used after the 2009 season.
9.6 2008 Algae Summary
SWM staff were well prepared in 2008 to alert lake residents to possible blue-green algae
blooms. SWM staff will continued to follow development of the evolving Department of
Ecology algae program throughout 2008 to keep informed concerning funding options, sampling
protocols, and the development of new public health standards.
22 NORTH LAKE
AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2008 FINAL REPORT
EXHIBIT B
"clition to the Feder-a' \Va)' City ('ound' to Create a
I.akc Management Uistrict rOf- Not-tl, Lake
\Ve, the uJI(krslgncd North Like IHOpClty owners, rL:qucst tklt thc Fcdaal \Vay City Councd
approve the CT<-:ation ofa Lake Managemc..:nt Dlstncl (LMf>) tiH North Lake plltsuant to RC\V
3661 - The LM () funds Will tin;ulcc eftorts to protect and enhance North Lake in tenus of w;dcr
(Iuallty, rccrc..:atioual allll aesthdlc valuc_
,- Purpose of thc Lake Management Distnct
· forlll a Lake Management District that creates a Ilmding source and an operational
program ItX all tuture deSignated aquahc plant management and water quality
managcmcnt, ruallltenance and monilonng activittcs
· Perfonll annual dlvcr surveys to monitor changes m the aquatic plant community.
· Control, remove, and contain aquatic ()(ants. includmg non-native populations at as
Iowa denSity as IS envlronmcntally and ecollomically feaSible, and at levels that \\'ill
not impact public safety or the beneficial us.es of the lakc_
· Reduce all other identified species of noxious weeds per the requirements of \V AC
16-750, and further to levels that do not Impact public safety, beneficial uses, or
en">logy of the lake
Use ;'rilf ,;pn~lk aquatIc plant control alltl lrc..:atlllcllt llIdhods as needed {or all other
prohlemdtlC aquatIc weeds, using the hest ;rv~ulahlc science to identify and understand
theu ctkcts on hUflI;III, aquallc and klTestflal ecosystems prior to implcmentatlorl.
· Control, unprove. and monitor water levels and w;rter quality_
· Continue puhlic educatIOn to prevent the mtmductlOn of noxious weeds, nuisaiwe
plants aud lion native animal species to the bke; ~llld to aid in the early detectlOlI of
aquatIC \\cn! re -Ill kstatlOllS
· Conduct;1 11Illlkd \ ohllllcer-dn veu water 4ua!lt y Illoflltoflng program that w;,
lake healtlr hascd 011 tire collectIOn of data, indudlflg hut not limited to: water lev~:.
temperature, Secchi depth, phosphorous and nitrogen
· Conduct puhltc educatron to reduce the amounts of nOll-point source pollutant.,;
entering the lake, whrch can result in au lflCfeasc ill aquatic algae_
· Continue to IIlVoh'c the North Lake COflUflUlIlty III the aquatic plant management
process _
The attached 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan
(lA VM P) and subsequcnt Annual Reports (2005 - 20(8) mclude the basis for the annual
LMD work piau and LMD management goals The LMD will reimburse the City for
costs incurred by staff in providing aquatic vegetation program management tasks_
All management district lake improvement and maintenance activities described in RCW
36.6J .020 may be considered in the LMD scope, including: (I) controlling or removing
aquatic plants aud vegetation; (2) improving water quality; (3) controlling water levels;
(4) treating and divcrtmg stoml\'Jater; (5) controlfing agricultural waste~ (6) studying lake
water quality problems and solutions; (7) cleaning and maintaining ditches and streams
entering the lake; (8) monitoring air quality; and (9) the rdated administrative,
North Lake LMD P.:I'l"m
Page I of"
englneenng. legal. and operational costs. including the co~ts ofcreatmg the lake
nl~Ulag~~nlcflt dlstnct
') Boundary
The proposed boundary of the LMD would include all the property With lakcfront on
North l.ake, and two individual adjacent properties that have lake access deeds. See
attached lIlap of proposed properties within the district.
3. Duration
The proposed duration of the LMD is 10 years.
4 Charges to property
Annual rates and charges will be used to raise funds to support LMD activities.
The following is the fonnula of rates and charges proposed tor estabhshment of the
assessment role for the LMD:
IS. 11'::S~:::::~::':~:~~67 - . ~-=-=~~ale ~-=-~_Reve~ue ($) . -
Lakefr<Jfh property
l---O~~~~~d~~~~~;-(5j ur~i;~)-------- X $100.00 per umt ---l--~ ~ $5,30\1-
--~a~;~;~;op~~y (168 ft)-- -.- - -- X $0.70 per lakef;ont f~~----- --- - ~ 113 ~
--------------------- ---------------- - ---------- -------- ---- ------~--______l
I
,
I
Single Family Residential (RS9_6),
Non-Iakefmnt property with deeded
lake access
Developed property (1 unit)
X $7500 ,;".. un" ~ ---~ ___ _ $" j
X $15_00 per unit $ t5
Vacant property (1 (JOlt)
Weyerflaeuser (RS9_6)
-- Vac~nt proP~~Y(82 fi_~=_=~~===-_=_-3Yo-m per lakefront foot=
Weyerhaeuser (CP-1)
~---~------~--_._----~---- - -j
$ 57
---_.~----- -
Commercial property (3.714 It)
X $0.80 per lake front foot
WOFW Public Boat launch
---1---
$2,971
$4.000
Single annual assessment
TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT $12,536
_._--~~~ --.--
The estimated maximum amount that is proposed for the LMD in 2010 is $12,536.20.
An automatic increase based on the Seattle Consumer Price Index (CPf) will be included
in each annual billing after 2010 per approval by the North Lake Advisory Committee.
At no time is the increase to be more than five (5) percent per year. Total maximum
LMD rate revenue for the (en year LMD based on an annual five percent increase fOf
inflation is $157,678.98_ Issuance of revenue bonds is not proposed.
Nonh Lalce LMD Pelition
Page Z of 4
rhe LiVID budget and rates will be approved through a public heanng and a public vote
alkr the clly council adopts a resolution to form the LMf). Once approved by the public
and cHy COllnCJ" the annual rates and charges may not be altered without another' public
\'Oh: afl(l clly council approval with the exception of the CPt increase described above.
5. North Lake Management District Steering Committee
The volunteer North Lake Management District Steering Committee is proposed to
represent the interests of LMD pmperty owners in the various neighborhoods around the
lake Clly staff will work with the Steering Committee to develop the annual work plan.
The annual LM f) work plan and budget will be forwarded by the Steering Committee for
implementatJon by the City's surface water utility_ The Steering Committee will track
and revIew activities and expenditures by the City as well as outside contractors. City
staff will provide Steering Committee support including quarterly financial reports.
North lake LMD Petlllon
Page j of4
-~_._--~----~---- -.- ---- --- ---.-.-
Sjgnalu,-e of p,-operty owne,-
- ~ --.- ---. -... -.--. -. . - - ---.-- -------,--~----.~----- --'-_._----~--------- ----. "-
Full address
Pa,-ce' number (jt known)
----I
1/ I '-I 3 ~ 0 0 0 ~o
2 33'4(" 1- -33~?L S
~g'o:'l S 3.;L<j'i"- -~-
-- -~~f~at"~;e~':{P,~-I'cc;2,b'L7 U-f;_ ___ _
J---- -- "--"- --"----"-~ ---- --- ----------- - ----"------- __n___"_ --------"------ _______________---1
~- ~1Yc _C-:;r3~~~5 _ '3 3(j'4 F -~_jL!3v()O J.Sj _ J
' >331.2.-6 331"';;;~ __ (j; 17"3~OO,;u,h_1
t------?}>1JZL:2 ~ &() ~{-~ -- -_ __ ________ __ _ I
:,' ~~ff!.ZL ~:\'/l3A'Stl5Mi6S~~~IT-~/1~j';:j()Q(y)S ,I
L~-<_ _ _______ __ ___ __... _ _ __ __________ ___ :
:/;--------- -~~IL~~; ~___ __ __ __ ~
---~7~------~--------- ----"---- --"---______ j
~~4 ~~ _ .iCi'%liqf ~?'/ t/L.,Lj'CcT (}]Po _
I~V"~/~ 9~ ~c~1 ~~<1:\~" <D~4-3(Q c) CJI_~C)
1941A1:/1 -- --- _3;::"'Y~~LiI '{';>DO 1_ -_G} 'i 360 03 S-"
w
-~J-1__-It.o 0 -3 7.s-___
----- -~~--------------~~---~
I ---
~ I
~2
.'-~,.-.- ._---~-------------------
J_
. -----_._------~-~---~~
-----------------------~~------_.~---_._- --------.~-_.-._---~-----
4
-'-- --------~-_._------------------.~~ ----
----------- -------~--------~._---
North Lakc LMD Pctition
Page 4 of -t
North Lake LMD Petition Signing Summary, February 24, 2009
~-
Name of P.-operty Owne.- Pa.-cel Numbe.- Lot (Sa FT) Lot
Add.-ess (ac.-eage)
u_
1 TImothy Cook 33041 38'" Ave S 6143600150 23280 053441568
2 Bruce Flndl 32857 J81h Ave S 6143600075 20.16C o 46279296
3 Roger Hazzard 3610 S 334'" St 6143600230 62.726 I 43993806
4 Don Vandenheuvel 3718 S 334lh St 6143600190 95.832 219991939
5 Ross Bentson 33009 38'" Ave S 6143600100 21.520 049401312
6 Lori Sechrist 328 1 7 381h Ave S 614360 0020 19.600 04499376
7 r er,-ance Thomas 33467 3J'd PI. S 6143600375 9.551 0.21925276
8 Wendy Honey 3800 S 328lh SI 152J04 9J23 62,29 J 14299522
9 Larry Flesher 33223 ]8'" Ave S 614360 0180 84.07D 192991092
10 Julie Cleary 3312 S 334'" SI 6 14360 0255 46,173 105994739
11 Julie Cleary 3312 S 3341h St 614360 0266 I 1.700 0.2685852
12 Ch,-is Johnson 33403 33'd PI. S 6143600280 25.200 05784912
13 Debra Hansen 32805 38th Ave S 6143600005 26,35C 06048906
14 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0010 10.557 0.24234649
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 726120 0035 17.610 040425516
L Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO 80x 9777 t521049178 1.591,246 36 5286432
Jerry HeinZ (lor Weyerhaeuser) PO 80x 9177 1621049013 2.353.54 7 540280249
Jerry Heinz (fo.- Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 1621049036 20.165 046290774
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0025 15,557 0.35712649
Je.-ry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuse.-) PO 80x 9777 442060 0030 29.900 06863844
---
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO 80x 9777 4420600040 17.000 0390252,
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0045 19.500 0447642
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600050 13.700 C .lli491d
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600055 10.200 02J~~!~1
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0060 9,300 0.2134908
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600065 7.600 o 1744656
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600070 5,900 o 1354404:
--.
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO 80x 9777 4420600075 9,300 0.2134903
Jerry Hecnz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200420 825.036 18.9395264
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200470 23.844 054736286
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200480 25.370 058239372
Jerry Heinz (fo.- Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200515 38.591 0885895
Je.-ry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuse.-) PO Box 9777 7978200520 34.782 o 79845559
Je.-ry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200565 78.375 J. 799 1 765
15 Charles Gibson 33461 33'd PI S 6143600380 22.645 0.51983862
16 No.-man Kutscha 33021 38lh Ave S 6143600120 22.640 0.51972384
17 Barry James 33449 33'd PI. S 614360 0355 16.680 038290608
Total ac.-eage signing: 131.5
Total acreage in LMO: 161.8
Pe.-cent acreage signing petition: 81%
~.
~'
,~.-/-
-.------.______.--.-!:r~~_~=_;2..~~.._____
COUNCIL MEETlNG DATE: April 21, 2009
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Resolution of Intent to Form North Lake Management District Number Two
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council adopt a resolution of intention to form the North Lake Management
District Number 2 and set a public hearing date for the June 2, 2009 regular City Council meeting.
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE: April 6, 2009
CA TEGORY:
o Consent
o City Council Business
o Ordinance
o Resolution
o
o
Public Hearing
Other
STAFF REpORT BY:\Nill~ple!.?ll:'...f:...l:-=-,_S_~rf~~l?_~~~~I".f\1~~ger
Attachments: I. North Lake LMD Petition
2. Resolution No.
Options Considered:
DEPT: Public Works
I. Adopt a resolution of intention to form the North Lake Management District Number 2, and set a public
hearing date for the June 2, 2009 regular City Council meeting.
2. Do not adopt a resolution of intention to create North Lake Management District Number 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option I.
Council
DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ~ /: .
-'- omnuttee
cil
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: ll~<
Committee
(!/1At1.,
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation for Option I to the April 21, 2009 City
Council Consent Agenda.
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "[ mov rpproval of a resolution of intention to form the North Lake
Management District Number 2 and set a public hearing date for the June 2. 2009 regular City Council
meeting "
LL'L~~
\..----/i~,...... l.......
'---<--- ~ -=-F-,-(}--c~
( , I
'. Linda Kochmar, Chair
Dini Duclos, Member
COUNCIL ACTION:
~ APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLEDfDEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READlNG (ordinances only)
REVISED - 0210612006
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL BILL #
1ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
oq - '!PIN..
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
April 6, 2009
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager [YJ:v1..
Win Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager~
Dan Smith, Water Quality Program Coordinator
Resolution ofIntent to Form Lake Management District Number Two (North Lake)
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
Since incorporation in 2005, Surface Water Management (SWM) has been working with the residents living
adjacent to North Lake in the management of noxious freshwater aquatic weeds, including fragrant \vater lily,
purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris and narrow leaf cattail Because non-native plants have few natural controls in
their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out-compete native plant and animal habitats, and degrade recreational
opportunities. In addition, the presence of noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lake front properties.
n.t(Li,~11 this period, SWM has been charged with administering a Washington State Department of Ecology
Aq":,u,: Weeds Management Fund Grant procured for North Lake. The grant has allowed funding for the
program, which has included contractor management, annual aquatic plant surveys, herbicide treatments, manual
control and public educatim. The five-year grant is set to expire December 31, 2009.
In order to continue a long-term aquatic weed management program beyond December 2009, North Lake residents
submitted a signed letter on August 25, 2008 to the City Manager requesting assistance in fonning a Lake
Management District (LMD). In subsequent North Lake Steering Committee meetings, agreem(';~l \\.
concerning the LMD scope, annual cost (see attached resolution~ boundary, duration, and asse:;:;ment rate
structure for lakefront properties
On February 24,2008, a public meeting for the residents of North Lake was held to discuss LMD development
The meeting was well received with no opposition to the proposed plan. A petition (attached) to the City Council,
was signed by sixteen property owners affected by the LMD, including WeyerhaeuserCo. By this action, the
petition met the requirement set forth in RCW 36.61.030 (signed by ten landowners or owners of at least fifteen
percent of the acreage contained within the proposed LMD) and enables the Council to take action regarding the
formation of a North Lake LMD.
cc: Project File
Day File
K:\LUT02009\04-6-09 North lake Resolution of Intent to form lMDdoc
"etition to tbe Fede.-a' \Vay City Council to C.-eate a
Lake Management Dist.-ict fo.- No.'th lake
We, the ullderslgncd North Lakc propcrty owncrs, request that the Fedcral Way City Council
approve the creation of a Lakc Managcment DistflCt (LMD) tin North Lakc pw'suant to RCW
36.61. The LMD funds WIll finance efforts to protect and enhance North Lake in terms of water
quality, recreational and acsthetic valuc.
L Purpose ofthc Lake Management District
· Form a Lake Management District that creates a funding source and an operational
program for all future designated aqualtc plant management and water quality
management, maintenance and monitonng activities.
· Perfonn annual diver surveys to monitor changcs in the aquatic plant comlllunity.
· Control, remove, and contain aquatic plants, including non-native populations at as
Iowa density as is environmentally and economically fea.<;ible, and at levels that will
not impact public safety or the beneficial us.es of the lake.
· Reduce all other identified species of noxious weeds per the requirements of WAC
16-750, and furthcr to levels that do not impact public safety, beneficial uses, or
ecology of the lake
" Use appropriate aquatIc plant control and treatmcnt methods as needed for all other
problematiC aquatic weeds, using the best available science to identify and understand
their eftCcts on human, aquallc and terrcstnal ccosystems prior to implementation.
· Control, improve, and monitor water levels and water quality.
· Continue public education to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, IlUiSail(~C
plants and non.natlve animal species to the lake; and to aid in the early detcction of
aquatic \...-ccd rC-IIII~stations.
· Conduct a Iimitcd volunteer-drivcn watcr quality monitoring pr'ogram that w;.
lake health based on the collection of data, including but not limited to: watcr /cvd,
temperature, Secchi depth, phosphorous and nitrogcn
· Conduct public educatIOn to reduce the amounts of non-point Source pollutants
entering the lake, which can result in an lIlcreasc in aquatic algae.
· Continue to involvc the North Lake Community in the aquatic plant management
process.
The attached 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan
(IA VMP) and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2008) include the basis for the annual
LMD work plan and LMD management goals. The LMD will reimburse the City for
costs incurred by staff in providing aquatic vegetation program management tasks.
All management district lake improvement and maintenance activities described in RCW
36.61.020 may be considered in the LMD scope, including: (I) controlling or removing
aquatic plants and vegetation; (2) improving water quality; (3) controlling water levels;
(4) treating and diverting stonnwater; (5) controlling agricultural waste; (6) studying lake
water quality problems and solutions; (7) cleaning and maintaining ditches and streams
entering the lake; (8) monitoring air quality; and (9) the related administrative,
North Lake LMD Pd,llO"
Page I or 4
engineering, Icgal. and operational costs, including the costs of creating the lake
management dlstrict_
2 _ Boundary
The proposed boundary of the LMD would include all the property with lakefront on
North Lakc, and two individual adjacent properties that have lake access deeds_ Sec
attached map of proposed propertics within the district.
J _ Duration
The proposed duration of the LMD is 10 years_
4_ Charges to property:
Annual rates and charges will be used to raise funds to support LMD activitics_
The following is the formula of rates and charges proposed for establishment of the
assessment role for the LMD:
----------_.~--
Assessment
------ _._--_...~--_.__.. ---.------
Si'3le raa;ily Residenti
Lakefmm property
'------------ --
Developed property (53
~-- - ---
Vacant woperty (168 ft)
---
Single Family Residenti
Non-Iakefront property
lake access
-.-------..-.-.-..-
Developed property (1 u
~-~~,_.~_.~_._-- - ---
Vacant property (1 umt)
Weyel11aeuser (RS9_6)
Vacant property (82 tt)
Weyerhaeuser (CP-1)
Commercial property (3.
WOFW Public Boat laun
TOTAL ANNUAL AS
unit
.-.-.- ---------------- _--=l
egory Rate Revenue ($)
----_._-~- ----- --~---_._---------
S9_6),
---.--.
s) X $100_00 per unit $5,300
.-.--- ....----...-.-.-- -- -.-----
X $0_70 per lakefront fool ~118
--.-----.--- --~. --1
S9_6), I
I
deeded
I
--~-- -- $701
X $75_00 per unil
..- - -- ------
X $15_00 per unil $15
--- -i
--..- X $0_70 per lakefronl fOOCJ
$ 57
tt) X $0_80 per lakefronl fool $2,971
Single annual assessmenl $4,000
SMENT $12,536
-
Cat
al (R
al(R
with
nil)
714
ch
SES
The cstimated maximum amount that is proposed for the LMD in 2010 is $12,53620_
An automatic increasc based on the Seattle Consumer Price Index (CPl) will be included
in each annual billing after 20 I 0 per approval by the North Lake Advisory Committec_
At no timc is the increase to be more than five (5) percent per yeaL Total maximum
LMD rate revenue for the ten year LMD based on an annual five percent increase for
innation is $157,678-98_ Issuance of revenue bonds is not proposed_
Nonh Lake lMD Petilion
Page Z of 4
lhe LMD budget and rates will be approved through a public hearing and a public vote
atkr the city council adopts a resolution to form the LMD_ Once approved by the public
and elly counCIl, the annual rates and charges may not be altered without another public
VOle and city council approval with the exception of the CPI increase described abovc_
5 - North Lake Management District Steering Committee
The volunteer North Lake Management District Steering Committee is proposed to
represent the interests of LMD pmperty owners in the various neighborhoods around the
Jakc_ City staff will work with the Steering Committee to develop the annual work plan_
The annual LMD work plan and budget will be fOlwarded by the Steering Committee for
implementation by the City's sucface water utility_ The Steering Committee will track
and review activities and expenditures by the City as well as outside contractors_ City
staff will provide Steering Committee support including quartedy financial reports_
North Lake LMD Pelition
Page .3 of 4
~----~._,-- -----.~.- ---._- -- -----~-----.~~_. --------- --.. -~---_._-----~-,----- ~---~------_.._-~---------_.-
Signature of property owner
Full address
Parcel number (if known)
3'<010 'S -~3~
-'~---'-~ -~~-
2L~.433i<L ~S-T_
3:; <-'0 9- _.s\?r:l, 4h?
Y-rll-~Itw go &/4 .3 t" 0 0 0 ~O
334(" 1- -33K.p?L S 3~o O:3::rS- ~_~
~g-oo?..5 3.;:L<6i~:;;,./- ~ ---
. ---. ... ~3Z'1..r ~~~~4-- /';2/0< '3/2;; .. - ..
------------------- ----- ------------~------------ -~------------ --------J
- -g}lQ - ~_:.__;j_!~_~___:3 3_1~~_'_ ~LLj3vO(J J.S5 ~
!'~~-L -32'20 33"1-"'_5/_ &/134-00iU?h I
- p ~' ------______?_2__lf21-2._~&f}L!.[_~____ ~_ ~_~_ _.I
J;~~n~7{1 }-?1Q5~~1~~~77 _C;i'~3liJO()r~~_ I
1'-- ___ ----~0~~~ ~b 3 _ .._--1
I () t~d-W~ ()JQ.. 13"< ,
~--
t-/L/.7C:O tJ]Po
Q 1_ 2..0
Fetfe.-a( \..u"<<7' ~Jl 9''/)001 b/Lj 0 035S-
-- ,--------- ---- --- 7--r-------- -
20
-- - - ------ --- --~Z- --- ------- --7-l.---::;;-sri) - ----
I - - ~--;.< ~~~L :::~:z_JtJcJl
,{jYU-<- f;::JJ
2 .- 7 L'i.J) 3 -0 t< tlUl j-
----.. ._-- ~---~_._...._---------,-_._--~---
~.~-_.~-----
~---------------------------------._-- --._~--
21
22
_._-~---------
23_
-------------------------~-~
-~------------~----
.~._--~~------~----_._--
24
- --.---.--------- ---_.._.._-_._-------~-~
--_..~_.~---~-
._~------"------"-_._._~----_._-.._.~---
North Lake LMD Pelltion
Page 4 of 4
North Lake lMD Petition Signing Summary. February 24. 2009
Name of Property Owner Parcel Number Lot (SQ FT) Lot
Address (acreage)
1 Timothy Cook 33041 38th Ave S 6143600150 23.280 053441568
2 Bruce Find! 32857 38th Ave S 6143600075 20.160 o 46279296
3 Roger Hazzard 3610 S 334th SI 6143600230 62.726 1 43993806
4 Don Vandenheuvel 3718 S 334111 SI 6143600190 95,832 2.19991939
5 Ross Bentson 33009 38th Ave. S. 6143600100 21.520 049401312
6 Lori Sechrisl 32817 38th Ave. S. 614360 0020 19.600 04499376
7 Terrance Thomas 33467 33'd PI. S 6143600375 9.551 021925276
8 Wendy Honey 3800 S. 328lh SI. 152104 9123 62.291 14299522
9 Larry Flesher 33223 38th Ave. S 6143600180 84.070 1.92991092
10 Julie Cleary 3312 S. 334/n SI 6143600255 46,1 73 105994739
11 Julie Cleary 3312 S 334lh SI. 614360 0266 11.700 0.2685852
12 Chris Johnson 33403 33'd PI. S 6143600280 25.200 05784912
13 Debra Hansen 32805 38th Ave. S 6143600005 26.350 0.6048906
14 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600010 10.557 024234649
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 726120 0035 17.610 040425516
L Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 152 104 91 78 1,591,246 365286432
Jerry Heinz(for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 1621049013 2,353.54 7 540280249
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 1621049036 20.165 046290774
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0025 15,557 0.35712649
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0030 29.900 0.6863844
--
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0040 17,000 0.390252 '
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0045 19,500 0447642
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600050 13.700 t..1Li4972
- -------~
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0055 10.200 0.234151~1
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0060 9.300 02134908
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600065 7.600 0.1744656
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600070 5,900 o 1354404
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0075 9,300 02134908
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200420 825,036 18.9395264
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200470 23,844 0.54736286
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200480 25,370 0.58239372
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200515 38,591 0885895
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200520 34.782 o 79845559
Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 797820 0565 78.375 L 7991765
15 Char1es Gibson 33461 33'd PI. S 6143600380 22,645 0.51983862
16 Norman Kutscha 33021 38111 Ave. S. 6143600120 22.640 051972384
17 Barry James 33449 33'd PI. S 614360 0355 16.680 038290608
Total acreage signing: 131.5
Total acreage in lMO: 161.8
Percent acreage signing petition: 81%
RESOLUTION NO. 01 -5~/)
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Federal Way,
Washington, to form North Lake Management District number 2,
declaring its intention to so, and setting a public hearing on the
formation of tbe proposed district.
WHEREAS, the City completed the attached 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan (IA VMP) and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2008) (together the "Plan")
(Exhibit A) which includes the basis for the annual LMD work plan and LMD management goals.;
and
WHEREAS, the Plan was initiated because of citizen interest in the long term protection of
North Lake; and
WH2RI,AS, North Lake contains si!:,1Jlificant natural resources including wetlands, and
supports many beneficial public purposes including recreation, water quality, stormwater protection,
aesthetics, and property value support; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 35.21 RCW and chapter 36.61 RCWa lake mdnagur.~ih
district may be formed to provide funding to support the maintenance and improvement oflakes; and
WHEREAS, the North Lake community has demonstrated support for the NLMD through
submittal of a petition calling for the formation of the of the NLMD (Exhibit B) pursuant to the
requirements of chapter 36.61 RCW; and
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way is committed to a good faith effort to continuing these
activities through a North Lake Management District (NLMD); and
WHEREAS, the hearing notice requirements of chapter 35.61 RCW provide an opportunity
to evaluate property owner interests in the NLMD activities.
RES # 01 ~ 51'?' , Page I
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
RESOL YES AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. Intention to fom1 the North Lake Management District. The City of Federal Way
City Council declares, by passing this resolution, its intention to conduct the activities required by
RCW 36.61 for the establishment of Lake Management District Number 2 (North Lake) (The
"NLMD" or the "District"). The nature ofthe proposed activity to be undertaken by the District is the
continued implementation of the North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan
(IA VMP). The estimated maximum amount of special assessments that is proposed for the LMD in
2010 is $12,53(;.20. which will be collected annually to finance the District activities, with the total
amount to be collected during the life of the District being S J 57,678.9S, which includes an automatic
inflation increase based upon an annual increase for inflation not to exceed five percent in any given
year. The proposed duration ofthe District is tcn years from the date such District is actually formed
by ordinance. The proposed boundaries of the District encompass all propertics adjacent to I~\)il"
Lake with lake front footage or with deeded lake access. The proposed rate structure is based on
equal charges for similar parcels. Undeveloped parcels with lake frontage will be charged $.70 per
lake front foot per year. Single family developed parcels will be charged $100 per year. Single family
developed parcels with deeded access will be charged $75 per year. Undeveloped parcels with
deeded access will be charged $15. Commercial property wi II be charged $.80 per lake front foot per
year. The Department ofFish and Wildlife parcel with a public boat launch will be charged $4,000
per year.
Section 2. Public Hearing. A public hearing conducted by the City of Federal Way City
RES # 01-- 5t.f;}.. , Page 2
Council shall be held on the formation of the proposed District: DATE: June 2nd, 2009
TIME: 7:00 pm or shortly thereafter
PLACE: City of Federal Way City Hall 33325 8th Ave South Federal Way, W A
Section 3. Establishment of Advisory Committee. If North Lake Management District
Number 2 is formed, the City of Federal Way City Council will establish a non-paid Advisory Board
of lakefront property owners representative of the diversity among property owners around North
Lake to oversee the implementation of the Lake Management District program and to assist the City
of Federal Way in establishing annual budgets and work plans for the use of Lake Management
District revenues and expenditures. The Advisory Board will meet regularly as determined by the
Board, propose annual budgets for Lake Management District expenditures to the City of Federal
Way, educate its neighbors on Lake Management District issues, and submit annual reports of Lake
Management District activities to the City of Federal Way.
Section 4. Public Notice. The City of Federal Way Clerk is hereby directed to publish and
mail notices as required by RCW 36.61.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase ofthis resolution should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution.
Section 6. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this resolution are authorized to
make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of
scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any
references thereto.
RES # C'Cl'~/5tf.;A , Page 3
I
Section 7. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date
of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section . Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by
the Federal Way City Council.
RESOL VED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON this
day of
, 2009.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MA YOR, JACK DOVEY
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILL Y, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.:
RES # 01- 5~:?1 , Page 4
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009
ITEM #:_
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Approval of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreernent between the King County Flood Control Zone
District (FCZD) and the City of Federal Way for Opportunity Fund Projects?
POLICY QUESTION: Should Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an Interlocal Cooperation
Agreement between the King County Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) and the City of Federal Way for
Opportunity Fund Projects?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Cornmittee
MEETING DATE: June 1,2009
CATEGORY:
~ Consent
D City Council Business
~ Ordinance
D Resolution
D
D
Public Hearing
Other
STAFF REpORT By:
DEPT:
Attachments: Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee
Options Considered:
1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the King
County Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) and the City of Federal Way for Opportunity Fund
Projects
2. Do not authorize the City Manager to enter into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreernent between the
King County Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) and the City of Federal Way for Opportunity Fund
Projects and provide direction to staff.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
~
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Council
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1.
Committee
Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Cornmittee recommends forwarding Option 1 to the June 16, 2009 City
Council Consent Agenda for approval.
Linda Kochmar, Chair
Jim Ferrell, Member
Dini Duclos, Member.
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize the City Manager to enter into an Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement between the King County Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) and the City of Federal
Way for Opportunity Fund Projects. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/0612006
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 1, 2009
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager ~
Ken Miller, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director
Approval of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreernent between the King County Flood Control Zone
District and the City of Federal Way for Opportunity Fund Projects
BACKGROUND:
The King County Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) is a special purpose district that was created by the King
County Council in April 2007 due to significant threats from flooding. The impacts of flooding are far-reaching
and pose significant threats to public health and safety and economic activities throughout the county. The
purpose of the district is to "undertake, operate, or rnaintain flood control projects or storm water control projects.
The district is authorized to address flood control needs throughout the county, including within King County
Cities." The ordinance creating the FCZD included a fifteen rnernber advisory committee of elected officials to
provide expert policy advice to the District Board of Supervisors on flood issues and to review and recommend an
annual work program and budget. The Board of Supervisors (members of King County Council) approved a levy
rate of ten cents per thousand assessed value to fund capital and ongoing maintenance and operations, assuming a
ten year planning horizon. After capital needs have been addressed, it is anticipated the levy rate would be
reduced to cover primarily maintenance and operations. Currently Council Member Park is seated on the advisory
committee and has one of the four rotating two year seats, as nominated by the Suburban Cities Association. All
meetings of the FCZD are open to the public.
In Resolution FCZD2007-03.2 the board of supervisors approved the district's 2008 annual work program 'and
budget. Ten percent of the district's revenues were allocated to an "opportunity fund" for addressing
"subregional" flooding problems in each jurisdiction. The advisory board recommended to the board of
supervisors and it was approved that the "opportunity funds " be distributed to each jurisdiction based on a
proportionate share of 10% of the total King County assessed valuation as collected within each jurisdiction.
Also, the funds have to be used for a projector activity that is consistent with the statutory authorization of
chapter 86.15 RCW, the statute under which the district is authorized and functions.
The board of supervisors directed the King County department of natural resources and parks to develop
procedures for distribution of the "opportunity funds". The application process was to be streamlined to minimize
the burden for jurisdictions, but had to ensure the district funds are spent in an accountable manner. The proposed
interlocal agreement between the FCZD and the City is attached. The estimated amount of "opportunity funds"
available to the City of Federal Way in 2008 are $89,465 and $92,400 in 2009. This money is proposed to be
used towards the Easter Lake Flood Control Improvements project and the construction contract was awarded at
the June 2, 2009 Council meeting.
cc: Project File
K:\LUTC\2009\06-01-09 Agreement Between FZCD and CFW Opportunity Fund.doc
'ORIGINAL I
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KING
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT
AND THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY FOR
OPPORTUNITY FUND PROJECTS
THIS [NTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT is entered into between
the ClTY OF FEDERAL WAY, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington
("City"), and the KeNG COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT, a quasi
municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("District") ("Parties" or when singular
"Party"), and shall be effective upon execution by the Municipality and the District.
Article l. Recitals.
[n April 2007, the King County Council, as authorized by chapter 86.15 RCW,
created the District as a quasi-municipal corporation. The King County Council members
ex officio constitute the Board of Supervisors of the District, the governing body of the
District.
[n Resolution FCZD 2008-15.2, the Board of Supervisors approved the DisLicc's
2009 budget and annual work program, and allocated 10 percent 0 f the District's annual
property tax revenues for a sub-regional opportunity fund to be used by King County
municipalities. The Board of Supervisors further determined that eligibility of projects
for opportunity funds be based on consistency \vith chapter 86.15 RCW; provided that
expenditures under RCW 86.15.035 and RCW 39.34.190 for salmonid habitat protection
be linked to the construction of a flood or stormwater project. The Board of Supervisors
also allocated the opportunity funds to a municipality based on that municipality's
proportional contribution to the overall King County assessed valuation, as collected.
[n Resolution FCZD 2009-01.1, the Board of Supervisors included the projects
and activities described in Attachment A to this Agreement in an amendnient to the
District's annual budget and work program for the year 2009.
The Board of Supervisors desires to have the City implement its approved
opportunity fund projects and activities for the years 2008 and 2009, as well as the
projects and activities that are approved for the City in subsequent District annual budgets
and work programs. The City desires to implement such projects and activities, and to
receive opportunity funds to finance in whole or in part such projects and activities.
The City and the District are authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to
Chapter 39.34 RCW (the [nterlocal Cooperation Act), and agree as follows:
Article II. Definitions.
2.1 Eligibility Criteria. The term "Eligibility Criteria" means one of the two
following criteria that Projects shall meet to quality for Opportunity Funds:
2.1.1. Under RCW 86.15.110, Opportunity Funds may be expended for
either flood control improvements or stormwater control improvements that are extended,
enlarged, acquired or constructed, provided that the City has developed a comprehensive
plan of development for flood control or tor stormwater control, respectively, and the
improvement contributes to the objectives of the plan. For flood control improvements,
such plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Ecology. [n addition,
for newly constructed improvements, the City shall develop preliminary engineering
studies and plans, and such plans and studies shall be filed with the District's engineer.
For all projects, the City shall provide cost estimates and underlying data and shall
describe the benefit provided by the improvement.
2.1.2. Pursuant to the criteria in RCW 86.15.035 and RCW 39.34.190. as
modified by Resolution FCZD 2008-15.2, District funds may be expended for
cooperative watershed management actions, including watershed management
partnerships and other intergovernmental agreements, for the purposes of water supply,
water quality, and water resource and habitat protection and management, provided that
Opportunity Funds expended for salmon habitat protection shall be linked to the
construction of a flood or storm water project, and provided further that all such funds
shall be used for the implementation of watershed management plans, including but not
limited to the tollowing:
a. Watershed plans developed under chapter 90.82 RCW;
b. Salmon recovery plans developed under chapter 77.85 RCW;
c. Watershed management elements of comprehensive land use plans
developed under the growth management act, chapter 36.70A RCW;
d. Watershed management elements of shoreline master programs developed
under the shoreline management act, chapter 90.58 RCW;
e. Nonpoint pollution action plans developed under the Puget Sound water
quality management planning authorities of chapter 90.71 RC W an'l
chapter 400-12 WAC;
f. Other comprehensive management plans addressing watershed healm at a
WRIA level or sub- WRIA basin drainage level;
g. Coordinated water system plans under chapter 70.116 RCW and similar
regional plans for water supply; and
h. Any combination of the foregoing plans in an integrated watershed
management plan.
The authority to use funds for implementation of these plans is broadly construed to
include:
1. Coordination and oversight of watershed management plan
implementation, including funding a watershed management partnership for
this purpose;
2. Technical support, monitoring, and data collection and analysis;
3. Design, development, construction, and operation of projects included in
the plan; and
4. Conducting activities and programs included as elements in the plan.
2.2 Project. The term "Project" or "Projects" means specific projects or
activities that meet the Eligibility Criteria of this Agreement, are approved by the Board of
Supervisors in a resolution approving the annual budget and work program, or amendment
thereto, and are described in an attachment to this Agreement that is approved pursuant to
this Agreement.
2.3 Opportunity Funds, The term "Opportunity Funds" means the funds made
available by the Board of Supervisors to the municipalities within King County for
implementation of Projects. For each of the years 2008 and 2009, these funds represent 10
percent of property tax revenues collected for each of those years, and are available to
individual municipalities based on the proportional amount that municipality's assessed
valuation as collected (as determined by the King County Assessor's office) bears to the
entire amount of assessed valuation in all of King County (as determined by the King
County Assessor's otIice). For the years after 2009, this term means District funds that are
designated as "Opportunity Funds" by the Board of Supervisors in either a resolution
approving the District's annual budget and work program or a separate resolution.
2.4 Service Provider. The term "Service Provider" means the Water and Land
Resources Division of the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks.
Article HI. Duration of A~reement--Survival of A~reement.
This Agreement shall be eftective upon execution by both Parties, and shall remain
in eftect until terminated by one or both of the Parties. Either Party may terminate this
Agreement by providing ""Tinen notice of termination to the other Party no less than sixty
(60) days prior to the effective date of termination. This Agreement also may be tenninated
upon mutual agreement of the Parties expressed in writing. Sections 4.2,5.2.5.3,5.4.5.5,
6.3,6.4 and 6.5 and Article V[[ shall survive any termination of this Agreement.
Article lV. Conditions of Agreement.
4.1 Project Descriptions. The initial approved Projects are described in
Attachment A, which is incorporated by reference. Subsequent approved Projects shall be
described in new Attachments to this Agreement that are approved through the amendment
process of Section 7.2.2, which Attachments shall be incorporated by reference into this
Agreement.
4.2 Use of Funds. The City shall use Opportunity Funds distributed pursuant to
this Agreement only tor expenses related to the Projects.
Article V. Responsibilities of Citv.
5.1 Project Application and Description. The City may submit an application
for distribution of Opportunity Funds w-ithin a period of time designated by the Service
Provider and on a torm approved by the Service Provider. As part of the application to
receive Opp0l1unity Funds, the City shall submit to the Service Provider the tollo\ving
intormation tor each proposed Project:
5.1.1. Name of proposed project or activity;
5.l.2. Description of the Hooding, stormv/ater, or watershed management
problem to be addressed (one to two paragraphs);
5.1.3. Description of how the proposed project or activity will address the
problem (one to two paragraphs);
5.1.4. Type of project or activity (e.g., feasibility study, design,
construction, acquisition, programmatic activities, etc.);
5.1.5. Description of how the project or activity satisties the "'Eligibility
Cri teria," as defined in this Agreement;
5.1.6. Identification of the plan (flood control, stormwater control, or
watershed management) that includes the Project;
5.1.7. Product/deliverable and, for constructed Projects, design plans or
studies; and
5.1.8. Schedule, milestones, costs and budget for each Project, consistent
with the requirements of this Agreement.
The schedule for a Project shall provide for the expenditure of Opportunity Funds
within two years after the commencement date of the Project. The City shall submit a
request tor distribution OfOpP0l1unity Funds after an actual expenditure is incurred for the
Project, provided that the City may request distribution of up to 10 percent of Opportunity
Funds for a Project upon approval of a Project by the Board of Supervisors. After approval
of the Project by the Board of Supervisors, the application form, as approved by the Board
of Supervisors, shall become an attachment to this Agreement through the amendment
process in Section 7.2.2.
5.2 City Obligations for Projects. The City shall implement the Project as
described and provided for in the approved attachment to this Agreement. Upon receipt,
the City shall deposit Opportunity Funds ina separate account, which shall accrue interest
at the rate earned by the City on its investments. To request a distribution of Opportunity
Funds, the City shall submit to the Service Provider such information and proof of
expenditure as requested by the Service Provider.
5.3. Projects Seeking Opportunity Funds Beyond Current Appropriation Year.
The City may request distribution of Opportunity Funds beyond the appropriation year for
the District's budget and annual work program, provided that District approval 0 f such
distribution of Opportunity Funds shall not be construed as nor constitute a District
obligation or commitment to appropriate Opportunity Funds for the Project beyond the
approved appropriation year. The District shall have no obligation to provide Opportunity
Funds beyond the appropriation year for the District's budget and annual work program,
provided that the District shall distribute to the City after such appropriation year any
Opportunity Funds that were allocated to the City in such appropriation year and in previous
years and that have not been distributed to the City.
5.4 Reporting.
5.4.1. Until the Project is completed or all Opportunity Funds for a Projt-ct
have been spent, the City shall provide semi-annually to the Service Provider brief written
reports describing the progress on and status of the Project and any other relevant
inlormation that the Service Provider may request to determine compliance with this
Agreement.
5.4.2. Upon completion of a Project, or upon expenditure of all of the
Opportunity Funds for the Project, whichever occurs first, the City shall submit a final
report to the Service Provider within 90 days of such completion or expenditure. The final
r~port shall contain a summary of all Project expenditures, copies of invoices if requested
by the Service Provider, a description of the Project status and accomplishments, and other
relevant information requested by the Service Provider to veritY compliance with this
J Agreement. The final report also shall contain a certification that all Opportunity Funds
provided to the City were expended solely on the Project in accordance with this Agreement
and the Project approval. [f a Project is not completed prior to tennination of this
Agreement, a report as described in this Section shall be provided to the Service Provider
within 90 days of such termination. All records relating to a Project shall be retained by the
City for a minimum of seven years, unless required by law to be retained tor a longer
period, in which case the longer period shall apply.
5.5 City obligations upon Project completion or telmination. As consideration
for receipt Opportunity Funds to implement the Project, the City agrees that:
5.5.1. If the Project involves developing a report or study. undertaking a
study or collecting data, or producing written or electronic materials of any kind, copies of
all such materials shall be provided upon request to the District or the Service Provider; and
5.5.2. [fthe Project involves the acquisition. extension, enlargement, or
construction of a physical improvement the City shall take ownership ot~ a~d shall be
obligated to operate, maintain, and repair such improvement tor the ordinary expected
useful life of such improvement.
5.5.3 [fthe City telminates a Project, and the City has not expended all of
the Opportunity Funds paid in advance pursuant to Section 6.3, the City shall return to the
Service Provider the remaining Opportunity Funds within 60 days of the close of the
calendar year in which the Project was terminated. Such returned Opportunity Funds shall
be credited to the City's Opportunity Fund account, and may be used on future approved
Projects, provided that if the Board of Supervisors has terminated the Opportunity Fund
program at that time, the returned Opportunity Funds may be used by the District for
District projects and activities.
Article VJ~ Responsibilities of District.
6.1 Upon timely submission of a Project application by the City, the Service
Provider \vill review the application, provide reasonable and appropriate teedback, and
consider including the Project as an element of the District's annual budget and work
program.
6.2 If the Board of Supervisors approves the Project application by including the
Project in the District's annual budget and work program, or an amendment thereto, the
Service Provider shall attach a copy of the Project application as approved to this
Agreement and it shall become a part hereof
6.3 The District, through the Service Provider, shall distribute Opportunity
Funds, up to the remaining amount of the City's total Opportunity Fund allocation, after
City expenditure of funds for a Project as set forth in the approved schedule for the
Project, provided that upon request of the City, the District shall pay up to 10 percent of
the total Opportunity Funds allocated for a Project upon approval of an attachment 1.0 tbis
Agreement. The Service Provider shall pay the Opportunity Funds after confirming that
the expenditures have been made consistent with the Project approval and schedule.
6.4 The District assumes no obligation tor future sUPPOtt of Projects meeting the
Eligibility Criteria except as expressly set torth in this Agreement
6.5 The District shall have no obligation to provide Opportunity Funds beyond
the appropriation year for the District's budget and arumal work program, provided that the
District shall distribute to the City after such appropriation year any Opportunity Funds that
vI/ere allocated to the City in such appropriation year and in previous years and that have not
been distributed to the City.
Article VII. Other Provisions.
7.1 Hold Harmless and Indemnification.
7.1.1. The District assumes no responsibility for the direct payment of any
compensation, fees, wages, benefits or taxes to or on behalf of the City, its employees,
contractors or others by reason of this Agreement. The City shall protect, indemnitY and
save harmless the District, its officers, agents, employees and the Service Provider from any
and all claims, cost and whatsoever occurring or resulting from (1) the City's failure to pay
any compensation, fees, wages, benefits or taxes, and (2) the supplying to the City of works
services, materials or supplies by City employees or agents or other contractors or suppliers
in connection with or in support of performance of this Agreement.
7.1.2. The City further agrees that it is financially responsible for and will
repay the District all indicated amounts following an audit exception, which occurs due to
the negligent or intentional acts by the City, its officers, employees, agents or
representati ves.
7.1.3. The City shall protect, indemnitY and save hannless the District from
any and all costs, claims, judgments, or awards of damages. arising out of or in any way
resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of the City. its officers, employees or agents
in connection with the implementation of the terms of this Agreement and/or
implementation of the Projects. For purpose of this Agreement only, the City agrees to
waive the immunity granted it for industrial insurance claims pursuant to Washington
Statute Chapter 51 to the extent necessary to extend its obligations under this paragraph to
any claim, demand, or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any employee, including
judgments, awards and costs arising therefrom including attorney's fees.
7.2 Amendment.
7.2.1. This Agreement may be modified by written instrument approved by
the City Council and the District Board of Supervisors and signed by the Parties.
7.2.2. This Agreement also may be modi tied by additional attachment for
Projects subsequently approved by the Board of Supervisors. After approval of a Project in
the District's annual budget and work program, or amendment thereto, the Project
application as approved shall become an attachment to this Agreement and shall constitute
an amendment to this Agreement without further action by either Party.
7.3 Contract Waiver. No waiver by either Party of any term or condition of this
Agreement shall be deemed or construed to be a wai ver of any other term or condition, nor
shall a waiver of any breach be deemed to constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach
whether of the same or different provision of this Agreement. No waiver shall be effective
unless made in writing.
7.4 No Third Party Rights. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to
create any rights in or duties to any third party, nor any liability to or standard of care with
reference to any third party.
7.5. Entirety. This Agreement is the complete expression of the terms hereto and
any oral representations or understandings not incorporated are excluded. This Agreement
merges and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and agreements between the
parties relating to the projects and constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. The
patties recognize that time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, authorized representatives of the parties hereto have
signed their names in the spaces put forth belO\v:
By
Mayor (or City Manager or Executi ve)
Date:
Approved as to form:
Municipal Attorney
KfNG COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
ZONE DISTRlCT
~L<7k.~
cut! Ie Dhct~r
Date: ~ J~ 07'
Acting under the authority of
Resolution r(;o O(oof?-/C /
KINe C\XINIY
FLeOl) CONl ROI.
l) I " r Il I C r
King County Water Land Resource Division
River and Floodplain Management
~
KlngCounty
Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund Project Application
A lication Due Date: December 8, 2008
Jurisdiction: City of Federal Way
----_.,~_._-----
1) Do you wish to forego the receipt of your Opportunity Fund allocation this year, allowing it to accrue for a
future year? 0 Yes IZ1 No
2) Would you prefer to apply your Opportunity Funds toward an existing project on the District's 6-year CIP?
Yes !ZJ No If Yes, lease rovide the name of the ro'ect:
If ou said Yes to either 1 or ? above. ou do not need to com Jete the remainder of this form.
3) Proposed project or activity name Easter lake Stormwater Flood Control Improvements: 101h Ave. South. S. 30lJ1h SI. to
and location: S. 308111 SI. & S. 308111 Street- 10'" Ave. S. to 1250 Block
4) Description of the flooding, stormwater, or linked watershed management problem thallhis project or
activity will address (1500 character maximum):
The existing Easter lake outlet system. which consists of a congested forested wetland channel and an undersized culvert located
south of S. 308'" Street and 630 lineal feet of 18-inch diameter pipe along 10'" Avenue South (between S. 306111 Street and S. 308'"
Street), does not have enough capacity to prevent chronic flooding 01 lake shorelands (which includes habitable space within a large
nursing home facility and unheated vehicle parking and storage units in an adjacent condominium complex).
Additionally; the 1200 block of the S 303'" Street minor arterial. which serves the Federal Way High School and Memorial Stadium
sports complex, must be closed due to roadway flooding up to several limes per year. The flooding is caused by insufficient flow
capacity in the existing outfalllrunk which extends between a roadway sag and the existing lO'h Avenue South trunk pipe. Due to
backwater created from flooding on the S 308'" Street roadway, a parking lot and garage are often flooded at the lake Easter Estates
condominium complex located Immediately south of the low point on S. 308'" Street. I
5) Description of how the proposed activity will address the problem outlined in number 2 (1500 character --,'.;
maximum):
The proposed project will install approximately 630LF of 24" diamaler stormwater trunk along 10ih Avenue South paraH,:,I',''f
existing conveyance system, IOstall an intake structure with debris guard on the south side of S. 308'" Street to intercept flows fr'Jm di'~
existing lake outlet channel, and install a 30-lI1ch diameter pipe along S. 308'" Street between 1 Qt/, Avenue South and the roadway sag
in the t200 block. Additionally; the project wllllOstall a new 3D-inch diameter combination inlet I outlet lake connection pipe JelWDlJO
the NW corner of the lake and S 308'" Street.
During periods of high lake water levels, stormwater Ilows from S. 308'" Street and the lake would be conveyed through the proposed
new pipes directly into the S 308" Street and 101h Avenue South trunks to reduce peak lake levels and related lakeshore and habitable
structural flooding to above a 100-year frequency and reduce roadway flooding to above a 25-year frequency.
6) Type of
Activity:
o Pro rammatic..::-_~~~ntif
o Other - identify:
7) Describe how the proposed project or activity satisfies the eligibility criteria for at least one of the three
categories listed in Section III of the attached document (1500 character maximum):
This project satifies eligility criteria #2 to correettwo known slormwater flooding problems which have been identified in the City's
approved Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan by replacing and undersized stormwater trunk located in city streets and
by increasing the Ilow capacity of the Easter Lake outlet system
Page 1 of2
8) Identify the management plan (Le. flood control. stormwater control, or watershed management) within
which implementation of the project or activity is an element or is recommended:
Stormwater Control
9) Identify deliverables and any relevant design plans or studies (for construction projects):
100% Design to be completed iby March of 2009 with construction to be completed by the fall of 2009.
10) Identify a time line for this project from inception to completion, List any relevant milestones, and provide a
rough estimate of project costs and budget:
The 100% Design and environmental permitting are scheduled to be completed and accepted by City Council on February 3. 2009
with com letion of construction and Ci Council ro'ect Acce tance scheduled for the winter of 2009.
For Informatiot/al PUlposes Onl:v::-WeWlshlO-inform'iheFloodControl District Boardo! Supervisors onhow OppOrtuniiy Funds--'-
leverage other resources, and we appreciate any information you are willing to provide in this regard. If you plan to partner with other
jurisdictions to conduct a project or otherwise intend to use your Opportunity Fund allocation to leverage grant funds or other surface
water management funds, please provide us with this information (1200 character limit):
No other resources are antici "lted.
For Internal Use Onl
Page 2 of 2
W
King County
RE(~FnfE~-D
.... J v .~.
APR 2 7 2009
iJU' 1 ,"" .C . ...
. ou WORKS
DF-PAPTI."C"~
-~, M_ ~ . !:/;!_..~\J f
Water and Land Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
King Street Center
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
206-296-6519 Fax 206-296-0192
TTY Relay: 711
April 23, 2009
Ken Miller
City of Federal Way Public Works
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, W A 98063
RE: Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund Interlocal Cooperation Agreement
Dear Mr. Miller:
Enclosed in this package is an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Federal
Way and the King County Flood Control District governing the administration of the Flood
District's Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund (Opportunity Fund).
The Opportunity Fund was established by the Flood Control District Board of Supervisors to
provide jurisdictions within King County financial resources to support local flood control.
stormwater control, or cooperative watershed management projects or programs. Ten percent
of the Flood District's annual levy revenues are allocated to this fund, and funds are
distributed based on municipalities' proportional share of King County's total assessed
valuation.
Your project proposal for 2008-9 funding is attached to the enclosed agreement as Attachment
A. In subsequent years, eligible Opportunity Fund project applications will be attached to this
agreement following project approval by the Flood District Board of Supervisors; thus, the
agreement provides the terms for present and future Opportunity Fund projects.
The Interlocal Cooperation Agreement authorizes the disbursement of 2008 and 2009
opportunity funds to your jurisdiction. Upon execution of the agreement, the Flood District
will distribute ten percent of your total 2008 and 2009 allocation, with the remainder of funds
distributed on a reimbursement basis. Please note that signatures are required of both parties
in order for the agreement to take effect, so we ask that you sign and return the agreement as
soon as possible so that we may issue funds appropriately. If your jurisdiction chose to accrue
2008-9 funds until 20 I 0, we ask that you return the signed ILA at this time.
Ken Miller
April 23, 2009
Page 2
Thank you for your quick attention to this matter. Should you have questions, please do not
hesitate to call.
Kind regards,
.'\1''11,,(\1',-- fvwJ'-1
Brian Murray . ..,
Supervisor, Countywide Policy and Planning Unit
River and Floodplain Management Section
Enclosure
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009
ITEM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: City of Federal Way Housing and Job Targets Update
POLICY QUESTION: Should the City accept certain housing and job targets as recommended by the King
County Growth Targets Committeefor the 2006-2031 time period?
COMMITTEE: Land Useffransportation Committee
MEETING DATE: June 1,2009
CATEGORY:
D Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing
[8] City Council Business D Resolution D Other
~TA~!_~~2~T !J..x:._~~Ei.~r Pl~!!..I?-_~!...M~~~ret..!J-=-g!~~L~!.<;'_~__." . .DEPT: Community Devel~~ment Se~~:~_.
Background: City of Federal Way staff has been working since July 2008 with representatives from King
County and other King County cities on a methodology to allocate new housing and job targets to the cities and
County. In 2007, the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) released new population
forecasts, which showed King County growing at a faster rate than previously forecasted. The 2007 forecast
estimated that King County would have to accommodate 450,000 people between 2006 and 2031. The latest
employment forecasts released by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in 2006 showed growth over the
same period of almost 450,000 jobs. Based on the PSRC's Vision 2040, Federal Way is one often Core Cities,
consisting of Auburn, Bothell, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Kirkland, Redrnond, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila.
Consistent with the guidance policy in Vision 2040, the Growth Targets staff committee has recommended to the
Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) overall 25-year targets for the ten Core Cities to include 72,485
housing units and 166,653 jobs. As a share of the overall Core Cities' Growth, Federal Way's target ranges are
7,700 to 8,500 housing units and 11,700 to 12,900 jobs, with mid-points of 8,100 housing units and 12,300 jobs.
Using the 2007 Buildable Lands Report as a starting point, staff has further assessed the capacity to accommodate
housing and jobs growth in the Federal Way Urban Center. Based on current zoning, actual project proposals, and
local perspective on mid- to long-range market demand, this analysis concluded that the city likely has more than
sufficient capacity for the range of targets under consideration.
Proposed targets for all King County cities and unincorporated King County will be presented to the GMPC for
approval on July 15,2009, and will be presented to the County Council and cities forratification in the Fall or
Winter of2009.
Attachments: None.
Options Considered: N/A. Information only.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/ A. Information only.
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: ~
Committee
DIRECTOR ApPROVAL:
6ft1=:
Committee
COmlcil
COmlcil
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A. Information only.
Linda Kochmar, Chair
Dini Duclos, Member
Jim Ferrell, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S):
N/A. Information only.
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
I:\Margaret Correspondence\0601 09 Agenda Bill.doc